MANILA, Philippines — While she refused to confirm if confidential payment recipient Mary Grace Piattos was among the 57 witnesses to be presented by the prosecution panel, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said that such an inclusion may be significant in proving allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte.
In an online interview on Thursday, Luistro, who is the lead public prosecutor for Duterte’s impeachment trial, said that it would be better to wait for the pre-trial order (PTO) to confirm if the prosecution indeed listed Mary Grace Piattos as among its witnesses, and if the Senate Impeachment Court allows this.
Luistro said this after reports came out on Thursday that the prosecution asked several individuals mentioned during congressional inquiries in the alleged misuse of confidential funds (CF) within Duterte’s offices, like Piattos and Office of the Vice President (OVP) chief-of-staff, Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez.
READ: Luistro: Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial could run past September
“If ever she was included, if ever only, because we do not want to dwell on the witnesses to be presented, I am sure that it will be significant in proving the prosecution’s case. If ever only Mary Grace Piattos is included,” Luistro told reporters covering the House of Representatives.
“But let’s wait for the issuance of the PTO,” she added.
When asked how significant the witness would be, Luistro said that the House committee on good government and public accountability investigated the alleged CF misuse, and Piattos was one of the signatories to acknowledgement receipts (ARs).
ARs are documents submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA) to prove that funding for projects reached its intended beneficiaries, which in this case, payments for the information shared by confidential informants.
Many lawmakers believe Piattos and other names who signed the ARs are fictitious personalities since the names did not exist in the Philippine Statistics Authority’s live birth, marriage, and death database.
“Well, you remember that one of the findings of the committee on good government and public accountability is (that) the recipients are fictitious personalities? So, possible to dwell on that,” she noted.
Copies of the prosecution’s pre-trial brief shared by sources to reporters showed that for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, or the allegations of CF misuse, the prosecution listed 27 witnesses, including Lopez and Piattos.
Lopez will be asked, the prosecution said, to take the witness stand so that she can “prove that respondent misused and misappropriated confidential funds” while Piattos will be asked to “testify on their alleged receipt of confidential funds.”
Aside from the two, the following individuals were also submitted by the prosecution as their potential witness:
- former Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman: to testify on respondent’s requests for OVP and DepEd (Department of Education) of CFs and the release of such funds;
- Edward Fajarda: To testify on the withdrawal, turnover, liquidation, and control by respondent over DepEd’s CFs;
- Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and Lt. Col. Dennis Nolasco: To testify on the receipt and utilization of CFs;
- Atty. Reynold Munsayac: To testify on Madriaga’s allegations regarding the delivery of OVP CFs at Nommu Basho; and
- Lt. Col. Manaros Boransing II/ Lt. Col. Magtangol Panopio/ Lt. Col. Carlos Sangdaan, Jr. / Maj. Gen. Adonis Bajao/ AFP representatives: To prove that the Youth Leadership Summit/Information and Education Campaign or YLS/IEC activities were funded by the Philippine Army and the concerned local government or LGs for student-participants, and that no funds from the Department of Education were used in any of these activities.
Michael Poa, Duterte’s lawyer for the impeachment, was also listed as a witness, with the prosecution listing him so that he can “testify on the DepEd’s responses to COA audit findings and his procurement and submission of supporting documents despite having no personal knowledge of confidential fund expenditures.”
Most of the individuals mentioned as witnesses for Article I were the same individuals invited by the House committee on good government and public accountability during the 19th Congress, when the panel started investigating Duterte and her offices for alleged CF misuse.
At one point in the committee on good government hearings, former Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop noticed that a certain Mary Grace Piattos — a name similar to a restaurant and a potato chip brand — signed on the ARs.
Later on, Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong showed two ARs — one for the OVP and another for DepEd — which were both received by a certain Kokoy Villamin. However, the signatures and handwriting used by Villamin in the two documents differed.
READ: House probe: OVP, DepEd CFs received by same man, different signatures
The Philippine Statistics Authority eventually informed the committee that Piattos and Villamin’s names were also not found inside their live birth, marriage, or death database. /das
