THE prosecution in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial is moving to close a critical gap in the confidential-fund money trail by questioning the disbursing officers who personally received the cash and presenting government experts who may challenge the identities and signatures appearing on thousands of acknowledgement receipts.
Gina Acosta and Edward Fajarda, the former special disbursing officers of the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education, respectively, are expected to be treated as hostile witnesses and questioned about where the funds were taken and how they were distributed after their withdrawal from LandBank.
The prosecution said their testimony could provide the crucial link between the release of the cash and its subsequent liquidation through acknowledgment receipts, many of which reportedly contain names that could not be matched with official civil registry records.
Private prosecutor and House prosecution panel legal spokesperson Benjamin ‘Jay’ Tolosa Jr. said Acosta and Fajarda could be treated as hostile witnesses because their interests are considered adverse to those of the prosecution.
‘Yes. When you describe someone as a hostile witness, it means that the witness’ interests are adverse to those of the party that called them,’ Tolosa said.
The hostile-witness classification would allow prosecutors to ask leading questions even though they are the party presenting Acosta and Fajarda before the Senate Impeachment Court.
Their expected testimony follows the presentation of evidence from former LandBank officials concerning the withdrawal of confidential funds intended for the OVP and DepEd.
Tolosa said the two disbursing officers occupied a crucial position in the fund trail because they were the officials who received the cash after it was withdrawn from the bank.
‘We should watch out for their testimonies because they were the special disbursing officers. As we may recall from the testimony of the LandBank officer, they were the ones who received the money,’ Tolosa said.
The prosecution is seeking to establish the movement of the funds from their release and withdrawal to their alleged distribution and eventual liquidation through acknowledgment receipts and other supporting documents.
For prosecutors, the testimony of the disbursing officers could answer a central question in the case: What happened to the cash after it was released to them?
‘It will be important to hear from them because they were accountable for the funds. After receiving the money, where did they take it, and how did they use it?’ Tolosa said.
Acosta and Fajarda previously appeared during the House inquiry into the use of confidential funds, where their respective roles as the OVP and DepEd special disbursing officers were identified.
Their testimony is expected to be assessed alongside bank records, liquidation documents and Commission on Audit (COA) findings presented under Article I of the impeachment case.
Tolosa acknowledged that the ultimate determination of the credibility and evidentiary weight of their testimony would rest with the senator-judges.
COA trail
The prosecution is also relying on COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office Supervising Auditor Celine May Del Campo to continue the audit trail beyond the matters covered by former state auditor Roderick Wamil’s personal knowledge.
Both Wamil and Del Campo were subpoenaed by the Senate Impeachment Court as prosecution witnesses under Article I, which covers the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds assigned to the OVP and DepEd.
Wamil testified primarily about the audit stages and documents personally handled before succeeding portions of the audit process were taken over by other auditors.
According to Tolosa, Wamil could not answer certain questions regarding notices of disallowance because those developments occurred after the auditor had left the Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office.
‘There were questions, particularly about the notices of disallowance. Wamil said, ‘I no longer have personal knowledge about that because I had already left.’ Ms. Celine succeeded Wamil, so she will continue that part of the account,’ Tolosa explained.
Tolosa rejected suggestions that Del Campo’s testimony would merely repeat what Wamil had already told the impeachment court.
‘Some people may be wondering whether they will say the same things. No, their testimonies are different,’ he said.
The prosecution considers the distinction significant because the COA process allegedly progressed from audit observations and suspensions to the issuance of notices of disallowance.
During the proceedings, Wamil repeatedly limited the testimony to audit developments within the former auditor’s personal knowledge. Del Campo is expected to discuss the succeeding audit actions based on records she handled and events within her direct knowledge.
‘For the matters that were already outside Wamil’s personal knowledge, Celine will fill in the missing details,’ Tolosa said.
Del Campo recommended the issuance of notices of disallowance covering P448 million of the P500 million in confidential funds provided to the OVP, according to House prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon.
Receipts under scrutiny
Beyond the withdrawal and audit of the funds, the prosecution also intends to examine the identities and signatures appearing on acknowledgment receipts submitted to support the liquidation of confidential expenditures.
Ridon said the 845 acknowledgement receipts presented in connection with the OVP’s confidential funds represented only the ‘tip of the iceberg.’
Speaking at the Saturday News Forum in Quezon City, Ridon said witnesses from the Philippine Statistics Authority and the National Bureau of Investigation are expected to appear in the coming weeks to demonstrate the extent of the alleged irregularities.
The PSA witnesses are expected to discuss government civil-registry searches involving people named as confidential-fund recipients. NBI experts, meanwhile, are expected to testify about the handwriting and signatures found on the acknowledgment receipts.
Ridon recalled that during the clarificatory hearings conducted by the House Committee on Justice, an NBI handwriting expert found indications that the signatures appearing on numerous acknowledgment receipts may have been written by only one person or a small group of individuals.
‘The handwriting appeared to indicate that only a small group of people signed these acknowledgement receipts,’ Ridon said, recalling the expert’s earlier testimony.
He argued that the expected PSA and NBI testimonies could broaden the questions surrounding the confidential funds beyond the amounts already disallowed by state auditors.
‘Apart from COA’s findings in its two decisions, the entire body of acknowledgement receipts may be called into question in the coming weeks when the PSA and NBI witnesses take the stand,’ Ridon said.
‘The questions will not be limited to the amounts disallowed in the audit. The evidence may show that only one person or a small group of people signed the acknowledgment receipts,’ he added.
The receipts presented so far allegedly included the names Mary Grace Piattos, Renan Piatos, Andy Lim, Alejandro Pikit, Nova Santos, Mico Harina and Patty Ting as recipients of confidential funds.
During the House Committee on Justice hearings, the PSA reported finding no records of the birth, marriage or death of individuals identified as Mary Grace Piattos, Kokoy Villamin and Milky Secuya.
The absence of civil-registry records does not by itself establish that a person does not exist. The prosecution, however, is expected to use the PSA results together with handwriting findings, audit records and testimony from the officials who handled the cash to question the reliability of the liquidation documents.
‘For thousands of acknowledgement receipts, different recipients should have signed them,’ Ridon said. ‘Once the NBI handwriting expert takes the witness stand, the evidence may show that the investigation should not be confined to the amounts disallowed in the audit.’