18/07/2026
Repost from Anthony Ludalvi Vista
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ข ๐. ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐
Jeremy Lotoc was presented as a firm and seasoned investigator who supposedly withstood cross-examination during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. But confidence is not competence, and a forcefully delivered opinion acquires no probative value when unsupported by facts.
Lotoc was there to present what the NBI discoveredโnot to offer personal beliefs, interpret the Vice Presidentโs mental state, or decide whether her words constituted a crime. Stripped of the surrounding drama, much of his testimony consisted of impressions, assumptions, speculation, and conclusions.
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐:
โTo me, as chief investigator at that time, the utterances made by the Vice President were serious, and the threat was real and actual.โ
๐๐๐๐๐๐:
๐ญ. ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Lotoc admitted that he was not a forensic psychologist, yet he concluded that the threat was โreal and actual.โ His assessment of the Vice Presidentโs state of mind was therefore no better than that of any ordinary person who watched the video.
A psychologist trained in behaviour, emotion, and impulsivity could have assessed the matter more accurately, although even an expert would require a proper examination and factual foundation. Lotoc conducted none. He merely watched the recording and announced his personal conclusion.
Many viewers saw an emotional outburst from a person carried away by anger. Lotoc had no special ability placing his interpretation above theirs. His title did not transform an ordinary impression into scientific or expert evidence.
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐:
โWe do believe that the Vice President had contracted [someone], but I donโt have personal knowledge.โ
๐๐๐๐๐๐:
๐ฎ. ๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐
Lotoc admitted that he had no personal knowledge that anyone had been contracted. His belief was therefore nothing. It had no probative value.
The Rules on Evidence require testimony based on personal perception. Lotoc did not see an assassin, witness a meeting, hear an instruction, or present any authenticated communication, payment, agreement, or preparation.
Anyone could form a belief better than his. One viewer could believe that the Vice President was exaggerating, another that she was bluffing, and another that she was merely expressing anger. His belief did not become superior because he worked for the NBI.
Using the word โweโ did not cure the defect. Institutional belief remains belief unless supported by evidence. The NBIโs opinion was not proof of an assassination contract.
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐:
โWe do believe this based on the evidence that weโve gathered and based on our investigation.โ
๐๐๐๐๐๐:
๐ฏ. ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐?
What evidence did Lotoc actually present? He invoked the NBI investigation but failed to identify proof that the Vice President had contracted an assassin. His conclusions therefore remained assumptions and speculations without probative value.
If the NBI had a name, message, telephone number, payment, meeting, weapon, operational plan, surveillance record, or witness, Lotoc should have produced it. Evidence kept hidden in an investigative file cannot be examined, authenticated, challenged, or subjected to cross-examination.
The phrase โbased on our investigationโ is not magical. Investigations may be mistaken, incomplete, rushed, or influenced by prior assumptions.
The video proved only that the words were spoken. It did not independently prove the existence of an assassin, communication, payment, or agreement. Lotoc used the statement as proof of a contract and then used the NBIโs belief, based on the same statement, as corroboration. That was circular reasoning, not corroboration.
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐:
Lotoc repeatedly described the Vice President as โfuriousโ and โfuming mad,โ relying on her anger to claim that the threat was genuine.
๐๐๐๐๐๐:
๐ฐ. ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
A person who believes that an injustice has occurred may become furious, curse, and utter extreme words. People carried away by emotion often say things they would not say after calming down.
Emotional outbursts negate real threats because real threats must be planned. An assassination plot ordinarily involves deliberation, preparation, secrecy, coordination, and concealmentโnot a public announcement before journalists.
A person who had truly hired an assassin would conceal the arrangement rather than identify the targets and create evidence against herself. If Lotoc were truly a seasoned investigator, he should have looked for planning, communication, preparation, and concrete acts instead of equating anger with a completed criminal arrangement.
His testimony contradicted itself. He emphasized that she was fuming mad but treated her emotional words as the precise announcement of a carefully planned assassination contract. He could not have it both ways.
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐:
โImagine, Your Honor, the anarchy, the disorder, and the chaos it would bring to our country.โ
๐๐๐๐๐๐:
๐ฑ. ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Lotoc was giving his own political and personal opinion, not a fact discovered during the investigation. He asked the senators to imagine frightening consequences instead of presenting evidence.
A lawyer and supposed expert investigator who knows the Rules on Evidence should never substitute opinion for proof. He was there to give facts, not dramatic warnings. This was a low point for him.
Anarchy and chaos did not prove an assassin, payment, communication, agreement, intent, or preparation. His appeal to fear merely attempted to fill the gaps left by the missing evidence.
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐:
โThe existence of these typographical errors does not alter the fact that the video exists; does not alter the fact the Vice President uttered those statements; does not alter the fact that the NBI has findings.โ
๐๐๐๐๐๐:
๐ฒ. ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
An expert investigator must be precise. Errors should be rare, especially in a case involving the Vice President. Accuracy should have been clockwork.
A professional knows his craft. Dates, names, documents, and chronology must be checked before official papers are signed and issued. Errors are a no-no because investigative integrity depends on accuracy.
Lotocโs answer missed the point. Nobody claimed that the mistakes erased the video. The issue was whether they exposed carelessness and a rushed investigation.
The recording could exist while the NBIโs documents, chronology, interpretation, and findings remained defective. The existence of findings did not prove their accuracy. Findings may be mistaken, assumption-based, or the product of hurried work.
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐:
โWe failed to see any amount of freedom of speech in that utterance. If we allow that to become the norm in our society, then who would prevent anybody from doing the same to anyone?โ
๐๐๐๐๐๐:
๐ณ. ๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
Lotocโs opinion did not determine whether the utterance was protected speech. He was not the court and had no authority to classify it finally as criminal or constitutionally unprotected.
The speech could be declared unprotected only after proving that it constituted a crime such as grave threats. Lotoc instead assumed that it was criminal and used that assumption to reject freedom of speech. That was circular reasoning.
The classification belonged to the tribunal. Lotocโs role was to present facts and evidence, not to decide constitutional questions.
His legal opinion also rested on the unproven premise that an assassin had been contracted. He admitted having no personal knowledge, identified no assassin, and presented no independent proof of an agreement. His conclusion was therefore another opinion based on assumptions.
No amount of confidence can give unsupported beliefs probative value. No dramatic testimony can transform assumptions into facts. And no title, position, or reputation can substitute for the evidence Jeremy Lotoc failed to produce.
