August 5, 2026

Atty. Roderick C. Wamil, Commission on Audit team leader and prosecution witness, testified that COA sought official receipts or sales invoices as proof of purchases, that acknowledgement receipts alone did not establish what was purchased, and that the audit process moved from AOM to notice of suspension to notice of disallowance and potentially referral to the Ombudsman.

Mr. Wamil testified that COA's compliance audit focused on the face of acknowledgement receipts, payment dates, and amounts under Joint Circular 2015-01.

Cylene May L. Del Campo, Commission on Audit state auditor and prosecution witness, testified that she continued the audit of OVP and Department of Education liquidation documents after Mr. Wamil left and was asked to identify the tabulation and acknowledgement receipts associated with December 21-31, 2022.

The record described 845 acknowledgement receipts for December 21–31, 2022, while the exhibit range ran from P-1-8-1 through P-1-8-848. The defense disputed whether the list and copies matched the materials presented.

The Lascañas material consisted of P-4-35, P-4-35A, and P-4-35B, described by the chair as portions of a purported affidavit of Arturo Lascañas. The chair stated that the transfer did not cure the document's asserted defects and that its contents remained hearsay and could not prove the truth of its allegations.

The judicial-notice materials were House legislative hearings, transcripts, official audiovisual recordings, and a committee report. The court took judicial notice only of their specified existence and official-record character, not their substantive contents or truth.

The court called the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte to order, and Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro entered the prosecution's appearance.

The chair reminded Atty. Roderick C. Wamil that he was continuing under the same oath, then opened the proceeding to senator-judge questions and interjections.

In response to senator-judge questions, Mr. Wamil described the distinction between confidential and intelligence funds under Joint Circular 2015-01, documentary payment support, the COA notice sequence, and possible Ombudsman referral.

Senator-judge questions focused on the 845 acknowledgement receipts and related observations; later, the prosecution presented the same receipt count and period through its next COA witness.

The prosecution presented Cylene May L. Del Campo as a COA state auditor who continued the audit of OVP and Department of Education liquidation documents after Mr. Wamil left.

The court then considered the receipt dispute, the requested transfer of markings for portions of the purported Arturo Lascañas affidavit, and judicial notice before scheduling further witnesses.

The court directed the parties to set a mutually agreed time and appear before the Clerk of Court to compare separately marked acknowledgement receipts and identify which were the same or different. No party was compelled to stipulate to any receipt or its authenticity; the court also allowed additional time to review ten documents for a possible stipulation.

The chair denied an objection to transferring markings for P-4-35, P-4-35A, and P-4-35B, but ruled that the transfer was only a mechanical and ministerial recordkeeping act. It did not decide authenticity, admissibility, weight, or truth, and the purported Arturo Lascañas affidavit's stated defects and hearsay status remained available for later objection.

The chair granted judicial notice only as to the factual existence of House hearings held under the official functions of the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability and the Committee on Justice, and the existence of their transcripts, official audiovisual recordings, and committee report.

The chair ruled that judicial notice did not establish the truth of statements, factual allegations, or committee findings. The records remained subject to proof, objection, authentication, hearsay and relevance rules, formal offer, and the respondent's opportunity to confront the evidence.

The chair directed that subpoenas issue for the prosecution witnesses identified for the following week and reminded counsel to provide proposed stipulation documents to opposing counsel in advance.

The court directed the Clerk to compare banks’ digital and printed subpoena submissions against their indices, ordered Del Campo to return on August 10, and directed subpoenas for identified future witnesses.

The Chair directed that an opinion be supplied by the witness rather than counsel during the examination.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked how COA's audits of the OVP compared with other agencies' confidential funds. The COA witness said each agency's use followed its own mandate and that the submitted documents did not show whether listed names were aliases. Tulfo then pursued the OVP disallowance and recovery, but the witness said she had left the office before its issuance and lacked personal knowledge. Turning to the claimed national-security concern, Tulfo asked why receipts for ordinary purchases needed to be concealed; the witness said COA required proof of purchase, noted that the cited older circular had been repealed, and agreed that receipts for snacks, shampoo, or vinegar would not jeopardize security.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether the Joint Circular required real identities for OVP intelligence-fund recipients, including entries such as Mary Grace Piatos and Mickey Mouse; Atty. Roderick C. Wamil said it was silent. Tulfo also asked about audit timing and a potential Ombudsman referral; Wamil said compliance reviews rest on submitted liquidations, each agency's spending is audited when it liquidates, and an Ombudsman referral requires a final order and noncompliance. He said he no longer knew that case's status after leaving IGPO. Tulfo later flagged a 2026 acknowledgement receipt for a 2022 expenditure; Wamil said COA had included misdated receipts in its notice of suspension. On reported PHP 2 million-a-day safe-house costs, Wamil said the documents did not reveal how many safe houses were involved and COA had not sought justification because the circular set no amount threshold. He confirmed that the review was document-based, not physical, and that the OVP was unusual in declining COA's first AOM.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian examined whether the six OVP audit observation memoranda for missing payment evidence had been cured. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil said only the OVP's fourth-quarter 2022 response had reached him with payment documents, consisting of acknowledgement receipts shown in the hearing. Gatchalian pressed whether COA validated recipients or could identify aliases from the records; Wamil said the compliance audit compared the face of receipts with Joint Circular requirements and could establish neither. On rewards listed as medicine or various goods, Wamil said the records indicated in-kind delivery and the Circular did not prescribe a payment method if its requirements were met. Gatchalian later asked what showed reward payments had produced successful intelligence or surveillance. Wamil said certifications had to establish a causal link between the informer's information and a successful activity; an OVP certification reporting no untoward incidents did not do so. He said the agency had to demonstrate that link in its audit documents.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked whether COA sampled transactions or examined every submitted document, including how an acknowledgement receipt could document a purchase of information. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil said every submitted document was evaluated and that acknowledgement receipts could be used for information purchases. He described the audit as document-based rather than independently verified, said he prepared the initial work but a division chief reviewed it, and said the issued AOM matched his draft in substance. Villanueva also asked whether special disbursing officers were the only accountable officers under the Joint Circular. Wamil said the head of agency also had duties to approve cash advances, oversee use, and ensure compliance. Asked about meetings with COA, the physical and financial plan, and allowable expenses, Wamil said a meeting was not improper; plans must identify specific programs, activities, and projects; later explanation could cure a deficiency but had not in the OVP case; and compliance turns on supporting documents and the Circular's exclusive allowable-expense list.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked why official receipts or sales invoices are needed beyond acknowledgement receipts for public confidential funds. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil said they prove a claimed purchase occurred; the only OVP payment evidence he had encountered was its fourth-quarter 2022 response, consisting of acknowledgement receipts. On reward payments, he said neither the OVP nor the DepEd documents he evaluated supplied evidence of success. Hontiveros also asked about the Joint Circular's presumption of misappropriation, the definition of an accountable officer, whether agencies exhaust their allocations, and available audit remedies. Wamil confirmed the Circular's provisions; named the disbursing officer, accountant, treasurer, project officer, and agency head, with the head primarily and immediately responsible for agency funds; said some agencies return unused balances while the 2022 and early-2023 records he audited showed funds spent; and described the AOM, notice-of-suspension, and notice-of-disallowance stages. Asked about rewards without evidence of success, including medicine, Wamil said missing proof meant noncompliance and COA could not verify recipients. He said that form of payment was abnormal, and that COA had not examined recipients' illnesses or why intelligence information was required.

Sen. Imee Marcos asked whether COA's audit notices had found the OVP acknowledgement receipts forged, the recipient names fictitious, or the documents otherwise false. The COA witness said the compliance audit made no findings on those points because they were outside its focus. Marcos then asked whether a Notice of Disallowance could still reach the Supreme Court; the witness said a petition would not suspend the obligation to restitute, although review for grave abuse remained available. She also asked whether COA had found personal use of confidential funds. The witness said the Joint Circular supplied a prima facie presumption of personal use or benefit rather than a direct finding using that language.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III asked how many of the 845 acknowledgement receipts had COA observations for missing supporting documents and what amount those observations covered. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil could not give the exact count without tabulating the receipts, but later put the observations at about PHP75 million of the approximately PHP125 million total. Sotto also proposed replacing the term "confidential funds" with "restricted" or "non-public" funds, saying "confidential" suggested intelligence work and was susceptible to abuse. Wamil said the terminology was for the Commission on Audit and that he was not authorized to give an opinion.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked how COA distinguishes a documentary or administrative deficiency from conduct warranting criminal action in confidential-fund audits. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil said an AOM or Notice of Suspension calls for documents, while a Notice of Disallowance creates a restitution obligation; failure to liquidate gives rise to a prima facie presumption of misuse or misappropriation. Asked when the matter could be criminally referred, Wamil said COA may endorse it to the Ombudsman only after a final Commission Proper decision is not complied with.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino challenged the view that confidential funds are secret and unregulated, pressing Atty. Roderick C. Wamil on the 2015 rules and the records used to audit them. Wamil distinguished confidential funds for civilian agencies from intelligence funds for uniformed and intelligence personnel; said an official receipt substantiates a purchase, whereas an acknowledgement receipt records payment and is audited only from its face; and said purchases required official receipts. On aliases and OVP contact, Wamil said the Circular is silent, a document-based audit cannot establish whether a name is an alias though it expects a real name, and he recalled no OVP dealings before the AOM. He said an AOM permits correction, whereas a Notice of Disallowance requires accountable officers to restitute; lacking personal knowledge of the OVP notice, he knew only from news reports that its fourth-quarter 2022 amount was PHP125 million.

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan asked whether the Joint Circular's official-receipt or sales-invoice requirement was enforced across the confidential-fund audits Atty. Roderick C. Wamil had conducted. Wamil said it was. Pangilinan focused on the OVP's December 21–31, 2022 liquidation, which Wamil said had only acknowledgement receipts and no official receipts or sales invoices. Wamil said other agencies did submit official receipts and that, in nearly 10 years of such audits, this was the first all-acknowledgement-receipt submission he had encountered. Pangilinan finally asked whether those receipts established claimed medicine purchases; Wamil said they did not.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla probed Atty. Roderick C. Wamil's exposure to remote communities and insurgency threats while questioning his review of confidential funds; Wamil said he knew of the threats from the news but had no basis for measuring their severity. Padilla pressed whether COA's work was an investigation and whether an Audit Observation Memorandum was final. Wamil called the work an evaluation and the AOM a preliminary step, not a conclusion. Padilla also asked whether confidential agents should identify themselves and what "confidential" meant; Wamil declined to give a personal opinion. Padilla linked three PHP125 million confidential-fund checks to upcoming CPP-NPA and NDF anniversaries, saying no attack occurred on those dates, and asked whether confidential funds and agents had played a major role. Wamil said their role depended on the agency's mandate. Padilla also advanced his view that the Department of Education supplied a political wing from universities; Wamil declined to answer.

Sen. Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito asked how the Joint Circular protects confidential informants' identities, suggesting aliases be used. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil said the Circular is silent on alias use; COA reviews the documents submitted and cannot identify an alias not recorded as one. Ejercito then asked whether the OVP's records showed coordination with law-enforcement agencies and whether its absence was an audit finding. Wamil said the submitted documents showed none, but COA had made no finding on that point. Ejercito also asked whether the audit showed the Vice President personally received or benefited from the funds. Wamil said he had no document-based evidence or personal knowledge. Asked whether that evidence determined legal liability, Wamil pointed to the head of agency's duties to oversee the funds and ensure compliance, which made the officeholder accountable; he said his testimony was based on audit findings identifying accountable persons in COA issuances.

Sen. Panfilo "Ping" M. Lacson asked whether aliases were practically necessary in confidential and intelligence operations, and whether COA had tried to identify the people behind them after declassification. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil said its document-based compliance audit did not go beyond submissions. Lacson said that left the process incomplete and urged amendment of the Joint Circular, then pressed what could establish a successful surveillance or intelligence operation. Wamil said the Circular specifies no particular document: auditors look for a causal link between a successful activity and an informer's information, so even an after-surveillance or intelligence report would have to show that link.

Sen. Juan Miguel "Migz" F. Zubiri asked whether COA's findings pointed to risks of misuse in confidential funds across government, not only at the OVP but also other agencies and local governments. Atty. Roderick C. Wamil agreed that the funds remained public and subject to strict accounting and auditing rules. Zubiri asked whether the OVP records contained the plans and detailed accounting he had seen in other agencies' confidential-fund reports. Wamil said the audit relied on submitted documents, incomplete or noncompliant liquidation created a presumption, and the OVP papers were not comparably detailed. Zubiri urged curbs on confidential and intelligence funds beyond the OVP; Wamil said the safeguards were inadequate.

The prosecution's COA evidence was presented on the theory that confidential-fund expenditures required documentary support, including official receipts or sales invoices, and that acknowledgement receipts alone did not allow COA to say that the underlying purchases were medicines or other claimed goods.

During questioning, the record identified six audit observation memoranda involving non-submission of documentary evidence of payment. Mr. Wamil testified that, among the AOMs he issued, the fourth-quarter 2022 OVP response was the one he encountered with documentary payment evidence.

The prosecution described the materials as covering 845 acknowledgement receipts for December 21-31, 2022, while the cited exhibit range runs from P-1-8-1 through P-1-8-848; the count-to-exhibit-range discrepancy remained unresolved.

The prosecution sought a conference to transfer the P-4-35 series markings concerning portions of the purported Arturo Lascañas affidavit and sought judicial notice of the existence and official character of specified House hearings and records.

Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer argued that the receipt presentation was unreliable because Mr. Wamil's list was unsigned and undated, the witness was turning pages without comparing the receipts to the list, and the folders were not marked as prosecution exhibits.

The defense declined to stipulate to the acknowledgement receipts, arguing that OVP and DepEd no longer controlled them after submission to COA, that the receipts were not common exhibits adopted by the defense, and that the prosecution copies had not been compared with defense copies.

The defense opposed judicial notice because the matters were disputed, the respondent needed cross-examination, the recordings and transcripts required authentication and completeness review, and the House Committee on Justice proceedings had been challenged before the Supreme Court as an unauthorized mini-trial or fishing expedition.

The defense maintained that the receipt dispute concerned chain of custody and the identity of the documents submitted to COA, and that it could not determine whether the prosecution's receipts were identical to its copies.

After initially declining to stipulate, the defense agreed to a comparison provided it was not compelled to stipulate to authenticity and the parties mutually set the time. The Chair accepted those terms and directed the comparison.

Wamil said: "Kung sinabit po sana sa amin yung official receipt po or sales invoice, masasabi po sana namin. Pero since AR lang po ay sinabmit, hindi po namin masasabi."

The Chair said: "The marking, identification, or authentication of a document does not mean that the document has been formally offered or admitted."

The Chair said: "Nothing else is judicially admitted or established."

The record does not resolve whether the prosecution's 845 acknowledgement receipts are identical to defense copies, whether the unsigned and undated list accurately corresponds to them, or whether the receipt folders were properly marked and preserved through the chain of custody.

The testimony did not finally establish from acknowledgement receipts alone whether the claimed purchases were medicines or other claimed goods, because Mr. Wamil said COA could not make that determination without official receipts or sales invoices.

The evidentiary status and truth of the purported Arturo Lascañas affidavit remained unresolved. The chair allowed marking transfer only for recordkeeping and preserved objections to authenticity, admissibility, weight, hearsay, and the document's stated defects.

The court stated that judicial notice did not establish the truth of statements, factual allegations, or committee findings from the House proceedings; those matters remained for proof, objection, and evaluation at the proper time.

Further testimony and document work remained pending, including Cylene May L. Del Campo's ordered return and additional prosecution witnesses Marivic Pareja, Gina S. Acosta, and Edward D. Fajarda scheduled for the following week. The packet does not resolve the later outcome.