Prosecutors dare defense: Prove names on secret fund docs are real
House prosecutors on Thursday challenged Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team to prove that the names listed as recipients of confidential funds were real people, saying the impeachment trial gives the defense its first opportunity to explain whether those appearing in acknowledgment receipts were genuine identities or merely aliases.
The challenge came after prosecution witness Commission on Audit (COA) auditor Roderick Wamil told the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday that auditors did not verify whether names in acknowledgment receipts belonged to actual persons because Joint Circular No. 2015-01 requires auditors to examine only the supporting documents submitted to support liquidation by the agency.
At a virtual press briefing, lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said the circular does not require auditors to verify identities beyond the documents presented for liquidation, making Wamil’s testimony consistent with existing auditing rules.
‘Prove they’re real’
Luistro said the defense has yet to clearly state whether the names appearing in the liquidation documents were aliases or real individuals.
“They have not issued any statement that these were aliases, so we assume they are claiming these are real people. But there is no evidence these names exist based on [Philippine Statistics Authority] records,” she said.
Private prosecutor Amado Virgil Ligutan said public funds should ordinarily be supported by documents identifying the actual recipients and the specific activities for which these were used.
“The default expectation is that the correct and real names appear in the receipts because these are public funds. The public has the right to know who received the money,” he said, adding that the defense has repeatedly deferred answering whether the names were aliases or genuine identities.
Ligutan called the impeachment trial a “golden opportunity” for the defense to finally explain the identities behind the names in the acknowledgment receipts, noting that questions on whether the signatories were real persons or aliases have remained unanswered for two years.
Luistro, however, stressed that the prosecution’s case does not hinge on whether the names were aliases or genuine persons.
Restitution not enough
“The important issue is accountability. Public officials entrusted with confidential funds must account for how public money was spent,” she said.
The prosecution also rejected suggestions that the Vice President could put the issue to rest by simply returning the disallowed confidential funds.
Ligutan said restitution does not erase the obligation of public officials to fully account for government money under auditing rules.
“It is not because the funds came from the Office of the President that the OVP is no longer obligated to account for the funds. These are public funds, not personal money,” he said.
Ligutan said reimbursing disallowed expenditures does not extinguish possible civil, criminal or administrative liability, nor excuse compliance with auditing requirements.
Luistro likewise distinguished the COA proceedings from impeachment, saying the audit process determines whether officials should return disallowed funds, while impeachment determines whether a public official remains fit to stay in office.
Prosecution spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said the impeachment case would proceed even if Duterte restituted the disallowed confidential funds because the articles of impeachment allege misuse and fraudulent liquidation amounting to betrayal of public trust.
According to Tolosa, the matter of whether Duterte will return the funds disallowed by the COA—around P448 million of the OVP confidential expenses from the fourth quarter of 2022 to third quarter of 2023—is different from the impeachment trial.
He added that returning the money could be viewed as an acknowledgment that there were irregularities in the expenditures, although the Senate impeachment court would ultimately determine its legal significance.
‘Not defense lawyers’
Meanwhile, Malacañang criticized what it described as the conduct of some senator-judges, accusing them of acting more like members of the defense panel than impartial adjudicators.
Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro, without identifying any senator-judge, said some members of the impeachment court appeared to be cross-examining Wamil instead of asking clarificatory questions to establish the facts.
“Senator-judges are supposed to remain impartial and unbiased. Their mandate is not to sweep the truth under the rug,” Castro said.
A trial lawyer by profession, Castro said judges should not debate with witnesses but instead ask neutral questions to uncover the truth.
She added that President Marcos would not comment on the merits of the impeachment case, maintaining that due process must be observed and the law allowed to take its course.
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
