[OPINION] Duterte impeachment trial Day 10: Withdrawals 'unusual,' but transactions not 'suspicious'
How much is too much for a bank deposit or a withdrawal to be considered unusual? And how often should a large transaction be considered suspicious?
On the 10th day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, two retired LandBank officials appeared on the witness stand and, when pressed by the senator-judges, said they found it “unusual” that the OVP and DepEd, which Duterte once held simultaneously, would withdraw P125 million in four separate, subsequent checks and P37.5 million in three different, subsequent checks.
The prosecution established that at one point, the national treasury provided the OVP and DepEd with P612.5 million and some P112.5 million, respectively, when Duterte was still the DepEd chief beginning May 2022.
But the two witnesses fell short of the public expectation that the prosecution would drop a bombshell, as neither the prosecution nor the witnesses failed to qualify that the withdrawals by the designated OVP and DepEd official-payees amounted to “suspicious” transactions.
There were no questions about the source of the funds and how the funds were downloaded to both offices.
The two witnesses could not say if the funds released by the banks were used, misused, or abused by Duterte for what the prosecution called confidential public funds, as covered by its complaint contained in Article I.
No one said anything about where the funds went after the withdrawals—and how.
After the trial, prosecution officials said they would pin down Duterte in the next trial when they present witnesses from the Commission on Audit who are expected to define and qualify the use of confidential funds and its release to people like the infamous Mary Grace Piattos, a highly talked about but seemingly non-existent individual.
We just hope that the prosecution wasn’t “overpromising” again this time as it did before when it presented NBI director Melvin Matibag last week.
“Suspicious” transaction, as clarified by presiding officer, senator-judge Chiz Escudero while quizzing former LandBank-DepEd bank manager Nenita Camposano, is “kahina-hinala.”
In contrast, “unusual” is “kakaiba lang,” he said.
By parity of logic, an “unusual transaction” doesn’t mean it is a “suspicious transaction.”
When a bank deposit or withdrawal involves P500,000, it is considered a “covered transaction,” which is reported, through system generation, to the Anti-Money Laundering Council. The amount has since been increased to P1 million per transaction.
As a matter of practice, bank officials make personal reports to AMLC if they consider a “transaction suspicious.” In the cases of two witnesses, they said the withdrawals were considered “unusual” because the payees wanted the money in cash, though in some other branches, other payees make similar demands.
The presentation of the two witnesses—Camposano and Violeta Constantino, former LandBank-Shaw Boulevard manager—came a week after the trial wrapped up Article IV, which was left hanging in the balance, pending the defense's own presentation of their own witnesses sometime later.
What was clear on the 10th day of the trial was that the defense did not bother to cross-examine the two witnesses. The prosecutor of the day, Manila Rep. Joel Chua, unlike his colleagues in arguing Article IV and II the past weeks, was restrained, limiting himself to the basic credentials.
It gave the senator-judges more time to seize the day, raising questions that elicited answers ranging from “unusual” to “suspicious” transactions, millions of cash tucked in three to four huge gym bags, AMLC prohibitions, and post-mortem evaluation after such “unusual” transactions.
Overall, the trial went on smoothly and finished early, but left the viewers wanting.
There was no friction, except perhaps when Escudero cut short prosecutor Rep. Leila de Lima, who could not resist the temptation of editorializing the extent of the testimony of the two witnesses.
It would have hurt her more if she wasn’t stopped, given that the two witnesses failed to drop an expected bombshell.
Without it, after weeks of heated arguments, of exciting hype, the trial, on its 10th day, felt surprisingly anticlimactic.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.
