MANILA, Philippines – For the first time, a defense counsel of Vice President Sara Duterte confirmed that the unusual names appearing on acknowledgement receipts (ARs) used to liquidate the confidential funds of the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Office of the Vice President (OVP) were aliases.

On Day 22 of Duterte’s impeachment trial, defense lawyer Justine Gular clarified a longstanding question over whether the names listed in the alleged informants’ acknowledgement receipts were real.

“Given that it became a material matter, we have to couch this answer that is classified matter — but these are in fact, aliases, your Honor, for the consideration of this court,” Gular said.

“I hope you understand, your Honor, that in threshing out this matter, having in mind the reminder of the good presiding officer, we will do this at the appropriate time during our presentation of evidence. I will veer away from making conclusion of law or facts, as of the moment,” he added.

Gular made the remarks amid the interjection of Senator Risa Hontiveros, who asked for the record, if the names were aliases. The prosecution, however, objected to this new claim of the defense team.

“It’s a tad too late for the defense to be adopting the position that these are aliases. They were already given the opportunity —  the first time, in the answer, and second, in the pre-trial order,” House private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia said. 

“We are entitled to know what we are working on, the theories of their case. We are at the eleventh hour here,” she added.

This prompted a fresh debate, with lead defense counsel Sheila Sison defending the defense’s move and stressing the burden of proof remains with the prosecutors. 

“Kung gusto natin ng fair trial kailangan muna makita ng taumbayan ang ebidensya na sinasabi ng prosecution at hindi nagre-reklamo sa kung ano ang hindi naipapakita ng depensa precisely because this is not yet the time of the defense to present its evidence or whether we will even present evidence if the proper time comes,” Sison said. 

(If we want a fair trial, the public should see the prosecution’s evidence first and they should not complain that the defense is not stating its position precisely because this is not yet the time of the defense to present its evidence or whether we will even present evidence if the proper time comes.)

Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero later said that the prosecution can state their objection once the defense team presents its arguments. 

During a post-trial press briefing, lead prosecutor Jinky Luistro said regardless of whether the OVP confidential fund recipients used aliases, the issue is about their compliance with government guidelines on confidential spending. 

“It’s not an issue whether the confidential fund receipts contained real names or aliases. The issue is whether or not they complied with the requirements and procedures in the Joint Circular 2015-01,” Luistro said.

Unusual names

Lawmakers have repeatedly questioned Duterte’s list of payees of confidential funds, which included unusual names such as Mary Grace Piattos, Andy Lim, and Antonio Pagong, among others.

During the trial, Senator-judges Bam Aquino and Erwin Tulfo said among the things that should be determined as well is whether there were real people behind the pseudonyms. 

“We really have to establish…ano ba talaga itong pinag-uusapan natin? Totoong tao ba ito na nasa likod lamang itong mga aliases?” Tulfo said. 

(We really have to establish…what are we talking about exactly? Are there real people behind the aliases?)

In a separate media briefing, Gular explained that the defense was reacting to senator-judges’ question and did not intend to disclose the use of aliases during the prosecution’s presentation of PSA statistician Marizza Grande as witness. 

“The only reason it was brought up was because of the inquiry of Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros. It wasn’t timing, it was a matter of what came up with the trial,” he said. 

During the trial, the defense likewise agreed to stipulate on the statement of former DepEd special disbursing officer (SDO) Edward Fajarda that he encashed three checks worth P112.5 million for the October 2023 confidential funds of the Department of Education.

Prosecutors intended to present Fajarda as one of its witnesses for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte, which accuses Duterte of misusing P612.5 million worth of confidential funds of the OVP and DepEd. However, they opted to withdraw the former education official as one of their witnesses in view of his medical condition. 

The Senate impeachment court ordered the recall of the subpoena issued for Fajarda. – with reports from Dwight de Leon/Rappler.com