THE House prosecution panel will seek an Office of the Ombudsman investigation into allegations that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte received more than P2 billion in cash-filled suitcases even if the new claims may no longer be included in her ongoing impeachment trial.
“We will probably seek the intervention of the appropriate agency. In this case, this is the Ombudsman, who has to conduct the investigation and file the necessary charges if it merits the filing of such charges against the respondent,” former Surigao del Norte Rep. Ace Barbers,
House prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson, said in an interview on Bilyonaryo Channel’s Agenda Weekend Saturday evening.
Barbers said the allegations are relevant and deserved the same serious scrutiny given to accusations made against the administration and its allies, while stressing that an investigation would also give those implicated an opportunity to clear their names.
“So, ito ay hindi dapat i-ignore, at ito ay dapat imbestigahan mabuti, palaliman ang imbestigasyon nang sa ganoon lumabas ang katotohanan,” Barbers stressed.
“In fairness, doon sa mga inaakusahan, kapag lumabas ang katotohanan, eh, mapapawalang-sala at mapapawalang-duda ang ating mga kababayan dito sa ating inaakusahan,” he added.
Police Corporal Rodulfo Gracioso Jr., who claimed to have served as former Speaker Lord Allan Velasco’s head of security, alleged that he delivered cash-filled suitcases to Duterte more than 20 times on Velasco’s orders, with the total amount allegedly exceeding P2 billion.
Gracioso also alleged delivering money to former President Rodrigo Duterte and his son Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is already examining his sworn affidavit and the information he provided to investigators.
The Vice President has denied knowing Gracioso or receiving money from him, saying her lawyers are awaiting an official copy of his affidavit from the National Bureau of Investigation in preparation for legal action against him.
Barbers said Gracioso’s claim to have worked for a former House leader known to have had close ties with the Duterte family has made the allegations worthy of examination rather than outright dismissal.
“Pangalawa, ito ay galing mismo doon sa information na ito ay galing mismo doon sa pinagkakatiwalaang tao ng dating Speaker ng House of Representatives na alam po ng ating mga mamamayan na malapit na malapit sa Duterte family,” Barbers said.
He categorically denied that the House prosecution panel had anything to do with Gracioso’s emergence, saying prosecutors would have pursued the information much earlier had it been available to them.
“Naku, wala. Wala tayong ganyan. Sana kung meron tayong ganyang nalalaman noon pa eh, dapat nailabas na rin ’yan at naisama ’yan dito sa mga Articles of Impeachment, o isa sa mga napupuntuhin natin dito sa Article of Impeachment,” Barbers stressed.
“Dahil nga ito ay ngayon lang lumabas, dahil siguro merong witness na lumantad at nakonsensya, at gustong sabihin ito, at gusto niyang paimbestigahan ito,” he added.
Barbers acknowledged, however, that the allegation may no longer be introduced as additional evidence under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment because the issues to be litigated were already defined during the pre-trial conference and incorporated into the impeachment court’s trial order.
“Ang tinatalakay sa impeachment court ay ’yung napag-usapan dito sa impeachment pre-trial conference, at meron na pong trial order galing sa clerk of court, at ito ay mahalaga dahil ito ang magbibigay order doon sa pagtalakay ng mga isyu,” Barbers explained.
“Dahil ito ay hindi naisama doon sa mga allegations na inihayag ng ating prosecution panel, maaaring hindi na ito mapag-usapan,” he said.
Barbers nevertheless maintained that exclusion from the impeachment trial would not prevent the proper government agencies from independently investigating the allegation.
“Ngunit, it doesn’t mean that the government must ignore this issue, because it is a very important issue,” he stressed.
The prosecution spokesperson also rejected suggestions from Duterte’s allies that the timing of Gracioso’s disclosure, while prosecutors are presenting their unexplained wealth case, indicated that the allegation had been orchestrated to influence the trial.
“Hindi naman natin puwedeng turuan siya kung kailan niya dapat ilabas ito. Siguro nakita niya na panahon na ilabas niya ito, dahil siguro nababagabag siya ng kanyang konsensya, kung kaya’t nilabas niya ito,” Barbers explained.
“It doesn’t necessarily follow that kung lumabas ito sa panahon na merong impeachment, ito ay ginawa ng prosecution. I don’t see any logic behind that,” he added.
Barbers said government investigators should act on potentially relevant information regardless of whether it surfaces before, during or after the impeachment proceedings.
“Whatever information lumabas, whether before, during, or after the impeachment trial, eh, dapat bigyang-halaga ito ng ating mga ahensya ng gobyerno na in-charge dito sa ganitong mga klaseng issue,” he stressed.
As the prosecution continues presentation of Article II, Barbers confirmed that prosecutors have also formally asked the impeachment court to subpoena former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV over matters connected with Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth.
“Yes, we filed a request to issue a subpoena for former Senator Trillanes. Of course, sa Lunes, malalaman natin ’yan kung kailan ilalabas itong subpoena kay Senator Trillanes ng ating impeachment court,” Barbers disclosed.
The prosecution earlier manifested that it wanted Trillanes to testify under Article II concerning Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth and the alleged receipt or acquisition of funds from persons or sources identified in evidence presented before the court.
Barbers also said Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte had already been subpoenaed to testify but had yet to inform prosecutors whether he would comply.
“Last week, the subpoena was already issued, and he has not given any word whether he will attend or he will ignore the subpoena,” Barbers said.
The impeachment court ordered Mayor Duterte to appear from Sept. 28 to 30 as prosecutors examine Gencorp Industries Inc., a company that Vice President Duterte declared as a financial interest and which secured contracts with the Davao City government.
Barbers said the impeachment court has the power to exercise its contempt powers if the mayor disregards its lawful order.
“Meron pong contempt powers ang ating impeachment court na bahala na po ang impeachment court diyan kung ano ang kanilang aksyon after the person ignores a subpoena, that is a lawful order coming from the impeachment court,” he explained.
metrosundaily
