18/07/2026
Repost from Anthony Ludalvi Vista
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐉𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐘 𝐋𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐂
𝐁𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐋𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐢 𝐀. 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚
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 discovered—not to offer personal beliefs, interpret the Vice President’s 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.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃:
“To me, as chief investigator at that time, the utterances made by the Vice President were serious, and the threat was real and actual.”
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊:
𝟭. 𝐋𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐂 𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐒𝐘𝐂𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐒𝐓
Lotoc admitted that he was not a forensic psychologist, yet he concluded that the threat was “real and actual.” His assessment of the Vice President’s 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.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃:
“We do believe that the Vice President had contracted [someone], but I don’t have personal knowledge.”
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊:
𝟮. 𝐋𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐂’𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐅 𝐇𝐀𝐃 𝐍𝐎 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐕𝐀𝐋𝐔𝐄
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 “we” did not cure the defect. Institutional belief remains belief unless supported by evidence. The NBI’s opinion was not proof of an assassination contract.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃:
“We do believe this based on the evidence that we’ve gathered and based on our investigation.”
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊:
𝟯. 𝐖𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄?
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 “based on our investigation” 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 NBI’s belief, based on the same statement, as corroboration. That was circular reasoning, not corroboration.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃:
Lotoc repeatedly described the Vice President as “furious” and “fuming mad,” relying on her anger to claim that the threat was genuine.
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊:
𝟰. 𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑 𝐏𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐎 𝐀𝐍 𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐒𝐓
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 concealment—not 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.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃:
“Imagine, Your Honor, the anarchy, the disorder, and the chaos it would bring to our country.”
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊:
𝟱. 𝐋𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐂 𝐒𝐔𝐁𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄
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.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃:
“The 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.”
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊:
𝟲. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐎𝐑𝐒 𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐃 𝐀 𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐇𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍
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.
Lotoc’s 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 NBI’s 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.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃:
“We 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?”
𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐔𝐍𝐊:
𝟳. 𝐋𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐂’𝐒 𝐎𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐍 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐎𝐌 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐂𝐇 𝐃𝐈𝐃 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑
Lotoc’s 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. Lotoc’s 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.
