IN BRIEF: Witnesses examined over OVP, DepEd's 'unusual' bank transactions on Day 10 of Duterte impeachment trial

De Lima's opening statement cut short; remarks stricken from record

House prosecutor Rep. Leila De Lima opened by questioning whether Duterte remained worthy of the public’s trust in light of the allegations against her, arguing that the case should ultimately be decided based on the evidence presented during the trial.

“This is not about one missing receipt. This is not about a clerical error or accounting mistake," she stressed. "The evidence will reveal a pattern—a systemic course of conduct—that, taken as a whole, demonstrates graft and corruption, as well as betrayal of public trust."

"When the Filipino people entrusted their money to Vice President Sara Duterte, was that trust honored? That question will not be answered by politics, by general denials, by press releases. It should be answered by the witnesses, by the documents, by audit, and by the evidence. The prosecution is ready to present it," she said.

Defense counsel Michael Poa objected, pointing out that De Lima was making factual conclusions that had yet to be established through evidence.

Presiding officer, senator-judge Chiz Escudero sustained the objection and ordered the disputed remarks stricken from the record. Shortly after, the defense raised another series of objections, prompting Escudero to halt her remarks. 

Witness: OVP's P500M cash withdrawals 'unusual'

Violeta Constantino—who worked at LandBank for 32 years and served as department manager of its Shaw Boulevard branch from May 2017 until her retirement in January 2024—testified that she oversaw the branch's daily operations, including withdrawals, deposits, and administrative functions. 

During questioning by senator-judge Erwin Tulfo, she was asked whether she had encountered another government agency withdrawing a similarly large amount of cash, to which Constantino replied, “Wala po. Unusual po ito." She added, "Kaya naging unusual kasi cash siyang kinukuha. Sa other [government agencies], nag-i-issue sila ng mga tseke—'yung disbursement nila by checks; hindi cash."

Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros later asked Constantino when a cash withdrawal would be considered unusual for a client. “Let’s say kung over P500,000 na po siya,” Constantino answered. She explained that whether a transaction was unusual depended on a client's transaction history, but acknowledged that the OVP withdrawal was the largest cash transaction her branch had ever handled.

According to Constantino, the P125 million in cash was packed into about four gym bags and wheeled out of the LandBank branch on a trolley, without an armored vehicle. She noted the bank did not arrange armored transport because it had no agreement covering cash delivery services.

Cayetano: Unusual doesn't mean illegal

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano pointed out that an unusual transaction is not necessarily illegal.

To illustrate his point, he recalled his time as Foreign Affairs secretary when the department had to urgently withdraw P50 million or P100 million to assist overseas Filipino workers stranded by a major storm after the president asked government agencies to identify how they could help.

Cayetano said the LandBank branch initially did not have enough cash on hand, prompting him to call the bank's president to facilitate the release of the funds. He maintained that an unusually large cash withdrawal, by itself, should not be equated with wrongdoing.

"So my point is, just because it's unusual, it doesn't mean it's illegal or whatever," he said.

Witness: Ex-DepEd official left via fire exit after P112.5M withdrawals

Former LandBank DepEd branch manager Nenita Camposano testified that then-DepEd Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda encashed three P37.5 million checks at the branch on Feb. 22, April 26, and July 13, 2023.

Camposano detailed that DepEd Chief Administrative Officer Sonia De Leon would first call the bank to reserve the cash, after which the request would be relayed to LandBank's cash center as the branch didn't normally keep such large amounts on hand. Once the cash was ready, Camposano would notify De Leon, who would then instruct Fajarda to proceed to the branch. There, his identity would be verified before the money was released to him in the backroom. “Ilalagay na po 'yun (cash encashment) ni Mr. Fajarda sa dala niyang bag at lalabas na sila sa fire exit sa may backdoor namin. Paglabas po nila sa fire exit, hindi na po namin sila nakikita.”

During his interjection, senator-judge Raffy Tulfo grilled Camposano about how they were able to release the cash to Fajarda despite having no endorsement from DepEd. "Wala? So walang dokumentong isinumite na dine-designate si Fajarda ng head ng agency na 'yan para sabihin na ito ang SDO, ito ang magiging ka-transaksyon niyo? Wala? Laway lang?" he asked. Camposano explained that Fajarda introduced himself as the payee and presented an identification.

During the brief cross-examination, defense counsel Atty. Michael Poa asked Camposano why Fajarda left through the bank's fire exit. “Lumabas po siya sa fire exit dahil ang LandBank ay nakadikit sa DepEd compound, hindi po ba? Lumabas siya dahil safer, dahil nasa loob na siya ng DepEd, tama po ba?” Poa asked. Camposano agreed.

'Unusual' vs. 'suspicious'

Senator-judge Ping Lacson delved more into the terms "unusual" and "suspicious" as he pointed out that the Anti-Money Laundering Act only recognizes the term "suspicious transaction."

"Pagka ang covered transaction, automatic pong nakareport siya as covered transaction in excess of P500,000. Sa suspicious transaction po, parang nagkaroon po tayo ng doubt, 'di ba? Then, inimbestigahan po natin at 'yun pong sa investigation natin ay hindi siya pumasa. Suspicious pa rin po siya. So that's when kami magre-report a suspicious transaction," Camposano explained.

Lacson reiterated that there is "no middle layer" under the law. "Ibig sabihin, 'pag above the threshold tapos covered institution, like casinos, real estate, automatic i-report 'yun kasi covered institution. Ngayon, ordinary depositor, pumunta sa bangko, nag-deposit o nag-withdraw ng more than P500,000, that's above the threshold, it becomes a covered transaction."

"So wala hong kaduda-duda. Suspicious lang. Wala 'yung middle. It's either you categorize it into covered or suspicious. Huwag na natin pag-usapan 'yung unusual—either kaduda-duda lang or covered," he added.

The House prosecution panel requested the issuance of subpoenas for Roderick Wamil, former state auditor of the Commission on Audit Internal Control and Fraud Audit Office; Xylene del Campo, state auditor of the COA ICFAO; and Marivic Pareja, director of the House Legislative Information Resources Management Department. They are scheduled to testify as witnesses on Aug. 3, 4, and 5, respectively.

The impeachment court adjourned on July 29 at 1:44 p.m. and will resume proceedings on Aug. 3 at 10 a.m.

Duterte impeachment trial

Duterte is facing a total of four impeachment complaints. The first complaint was filed by a coalition of various organizations on Feb. 2 but was set aside for violating the one-year bar rule. The second was filed on Feb. 9, but was withdrawn to consolidate support for the third complaint.

The third complaint, backed by ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, charged Duterte with culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, plunder or malversation, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

The fourth complaint, endorsed by House Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega and Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante, similarly alleged constitutional violations, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other impeachable offenses.

The Senate impeachment court has approved a 92-day trial as of writing. Sixty-two trial dates have been set for House of Representatives prosecutors and 30 for Duterte's defense team, according to a 14-page Pre-Trial Order obtained by The Philippine STAR.

The articles of impeachment are being presented in the following order: fourth article, first article, third article, and second article.

If the Senate impeachment court finds her guilty of the charges, Duterte will be removed from her current post and permanently barred from holding public office.