By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo questioned Monday the use of apparently identical signatures and handwriting on acknowledgment receipts for confidential funds, saying the documents raised serious concerns in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Tulfo raised the issue after the prosecution presented Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande as its 11th witness for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment.
Grande testified on the identities of individuals named in acknowledgment receipts used to liquidate a combined P612.5 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
Some names in the documents were unusual and matched PSA records for individuals who were only one year old in 2023, including Miko Alquizar and Beatrice Cuenca.
Tulfo said the use of aliases by confidential informants could be understandable, particularly when identities must be protected.
“Makakalusot pa sa akin ‘yun bang gagamit ng alias,” he said, noting that informants may use assumed names for security reasons.
What concerned him, however, was the apparent similarity of signatures and handwriting on several receipts.
“Pero ‘yung bang pirma ng bawat, ng ilang mga informants po doon, pare-pareho, tapos ‘yung handwriting, ‘yung pagfi-fill up ng mga pangalan doon, pare-pareho, ibig sabihin iisang tao lang. So ‘yun ay very questionable for me,” Tulfo said.
He questioned why the individuals behind the signatures had not been identified.
Prosecution lawyer Mae Divinagracia said the prosecution had limited time to locate the people named in the documents.
Tulfo also cited receipts bearing names such as “Pagong” and “Pusa,” saying the signatures and handwriting appeared similar.
Divinagracia argued that if the names were aliases, the defense should have identified them as such in its answer to the impeachment complaint.
She said the prosecution had the names checked against PSA records because the defense had not indicated that the listed individuals were using aliases.
Defense lawyer Justin Gular countered that the Commission on Audit’s findings on the confidential funds did not identify the payees or raise the use of aliases as an issue.
“There was nothing to respond to,” Gular said.
He maintained that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the allegations in the impeachment complaint.
“Your Honor, 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,” Gular said.
“If they are now claiming that these are aliases, the burden is with them, not with the defense,” he added.
Tulfo also called for the testimony of Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco, saying they could help establish the identities behind the names appearing on the receipts.
Lachica and Nolasco were identified by the Special Disbursing Officers of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education as the security officers who “implemented” the confidential funds.
Their testimony could provide the impeachment court with additional evidence as it examines the names, signatures and documents used to account for the P612.5 million in confidential funds.
ia/xf
