August 12, 2026

COA state auditor Cylene May L. Del Campo testified that COA's work was a compliance audit. She said the audit found reward payments unsupported by documents, sought receipts and sales invoices for purchases of supplies and medical and food aid, and treated reimbursement before a cash advance as a Joint Circular violation.

Del Campo said auditors checked whether acknowledgement receipts supported the activities accomplishment report and noted that the Joint Circular referred to documents evidencing payment.

She said the 2022 transaction's notice of disallowance had been affirmed by the Commission Proper, while a motion for reconsideration remained pending; she also said the 2023 OVP notice remained within the period to appeal and described separate DepEd matters as under review and evaluation.

Del Campo said her office and the COA chairperson were studying whether a Fraud Audit Office referral was necessary.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero resumed the proceedings by calling the COA auditor back to continue her testimony.

During cross-examination, Del Campo described the audit's compliance concerns about rewards, purchase documentation, and reimbursements.

The court ended the witness's examination, heard a prosecution request to reissue subpoenas for upcoming trial dates, and adjourned until August 17 at 10 a.m.

Escudero directed that competing acknowledgement receipts be submitted to the Clerk of Court for comparison and reserved the question of whether they would be formally offered in evidence.

The presiding officer allowed defense counsel to present a document while noting prosecution counsel's continuing objection.

Escudero ended the current questioning round for time. He declined to act on the defense's Rule 18 manifestation at that time and said the court would hear counsel before issuing a ruling on August 17.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked whether the OVP supplied evidence for the activities reflected in protective-intelligence reports and for claimed medical and food purchases.

Sen. Manuel "Lito" M. Lapid asked what COA treated as compliance questions under the Joint Circular and whether a notice of disallowance could be cured by later supporting documents.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino asked whether unusual names appearing in the records, including food-related names, were red flags.

Sen. Imee Marcos sought confirmation that there was no official fraud finding as of that point for either DepEd or the OVP.

Private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan asked that the witness identify and authenticate the parties' documents before the Clerk of Court, in the presence of both sides.

Kapunan questioned the documentation and coordination supporting the claimed confidential-fund activities.

Prosecution counsel Antonio Eduardo B. Capistrano requested reissuance of subpoenas for listed witnesses on the next trial dates.

Defense counsel Kristine R. Ferrer challenged the audit process, emphasizing that no notice of suspension had been issued for the first three quarters and questioning whether the OVP had an opportunity to comment on COA's supposed findings.

Ferrer asked whether a confidential expense could be allowed or disallowed in full or in part, and whether disallowance reflected incomplete compliance with the Joint Circular's documentary requirements.

The defense theory on the acknowledgement receipts questioned their chain of custody and asked that competing copies be compared.

Del Campo said: "may mga nakita po doon na hindi compliant with the Joint Circular po."

Del Campo said a fraud-audit referral was "pinag-aaralan din po kung kinakailangan."

The court reserved the formal evidentiary treatment of the competing acknowledgement receipts after the Clerk of Court's comparison.

The 2022 matter still had a pending motion for reconsideration, the 2023 OVP matter remained appealable, and COA was still studying whether a Fraud Audit Office referral was necessary.