Fact check: Robin Padilla misleads on Zoom 'raw files' in Duterte trial
MANILA, Philippines — A Facebook post by Sen. Robin Padilla, claiming only a Zoom host's recording is the "original," and any other copy cannot be used for authentication, is misleading.
Padilla's claim contradicts Zoom's own documentation of its features, the Supreme Court's rules on evidence and jurisprudence.
Padilla published the post on his official Facebook page on Thursday, July 9, a day after he and other senator-judges asked questions of a National Bureau of Investigation agent during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
On July 8, the third day of trial, the senator-judge asked NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung whether the bureau obtained the original copy of, or an affidavit from whoever originally recorded, Duterte's Nov. 23, 2024 online press conference where she allegedly threatened the lives of the president, the first lady and the former House speaker.
The post's caption read, in part:
"The host can do livestream and record it! May built in zoom recording. Yan ang original copy na tinatawag, recorded ng kung sinoman ang nagsagawa ng zoom meeting o interview. Lahat ng kumopya dyan sa live feed maging ano man yan galing sa internet, duplicate na yan, anything recorded as duplicate can be manipulated... Don ka dapat mag authenticate hindi sa kinuha mo lang sa internet."
(The host can do livestream and record it! There is a built-in Zoom recording. That is what is called the original copy, recorded by whoever created the Zoom meeting or interview. Anything copied from the live feed, whatever it is, if taken from the internet, is a duplicate, and anything recorded as duplicate can be manipulated... That is where you should authenticate, not from something you just took from the internet.)
Padilla, who says his expertise is based on 40 years in film and television, also called critics "bayaran" (paid hacks) and told them not to question him on mass media.
Rating: This is misleading.
Facts
Padilla's post mentions only partially accurate statements about Zoom's features while omitting how digital evidence is actually verified and treated under Philippine law.
On who can record a Zoom meeting. It is accurate that Zoom has a built-in recording function and that, by default, recordings are tied to the host.
But recording is not exclusive to the Zoom host.
Zoom's support documentation states that its computer recording feature "allows hosts and participants to record meetings directly on their devices," with account settings allowing participants — including those outside the host's organization — to request or even automatically receive permission to record.
Hosting privileges can also be shared: according to Zoom's support article for "roles in a meeting," co-hosts hold most host controls, including starting and stopping recordings, and there is no limit on their number.
A single meeting can therefore produce several first-generation recordings held by different people.
Zoom's support documentation also shows users can livestream meetings directly to Facebook, YouTube, Twitch or a custom streaming service, which is how Duterte's Zoom briefing was broadcast live on former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque's Facebook page.
On whether a "copy" can be used for authentication. Padilla's claim that authentication must be done only on the host's "raw file" of the Zoom recording, not on a copy taken from the internet, is not supported by the Supreme Court's latest rules of evidence.
Under Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless there is a genuine question about the original's authenticity, or it would be unfair to use the duplicate.
The rules define a duplicate as a counterpart produced by photography, mechanical or "electronic re-recording." Specifically:
(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
The Supreme Court applied this in People v. Lastimosa in February 2025, ruling that a duplicate of an original document, whether in paper or electronic form, can be admitted as evidence in court.
The court said this "reflects the practical realities of document usage and storage in the modern world."
On how the Duterte livestreamed video was actually verified. The recording was not simply "taken from the internet" without verification, based on testimony in the same trial where Padilla sits as judge.
Calilung testified that the NBI asked Meta, Facebook's parent company, to preserve the Nov. 23, 2024 press briefing livestreamed on the Facebook page of former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque.
The NBI agent said he screen-recorded the livestream, compared his output against the video on Roque's Facebook page to ensure the contents were identical, then generated a hash value to preserve the recording's integrity until its presentation in court.
"I compared the output video with the November 23, 2024 video and ensured that the contents are identical," Calilung said.
The NBI subpoenaed journalists who attended the vice president's late-night Zoom conference, including the late Inquirer reporter Dempsey Reyes and former Rappler reporter Bonz Magsambol, whose sworn affidavits attest to hearing Duterte's remarks.
Why we fact-checked this
The post was published by a sitting senator-judge in the impeachment trial of the vice president.
In his speech upon election as presiding officer on July 6, presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero appealed to fellow senator-judges that they must observe the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge."
The prosecution opened its case with Article IV, which accuses Duterte of grave threats and an assassination plot.
Conviction on any article requires 16 votes from the 24-member court and would remove her from office, with the possibility of a permanent ban from public service.
On July 6, Padilla admitted consulting Google for legal terms during the trial, saying he graduated not from UP or Ateneo but from the "University of Prison."
After drawing criticism online, he branded his critics "bayaran" in a July 7 Facebook post.
- Latest
- Trending
