By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s perjury complaint against Ramil Madriaga has been dismissed by the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office, which found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a criminal case.
In its 19-page resolution released Thursday, the prosecutor’s office said Duterte’s evidence failed to establish, with reasonable certainty of conviction, that Madriaga knowingly and willfully made materially false statements under oath.
The complaint was filed after Madriaga submitted an affidavit to the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that he delivered large sums of money to various individuals on Duterte’s instructions.
Madriaga also claimed that Duterte directed him to organize ISIP (Inday Sara Is My President) Pilipinas for her planned 2022 presidential campaign. He further alleged that the group received funding from Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators and individuals allegedly involved in the illegal drug trade.
Duterte has repeatedly denied the allegations, saying she had no personal or professional dealings with Madriaga. She also rejected his claim that he acted as her “bagman” or courier for diverted confidential funds.
Duterte initially filed the perjury complaint in March. In August, she lodged another complaint against Madriaga before the same prosecutor’s office, submitting roughly 1,000 pages of documents that her camp said demonstrated what it described as his deliberate falsehoods.
The prosecutors, however, concluded that the evidence on record did not establish the elements necessary to support the perjury charge under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
“Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence,” the resolution stated.
Duterte’s camp had not issued a response to the dismissal at the time of publication.
Madriaga’s lawyer, Atty. Mark Anthony Te, described the ruling as an “important vindication” of his client’s position.
Te said the resolution reinforced the principle that legal disputes should be settled through a fair assessment of evidence rather than personalities or political influence.
“Power does not have the final word. Evidence does. The law does,” Te said.
ia/xf
