The House prosecution panel has dismissed the defense team’s explanation regarding “aliases” on confidential fund documents, calling it “too late in the day” after Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp failed to raise the claim in its formal answer to the Articles of Impeachment or in its pretrial brief.
House prosecution spokesperson and private prosecutor Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. questioned the defense’s timing following revelations about mismatched names on acknowledgment receipts (ARs). The receipts were submitted to liquidate P500 million in confidential funds spent by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million spent by the Department of Education (DepEd) during Duterte’s tenure as Education Secretary.
Tolosa pointed out that while the Articles of Impeachment explicitly alleged that numerous names on the ARs lacked corresponding records in the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) database, the defense initially offered no explanation that these names were pseudonyms.
“Pero in their answer, hindi nila sinabing mga aliases lang ito,” (But in their answer, they didn’t say these were just aliases,“) Tolosa said.
He emphasized that the defense also left out the argument from its pretrial brief, the key procedural document where both parties are required to outline their core arguments and legal strategy prior to presenting evidence.
“Even in [their] pretrial briefs, where you’re supposed to lay down ano ba iyong theory mo dito, ano iyong position mo, they also did not assert that these are aliases,” Tolosa added.
The defense team only presented its position during Monday’s trial proceedings, following testimony from PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande detailing the agency’s findings on the names written on the liquidation receipts.
Under questioning from Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros, defense counsel Justin Gular argued that the listed names were operational aliases used to protect classified information, adding that the defense would fully explain the strategy when it begins presenting its own evidence.
The statement prompted an immediate objection from private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia, who argued that procedural rules required the defense to state this position in its official answer or during the pretrial conference.
During her testimony, Grande revealed that 1,287 out of 1,992 names reviewed from the OVP payee list had no matching birth, marriage, or death records with the PSA. Similarly, 398 out of 677 names on the DepEd list yielded no matches in the national database.
Furthermore, Grande testified that among the few names that yielded single matches, several belonged to individuals who were already deceased or were minors, including infants.
“After nating marinig ito na ang mga pangalan sa acknowledgment receipts, iyan ang naging findings ng PSA, doon natin narinig for the first time sa kanila,” Tolosa said, reiterating that the sudden shift in defense strategy comes far too late in the proceedings.
Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero ruled that the defense will be permitted to present evidence supporting its alias argument when its turn comes to present its case. However, Tolosa noted that the prosecution intends to formally object to the introduction of the evidence on the grounds that it was omitted from Duterte’s initial answer and pretrial brief.