MANILA: Just because the names of alleged recipients of Vice President Sara Duterte’s confidential funds (CFs) are funny does not mean they’re fake or fictitious, her defence team asserted during her impeachment trial on Wednesday (Aug 12).
The names Mary Grace Piattos, Renan and Pia Piatos, Andy Lim, Alejandro Pikit, Patty Ting, Miggy Mango, Ralph Joseph Bacon, and Kristine Applegate Estrada were just among the names that appeared as payees in Duterte’s acknowledgement receipts (ARs) submitted to the Commission on Coa (COA).
“If the name appears to be funny, that does automatically mean that the name is fictitious?”defence lawyer Kristine Ferrer asked during her cross examination of prosecution witness, Xylene del Campo.
As auditor of the COA-Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO), del Campo evaluated the documents, including the ARs, in relation to Duterte’s disbursements of confidential funds released to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education, which she previously headed.
But according to private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan, the question was misleading, noting that the names on the receipts that were previously flashed before the Senate impeachment court were just incidental.
“The names were incidental— that the names were funny or fruit salad-y or names of congressmen or senators— your honour is immaterial. They were flashed because of the manner by which the funds were used for medicines, your honour,” Kapunan said.
“Atty Kapunan you had to admit, you had fun with the names too when you were listening,” presiding officer Sen Francis Escudero said.
“We had so much fun your honor but…” Kapuna answered, but she was interrupted by the presiding officer to allow the defense lawyer to continue her cross-examination.
Ferrer went on and asked the witness again whether funny names should be automatically considered fictitious.
But Kapunan noted that the term “fictitious” was the defence lawyer’s “own conclusion.”
“We’ve made no such conclusion as regards to the name except perhaps that they are funny,” the prosecutor said.
Escudero corrected Kapunan, saying her statement was not “entirely accurate” as the impeachment complaint against Duterte referred to some of the names in the receipts as fictitious.
He then directed the defence lawyer to proceed, adding that Kapunan should “give her share of fun with the names.”
“May I be allowed, your honour, to sit down while she’s having fun, your honour,” Kapunan then quipped.
The witness later said she could not answer the question of the defense lawyer, prompting the latter to make this comment: “(So, in short, you cannot say that just because a name is funny, it is automatically fake?”
"I cannot answer a question like that,” the witness repeated, explaining earlier that the work of the COA-ICFAO was limited to evaluation of documents.
Before this, Ferrer pointed out the lack of negative findings by the COA on the names that appeared on the ARs of the OVP and DepEd regarding Duterte’s use of confidential funds.
She also noted the testimony of another prosecution witness, state auditor Roderick Wamil, who earlier told the court that a 2015 COA joint circular was silent on the use of codenames or aliases in the ARs.
Del Campo confirmed that the joint circular pertaining to the policy on the release, use and audit of confidential and intelligence funds was indeed silent on the use aliases.
However, when Ferrer asked if this was the reason why the COA had no findings on the alleged use of aliases in the ARs, del Campo answered: “What matters is that the funds were given to real people for allowable confidential expenses.”
Duterte has been accused of misusing the confidential funds released to the OVP and the DepEd. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
