House prosecutor and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua has challenged the defense panel of Vice President Sara Duterte to produce “Mary Grace Piattos” during the impeachment proceedings, saying the move could resolve lingering questions surrounding alleged confidential fund disbursements.
Chua said the appearance of the name in official documents tied to Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential funds makes it a material point in the case, and one that the defense should be able to clarify if the individual truly exists.
“Mary Grace Piattos” surfaced in acknowledgment receipts linked to confidential fund utilization under the OVP. However, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) earlier reported that it found no birth record under the name, fueling doubts about the identity of the alleged recipient.
Chua said the prosecution has listed “Mary Grace Piattos” as a witness, noting that the case hinges on whether the individual is real or fictitious.
“Material witness po ‘yan, lalong-lalo na sa confidential funds. Kung lumutang siya, puwede naming ma-cross examine. Kung hindi, ibig sabihin bogus siya,” Chua said in an interview.
He added that the prosecution intends to observe whether anyone claiming to be Mary Grace Piattos will come forward during the trial.
“Titingnan natin kung may lulutang na Mary Grace Piattos,” he said.
Chua dismissed possible objections from the defense regarding the inclusion of the name in the witness list, arguing instead that it originated from documents submitted during the inquiry.
“Bakit nila kukwestyunin? Nandoon siya sa listahan ng recipients. Kung hindi nila ma-produce, then it raises questions,” he said.
He also rejected suggestions that the name could simply be a placeholder or code name, saying such claims must be backed by identification of the actual person involved.
“Eh di ilabas nila kung sino talaga ‘yan. That’s the only way to settle this issue once and for all,” he said.
Chua added that the prosecution would even welcome the defense listing “Mary Grace Piattos” as a witness, saying it could help clarify the controversy.
“That’s good for us. At least common witness, and we can all examine who that is,” he said.