The House prosecution panel on Wednesday presented a detailed 13-point offer of testimony for Atty. Michael Wesley T. Poa, seeking to establish why Vice President Sara Z. Duterte appointed a close aide with no direct knowledge of field operations to handle audit queries regarding P112.5 million in Department of Education (DepEd) confidential funds. Private prosecutor Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. introduced Poa as a key witness, highlighting his multi-faceted background under Duterte as DepEd’s former spokesperson, chief of staff, finance officer-in-charge, head of procuring entity, former Office of the Vice President spokesperson and current legal spokesperson and defense counsel.
Opening his presentation, Tolosa described Poa as one of the Vice President’s most trusted aides. The prosecution’s second through fourth points focused on Poa’s lack of direct involvement in spending confidential funds before the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Audit Observation Memoranda (AOM). Despite having no prior participation in field operations, Poa was instructed by Duterte to draft the department’s official audit responses. Tolosa argued that the officials Poa consulted could not offer firsthand information either, noting that former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda directed Poa to then-Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin, while the primary documentation gathered consisted of Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) certifications.
Points five through seven challenged the validity of those explanations, alleging that Poa supplied COA with theories and presumptions despite knowing little about actual ground disbursements. The prosecution noted that the submitted AFP certifications failed to identify an informer, information purchased, reward paid, or successful operation linked to the disbursements, the four essential elements under the Joint Circular governing confidential funds. Tolosa contended that while the certifications verified that military operations occurred, they did not prove DepEd made actual reward payments, recalling that Poa acknowledged there was no direct connection.
The prosecution’s eighth point raised the involvement of Col. Dennis Nolasco, alleging that Fajarda handed confidential funds to Nolasco on Duterte’s instructions, yet Nolasco’s name was omitted from explanations sent to COA and Congress. Point nine alleged that Poa and OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez requested COA to issue a basic audit query rather than a formal AOM. Connective point ten tied the individual actions directly back to the Vice President, with Tolosa arguing in Filipino that while different hands carried out the individual tasks, one principal gave the orders.
Addressing points eleven and twelve, the prosecution challenged the sufficiency of the liquidation despite COA’s issuance of a Credit Notice. Tolosa argued the notice relied on military certifications that failed to trace underlying informers or payments, leaving over P15 million in claimed rewards and the broader P112.5-million fund without a verified paper trail. The thirteenth point reserved the right to examine other relevant matters emerging during testimony.
Defense counsel Atty. Shiela Sison pushed back against the presentation, calling portions of the offer rhetoric aimed at creating drama in the proceedings. Sison clarified that Poa responded to audit queries in his official capacity rather than assuming personal financial responsibility for the P112.5 million. She emphasized that a COA Credit Notice is an official audit document signifying allowed expenditures, disputing claims that it failed to resolve underlying audit issues.
Sison also moved to strike a description used by Tolosa referring to Poa as “ang abogadong walang alam” (the lawyer who knows nothing). Tolosa clarified that the phrase meant Poa had repeatedly disclaimed personal knowledge of how confidential funds were disbursed on the ground, offering an apology if his phrasing offended. Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero ordered the phrase stricken from the record for being discourteous.
When Escudero questioned why prosecutors were calling a witness they claimed lacked firsthand knowledge, Tolosa explained that this was precisely the central issue: understanding why Duterte assigned Poa to handle COA responses rather than the officials who directly handled or received the funds. Following Sison’s confirmation that the defense had not stipulated to the prosecution’s factual offers, Escudero declared Atty. Poa a hostile witness, granting the prosecution permission to ask leading questions during examination.