The Commission on Audit (COA) is studying the possibility of conducting a post-fraud audit of the multimillion-peso confidential funds of Vice President Sara Duterte in view of the “aliases” and odd-sounding names of their supposed recipients in her office and the Department of Education (DepEd).
Xylene Mae del Campo, state auditor of the COA-Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Unit (Icfau), disclosed this on Wednesday, Aug. 12, when she again appeared as a witness before the Senate impeachment court trying Duterte for alleged fraud in the use of confidential funds.
The day before, House prosecutors revealed more familiar and odd-sounding names such as Pia Piattos-Lim, Ralph Josh Bacon, Heart Santiago, and Matthew N. Keso as informants paid by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) or DepEd for their confidential activities. They presented acknowledgment receipts (AR) bearing the names of fund beneficiaries.
“There is a Piattos, a Bacon, Heart, and others. Did you not think that maybe this is a red flag?” Senator-judge Bam Aquino asked Del Campo, who audited the confidential funds of the OVP and DepEd, at the resumption of her testimony on Wednesday.
The state auditor reiterated that the names or aliases of the supposed recipients were unvalidated because they were only undertaking a compliance audit, or relying on the documentary evidence submitted to them to liquidate the funds.
“We presumed regularity here because there is a certification under oath by the special disbursing officer that this was used for the confidential operations of the agency, and these are necessary and for legal purposes the spending of the confidential funds,” Del Campo said.
Trigger of COA probe
Aquino then told the witness that his lawyers had inquired about this matter from former COA commissioner Heidi Mendoza, who said that “if there are unusual names,” the state audit agency can “trigger an investigation because of fraud.”
“On the fraud audit, its possibility is being studied. It’s being studied if a post-audit will be conducted,” Del Campo said. “This is the first time, and the documents, the transactions involving the OVP and DepEd contain voluminous documents with sensitive information that if it were to be given to another office, this would cause exposure.”
She said the possibility of a COA post-audit of Duterte’s confidential funds is now being studied by the agency’s chairperson.
When Aquino asked Del Campo whether the use of aliases is fraudulent or illegal, she said this was “silent” in COA Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which governs how confidential and intelligence funds are used, spent, and handled across the government.
“But what is being safeguarded here is that the funds are given to a real person and used for the right confidential expenses,” she said.
On Aquino’s question of whether confidential funds pocketed by some people are considered fraudulent, she replied in the affirmative. The senator-judge also mentioned Republic Act. No. 6085, which prohibits the use of aliases.
Documents in COA vault
Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson said auditors can go to COA’s vault to look into classified details and supporting documents of transactions kept there “if circumstances so demand.”
“If you encounter many aliases and you harbor doubts, isn’t it natural and logical to inspect the vault to see if real people are behind the aliases?” Lacson asked the witness.
Citing Paragraph 4.15.2 of the joint circular, the senator-judge said documentary evidence of payment is kept in a sealed envelope in the vault in the office of the special disbursing officer (SDO).
He said details and supporting documents of classified transactions are kept in the COA vault, “which may be inspected by Icfau if circumstances so demand.” He added: “Do circumstances not demand that you inspect the vault because there were so many aliases?”
In her cross-examination of Del Campo, defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer took up the House prosecutors’ presentation on Tuesday of select “funny” names in the ARs submitted by the OVP and DepEd to COA.
“If the name appears to be funny, does that automatically mean the name is fictitious?” Ferrer asked the state auditor.
Ferrer vs Kapunan
House private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan cut in, saying Ferrer’s question was “misleading.” She explained that “the point of flashing these ARs was not the names; the names were incidental, not that the names were funny or fruit-saladly.”
“It’s immaterial,” Kapunan said. “They were flashed because of the manner by which the funds were used.”
This prompted Senate presiding officer Francis Escudero to tell Kapunan: “You have to admit you had fun with these names.” The lawyer replied: “We had so much fun, your honor.”
As Ferrer repeated her question on whether these funny names meant they were fictitious, Kapunan said the defense lawyer’s use of fictitious in describing the recipients’ names was her own conclusion, not the prosecution’s.
But Escudero reminded Kapunan that the prosecution alluded to some of these names being fictitious after submitting a Philippine Statistics Authority report to the impeachment court.
“Attorney Kapunan, give her (Ferrer) the share of fun on the names,” Escudero told the House private prosecutor.
Replying to Ferrer, Del Campo said she could not say whether the aliases were real names.
Escudero asked the witness whether these funny names were not mentioned in the two notices of disallowance or an audit observation memorandum issued by COA. She replied in the negative.
Use of aliases
Del Campo also told Ferrer that the use of aliases in confidential funds was “neither allowed nor prohibited.”
Wednesday’s impeachment trial saw Kapunan tangling with Ferrer on several occasions throughout the day.
At the start of the trial, Kapunan repeatedly told Escudero that prosecutors have a “continuing objection to the defense panel’s use of unidentified or unauthenticated” documents during their cross-examination of Del Campo.
Ferrer had been asking the state auditor about the turnover of documents on the audit of confidential funds of the OVP and DepEd to her by state auditor Roderick Wamil, who was reassigned from Icfau to COA-Pasay.
“The counsel cannot dictate how I proceed with my cross-examination,” she told Kapunan on her objection to the use of defense documents.
Kapunan had also questioned Ferrer’s “line of questioning,” including one where they briefly clashed. She told Ferrer that “not all questions were answerable with a yes or no,” after the defense lawyer asked Del Campo whether she knew that one of the purposes of intelligence gathering was crime prevention.
“I am on cross,” Ferrer told Kapunan, who clipped back, “It does not matter if you are on cross. Misleading questions are not allowed.”
“They are,” Ferrer replied.
Escudero then stepped in to quell the tension. “Counsel, let’s not allow the generational divide, or the seeming generational divide, to increase the tension in the courtroom. Let’s keep the tone much lower,” he told them.
Kapunan responded: “I’m preventing myself from giving her a spanking.”
Escudero then reminded both lawyers that they are all members of the bar and should treat each other equally.
“I promised to henceforth behave,” Kapunan told the court. Ferrer replied that she has “high respect” for Kapunan, but Escudero stopped her from saying anything more.
“Let’s end here. It might sound like a eulogy, Your Honor. I’m still very much alive,” Kapunan said.
Side comments
At the resumption of the trial after an hour-long lunch break, Ferrer took to the floor to make a manifestation, which Escudero allowed.
“I want to ask this court not to allow side comments, such as ‘I was about to spank her, and I was about to lecture her,’ because this is out of order in the courtroom,” Ferrer said.
“We are all lawyers here; we are all professionals. Let’s respect each other,” she added.
Ferrer said these side comments were caught by the media.
Kapunan said she did put it on the record to “behave.” CS
Read more: More odd-sounding names of Duterte secret fund ‘recipients’ listed
