MANILA, Philippines — The Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed Vice President Sara Duterte’s perjury complaint against her alleged former aide, Ramil Madriaga, citing insufficient evidence in a resolution released Thursday.
The 19-page resolution said the evidence on record did not establish that Madriaga knowingly and willfully made materially false statements under oath, as required for a violation of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
“While complainant has presented evidence disputing respondent’s assertions, the evidence presently on record does not establish prima facie, with reasonable certainty of conviction, that respondent knowingly and willfully made materially false statements under oath,” the prosecutors said.
“Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence,” they added.
Duterte’s camp had not responded to requests for comment on the resolution.
Duterte filed her first perjury complaint against Madriaga in March after he submitted an affidavit to the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that he delivered large amounts of money to various individuals on her instructions.
Madriaga also alleged that Duterte directed him to organize ISIP (Inday Sara Is My President) Pilipinas for her planned 2022 presidential campaign and claimed the group received funding from Philippine offshore gaming operators and drug dealers.
Duterte denied the allegations and said she had never had personal or professional dealings with Madriaga. She also rejected his claim that he served as her “bagman” or courier for diverted confidential funds.
Duterte filed a second perjury complaint against Madriaga with the same prosecutor’s office in August. Her complaint contained about 1,000 pages and accused Madriaga of making deliberate false statements.
Madriaga’s lawyer, Atty. Mark Anthony Te, welcomed the dismissal and called the resolution an “important vindication” of his client’s position.
“It should serve as a source of renewed confidence for the Filipino people that our institutions can still rise above personalities and political power, and that when the evidence is fairly examined, the truth can still prevail,” Te said.
He added that the case showed that evidence and the law, rather than political power, should determine the outcome of legal proceedings.
