MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutors on Wednesday presented two former Land Bank of the Philippines branch managers who testified that the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education made unusually large cash withdrawals as the Senate impeachment court began hearing evidence on Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds.
The testimony marked Day 10 of Duterte’s impeachment trial and the start of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence for Article I, which accuses Duterte of misusing P500 million in confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President and P112.5 million from the Department of Education when she also served as education secretary.
Former LandBank Shaw Boulevard branch manager Violeta Constantino testified that the OVP encashed four checks worth P125 million each between December 2022 and July 2023. She described the transactions as unusual because of the amounts and because the office withdrew the money entirely in cash.
“There’s none. This is unusual,” Constantino told the impeachment court when Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether other government agencies made similar withdrawals.
Constantino said she personally supervised the release of the checks, which were payable to OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta. Bank personnel knew about the withdrawals in advance and processed them under standard procedures.
She said the bank automatically reported transactions exceeding P500,000 to the Anti-Money Laundering Council as covered transactions. However, the bank did not classify the OVP withdrawals as suspicious because it had no reason to question their legitimacy.
Constantino also told the court that each P125-million withdrawal filled about four large gym bags. The bank released the cash in a backroom and did not provide armored transport because the OVP had no cash-delivery agreement with the branch and did not request the service.
During questioning from Sen. Risa Hontiveros, Constantino described the transactions as a “once-in-a-lifetime” experience during her 32 years in banking.
The prosecution’s second witness, former LandBank DepEd branch manager Nenita Camposano, testified that DepEd also made unusually large cash withdrawals in 2023.
Camposano said the branch processed three checks worth P37.5 million each, totaling P112.5 million. She said government agencies that regularly transacted with the branch typically withdrew about P10 million in cash, making the DepEd transactions unprecedented in her experience.
Camposano said DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda encashed the checks, placed the cash in bags he brought to the bank and left through a rear exit leading to the DepEd compound.
She said the bank processed the transactions after receiving confirmation that the Department of Budget and Management had released the funds through the Bureau of the Treasury and after verifying the signatures of authorized DepEd officials.
Both witnesses distinguished between transactions they considered unusual based on their banking experience and transactions classified as suspicious under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson later noted that the law recognizes covered and suspicious transactions but does not define an “unusual” transaction. The witnesses agreed that the large withdrawals were treated as covered rather than suspicious transactions.
Prosecution alleges pattern of misuse
Before the witnesses testified, House prosecutor Leila de Lima said confidential funds should protect legitimate intelligence operations rather than shield questionable transactions from scrutiny.
“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.
De Lima said the prosecution would present evidence intended to show that Duterte committed culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through her handling of confidential funds.
She described the case as a systemic pattern rather than isolated accounting errors.
However, Duterte’s defense counsel Michael Poa repeatedly objected when de Lima appeared to make conclusions about the evidence before the prosecution presented it. Senate President and impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero sustained the objections and ordered portions of her remarks stricken from the record.
Escudero had earlier reminded both sides to avoid making conclusions of fact and law in their opening statements and instead outline what they intended to prove.
Prosecution seeks additional witnesses
Article I alleges that Duterte’s offices used questionable acknowledgment receipts to liquidate the P612.5 million in confidential funds. Prosecutors have cited names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Milky Secuya” and “Kokoy Villamin” among recipients whose identities they said could not be verified through Philippine Statistics Authority records.
Prosecutors also allege that the OVP spent P125 million within 11 days in December 2022.
Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro asked the impeachment court to summon three additional witnesses for hearings scheduled from Aug. 3 to Aug. 5: Commission on Audit confidential funds unit auditor Celine May Del Campo, former auditor Roderick Wamil and Marivic Pareja, director of the House legislative archives department.
The prosecution is expected to present additional documentary and testimonial evidence as the Senate impeachment court continues hearing Article I.