THE testimony of two former Land Bank of the Philippines (LandBank) managers independently matched significant details from Ramil Madriaga’s earlier account of how part of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s confidential funds was handled.
House trial spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong of Lanao del Sur pointed to similarities involving the date of the transaction, the containers used for the cash and the number of bags described by the witnesses.
“Of course yes, kasi ‘yung pagpresenta hindi naman magkakilala ‘yung dalawang bank managers at saka si Madriaga. Pero may pagkakapare-pareho ‘yung sinasabi nila,” Adiong stressed.
Madriaga testified during the House Committee on Justice proceedings in April about the alleged distribution of P125 million on Dec. 20, 2022, after cash was placed in four bags and brought out of the OVP.
“Yung description nung nilagyan ng pera, ‘yung ano yung bag, ilang bag ang nilagyan, at saka ‘yung date na pinag-releasesan nitong cheque na ito may kakapagkakapareho,” Adiong noted.
Adiong argued that the matching details carried weight because the two retired bank managers and Madriaga had no apparent relationship that would explain a coordinated account.
“I don’t think this is a made-up story agreed by these three individuals. So it would definitely give credence and credibility to the testimony of Madriaga,” Adiong emphasized.
House prosecutor Lorenz Defensor of Iloilo separately maintained that each piece of prosecution evidence must connect naturally with the rest of the record rather than stand alone.
“We can say that evidence should corroborate itself ganun sa prosecution without delving on the merits. Pero dapat nagtutugma naman lahat as far as we are concerned,” Defensor explained.
Luistro likewise observed that the testimony received by the Impeachment Court was consistent with details placed on record during the earlier Justice Committee proceedings.
“Well, without dwelling on the trial kanina, if the question pertains only on the question of consistency, I think it was re-emphasized na ‘yung testimony kanina is somehow consistent to the testimony during the time of the Justice proceeding. That is without dwelling on the trial kanina,” Luistro noted.
Madriaga remains among the prosecution’s listed witnesses under Article 1, although the panel has not made a final decision on when or whether to call every person included in its pretrial submission.
“Ramil Madriaga is part of the names of the witnesses we submitted to the impeachment court in support of Article 1 confidential fund, like any other witnesses who are included in that list, their presentation will really depend on the exigency of the trial,” Luistro explained.
Adiong clarified that the prosecution can point out corroborating details, but the final assessment of Madriaga’s competence and credibility belongs to the senator-judges.
“But as to your question whether he is a credible witness, that is already beyond I think, it’s no longer, yeah, it’s already beyond, yes, that is already beyond the judgment of the House Prosecution Panel because the one that can actually determine whether one is competent or not is the impeachment court,” Adiong maintained.
metrosundaily
