Prosecutor: 'Unusual' confi fund cash withdrawals just an 'appetizer' of evidence vs. VP Sara

The testimony of two former LandBank officials who described the withdrawals of hundreds of millions in cash by personnel under the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education under Vice President Sara Duterte as "unusual" is just an appetizer of the evidence that the prosecution have against the Vice President, House prosecutor Lorenz Defensor said.

Defensor was referring to the statements of prosecution witnesses Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano, who were bank managers of LandBank's Shaw Boulevard and DepEd Pasig branches, respectively, who described the huge amount of cash withdrawals—by the OVP and by DepEd, when Duterte was its Secretary—as unusual transactions, given that such huge amounts are usually disbursed via checks, not via cash withdrawals.

The cash withdrawal of the OVP’s confidential funds happened four times, with P125 million withdrawn each time, while the cash withdrawal of the DepEd’s confidential funds also happened four times, with P37.5 million withdrawn each time.

“Ang 'unusual' ay appetizer pa lang. And 'unusual' is the perfect start for the prosecution pagdating sa confidential funds. We will let the evidence lead the court to a finding of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution in the coming trial days,” Defensor said in a press conference.

(This is just the appetizer. And the unusual [nature of the cash withdrawal] is the perfect start for the prosecution in building our case on misuse of confidential funds.)

“Sa palagay namin, mahusay na simula ito,” Defensor added.

(We think this is an excellent start for us.)

Public funds disbursed

House lead prosecutor and Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro, for her part, said the bank officials established that public funds were released to the personnel under the jurisdiction of the Vice President namely OVP Special Disbursement Officer (SDO) Gina Acosta and DepEd SDO Edward Fajarda.

“Well, if we listen to the purposes of testimony of these witnesses, there was no mention of these transactions being suspicious or covered transaction [worth P500,000 above]. It is clear that the only purpose of the testimony is to establish the fact that these funds came from the National Treasury, that it was downloaded to the two agencies, and were withdrawn in cash by payees who apparently represent those agencies [under the Vice President,” Luistro said.

“I would say there will be a significant discussion about the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as well as the circumstances when a transaction becomes suspicious and when the transaction is covered when we present our evidence for the Article of Impeachment on amassing unexplained wealth,” Luistro added. — BM, GMA News