By el Amigo
MANILA — A prosecution lawyer on Tuesday questioned the credibility of records showing that Department of Education (DepEd) confidential funds were allegedly distributed in several parts of the country on the same day, saying such a feat would require almost “Superman” capabilities.
Atty Lorna Kapunan raised the issue during the Senate impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte as she presented acknowledgement receipts documenting various confidential fund transactions.
Kapunan asked Commission on Audit-Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office auditor Xylene Del Campo whether a single Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) could have personally reached numerous destinations in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao within one day.
Kapunan used Superman as an illustration, drawing an objection from the defense, which argued that the question was speculative.
She defended the analogy, pointing out that the fictional superhero could fly from one place to another within a day.
Presiding senator-judge Francis Escudero allowed the prosecution to proceed, saying the basic point was clear: it would be physically difficult, if not impossible, for one person to personally make payments in geographically distant locations on the same date.
Escudero also recalled previous testimony indicating that the funds may have been handed over to another security officer.
Receipts cover several provinces
Kapunan presented three groups of acknowledgement receipts dated Feb. 21, Feb. 25 and March 15, 2023, as part of the prosecution’s examination of the reported liquidation of PHP112.5 million in confidential and intelligence funds allocated to DepEd that year.
The receipts covered transactions in various locations, including Danao, Malolos, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Masbate, Laoag City, Davao City, Agusan del Norte, Olongapo and Pangasinan.
Some of the amounts listed in the documents ranged from PHP45,000 to PHP200,000, with several transactions appearing to have occurred on the same date.
Del Campo told the impeachment court that the documents were relevant because they appeared to show payments to different alleged informants in separate locations within a single day.
She also cited government rules governing the handling of confidential and intelligence funds.
According to Del Campo, a 2015 joint circular issued by the Commission on Audit, Department of Budget and Management and other agencies provides that the designated SDO is responsible for distributing such funds.
She said Fajarda was the only person designated as SDO at DepEd during the period when Duterte served as education secretary.
The auditor likewise affirmed earlier testimony that the head of an agency bears primary responsibility for the proper utilization of confidential funds.
Question of proper liquidation
The issue of who actually delivered the money also surfaced during the proceedings.
Del Campo testified that Edard Fajarda had acknowledged during a House inquiry that he turned over confidential fund cash advances to Col. Dennis Nolasco, a member of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.
Escudero earlier referred to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica in discussing the turnover of funds. Lachica had previously figured in testimony concerning confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President.
The differing references to the security officers involved may require further clarification as the trial continues.
Meanwhile, House prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers said the evidence presented before the Senate raised serious questions about the liquidation of confidential funds from both DepEd and the OVP.
Barbers said the proceedings should focus on whether the records accurately represented the actual movement and use of government money.
He stressed that confidential funds remain public funds and must comply with auditing and documentation requirements.
“If the liquidation documents indicate that a lone Special Disbursement Officer personally made all those disbursements on the same day, then those records naturally invite closer scrutiny,” Barbers said.
He added that the impeachment court would ultimately determine whether the questioned transactions were properly documented and whether the funds were used for legitimate and authorized purposes.
The prosecution maintains that the testimony of auditors and the acknowledgement receipts presented in the proceedings warrant closer examination of the confidential fund liquidation.
elamigo/xf
