The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) admitted that typographical errors appeared in documents related to its investigation into Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Atty. Jeremy Lotoc, NBI regional director for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), acknowledged before the Senate impeachment court that both the subpoena and affidavit of investigation were mistakenly dated November 6, 2024.
Lotoc, who previously headed the NBI Cybercrime Division, testified as the House prosecution panel’s second witness on Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which covers Duterte’s alleged grave threats and assassination plot against President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The cybercrime unit investigated Duterte’s late-night online press conference in November 2024, during which she allegedly said she had contracted an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and Romualdez if she herself were assassinated.
Lotoc clarified that the affidavit of investigation should have been dated December 11, 2024.
“I believe so, Your Honor. Ang intention namin is 11 December 2024,” Lotoc told the impeachment court.
Senator-judge Imee Marcos questioned the discrepancy, noting that the subpoena appeared to have been issued on November 6, 2024, even though the NBI was only directed to investigate the incident on November 23, 2024.
Lotoc maintained that the date was simply a typographical error, pointing out that the appearance dates of media representatives, including ABS-CBN, were consistent with the investigation timeline.
However, Marcos also noted that the same date appeared in Lotoc’s affidavit of investigation, including the amended version.
“Dalawang typo, carried over? … Ikaw ang pumirma eh. ‘Yung affidavit of investigation mo na binigay pati amended, carried over din. ‘Yung first draft na ni-reject ng DOJ, ‘yung ikalawa, parehong November 6,” Marcos said.
For the defense, lawyer Mark Vinluan argued that the discrepancy went beyond a typographical error, saying the incorrect date also appeared in the affidavit’s footnotes, making it a substantive issue rather than a simple clerical mistake.
