House prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte began the presentation of evidence in support of the accusation that Vice President Sara Duterte misused P612.5 million in confidential funds.
They anchored the first of the four articles of impeachment on the argument that the confidential nature of such funds cannot be used to justify fictitious documentation or shield public officials from accountability.
On Day 10 of the trial, the prosecution on Wednesday presented two former managers of the Land Bank of the Philippines who testified that hundreds of millions of pesos were withdrawn in cash by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) in an extraordinary pattern rarely seen in government banking transactions.
Transparency, accountability
Before calling the first witness, House prosecutor Rep. Leila de Lima told the Senate impeachment court that confidential funds are intended to protect legitimate intelligence operations, not conceal irregularities in the handling of public money.
‘Confidentiality is to protect legitimate operations and informants. It is not permission to invent names and documents. It is not an excuse to pocket money,’ De Lima said in Filipino.
She stressed that officials entrusted with confidential funds remain subject to transparency, scrutiny and accountability.
‘That the budget is intended for confidential operations does not mean that the conduct of the officials involved in the handling of people’s money is exempted from the demands of transparency, scrutiny and accountability,’ De Lima said, adding that public officials handling confidential funds bear an even greater responsibility.
Pattern of misconduct
She said the prosecution would prove that Duterte committed culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through the misuse of confidential funds while serving as Vice President and concurrent education secretary.
De Lima maintained the case was not about isolated bookkeeping lapses but ‘a systemic course of conduct’ demonstrating graft and betrayal of public trust.
‘This is not about one missing receipt. This is not about a clerical error or accounting mistake. The evidence will reveal a pattern – a systemic course of conduct – that, taken as a whole, demonstrates graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust,’ she said.
Before the opening statement began, Presiding Officer Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero reminded both the prosecution and defense panels to avoid making conclusions of fact and law and instead limit their remarks to outlining what they intended to prove.
Despite the reminder, De Lima proceeded to argue that the evidence would establish Duterte’s liability and to question whether an impeachable official who had allegedly abused the public trust should remain in office.
‘When the Filipino people entrusted their money to Vice President Sara Duterte, was that trust honored? That question will not be answered by politics, by general denials, by press releases. It will be answered by the witnesses, by the documents, by audit, and by the evidence. The prosecution is ready to present it,’ she said.
De Lima was unable to complete her supposed five-minute opening statement after Duterte’s defense counsel Michael Poa repeatedly objected that she was making conclusions of fact and law before presenting evidence.
Escudero interrupted De Lima, saying: ‘The continued objection of the respondent is duly noted. I would have to stop you at this point.’
‘Unusual’ cash withdrawals
But the House prosecutor still managed to tell the impeachment court that the case would ultimately be decided not by politics or public statements, but by the evidence presented during the trial.
‘That question will not be answered by politics, by general denials, by press releases. It will be answered by the witnesses. By the documents. By audit. And by the evidence. The Prosecution is ready to present it.’
Escudero sustained Poa’s objections, ordered portions of De Lima’s remarks stricken from the record and directed the prosecution to call its first witness.
House prosecutor Joel Chua then presented former LandBank Shaw Boulevard department manager Violeta Constantino, who testified that the encashment of four P125-million checks issued by the OVP between December 2022 and July 2023 was ‘unusual’ because of both the amounts involved and the decision to withdraw the funds entirely in cash.
Constantino said she personally supervised the release of the checks payable to OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta. Asked by Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo whether similar transactions were common among government agencies, she replied: ‘There’s none. This is unusual.’
She said bank personnel wondered about the purpose of the massive cash withdrawals but did not question the transactions because the OVP had informed the branch in advance and the withdrawals complied with bank procedures.
Constantino testified that while transactions exceeding P500,000 are automatically reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) as covered transactions, the withdrawals were not classified as suspicious because the bank had no reason to doubt their legitimacy.
‘For this particular transaction, we did not have any doubts because we knew it was a legitimate transaction … for us, it was not really suspicious,’ she said.
Questioned by Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros, Constantino said the withdrawals stood out because they were made entirely in cash and far exceeded the branch’s normal transaction profile, describing them as a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ experience during her 32 years in banking.
She also testified that each P125-million withdrawal was packed into about four large gym bags before being released to OVP personnel in the bank’s backroom. The bank did not provide armored transport because it had no cash-delivery agreement with the OVP and no such service was requested.
The prosecution’s second witness, former LandBank DepEd branch manager Nenita Camposano, likewise testified that the encashment of three checks worth P37.5 million each, totaling P112.5 million, for DepEd was also ‘unusual.’
‘Unprecedented’
Camposano, a 34-year LandBank veteran, said government agencies transacting with her branch normally withdrew only around P10 million in cash, making the P37.5-million withdrawals unprecedented for DepEd.
She said the transactions were processed only after the bank received advice that the funds had been released by the Department of Budget and Management through the Bureau of the Treasury and that the checks bore the signatures of authorized DepEd officials.
Camposano distinguished between ‘unusual’ and ‘suspicious’ transactions, explaining that covered transactions above the P500,000 threshold are automatically reported under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Amla), while a suspicious transaction requires an independent determination by the branch manager.
She testified that DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda encashed the checks, placed the cash in bags he brought and exited through the bank’s fire exit leading directly to the DepEd compound.
Under questioning by Poa, Camposano confirmed Fajarda used the rear exit because it provided a safer route back to the DepEd complex.
Covered vs suspicious
Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson later clarified that the Amla recognizes only two categories of reportable transactions-covered and suspicious-and does not define an ‘unusual’ transaction. The witnesses agreed that while the withdrawals were extraordinary based on their banking experience, they were treated as covered rather than suspicious transactions under Amla rules.
Article I of the impeachment complaint accuses Duterte of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds – P500 million from the OVP and P112.5 million from DepEd – and alleges the money was liquidated using questionable acknowledgment receipts bearing names, such as ‘Mary Grace Piattos,’ ‘Milky Secuya’ and ‘Kokoy Villamin,’ among hundreds of others that prosecutors said could not be verified with Philippine Statistics Authority records.
Prosecutors also allege that P125 million was spent within just 11 days in December 2022 and said additional documentary and testimonial evidence would be presented during the succeeding trial dates.
Lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro asked the impeachment court to summon three more witnesses-Commission on Audit confidential funds unit auditor Celine May Del Campo and former auditor Roderick Wamil, and Marivic Pareja, director of the House legislative archives department officials, for hearings scheduled from Aug. 3 to Aug. 5.