August 5, 2026

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 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.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo questioned whether Atty. Pua's prior discussion with COA about the audit query created a conflict in representing the respondent.

Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero observed that the named respondent was Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte and that the lawyer discussed by Sen. Tulfo was not a named respondent, then stated that he saw no conflict on that basis.

Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino challenged the assumption that confidential funds were unrestricted and emphasized that rules and regulations governed their use.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III questioned whether the 845 acknowledgement receipts were the full set at issue and asked how many observations resulted from missing supporting documents.

Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero questioned the distinction between a notice of suspension and a demand, and clarified that the final disallowance amount could differ from an earlier amount.

The chair proposed one further opportunity to compare the parties' copies of the 845 acknowledgement receipts before the Clerk of Court, while making clear that the respondent was not required to stipulate.

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.

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 receipt dispute concerned materials described 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 defense disputed the list, comparison process, exhibit status, custody, and identity of the copies 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.

“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 marking, identification, or authentication of a document does not mean that the document has been formally offered or admitted.”

“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 judicial-notice ruling did not resolve the truth of allegations, statements, or committee findings from the House proceedings. Those matters remained subject to proof, objection, authentication, formal offer, and independent evaluation.

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.