Manila: The use of aliases in confidential fund transactions triggered a fresh dispute Monday over who carries the burden of proof in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, shortly before the impeachment court broke for lunch.
According to Philippines News Agency, the exchange came after Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo said some of the names appearing in acknowledgment receipts could have been aliases used to protect confidential informants, but questioned the identical signatures and handwriting appearing across different entries. House private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia said the prosecution treated the names as those of actual supposed payees because the defense had never claimed in its answer or during pretrial that aliases were used. 'If such was the fact, Your Honor, then the defense should have at the earliest opportunity already indicated that in their answer. But they never did, Your Honor,' Divinagracia said.
She said the prosecution therefore proceeded on the theory that the names in the receipts were real and sought verification from the Philippine Statistics Authority. Divinagracia cited the articles of impeachment, which alleged that 398 of 677 names appearing in Department of Education (DepEd) receipts and 1,287 of 1,992 names in Office of the Vice President (OVP) receipts could not be verified in civil registry records. She argued that if the defense now maintains that the names were aliases, that explanation should have been raised earlier.
Defense counsel Justin Nicol Dular rejected the argument, saying the findings of the Commission on Audit did not flag the use of aliases as an irregularity and therefore gave the defense no reason to address the issue at that stage. 'The fact remains at this point of the proceedings, and even at the time the articles of impeachment was filed, is that the prosecution had the burden of proof to explain and prove every allegation,' Dular said. 'If they are now claiming that these are aliases, the burden is with them. Not with the defense,' he added.
Presiding officer Francis 'Chiz' Escudero noted that the defense had denied the allegations in the impeachment complaint, saying the matter was effectively placed in issue. Tulfo, meanwhile, said the possible use of aliases did not by itself surprise him as unusual, noting that law enforcement and intelligence agencies also use aliases to protect informants. 'Makakalusot pa sa akin yung bang gagamit ng alias. Kasi nga naman, syempre, as an informant, especially giving intelligence information or confidential information, siguro allowed sila na gumamit ng alias (I could still accept the use of aliases because, as informants giving intelligence or confidential information, they may be allowed to use aliases) to protect their identity,' Tulfo said.
He said what remained 'very questionable' for him was the apparent similarity in signatures and handwriting across different supposed recipients. 'Pero yung bang pirma ng ilang mga informants po doon. pare-pareho. Tapos yung handwriting, yung pag-fill up ng mga pangalan doon, pare-pareho. Ibig sabihin, isang tao lang ang nag-fill up nun (But the signatures of several supposed informants were the same. The handwriting used to fill out the names was also the same. That means one person filled them out),' Tulfo said.
Tulfo also said Col. Raymund Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco should be called before the impeachment court to clarify how the names and acknowledgment receipts for the OVP and DepEd confidential funds were prepared. 'For me, it's really important na mapatawag dito yung Lachica at saka yung counterpart ng Lachica sa DepEd para sila talaga yung may kinalaman doon sa pagbibigay ng mga pangalan na 'yan (that Lachica and his counterpart in DepEd be called here because they were directly involved in providing those names),' Tulfo said. He said their testimony could help determine who actually prepared the receipts and explain why several entries appeared to bear similar handwriting and signatures.
The House prosecution had announced earlier that it was dropping Lachica and Nolasco, along with former Duterte aide Ramil Madriaga, from its witness list after concluding that testimony and evidence already presented were sufficient to establish its allegations of misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of PHP612.5 million in confidential funds. Lachica had been linked to the handling of OVP confidential funds after former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that she turned over four PHP125-million tranches, or PHP500 million, to him upon Duterte's instruction. Nolasco, meanwhile, was linked to the DepEd confidential funds after former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda testified during the House proceedings that he turned over three PHP37.5-million releases, totaling PHP112.5 million, to Nolasco, also allegedly upon Duterte's instruction.
Dispute deferred
The Senate impeachment court later ruled that the issue may be raised once the defense begins presenting its case. Escudero made the ruling after Divinagracia argued that it was already too late for the defense to suggest that names appearing in questioned acknowledgment receipts could be aliases. Divinagracia said the defense had opportunities to disclose such a position in its answer and during pretrial, when both sides were expected to define their respective theories. 'We're already at the 11th hour, Your Honor,' she said, arguing that the prosecution is also entitled to due process and to know the case it is being asked to confront.
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison countered that the prosecution must first discharge its burden of proof before the defense can be required to reveal its strategy. 'Until the prosecution hurdles that burden, then the defense may even remain silent,' Sison said. She added that the prosecution is still presenting its case and that the defense has yet to reach the stage where it must decide whether to present evidence at all.
Escudero sided with the defense on the timing of the dispute, saying the prosecution may raise its objection if the defense later introduces the alias theory during its evidence in chief. 'That may be a proper subject matter... for you to object to, whatever the defense will do during the presentation of their evidence in chief,' Escudero told Divinagracia. He said the court cannot compel the defense at this stage to disclose either its evidence or its theory of the case. The alias issue surfaced as senator-judges continued examining whether names appearing in acknowledgment receipts used to liquidate confidential funds corresponded to actual individuals or were aliases allegedly used to protect their identities.
