By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag acknowledged before the Senate Impeachment Court that he met with members of the House prosecution panel before his testimony in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, but maintained that the meetings were strictly procedural and did not involve any form of coaching.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan questioned Matibag about his contacts with the prosecution before taking the witness stand.
Matibag confirmed that he met twice with prosecutors after learning that he had been included as a witness in the court’s pre-trial order.
Pressed on whether those meetings amounted to a briefing, the NBI chief rejected the suggestion, explaining that the discussions merely outlined the subjects he would be asked to address.
“There was no coaching. We simply discussed the matters that would be covered by my testimony. As NBI Director, it is normal for prosecutors to know the nature of the testimony I would present,” Matibag told the impeachment court.
He added that such coordination is common in legal proceedings and remarked that he would likewise be willing to meet with the defense if they intended to present him as one of their witnesses.
Vinluan disagreed with Matibag’s characterization of the exchange, saying the witness had assumed the purpose of his questioning and that the defense had no intention of calling him to testify.
After the hearing, prosecution spokesman Benjamin Tolosa Jr. dismissed any suggestion of impropriety, saying pre-testimony consultations between lawyers and witnesses are standard courtroom practice.
According to Tolosa, prosecutors routinely meet with witnesses to understand the facts they intend to present, determine what documentary evidence may be required, and organize the presentation of their case before the court.
“There was no briefing or coaching. This is a normal part of trial preparation in any judicial proceeding,” Tolosa said.
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, another member of the prosecution panel, echoed the same position, stressing that Matibag required no coaching because his testimony was based on the NBI’s own investigation.
“You cannot coach someone who already knows the facts of the investigation. He was there to present the findings of the NBI,” Adiong said.
Matibag served as the prosecution’s final witness for Article IV of the impeachment complaint, which centers on allegations that Vice President Duterte issued grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The prosecution argues that Duterte’s statements constituted a serious and continuing threat that amounted to betrayal of public trust, while the defense insists the remarks were political rhetoric protected under the constitutional right to free speech.
With Matibag’s testimony completed, the House prosecution panel is expected to formally conclude the presentation of evidence for Article IV before moving on to the remaining impeachment charges against the Vice President.
ia/xf
