Did Atty. Jeremy Lotoc actually investigate?

“Hindi siya ‘yung dapat sumagot sa mga katanungan na ibinabato sa kaniya ngayon, mukhang hindi siya really that qualified at sumasablay-sablay ‘tong tao na ‘to.” Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo, a member of the majority bloc, on witness National Bureau of Investigation Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc.

In English, “sumasablay” can mean to fail or to miss. “Napakyas” in Cebuano. This best describes the testimony of the prosecution’s second witness in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

What one cannot also fail to see during the testimony of Atty. Lotoc was his constant evasiveness. On several occasions, presiding officer and Senator-judge Chiz Escudero had to remind him simply to just answer the question. His answers were not responsive. It would seem that he was not familiar --to say the least-- with his own testimony. Take, for instance, the brief exchange he had with Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo.

Tulfo: Mr. Witness, a lot of questions were asked to you regarding the filing with the office of the Department of Justice regarding the docketing, dating, subscription of an investigation data form. Now, can you tell this court what exactly is your role and what did you do in relation to the filing of this investigation data form? Anong pinaka-role mo dito?

Lotoc: Yes, your honor. I instructed the executive officer as well as the agent of the case to file our referral with the Department of Justice. Sila ho ang nag-ayos nyan, sir, in so far as the investigation data form, in so far as the requirements. Ang instruction ko is comply with the requirement given by the Department of Justice, and then kung ano yong kanilang guidance, you comply with it.

Tulfo: Okay. Mr. Presiding Officer, I think the errors in the investigation data form should be answered by the receiving office. Hindi siya (Lotoc) talaga ‘yung dapat sumagot sa mga katanungan na ibinabato sa kaniya ngayon, mukhang hindi siya really that qualified at sumasablay-sablay ‘tong tao na ‘to.

Perhaps Lotoc’s exchange with Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano was most telling regarding the former’s familiarity --or lack of it-- of the evidence he presented. Their discussion centered on admission against interest, and whether such exists in the November 23 video of Vice President Sara Duterte. Lotoc was in a quandary that presiding officer Escudero had to instruct him to answer “yes, no, I do not know, I do not remember.” Lotoc answered “I do not know.”

But when pressed whether the statement “Kung papatayin ako, may kausap na ako, patayin ‘nyo ‘yong tatlo” was an admission against interest, the witness answered yes.

He was further asked whether there were other statements in the video that constituted admission against interest. He answered no.

Cayetano went on to cite “pinamigay sa DepEd” portion of the video, and whether it’s admission against interest, Lotoc could not recall anything. He thus asked the senator: “Siya po ‘yong namigay, sir?” Cayetano shot back: “Ikaw ang nanood ng video, ikaw ang nag-evaluate, ako pa ang magsabi sayo kung ano ang laman ng video?”

Lotoc also claimed that some mistakes that appeared in the affidavits were typos. “If you do not have personal knowledge, you cannot say typo,” Escudero said.

The public now asks: Did Lotoc actually investigate? Considering that impeachment is sui generis, not only the senator-judges but also the general public are watching. Will the public consider Lotoc a credible witness?