The House prosecution panel on Thursday firmed up its final list of 57 witnesses in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial next month, including a former court sheriff, who was punched by the then Davao City mayor over a dispute in a court-ordered demolition 15 years ago, and one of her closest aides.
According to a 57-page pretrial brief obtained by the Inquirer, the former sheriff, Abe Andres, will be asked to testify on Duterte’s ‘tendency to inflict violence’ to establish a pattern of violent behavior behind the allegation that she had arranged the assassination of President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The accusation forms Article IV of the impeachment complaint against Duterte and the first of four charges to be heard when her trial starts on July 6.
Andres has since been transferred to the Supreme Court in Manila. A Facebook post by a certain ‘Abe Andres’ in June 2024 showed a Supreme Court certificate of recognition that identified him as a human resources management officer, praising him for his ‘zeal for public service.’ A veteran reporter from Davao identified Abe Andres on Facebook as the former sheriff.
Zuleika Lopez
The other prosecution witnesses for this particular article of impeachment are Duterte’s longtime chief of staff Zuleika Lopez, law enforcement agents and several journalists who covered her November 2024 late night press briefing where she disclosed her alleged assassination plan.
Duterte’s expletive-laden outburst during the press conference was triggered by the arrest of Lopez-ordered by the House good government committee-on grounds of contempt for her alleged undue interference in the panel’s hearings.
The committee cited Lopez’s letter to the Commission on Audit (COA) asking it to refrain from giving the House its audit observation on the Vice President’s confidential fund spending. A committee member said Lopez and the Office of the Vice President (OVP) would have prevented the House from scrutinizing the OVP transactions.
For Article I of the articles of impeachment, or the allegations of misuse of P612.5 million in confidential fund (CF), the prosecution listed 27 witnesses, including Lopez and a certain ‘Mary Grace Piattos,’ who was supposedly one of the hundreds of recipients of the secret funds.
Lopez will be asked, the prosecution said, to take the witness stand to help prove that Duterte ‘misused and misappropriated confidential funds.’
Others on list
Aside from the two, the following individuals were listed as prosecution witnesses:
Former Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman-to testify on Duterte’s requests for OVP and Department of Education (DepEd) of CFs and the release of such funds; Edward Fajarda-to testify on the withdrawal, turnover, liquidation and control over DepEd’s CFs; Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and Lt. Col. Dennis Nolasco-to testify on the receipt and utilization of CFs; lawyer Reynold Munsayac-to testify on allegations regarding the delivery of OVP CFs at Nommu Basho bar; Lt. Col. Manaros Boransing II, Lt. Col. Magtangol Panopio, Lt. Col. Carlos Sangdaan Jr. and Maj. Gen. Adonis Bajao-to prove that a youth activity was funded by the Philippine Army and the concerned local governments for student-participants, and that no funds from DepEd were used in any of these activities.
Michael Poa, Duterte’s lawyer and spokesperson for the defense, was also listed as a prosecution witness so that he could ‘testify on the DepEd’s responses to COA audit findings and his procurement and submission of supporting documents despite having no personal knowledge of confidential fund expenditures.’
Most of the individuals mentioned as witnesses for Article I were the same individuals invited by the House good government panel during the 19th Congress, when it started investigating Duterte and her offices for alleged CF misuse.
Sounds familiar
It was the late reelected Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop who noted that ‘Mary Grace Piattos’ was strikingly similar to the name of a restaurant and a popular snack when stitched together.
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong showed two acknowledgement receipts (ARs)-one for the OVP and another for DepEd, which were both received by a certain Kokoy Villamin. However, the signatures and handwriting used by Villamin in the two documents differed.
The Philippine Statistics Authority informed the committee that Piattos and Villamin’s names were not found in its live birth, marriage or death database.
Calling ‘Mary Grace Piattos’ as one of the prosecution’s witnesses is the prosecution panel’s prerogative, Poa told reporters.
‘Definitely if they’re presented, we will be ready to cross examine them,’ Poa said.
He said, however, that ‘Piattos’ wasn’t one of their witnesses.
At a press briefing held by the prosecution team last Monday, Adiong said that starting with the presentation of the alleged assassination threats against the President, the first lady and the former Speaker, would allow the public to ‘understand right away’ the allegations hurled against Duterte.
‘It’s not just the Senate that will evaluate and assess the evidence,’ said Adiong, one of the spokespersons for the prosecution panel.
Mr. Marcos and Duterte ran in the formidable ‘Uniteam’ in 2022 that won the presidential and vice presidential elections by landslides. Their fragile alliance soon frayed over policy differences, leading to a breakup that has deepened political divisions in the Philippines.
‘Least contentious’
Benjamin Tolosa Jr., one of the volunteer private prosecutors, said the assassination plot was the ‘least contentious article, at least with respect to the facts.’
‘So, we expect that the presentation of evidence there will move faster,’ Tolosa, another prosecution spokesperson, said.
After the assassination allegation, the panel will proceed to the charges of alleged bribery and corruption in DepEd when Duterte was its secretary (Article II), and then allegations that she amassed unexplained wealth and falsified her net worth statements (Article III).
The prosecution team plans to call ‘hostile witnesses’ on those charges, which had also shaped the sequence of presentation of the impeachment articles in the trial, as they seek subpoenas from the Senate to compel their appearances, Tolosa said.
Kabataan Rep. Renee Co said the prosecution team also sought a clearer explanation of the witnesses that Duterte’s defense team had planned to present in the trial.
‘Most of their listed witnesses had a very general wording of the stated purpose of their testimony,’ she said. ‘But the notice of the pretrial conference, and the practice of pretrials in regular courts, make it clear that when a witness is presented, there must be a specific purpose for admitting that witness, and, ultimately, why the testimony is relevant.’
‘To guide the court’
Tolosa said that the defense ‘failed to comply’ with that guideline, ‘because instead of providing a summary, they just indicated the general purpose, which is to disprove the allegation in the articles.’
Knowing why the defense plans to call those witnesses would allow the prosecutors to prepare how they will examine them at trial, according to Adiong.
It should be clear to guide the court, and for us to know what will be the specific counterevidence or the purposes by which the defense intends to disprove the claims of our witnesses,’ he said.