By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — Senator Rodante Marcoleta told the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that the PHP75 million he received from three donors in 2025 became part of his personal funds and was not intended for campaign use, a Comelec official testified Thursday before the Sandiganbayan.
Atty. Victoria Kadeja Besinio of the Comelec Political Finance and Affairs Department, a prosecution witness, disclosed during the first day of the hearing on Marcoleta’s petition for bail before the Sandiganbayan Third Division.
Besinio said Marcoleta stated in his verified position paper that he received the funds in his personal capacity and that the money was not earmarked or restricted for campaign purposes.
“Concerning his verified position paper, Senator Marcoleta said that those funds were received by him in his personal capacity, and so they became part of his personal funds,” Besinio testified during questioning by Associate Justice Ronald Moreno.
She said Marcoleta also maintained that the funds were received before the campaign period and were not intended for campaign expenses.
Besinio, however, told the court that the Comelec itself had not made a determination on the nature of the PHP75 million received by Marcoleta.
The amount is at the center of the plunder case filed against Marcoleta and three individuals identified as the donors: former Anakalusugan party-list Representative Michael Defensor, Joseph Espiritu, and Aristotle Viray.
Prosecutors allege that the PHP75 million represented undeclared campaign donations. The four respondents are also facing separate charges under Presidential Decree 46, which penalizes public officials who receive gifts.
Marcoleta was an incumbent Sagip party-list representative when he received the money.
At the start of the hearing, Moreno also rejected repeated assertions from Marcoleta’s defense that the plunder case was based on an invalid criminal information.
The defense had raised the issue while asking the Sandiganbayan to defer the implementation of a 90-day suspension order against Marcoleta in connection with the case.
Moreno pointed out that the court had already determined that probable cause existed and had consequently issued a warrant for Marcoleta’s arrest.
“If there is no valid information, how come the court found that probable cause exists, thus the issuance of a warrant of arrest [against Marcoleta]? Otherwise, we would have dismissed the case outright,” Moreno said.
The justice added that the court would have been required to dismiss the case if no probable cause existed.
Marcoleta’s lawyers clarified that their argument was not simply about the sufficiency of the allegations but about the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over the matter.
They maintained that the issue falls under the authority of the Comelec.
Moreno, however, noted that Marcoleta’s camp had also argued in its motion seeking to block the suspension order and dismiss the case that the allegations made by the Office of the Ombudsman did not constitute the offense of plunder.
The testimony came as the Sandiganbayan began hearing Marcoleta’s bid for bail in the PHP75 million plunder case.
ia/xf
