September 2, 2026

The sergeant at arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the impeachment court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator-Judge Bam Aquino.

Lumalapit po kami sa inyo upang hingin ang inyong gabay sa pagtupad ng aming tungkulin. Pagkalooban niyo po kami ng malinaw na pag-iisip, bukas na kalooban, at madapat na puso upang hanapin at kilalani ng katotohanan ng walang takot o pagkiling. Sa gitna ng magkakaibang pananaw at paninindigan, tulungan niyo po kaming manatiling magalang sa isa't isa at magkaisa sa paghangad ng katotohanan. Ilayun niyo po kami sa galit, pansariling hangarin, at anumang maaaring humadlang sa makatarungan at makabuluhang pananaw. Pagkalooban niyo po kami ng lakas ng loob, na panindigan ng tama,

ng

karunungang timbangin ang bawat ebedensya, at ng pusong laging inuuna ang kapakanan ng sambayan ng Pilipino. Ito po ang taimtim naming panalangin. Sangalan ng Ama, ng Anak, at ng Espiritu Santo. Amen.

The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Roll call of members. Senator-Judge Aquino, Senator-Judge Cayetano, Alan, Senator-Judge Cayetano, Pia, Senator-Judge Dela Rosa, Senator-Judge Ejercito, Senator-Judge Estrada, Senator-Judge Go, Senator-Judge Hontiveros, Senator-Judge Lacson, Senator-Judge Lapid, Senator-Judge Legarda, Senator-Judge Marcoleta. Senator-Judge Marcos, Senator-Judge Padilla, Senator-Judge Pangilinan, Senator-Judge Sotto III, Senator-Judge Tulfo, Erwin, Senator-Judge Tulfo, Raffy, Senator-Judge Villanueva, Senator-Judge Villar, Camille, Senator-Judge Villar, Mark, senator-judge Zubiri, the presiding officer, senator-judge Escudero, the senate president, senator-judge Gatchalian.

With

17 senator-judges present, the chair declares the presence of a quorum.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, the Chair now recognizes the duly elected Presiding Officer to preside over the proceedings of the Impeachment Court.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. If there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading of the September 1, 2026 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, and shall consider the same as approved.

The Clerk will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

Case number 004-2026 in the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

Appearances of the parties.

Good morning, Your Honor. Same appearance for the public prosecutors. We're ready. For the respondent.

Good morning, Your Honor. Same appearance for the respondent accused.

Good morning, counsels. Today, you will present who again, Honorable Chua?

Attorney Michael Poa, Your Honor.

Okay, who will be handling the direct examination, Honorable Chua?

Your Honor, may we request Attorney Benjamin Tolosa, counsel for the public prosecutor, to be recognized for the presentation of our next witness, Your Honor.

Attorney Benjamin Tolosa. Junior. Junior is recognized. On the part of the respondent?

I will stand for defense, Your Honor. Thank you.

Attorney Sheila.

Good morning, Your Honors.

Good morning. Call your witness, counsel.

Just for formality, Your Honor, appearances, I'm Attorney Benjamin [unclear] Tolosa Jr., respectfully appearing as counsel for the prosecutors under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutors. We're ready to proceed with the examination of Attorney Michael Wesley Poa, Your Honor.

So you're one of the counsel for the panel of prosecutors?

That is correct, Your Honor.

The clerk will kindly situate Attorney Poa to the witness stand.

The clerk is directed to administer the oath.

Please raise your right hand. You, Michael Wesley Poa, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

Yes, I do, Your Honor.

Attorney Poa, I guess you heard about the Chair's ruling yesterday with respect to bringing devices with you?

That's correct, Your Honor, and I do not have any device with me, Your Honor.

Thank you, Attorney Poa. Subsequently, the Clerk is kindly instructed to discuss this matter with the witness while he or she is in the holding area so as not to waste the Court's time on this issue or matter. Attorney Tolosa, your offer?

Yes, Your Honor.

We are offering the testimony of Attorney Michael Wesley T. Poa to qualify him. as a hostile witness and to prove the following. Number one, he is one of the vice president's most trusted men. Spokesperson, chief of staff, OIC ng finance, at head of the procuring entity ng DepEd. Naging spokesperson ng OVP at ngayon, defense counsel at legal spokesperson sa mismong impeachment na ito. Number two, He answered for 112.5 million pesos he knew absolutely nothing about. Sabi niya mismo, sa ilalim ng panunumpa, bago dumating ang mga AOM, wala siyang kaalaman o partisipasyon sa paggamit ng 125.5 milyong confidential funds ng Department of Education. 112.5 million.

Ang

tanging nakakaalam, ang vicepresidente, at si SDO Farda. Number three, the vice president chose him, the man who knew nothing to answer the auditors. Sa kabila noon, siyang inatasa ng vice presidenteng sumagot sa COA. Hindi ang SDO, hindi ang nagdisberse ng pera, hindi ang tumanggap ng pera, ang abogadong walang alam. Number four, his sources knew nothing either. Nilapitan niya si Fajarda. Itunuru siya kay Yusec Mempin. Inamin naman ni Mempin na wala siyang alam. Ang tanging nakalap, mga certifications mula sa AFP. Mula sa mga opisyal na walang alam sa mga umano'y impormante sa rewards o sa pondo ng DepEd. Number five, he gave COA mere theories and presumptions dressed as facts. Aminado siyang hindi niya alam kung paano ginastos ang pera. Sariling teorya at presumption lamang ang basihan niya ng gamitin ng mga AFP certification para patunayan ang payment of rewards. The certifications prove none of what the Joint Circular requires. Walang impormante, walang impormasyong binili, walang reward na ibinayad, walang matagumpay na operasyon, walang apat na hinihingi ng Joint Circular. Reward? Informer, information, successful operation. Number seven. He admitted it himself. There's no connection at all. Number eight.

The cash trail led to a name he never once mentioned, Nolasco. Sa utos ng vicepresidente, ibinigay ni SDO Fajarda ang pera kay Colonel Dennis Nolasco. Ngunit sa lahat ng paliwanag ni Atty. Poa, sa COA at sa Kongreso, niminsan hindi lumitaw ang pangalan ni Nolasco. Number nine, he tried to soften the audit itself. Kasama ni Atty. Zuleika Lopez, Chief of Staff ng OVP. Hiniling niya sa COA ICFAU na huwag AOM ang ipadala. Audit query na lamang. Number 10. Different hands carried out the steps. One principal directed them all. Ang vice-presidente ang nagtalaga sa lahat ng opisyal na sangkot. Ang nag-utos kay Atty. Poa na sumagot sa mga AOM at ang mga nag-utos na ibigay ang pera kay Nolasco. Iba-iba ang gumanap. iisa ang nagutos. Number 11, the credit notice cured nothing. Nakalagay ito sa mga certification na walang pinatutunayan. Ang ebidensyang tahasang hinihingi ng Joint Circular 2015-01 hindi kailanman na ipakita. Kaya't nananatiling hindi maayos na liquidate ang more than 15 million pesos. Number 12, in the end, nothing was proven and no one could say where the money went. but every road leads to the Vice President. Sa dulo ng lahat, mga certification o walang pinatutunayan, mga teoryong walang batayan, mga pangalang itinago. Walang napatunayan at walang nakapagpaliwanag kung saan napunta ang more than 112.5 million. Ang tiyak lamang ay ito. Ang humingi ng pondo, ang nagtalaga ng bawat humawak nito, ang nag-utos na ibigay ang pera nito kay Nalasko, At ayon mismo, kay Atty. Poa, isa sa dalawang tao lamang may alam sa paggamit nito, iisang tao lamang. Wala nang iba kung hindi ang vice-presidente. Finally, number 13, such other matters as may be relevant to the instance. Please, Your Honor.

Comment, Your Honor.

Yes, Atty. Sheila.

Quite frankly, Your Honor, I don't know if the 13-point offer of the counsel deserves any reasonable comment considering that they sound really just rhetoric aimed to provide drama in this proceeding. But nonetheless, Your Honor, these are some of the comments that I have to the offer of the Council. As to the offer that the witness is one of the most trusted men, of the Vice President and that he answered for. That was the precise terminologies stated by the counsel for 112.5 million. This is quite misleading, Your Honor. In fact... The use of answered for appears to be— Your

Honor, excuse

me. I am not going to finish your

honor.

I

allowed

the

counsel to

finish

his 13-point offer, so I would ask the same courtesy to allow me to finish, Your Honor. I

submit, Your Honor. Thank

you. So this answered for 112.5 million is quite misleading and appears to be a deliberate use to imply or insinuate that the witness was made to provide just mere excuses to the auditors. In fact, if what he meant was to reply to the audit observation memorandum, that is different from answered for 112.5 million. And I think that's quite clear. And also, Your Honor, I don't think that... To include in the offer a statement that said, Ang abogadong walang alam is proper. Whether here or outside the court, whether we are trying an impeachment case or we're just talking to one another as fellow members of the bar. And I will even have to ask the court to strike this off the record.

Can

I respond already, Your Honor, or

we're not yet

done? No, I'm not yet done.

Allow her to finish, counsel. Even I know

she's

Not yet finished.

I submit, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor. Also, Your Honor, the rest of the offer that says cash led to a name he never once mentioned tried to soften the audit itself. Different hands carried out the steps. One principal directed them all. and the credit notice cured nothing when the documents themselves and as the prosecution had stipulated yesterday and an information that we can find from the official website of the commission and audit itself that the credit notice is an official document of the commission and audit issued to inform the agency that it has audited the funds and it has cleared those funds in audit or the expenditures in audit and therefore this credit This offer as to the credit notice, curing nothing, that's obviously a conclusion. And every road leads to the VP, obviously a rhetoric, but we nonetheless will subject all offer to cross-examination. Subject, of course, Your Honor, to my request to strike off the statement that abogadong walang alam. I mean, this witness. Even while he has an obligation to answer relevant questions in this trial, he also has, under the rules, Rule 132, certain rights. And one of those rights is to be protected from irrelevant, improper, and insulting questions. And not only that, also to be protected from harsh or insulting demeanor. Thank you, Your Honor. May

I

respond quickly, Your Honor?

Noted, Attorney Sheila. Before the Chair recognizes Attorney Tolosa, we are checking the TSN before the Chair rules on the matter. Yes, Attorney Tolosa, your comment.

For something that does not deserve a comment, that's quite a lengthy comment. But anyway, first of all, Attorney Poa, I hope you understand. There was never any intention on my part to insult you in any way. We have to take this in context. When I said, abogadong walang alam, what I meant was, in Congress, he repeatedly said he knew totally nothing about the use and liquidation of the confidential funds. Context is very important. But nonetheless, if I offended you in any way, sir, I'm very sorry for that. That's not my intention.

Very quickly,

Your Honor.

Your Honor.

Allow

Attorney Tolosa to

finish.

Yes, Your Honor, I will. Yes. And

just to make

this matter very clear, we've heard this from the defense with all due respect every time, either by way of objection or manifestation that the offer constitutes conclusions of fact or law. But let us be very clear. Witnesses may only testify on facts, cannot give conclusions of fact or law, but All types of evidence, either testimonial or documentary, are precisely offered for that purpose, to prove a point of fact or law. So there's nothing objectionable about that. So please, Your Honor, let's not belabor this point. With all due respect, let us proceed with the examination of Atty. Poa.

In a while, Atty. Tolosa. Atty. Sheila, yes.

Just a very quick reply, Your Honor. As to the point on the excuse given for the statement,

has in his vocabulary other terms for abogadong walang alam. If that was his explanation, he could have simply said that the witness has no personal knowledge and that would have been more respectful and more apt if that was the intention as he had said. Number two, as to his complaint about the comments of the defense to the offer every time that the prosecution will state their offer before the presentation of their witness that it was you know offered to prove some fact or evidence precisely. The offer must be geared for that purpose to prove a fact and not as a conclusion and not any speculation. That's all, Your Honor. Thank you.

Chair will make a ruling. Chair hereby orders that the phrase abogadong walang alam be stricken off the record. Chair finds it discourteous to say the least. Thank you, Your Honor.

used in relation to a fellow lawyer, especially. Before I allow Attorney Tolosa to continue, just to save on the court's time, Attorney Tolosa, 3, 4, 5,

7, 10 of

your offer all say that Attorney Poa knows nothing.

Why are we asking him to testify on things he does not know about?

That's precisely the reason I want him to testify, Your Honor. Why is it that the Vice President passed one of his trusted aides to respond to the AOMs issued by the COA when he confessed that he knew nothing about it? That is very material.

You're equating knew nothing with having personal knowledge.

About how...

Yes, knew nothing, had no personal knowledge about how the confidential funds were, as he mentioned it, operationalized or used on the ground.

Attorney Sheila, are you willing to stipulate or admit that Attorney Poa is a hostile witness so as not to belabor that point anymore?

I think, Your Honor, it is a matter of record that the witness is part of the defense team and one of the lawyers of the vice president and it can be reasonably presumed that the witness will not provide on a plate the prosecution's theory and conclusions okay

so insofar as offers one and two are concerned um Attorney Tolosa these are deemed admitted and stipulated namely that the witness is a hostile witness and that he is one of the trusted lawyers, advisors of the Vice President. You can proceed with proving your offers pertaining to Numbers 3 to 13. But before you continue, Chair hereby declares by stipulation of the parties that... Yes, Attorney Sheila?

Just for the record, Your Honor, I never stipulated on any... item in the offer, Your Honor. I think my understanding of the statement of the Presiding Officer earlier was that it was just to qualify the witness as hostile, Your Honor. Thank

you. So the Chair will proceed to declare Attorney Poa as hostile witness, therefore giving Attorney Tolosa the right to ask leading questions, but again as a reminder, not to ask misleading questions. You

may

proceed, Counsel.

Your witness. Thank you, Your Honor. Before I start, just a few admin matters, Your Honor. We respectfully ask for a continuing authority, Your Honor, that it be granted to our assisting lawyer for today, Attorney Patricia Chon, so that whenever the need arises for it, that She may be allowed to approach the witness to hand some documents that we'll have to confront him with. The

motion is granted. Similarly, assisting counsel on the part of the respondents may approach the witness anytime it may be necessary. Likewise, a similar authority for counsel to ask their tech or ask the tech. to show whatever slides they want to show in the course of the testimony and our direct examination of the witness. Proceed, counsel. Thank you, Your Honor. Sorry, Your Honor, just

one more matter. Yes. That the same authority be granted to Attorney Lori Lee Mangio, who's also acting as my second chair for today, if necessary, Your Honor. Granted as well. Thank you, Your Honor. And just for the record, the documents that we will be using and confronting the witness with in his examination today,

particularly the audit observation memorandums issued by the COA for the DepEd's use of confidential funds for the first, second, and third quarters of 2023 and the responses filed by Attorney Poa in relation to this as well as the different liquidation reports and its attachments that were filed by the DepEd. These are all exhibits which the defense have already agreed to stipulate under due execution authenticity. If I'm not mistaken, it was even Attorney Poa himself who entered in such stipulation. Just for the record, Your Honor.

Well, just for the record, Your Honor. Yes,

Attorney

Sheila. The documents mentioned yesterday were stipulated on yesterday by the prosecution's or by the counsel. or by the prosecutor to the public prosecutors, Attorney Robles.

Yes, those were the YLS certificates, Your Honor. But with respect to the COA-related documents, I mean other ones, the ones issued by COA and the liquidation reports, these were separately entered into stipulation on by the parties, again, if I'm not mistaken, by Attorney Poa himself.

I think, Your Honor, just also to set the record straight, the documents subject of the stipulation yesterday were the following. Number one, AOM number 2024-015, dated February 1, 2024, Marcus D-I-111-DE. And second, the reply to that AOM signed by this witness as Undersecretary and Chief of Staff, marked as D-I-79-DE. Third, the second AOM, number 2024-171, dated August 8, 2024, marked as D-I-110-DE, and the reply to that AOM marked as D-I-93-DE, as well as the liquidation reports with attachments, as well as the certifications. from AFP and the Philippine Army officers. Documents marked as D-I-1-DE, D-I-65-DE, D-I-56-DE, 82-DE, 81-DE, 80-DE... 33-DE, 84-DE, 94-DE, 96, 97-DE, 95-DE, and 100-DE, which is the credit notice dated August 8, 2024, Your Honor. Just to set the record. We

confirm. Detailed clarification, Your Honor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are you ready to proceed, Attorney Tolosa? Yes, Your Honor. You may proceed. Your witness, again, to repeat. Chair already declared Attorney Poa as a hostile witness. You may proceed accordingly. Good morning, Attorney Poa. Good

morning.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning,

Your Honors. Good morning, Attorney Sheila.

Good morning, Jay.

Belated happy birthday, by the way.

Thank you.

I hope you don't mind.

Thank you.

Okay, before we start, Attorney Poa, both of us, you know the drill. We've already heard the presiding officer. qualify as a hostile witness, that means I'm allowed to ask you leading questions. So

please

Sir, I will have to request you, if the answers are reasonably answerable by yes or no, please do so, sir, because I would hate to have to cut you off when you try to give an explanation. And I'm sure you're very much aware, on cross, you'll be given ample opportunity to respond. But I'll be very fair with you. If you think the answer to the question is not simply yes or no, please let me know. I'll either reform it or give you a chance to explain. Sounds fair, sir?

We'll see how it goes, sir. We'll see how it goes.

Okay. And again,

just another request. I know pareho natin naiintindihan ng importansya na maintindihan ng mga kababayan din natin itong pagdinig ngayong araw. So, kung maaari lang... para hindi tayo mukhang dalawang abogado nag-usap, hindi na naiintindihan. Pilitin nating simplihan. But of course, without sacrificing your ability to properly articulate your answers, only to the extent reasonable, sir.

Yes, I understand you. I understand your request, sir. And pipilitin kong simplihan din ang aking mga pahayag. Thank

you very much,

sir.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So, attorney po, alam niyo na noong

Nakalipas na linggo, the prosecution requested na mag-issue ng subpoena sa inyo para mag-testigo sa kaso na ito ukol doon sa pinag-uusapan nating confidential funds na nagkaroon ang Department of Education noong panahon na ikaw ay nanungkulan dito. Tama po ba, sir?

Tama po. Yes.

Sige ho. So bago tayo pumunta diyan, I'm gonna have to check back a little bit. So, let's just talk about your work experience before going to the Department of Education. So you will agree, sir, that before entering the Department of Education, you had not less than 10 years serving different members of the Board of Trustees of the GSIS, correct, sir?

That's correct, sir. Around 12 years, if I'm not mistaken.

Thank you, thank you.

And your position there was Chief of Staff of these members of the Board of Trustees?

That's correct, sir.

Yes, sir. And then, while working at the GSIS, is it correct, sir, that in 2018, you obtained your Juris Doctorate degree from the University of the Philippines College of Law, sir?

That's correct, sir.

And

in fact, even while a working student, you managed to graduate ninth in your class, sir?

That's correct, sir.

And you took the bar examination that same year, at pumasa kayo noong susunod na year, so you became a member of the bar in 2019.

Fortunately, yes. That's correct, sir.

Okay. At dito naman tayo sa pagpasok ninyo sa Department of Education. So nagsimula kayong pumasok sa Department of Education bilang spokesperson with the level of Director IV noong July 26, 2022, sir. Tama ho ba yung petsa?

July 25.

July 25.

Kung tama po yun. I think based on my appointment papers, it was July 25, 2022.

Okay. And then, less than a year after, you became Undersecretary and Chief of Staff, Department of Education. Tama po, sir.

Tama po. April 1 po, 2023.

Okay. And then, a few months after, August 23, 2023. You also became an officer in charge under Secretary for Finance.

Yes po. 24. August 24 po yung ano.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And then, again, a few months after, October 17, 2023. Please correct the date if I'm mistaken, sir. You became the head of the procuring entity or hope of DepEd. That's

correct, sir. The date is correct.

Okay. And then you stayed there until July 19, 2024.

Once the vice president resigned as the secretary of the Department of Education. Tama po, sir?

That's accurate, sir. Okay.

At the time that you entered the Department of Education, you were a lawyer for about four or five years?

Yes, around that.

time, sir. And

during this time, in a span of two years, you had a series of... career progressions within the department, sir. Tama ako, no? I

would say that, yes, sir.

Tama ako ba, considering your experience at that time, based on your experience working in the government, masabi ko natin na medyo mabilis yung pag-appoint dito sa mga mataas na posisyon. Tama ako ba, sir? Well,

I cannot say mabilis. It was up to the appointing authorities. Tama ako, tama ako.

Yes, yes. So, I don't want to give the impression that I'm questioning yung kompetensyon at the hires based on merit. Actually, may request the defense counsel to actually stipulate that the VP Sara Duterte's decisions concerning Atty. Poa's hiring a spokesperson and his progression to senior positions in the Department of Education were based on other

among others, on his competence as a lawyer and his substantial prior experience performing executive administrative functions in the government.

I think that the proposal for stipulation has already been covered by the questions of the counsel, so I think this is unnecessary, Your Honor. Also, Your Honor,

if I

may finish.

And also,

Your Honor, may I ask the court to just direct the counsel to ask. His questions and to refrain from making statements just so in the interest of time, we'll be able to really speed up the process, Your Honor.

Attorney

Jay,

please proceed.

Yes, but is this stipulation accepted?

I

can stipulate, Your Honor, that the witness is competent. that he is trusted and that he is good at what he does, Your Honor.

Thank you very much.

As in the positions that he had previously held.

Yes, and I'm sure the defense counsel will not object to this, that they're also willing to stipulate that he is an experienced and a highly competent lawyer.

I think that's a matter of... Are you... Asking for

a stipulation, ma'am.

That your

co-counsel is an experienced and highly competent lawyer, ma'am. Your co-counsel.

Before I respond to that, may I now ask the prosecutor if they are qualifying this witness as an expert?

Definitely not. Those are two very

different matters. Because that is the inference from the proposal to stipulate, Your Honor. That he is highly experienced and highly expertise

in the

work that he does, Your Honor, as a lawyer. So, earlier, they qualified him as a hostile witness and if they qualify him now as an expert, then that would give the prosecutor some leeway to ask him on legal matters. Hypothetical questions? Yes, Your Honor.

Honor.

With all due respect, the defense cannot dictate on the prosecution the nature of the testimony of the witness. That discretion falls entirely and exclusively on us. If you want to present a witness as an expert witness or a denied witness, he may be the most qualified lawyer. But it's still our discretion if we want to use him as an expert witness or not.

Then counsel, then counsel—

the chair, Attorney Sheila, please.

With your indulgence and patience. Then in that case, the chair will ask counsel to simply proceed with his questions because counsel, I find it irrelevant to be asking for a stipulation if Attorney Poa is good at what he does. I believe he is, but... Unless you will qualify him as an expert, so instead of going through these intramurals, share his ruling, kindly proceed with your direct examination already and go direct to your points.

But with all due respect, his competence is highly material to this case. because it will go into the credibility of his statements. And of course, Your Honor, please, we be given some leeway because even if this is direct, because he's a hostile witness, this is in the nature of our cross-examination. So, we hope that we be allowed, we be given a wider latitude in examining this witness.

Counsel, you do. You were asking for a stipulation which the opposing counsel refused to do. So, again, we've wasted enough time on these intramurals between you and counsel for respondent. Just proceed with your direct. The witness is there. The witness is smart enough to answer.

Okay.

Let's proceed with your... So, let's talk about your duties and responsibilities as spokesperson.

So, as spokesperson, your

main responsibility was to communicate DepEd's official position on matters affecting the department. Tama ho?

Tama

ho po, as spokesperson.

Yes. And in carrying out this function, of course, you dealt with upper management of the department.

Yes, I did.

Yes. And then, as chief of staff, you assisted the secretary in the management of the day-to-day operations of the department?

That's correct.

Okay. In fact, Nag-conduct kayo ng weekly cluster meetings with the other undersecretaries.

Yes, sir.

And you also held regular quarterly meetings with the DepEd regional directors?

Yes, sir. As much as possible. Hindi kasi consistent, but as much as possible. Sige ho.

And in these meetings, is it correct to say that you represented the department secretary because you

were the chief of

staff?

I was the presiding officer, yes.

So in that capacity, you were there as representative? of the Department Secretary. Tama ho ba yan? Or at least some of them, maybe not all, but some?

Mahirap po kasing sabihin na I was representing the Vice President in those meetings, but I will just word it as accurately as I can. I was the presiding officer being the highest USECs of all the USECs there.

Okay, thank you. And you would admit that as Chief of Staff of the Department Secretary, operationally, and as to policy, whatever happens in depth and goes through you.

Objection, Your Honor.

What's the objection, Atty. Sheila?

Vague, Your Honor, by the use of whatever, Your Honor.

Your Honor, these are precisely the own words of

Atty.

Poa and I'm sure he will recall it. Do I need to show that

he has answered?

Then counsel must be precise too, Your Honor. But to ask a witness whatever that encompasses. everything and that is prone to misinterpretation, Your Honor.

At this juncture, Atty. Sheila would have to overrule. I'll allow Atty. Poa to answer because I think he knows Atty. Poa is smart enough. He would know how to handle that question.

Kung ano yung day-to-day operations lang po ng DepEd in terms of its regular funds, yes po.

Yes. Regular funds.

Don't

jump the gun, sir. I'm not Just

know where you're going, sir.

No, no, no. That's not where I'm going. But to be clear, Day-to-day operations, as long as it does not, we agree on that point, as long as it does not concern confidential funds, you're aware of it.

Yes, sir.

Yes, thank you, sir.

Okay. As Undersecretary of Finance, your duties included ensuring proper management of the department's budgetary and financial matters in order to support its operations.

Only as OIC for a very short period, Your Honor. Yes.

Okay. And then as Head of Procuring Entity, Basically, you served as the approving authority for procurement matters of TEPED, no? As

HOPE, sir, yes. Yes, sorry.

Did I misspoke? Yeah, but HOPE?

Yes, yes, HOPE, meaning in terms of awards, notice to proceed, but had nothing to do with the procurement process itself because HOPE, as HOPE, you had to distance yourself from the bidding.

Yes, that's correct. You act upon the recommendations of the Bids and Awards Committee.

Correct. And the Undersecretary for Procurement, sir. Okay. Now,

only if you could remember, Nung hung panahon na kayo ay hope, the department, and you were just there for nine months, sir, no?

To be precise, October, sometime October, October 17, until I resigned in July 19.

So more or less nine months, sir, no? So during that period of time, As hope, the department entered into procurement contracts with an aggregate documented value of around 30 billion pesos. Just based on recollection. If you don't remember, that's okay.

I really don't remember, sir, the aggregate value. That is something handled by the USEC for procurement. Okay.

Also, if only you can remember the contracts that were approved by the DepEd during the time that you were hope. The largest components of these contracts included large-scale procurement of computers, smart TVs, laptops. Is that correct?

Your Honor.

Before the witness answers,

Attorney Sheila.

Relevance, Your Honor. Again, counsel had known from the very start that this is not about the regular funds, but the confidential funds. So I ask for the relevance of this line of questioning. We

want to be able to show the level of trust. and the seriousness of the responsibilities that were placed by the Secretary on Atty. Poa. And this will be very material later. And we will establish that, Your Honor, when we get to that point.

You're on a short leash, counsel. We're wrapping it up. On the

DepEd computerization program, sir, I believe that was one of the bigger contracts that I was present for as well.

Okay. So, considering all of these responsibilities that we talked about, you would agree that these responsibilities, you were entrusted over important, sensitive, and consequential matters affecting the department?

Affecting the operations of the department, yes.

Yes, sir?

Yes, sir.

Yes, thank you. And these positions were imbued with trust and confidence of the Department Secretary. Correct, sir?

Correct, sir.

Thank you.

So,

these different high-level positions in the DepEd, it was the secretary herself who appointed you to those positions, correct?

Sir, it was the president who appointed me as undersecretary, as you know. But of course, upon the recommendation of the secretary, then it was the vice president.

Ito kong pagganap nyo ng mga responsibilidad nyo para dito sa mga iba-ibang posisyon na pinag-usapan natin, meron ho kayong direct reporting relationship sa vice-presidente?

Meron naman po.

So kapag kailangan nyo ho siyang kausapin, hindi nyo kailangan dumaan through other officials, meron ho kayong direct access sa kanya. Tama ho?

Tama po.

At

dahil ho dun sa nature ng posisyon nyo, of course, tama naman ho na... pati ho yung mga ibang officiales doon, pati mga empleyado, pwede ho silang mag-request sa inyo na gumawa ng mga bagay paukol sa inyong trabaho. Tama ho.

Can you please clarify the question, Your Honor? Ano yung mga

pwedeng hingin nila sa akin?

In

general, any.

I mean, in its request, of course, it's optional on your part to either grant or not. But if it's just a request, even if their ranks are lower than yours, of course, that is okay. That's

fine.

Tama ho ba?

May

we ask the prosecutor to specify in his question the kind or the specific request that is pertaining to in his query. There's no need

for that, Your Honor. The point of Attorney

Sheila is well taken. So that the court will be appraised as well, Attorney Jay. What exactly are you talking about?

Any request, sir, in general, just of course pertains to your duties and responsibilities as official of the Department of Education, sir.

Well, that's my problem, Your Honor. Any request in general, Your Honor.

Example, Attorney Jay, babali ba yan? Kung babali siya? For

example,

mag-request ho ng sumama ka ho sa isang meeting. At ang mag-request ay isang kamukha nyo ho na same level nyo under-secretary or mas mababang empleyado.

Kung sa meeting, I would say yes. May mga ganyang request sa sumama

sa meeting. So ang request, pwede. Pero, dahil you directly reported to the Vice President, ibig sabihin nung noon, pagdating ho sa instructions,

na pag-utos na gawin ng isang bagay, sabihan na gawin ng isang bagay, ang vice-presidente lamang may karapatan yan. Tama ho ba yan?

Hindi po. Sa totoo lang. We're

talking about instructions and requests. Hindi ho. So, ibig niyong sabihin, meron hong mga ibang opisyal na pwede kayong utusan at hindi niyo pwedeng tanggihan sa loob ng Department of Education. I

will object, Your Honor. This is misleading. Assumes facts not yet in evidence, Your Honor.

That's not misleading because I'm not assuming anything because precisely, I'm asking him to explain if he agree with this or not. If he does not agree, he can say so. I'm not assuming anything. Reform. Atty. J,

kindly

reform your question. So pag sinabi niyong pwede kayong utusan, ibig sabihin ho ba nun kahit hindi department secretary, even if you don't report to that person, pwede kanyang utusan at wala kayong choice dito kung hindi sundan huyon? Hindi

po. Same

line, Atty. J. Kindly reform. Well,

the witness has already answered. Your Honor,

I will just answer para matapos na itong issue na ito. Unang-una po, hindi po utos yung ginamit niyong word kanina. It was request. So, when you say request, then I have the discretion to say yes or no.

Yes, yes. I think the witness is confused, no? We already moved on from the request, sir. Ang pinag-uusapan na ho natin ngayon, maliwanag ho, sabi nyo, request, of course, pwede ho yan, reasonable tayo. Ang pinag-uusapan na ho natin, yung kautosan, yung sabihan kayo na gawin itong bagay na to. Nandun na ho tayo, sir. So, ang sinasabi ko, yung kautosan, instructions na kailangan nyong sundan. ang vice-presidente ang pwedeng gumawa nito sa inyo. Ah,

tama po. Tama po yan.

Ayun. Salamat to, sir. Thank you. Maraming salamat.

Okay. So, as chief of staff, you gave updates and received instructions to the vice-president on matters concerning the operations of the department, correct?

Yes, that's correct. And

as spokesperson, would you agree Is that before even giving interviews, you got instructions from the Vice President on what she wanted you to say?

Guidance. I would say guidance, Your Honor.

Not instructions, Sir?

Guidance. Okay.

Okay.

Attorney po, naaalala niyo na umatin kayo sa isang pagdinig sa Congress noong November 5, 2024, Sir?

Yes. At

sumagot kayo sa ilalim ng panunong pa, Sir?

Yes, Sir.

Okay.

May we ask, Your Honor, the tech booth to flash on the screen page 100 to 101 of the TSN of the hearing held in November 5, 2024.

While we're waiting, Chair would like to make a record at para sa kalaman din po ng kapwa ko, senator-judges at mga nagsasabaybay, mahirap na nga po na may dalawang abogadong nagda... Kakaroon ng tagisan ng talino. Gawin po nating tatlo. Kaya pag-unawalan po at pasensya ang hinihiling namin ang party po ito ng proseso para mapangalagan. Hindi lamang ang karapatan ng respondent pero pati ng testigo. You may proceed, Atty. J.

So, can we please zoom in to the portion starting so even a spokesperson. Kindly zoom in a bit more.

Your Honor, I would just like to manifest na malabo yung mata ko. So if counsel can just read it, I will be happy to just believe you on it.

May we also ask for the page number of this portion in the TSN, Your Honor?

100 to 101, I believe. But this one, which one is it, Atty. J?

You said earlier 100 to 101.

Yes, Your Honor. We're asking for the specific page number of this particular material being flashed on the screen now, Your Honor.

If the counsel will confirm, Your Honor, we're able to locate this portion on page 101. From pages 100 to 101, Your Honor.

Okay.

Do you confirm, Attorney Jay?

I think the fact that you cut the paragraph into two boxes says that it does not belong to the same page.

Well, for the record, Your Honor, I heard Attorney Tolosa instruct their lawyer in the tech booth to take it down, Your Honor.

Yes.

Your Honor. Yes, because I don't think So

the chair will confirm upon verifying with the exhibit on record with the court, it is found on pages 100 to 101 in the box. The two boxes accurately depict the fact that the lower box is contained on page 101. Proceed, counsel.

We apologize for the confusion, Your Honor. It's actually page 162 of

TSN data. Same

date, Your Honor. Apologies for the confusion, Your Honor.

Are you sure, Atty. J?

Yes, Your Honor.

Your Honor.

162, Your Honor. Is

this what she wants me to say during the interview? Are you pertaining to that line?

Yes. Let me read it, sir.

So even as a spokesperson, you're reading that portion, sir?

Yes.

When may balita and I need to get to an interview, honestly, I have to message with the Vice President at that time to find out every time what she wants me to say during the interview.

So what page is that, Attorney Poa?

That is page 163, top of page 163, Your Honor.

Okay. Thank—

you, thank you, sir.

So

you confirm those are your words, sir?

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you, thank you.

And that is why I said

guidance. There's

no question, sir. Thank you.

Okay.

And for your other roles, you did not take actions that are contrary to her instructions, of course.

Of course.

And

bago kayo gumawa ng mga desisyon sa mga importanteng bagay in general, of course, kinukonsultan niyo siya.

Opo.

And in fact, you even get her approval kung importante yung pinag-uusapan.

Opo, kung kailangan po ng approval niya, yes. Yes,

tama.

Okay. So, you would agree, sir, when acting on matters in your official capacity, you ordinarily made reasonable efforts to understand the matter before acting on it?

Yes.

Kung ito pong bagay na to, meron kayong kailangan basahin at unawain muna ng mga dokumento, na batas, regulations, of course, binabasa't inaaral niyo muna ho yan. Tama ko

ba?

At bago kayo pumunta sa isang meeting, siyempre sinisigurado nyo naghahanda kayo bago mag-attend sa meeting na yan. Tapos

kasama

sa paghahanda, inaalam nyo muna siyempre kung ano yung paksa na pag-uusapan sa meeting na yon.

As much as I'm told, yes. And

then, let's go to... Kapag kayo ay... your official communication on behalf of the department. Either in writing or verbally. Kapag kayo ay gagawa ho dyan ng factual representation, to the extent possible, sinisigurado niyong tama ho yung factual representation niyo, sir?

As much as I can, siyempre po. Ayaw naman natin mag-misrepresent.

Tama po yan, sir. I agree with you. At kapag hindi ho clear yung factual matter, siyempre, kakausapin nyo yung mga tao as much as possible na pwedeng makapagbigay sa'yo ng information para maliwanagang kayo. Tama ho?

Of course, as a lawyer, you know that your signature carries a lot of weight. Tama ho, sir?

Depending on the document that I'm signing, the nature of the document.

Of course. For example, in pleadings, no? Siyempre, ibaho yung significance niyan under the rules of court. But even in ordinary documents, tama ho ba? Hindi kayo basta-basta pipirma ng dokumento na hindi nyo naiintindihan yung laman nun?

Yes.

Yes. Oo.

So iniingatan ninyo bago kayo pumirma, sinisigurado ninyo muna na sang-ayon kayo sa laman ng dokumentong iyon. Tama ho, sir?

To the extent possible, sir.

At

kapag meron ho kayong piniprepara at pinipirmah na dokumento para sa departamento, kung meron ho kayong ilalagay dyan ng mga supporting documents, siyempre, babasahin nyo ho yung mga supporting documents na yan, no? Tama ho?

Binabasa ko po yung supporting documents as long as I'm allowed to do so. Yes, okay.

Sige.

Okay. Now, sir, we'll go to the AOMs, no, sir?

Okay. So, again, as you've mentioned a while ago, we talked about the November 5, 2024 hearing, but you would recall that aside from that hearing, you also attended before the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability of the House of Representatives on September 25, 2024, and... October 17, 2024, as well as November 25, 2024.

Yes, in all hearings where I was invited, Your Honor, I attended all. Okay, thank you.

For the record, Your Honor, these hearings, the transcripts of which the Honorable Presiding Officer already kindly granted our request to take judicial notice of, as well as the TSNs covering them. And just for the record, these were marked as P-Roman numeral-1-B-C-G and then as well as B, C, D, and G. Aside from that, sir, you also attended the hearing before the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives on April 14, 2026, sir?

I confirm that, sir.

For the record, Your Honor, the TSN covering this hearing was marked as P-R-1-2-F, and the Honorable Court has already taken judicial notice of this matter.

Also, Your Honor, just for the record, if I may be allowed to interject. Yes, Attorney

Sheila.

those TSNs or those hearings to assert the truthfulness of any record containing those documents. Just for the record. Yes, of

course, Your Honor. And statements as well not made by the witness.

Yes, correct, Your Honor. As per third-party statements.

These are common exhibits.

Yes,

Your

Honor. We agree with that, Your Honor.

Sir, would it be correct to say before testifying today that you familiarized yourself with the transcript of the stenographic notes of these hearings? I reviewed

briefly the transcripts. Do

you have your own copy, sir? Or if needed, would you need us to

provide you with copies? I did not bring my own copy. So if it is actually necessary, I would request that you provide me with a copy.

Sir, as you know, a lot of the questions that I will be propounding to you now would revolve around the statements that you gave during those hearings. But, sir, I hope you understand.

I would not waste the time of the court by having to flash everything. And I'm sure if you could recall it without me showing it, you'll give the answer. But of course, sir, to be fair with you, anytime you feel there's a need for you to see the TSN, of course, please let me know and then I will show you the specific portions of the

TSN. But if I can confirm it to expedite the proceedings, I will confirm it. Thank you, sir. Very much appreciated.

Okay.

So, let's

start with... The COAS Audit Observation Memorandum No. 2024-015 dated Feb 1, 2024.

May we ask that the document be flashed

on the screen, Your Honor. This is P-Roman numeral 1-21-A for the prosecution.

Sir, para mabilisaw tayo, you would admit that you're very much familiar with this document, tama ko,

sir?

Itong dokumento na ito, ito ay nagpapatukoy dun sa ginamit ng confidential funds ng Department of Education para sa first and second quarters noong 2023, tama ko, sir?

I confirm

That, sir. Yes, sir.

Nakalagay ho diyan na 37.5 million each per quarter o kabuuang amount na 75 million, sir?

Tama po.

Ito ho ay naka-address kay Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, tama, sir?

Tama po.

Okay. Dito ho sa AOM na ito, ito ho ay may kinalaman doon sa mga liquidation reports na sinubmit ho ng Department of Education ukol ho sa parehong confidential funds para doon sa dalawang quarters, tama, sir?

Tama po.

Okay.

I'm sure para hindi na ho tayo magtagal, only if acceptable to you, sir. Hindi na natin isa-isahin, but basically, yung mga liquidation reports ho na yun, kasama ng mga certifications, you would agree, ang wala ho kayong pinirmahan dun sa dokumento na mga yun.

Dun sa liquidation report

po. Sa liquidation reports lang ho

tayo,

sir. Wala po. Ang

mga nakapirma ho dun, mainly, ang SDO, Fajarda, tama ho, sir?

Tama po. Edward Fajarda.

Edward Fajarda. Thank you. Tsaka ho ang Vice President ho, no, as head of agency.

Tama po.

And I think an accountant.

Accountant?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Now, noong natanggap nyo itong dokumento na ito, after a while, no, sumagot ho kayo dito? Dito sa Audit Observation Memorandum. Sumagot kayo. Kayo ang nag-file ng reply sa COA. Tama, sir?

Tama po.

April 17. April 17, 2024. Ito yung P-1-21-B. For the record, Your Honor.

Okay.

Now, babalik muna ako dito sa Audit Observation Memorandum. Tama ko ba dito? Ang purpose nito, basically, ang sinasabi niya, doon sa liquidation na ginawa ninyo para doon sa first two quarters ng confidential funds ng DepEd, ang sinasabi basically ng COA dito, naghihingi sila sa inyo ng karagdagang impormasyon at mga supporting documents para mapakita ninyo na compliant kayo doon sa requirements for liquidation under Joint Circular 2015-1.

Tama po.

Okay.

Madami hong bagay na nakalagay dito, no? But let's concentrate on the one pertaining to payment of reward, sir.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Dun sa paragraph number 3.

Okay, ho.

Ito, nakalagay dito. We noted that the payment... Payments of rewards to the informers in the amount of 7.5 million pesos for the period Feb 20 to March 30, 2023 and 8,031,000 for the period April 20 to June 29, 2023 for a total amount of 15,540,000 as reflected in the respective accomplishment reports were not supported with required documents specified in the immediately preceding paragraphs. Thus, non-compliant with the Joint Circular. Okay. So, aware kayo dito yung specific provision na sinasabi na hindi naging compliant yung payment of rewards na nakalagay dito. Ito yung 4.8.5.B of the Joint Circular. Yes, that's

Correct.

Okay. May I request—

that that provision be flashed

on the screen.

Okay.

Can you please zoom in, please?

Para maliwanag tayo, ang sinasabi ng COA, nakatanggap kayo ng AOM, sinasabi niya hindi napatunayan pa sa liquidation reports na sinumiti ninyo na nakapag-comply kayo sa requirements dito.

Opo, kulang daw po ng documentary evidencing success. Yes.

Can you please zoom in a little more, please, sir?

Okay. So, you'll see here, 4.8. Confidential funds shall be used only for defaulting confidential expenses. 4.8.5, payment of rewards to informers which should be non-employees of concerned government agency subject to the following conditions. So, A, this is approval by the head of agency. B, supported with documents evidencing the success of the information gathering and or surveillance activities on account of the information given by the informer. Tama ho, sir?

Yes, po.

Yes, this is precisely the provision, no? Nang hinihingan ho nila kayo ng proof of success.

Ngayon, sir, ito hong provision na to, you would agree, no, that it requires basically three things, no?

It requires, dapat ho nakalagay, supported with documents evidencing the success of the information gathering and/or surveillance activities on account of the information given. So maliwanag ho na dito dapat meron hong information given by the informer. Tama ho?

Tama po.

Tapos if you'll correlate it doon sa 4.8.5, dapat ho yung binayaran na reward gamit ho ang pondo ng confidential fund, binayad ho yung reward na iyon sa informer para ho doon sa information na binigay niya. Tama ho?

That's my interpretation.

Yes. Oo. Tapos ang nakalagay din dito, so dapat meron ho information, binayaran yung informante ng reward para sa information na iyon. Tapos nakalagay din ho dito, dapat mapapakita din ho dito na meron hong success of the information gathering and/or surveillance activities on account of the information. Tama iyon, sir?

Tama po.

So, sa madaling salita, dapat yung binigay na information na binayaran using a reward, dapat dahil dito sa information na ito, nagkaroon ho ng success doon sa information gathering and/or surveillance activities. Tama ho iyon, sir? Yung sinasabing success of the information gathering and/or surveillance activities, yung success na iyan, dahil iyan mismo sa information na kinuha sa informant.

Generally, and I say generally because hindi ko po alam. I—

will ask that the witness be allowed to answer, Your Honor, because he hasn't even heard the first sentence of that answer, Your Honor. And now he's cutting the witness off.

First of all, Your Honor, please, with all due respect, this is not just an ordinary witness. He is a very experienced and competent counsel. Second, not just any, Your Honor, please, let me finish, ma'am. Not just any counsel, not just any lawyer, he himself is the counsel in these very same proceedings of the respondent. So, we ask, Your Honor, that we strictly implement this provision. I mean, the rules of court, which requires, when leading questions, if they're answerable by yes or no. Pakiusap ko na lang, sir, no? You can explain later on. But please, if it's answerable by yes or no, it's okay. If you don't agree with that, I'm saying please say no. If you agree, please say yes. So I'll repeat it, Poser.

No, I will respond to that since he invoked the rules of court.

Actually, Your Honor, there's nothing in the rules that provides for the allowance of questions that can only be answerable by yes or no. In fact, what the rules of court state is that The answers of the witness must be responsive, Your Honor. And

so, the witness is not prohibited

from giving responsive answers, Your Honor. Now, I am not dictating the prosecutor what to ask. I'm merely asking that he does not interrupt the witness because according to him, the witness is intelligent. The witness is smart. He can answer for himself. The problem earlier was that he cut the witness off in the process of answering when he doesn't even know yet what the answer of the witness is.

May you respond, Your Honor, please?

Can you respond and then I want to hear from Attorney Paua as a third lawyer.

Yes, Your Honor. First

of all,

Your Honor, it is

clear under the rules that once the reason or the ground for the objection becomes apparent, you could already assert that objection. Second, The rules clearly state, as pointed out by the counsel, that the witness can only give responsive responses to questions. Hence, if the answer that you're eliciting is clearly, you know, the question is clearly answerable by yes or no, any answer that does not conform to that is not responsive. Hence, we may ask that it be stricken of the record if it's given or we may prevent the witness from giving it in the first place.

I disagree with everyone. Not necessary. Not in all.

So, Atty. Poa, what do you think?

Your Honor, I will just say it's

a qualified yes. There might be correlation. No,

But let the Chair make a ruling first. Indeed, there is nothing in the rules that would limit or constrict a witness to a mere yes or no answer. And it should be responsive, as correctly pointed out by Atty. Tolosa. That's the risk you run with a hostile and intelligent witness, Atty. J. So the Chair will allow the qualified affirmative answer of Atty. Poa. So he answered your question, Atty. J., with a qualified yes in relation to the success of the surveillance activities in exchange for information given for which it was paid.

Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. So when you say—

qualified, are you saying that your interpretation of 4.8.5.b, you're saying there are instances wherein it is allowed that the evidence, that the supporting documents that you would present, it's allowed that that supporting evidence would not even establish the connection between the information given and the success of the information gathering.

But, Your Honor, it's manifest that the question is argumentative. It also solicits interpretation or opinion on what the law says.

Reform counsel, it is argumentative. He may be a smart lawyer but at this juncture, you still cannot argue with him.

Reform, counsel. I know where you're getting at. You can get to it.

We respect that, Your Honor, but with all due respect, because we've been hearing this objection a lot of times from the defense. A question, even if it presses the respondent or the witness, that does not automatically mean that it is—

argumentative. A question is argumentative.

Counsel, please. Chair already made a ruling and it's the first time Attorney Sheila used argumentative as a ground for objection. With the other witnesses, that's up for them. Again, I know where you're getting at. You can get to it, Counsel. We submit,

Your Honor.

Thank you, Attorney Jay. Please proceed.

Actually,

Your Honor,

I know what he's trying to say, so I can actually answer him intelligently. Can you help him, Atty. Paul, ready to abbreviate the

proceedings?

I'm not saying na hindi kailangan may correlation yung success. Nung isusumiti mo na evidence of success, hindi kailangan may correlation. You're

not saying that? I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is na hindi lahat ng informasyon. na binibili sa aking pagkakaintindi. Siyempre, pinag-aralan ko rin naman siguro to noong ini-interview ako dati dito. Hindi naman lahat ng binibili mong information ay necessarily magkakaroon ka kaagad ng success. So, yun

ang sinasabi kong qualified yes. Sige,

sige. So, ibig nyong sabihin, ang interpretation mo, kahit wala pang success ang interpretation nyo, pwede mo nang bayaran ang informant ng reward. kahit walang success. Your Honor,

it's not misleading.

Precisely, I'm asking him to... Your Honor,

every time the defense counsel speaks, she

demands that everyone listens to her. Counsel, I cannot understand anymore the points you're raising. Attorney po, sampung informants binayaran ninyo. Ang sinasabi mo, hindi lahat ng sampung informasyong binigay ay mag-lead sa success. Yung lima siguro o yung

Walo?

Yes, because, Your Honor, I'm saying that I have to clarify. Wala talaga akong personal knowledge sa operations mismo ng DepEd. So I'm answering based on my understanding, based on, of course, what I've read when I was trying to study.

Understood. You don't have personal knowledge.

Hindi naman lahat—

ng information na nabili mo, obviously, will lead to success.

So that's what you're saying?

That's what I'm saying. That's all I'm saying.

Sa sampung binayaran, hindi naman siguro lahat iyon kailangan mag-lead to success. Basta ultimately, yung surveillance was successful. Meaning, go on toward incident, as you defined it. Yes. Okay. Attorney J., move on.

Yes, sir.

Sorry, sir. I have to clarify that para sigurado ko lang kung naintindihan ko yung punto nyo. Ang interpretation ninyo bilang official ng DepEd na sumagot ho doon sa AOM, ang sinasabi nyo, again, tama ho ba, no? Correct me, of course, kung hindi tama yung sinasabi ko, just say no, no? Pero tama ho ba, ang sinasabi nyo, hindi kailangan para makapag-comply sa 4.8.5b, hindi kailangan na merong mapipresenta at all times, kasi nga sabi nyo qualified, no? Not at all times, hindi iyan kailangan at all times na itong binayaran na information resulted to success.

Yes, sir.

Simple lang.

Let me—

premise my answer with saying that this is my interpretation. Yes, I understand that, sir. Unang-una, hindi kailangan... na pag bumili ka ng information, necessarily, pag nakuha mo yung information, it will result to success ka agad. Okay, that's

okay, sir.

That's my question lang, sir. Come on, sir.

Come on, Your Honor. I'm trying to explain. If you want the truth, I'm trying to tell the truth. Let

the witness complete his answer.

Let the witness complete

his

answer,

Atty. J.

Atty. Poa,

please continue.

hindi rin ibig sabihin na at the time na nakuha mo yung information and at the time that we needed to submit evidence of success, unnecessarily, may success na kaagad doon sa information na bigay mo.

So

huwag ko nating paikot-ikotin, sir. Simpleng-simple lang. Ang tinatanong ko, at the time na nagbayad na ng reward, ang sinasabi nyo, para maging compliant dito, not necessarily, kailangang may success.

Yes, sir.

Iyon lang ho, sir. Paikotin ko tayo. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Okay. Sige ho.

Yes, yes. Reward din sabi niya.

Okay. So tama ho ba noong pagtanggap niyo nitong dokumento na to, itong AOM na to? Siyempre ho, being the competent lawyer that you are, inaaral niyo ho, no? Yung Joint Circular 2015-01 para alam niyo kung paano sagutin ito ng tama.

Yes po. Yes.

Okay.

And of course, di niyo lang inaaral. You relied on this very same Joint Circular when you prepared your reply, no?

Yes. Along with, of course, consultation.

Yes, sir.

Okay. So, dahil ho dun sa sagot na binigay nyo na kahit na ito ho ay payment as reward to informant, sabi nyo hindi ho laging kailangan na naging successful ho yung informasyon na nakuha sa reward na to.

Tama ho ba nung nakita nyo itong AOM na to? Ibig sabihin, para

sa inyo, hindi nyo na tinuntun kung nagging successful ba yung mga binayaran na rewards?

Tinuntun naman po. So kahit

natingin nyo hindi kailangan, sa pagkakataon na ito, tinignan nyo kung meron. Let

me clarify na hindi ko sinasabi na hindi kinakailangan at all times. I'm just saying, based on, of course, this is based on consultation with the SDO na siya naman talagang may alam dapat so siya ang tinanong ko.

So,

definitely, sinabi ko pa rin na okay pero kailangan natin ng documentary evidencing success which is required under the JC.

So,

ibig sabihin noon nito,

Before we go there, would you recall the statements that you gave about your knowledge and participation with respect to confidential funds at the time that you received the AOM?

Yes, that I did not have any personal knowledge. That's what I

said.

Atty. Jay,

as you're flipping the pages, I hope you're shortening your direct.

Yes, Your Honor.

You're skipping, rather, some of the questions as I see you flipping the pages.

Okay. You would admit that you said that during one of those hearings, your position—actually, you're very consistent on this—that you said, operationally, how it was used, you had no personal knowledge, referring to confidential funds.

I confirm that, sir.

At sabi niyo ho, tama ba ito? Please correct me if I'm wrong para huwag na nating hanapin yung mga TSNs. Basically,

you became involved in confidential funds of the DepEd only when you received the AOM dahil inaaral nyo na tapos sa iyo yung sumagot ng reply. Tama

ba ito?

Ibig sabihin, malinaw, wala kayong participation sa pag-submit ng liquidation reports noon na una.

So, noong natanggap niyo yung AOM, tama

Ho ba iyon? Doon, hindi lang participation, doon sa pag-submit ng mga reports, iyon lang yung punto na naging involved na kayo. Kasi nga, sabi niyo, operationally, day-to-day, you're involved as COS but not confidential funds. So tama ho ba, any involvement that you had with respect to confidential funds, it started when you received the AOM?

When I received AOM, yes,

sir. Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

So, sir,

naalala

nyo ho, sir, na ang sinabi ninyo, so pagkatanggap nito ng AOM, ang sabi ninyo, noong una, linapitan nyo ang Undersecretary si Nolasco Mempin, no? Para humingiho sa kanya ng magagamit nyong proof of success. Tama ho ba yan?

Sir, simple, sir,

yung question.

Tama ho, sir. Kung chronological kasi, I can explain. But if that's just your question, yes, upon the advice of the

SDO, yes.

Okay.

Later on, sa sumunod na hearing, tama, sinabi nyo naman doon na ang SDO ang nag-refer sa inyo. Tama po.

Tapos, ang sinabi dito, Para ho mabilis, I won't refer na since you're answering naman, very forthright. Sinabi ho ni General Mempin dito ho sa mga pagdinig na to na ang hinihingi niyo sa kanya ay kumuha ho kayo ng certifications nitong mga Youth Leadership Summit. Pero kayo ho, klinaro niyo, hindi niyo hinihingi yung exactong yun. You were just asking for any... proof of success. Tama ko ba yan?

Accomplishment report, sir. Ang hiningi ko sa kanya. Accomplishment report from the field. Okay.

Okay. So, ito hung hiningan nyo nitong mga accomplishment

reports, no? Or proof of success na si Usec. Mempin. Ano nga huga ang position niya sa Department of Education nung panahon na yan?

Nung panahon na hiningan ko po siya, he was Yusek for Administration. Okay,

thank you. So, Yusek for Administration. At you would admit na itong si Yusek Mempin, Wala ho siyang personal na kaalaman din sa paggamit ng confidential funds. Tama ho ba?

Tama po.

At

para bilisan natin, ito ho, noong hiningan niyo ho siya ng reports, ang ginawa ho niya, kumuha ho siya ng mga certificates from members or officials of the AFP. Tama ho?

Yan po yung sinumiti sa akin. Tama po.

Yan yung sinumiti niya sa'yo. At ito yung mga nanggaling, kanila Colonel Boransing.

Panopio, Bajao. And the fourth one, sir?

Sangdaan. Sangdaan.

Yes.

Okay. Sige.

At ito ho, tama ho ba? You would agree na sinabi ni Colonel Mempin doon sa hearing na nandun ho kayo na ito ho mga pinagkuhanan niya either colleagues or classmates niya sa PMA, sir?

Yun po yung naalala kong nabanggit niya noong hearing.

And you have no reason to contest that, sir?

That's

a statement, sir.

My question is, you have no reason to contest it.

I have no personal knowledge to contest it. Yes, thank you. Okay.

And para mabilis na ako, hindi ko na ipapakita isa-isa again unless you tell me that it's necessary. You will admit that they stated that when they provided this document, they did not know that they would be used to justify DepEd's use of confidential funds.

I remember them—

saying that, sir. You remember saying that. Okay.

At maalala nyo din, sir, na sinabi nila, or at least to be accurate, I think one or two of them, sinabi nila, itong mga dokumento na ito, nung binigay nila ito, actually, ang purpose niyan, it's for attendance. Dahil usual na binibigay nila yan sa mga different agencies that attend their activities such as the YLS. Tama ho ba?

I remember one or two stating that. Yes, sir.

At wala ho tayong contest. I'm sure you agree na wala hong binigay kahit piso ang Department of Education sa AFP para maisagawa itong mga Youth Leadership Summit nila.

Yes.

sir. I confirm that. Okay. Sir, sorry. As to confidential funds, you were pertaining to as to

confidential funds.

At

maalala niyo, noong pinaliwanag niyo sa Kongreso, kung bakit niyo ginamit itong mga YLS, or let's call them AFP certifications, and when I say AFP certifications, nakakaintindihan tayo, ito yung mga pinag-usapan na sinumiti nila pertaining to YLS. So, the reason why you used this YLS certifications. Ang words niyo, it was on the premise that whatever activity was conducted on the ground by the military was targeted because of information received from DepEd due to those rewards given out. On the premise. Tama ko, sir, no?

Yes, sir. As stated

in the documents.

That's not my question. My question is, those were your words to Congress when explaining why you used those certificates.

Yes.

That's how you explained it. Tama, sir? Okay.

So, in fact, you expressly described your view as an impression, tama ho, sir, no? As stated in that TSN, yes?

Impression, yes.

Inulit nyo ho ito, sinabi nyo, ang impression ko po, and again, this is just my impression, because the AFP received information from DepEd, the YLS was targeted to particular areas. Your word, sir?

Yes, sir.

And you even added, again, that is just my interpretation of the certification, correct?

Yes, sir.

And you even clarified, whether or not that is indeed the case, I really do not have personal knowledge of it. Tama po?

Tama po.

Okay.

At noong tinanong kayo ni Congressman Keith Flores ukol sa bagay na ito, kung ano ang particular information na na-supply ng DepEd, tama po ba ang sagot nyo: 'Hindi ko talaga alam kung ano yung operation.' Tama ba?

Tama ba.

Okay. And when asked where the connection came from, you called it your theory?

Yes,

sir. Yes.

And in stating that theory of yours, you said, because of the information that DepEd was probably able to give the AFP. Correct, sir?

Yes, sir.

You used the word probably also?

Yes. Because I don't have personal knowledge.

Yes.

So at that point, even if... Sabi niyo nga no, not necessarily may connection sa rewards. But assuming

there are connection between the rewards, the information, the AFP activities, this is not something within your personal knowledge. Correct, sir?

It is not within my personal knowledge.

And it was, as you've mentioned,

it

was your premise, your impression, your interpretation, and your theory. Correct, sir?

Yes. Based on the documents.

Yes, thank you. Okay. So, matry ko i-summarize, masimple natin. Ang theory nyo, perception nyo, kaya ginamit nyo ho yung AFP. Please tell me if it's correct, no? Yung AFP certificates. Ang theory nyo, dahil sa impormasyon na nakuha, no? Or dahil sa impormasyon na binayaran, no? Paggamit ng confidential funds, no? Ito ay nag-lead ho ito ng

It enabled the AFP para ho ma-target nila kung saan gagawin yung mga activities nila, particularly the YLS. Tama ho, sir?

Yes, based on the documents kasi. Yan ang naging interpretation ko sa documents.

Based on the document that you saw, the certificates, yun ho yung naging teorya nyo kung bakit nyo ginamit yun, ano? Yes, tama. Okay.

Sir, balik ho ako dun sa naging tugod nyo, dun sa AOM, ano?

On page 3 of the document of the letter dated April 17, 2024, filed with the Commission on Audit, can we please flash it?

Paragraph 3, upper hand portion of the document.

Sir, do you need a copy of the letter, sir?

No, I think I can remember.

what I said, sir. Thank you, thank you.

Habang iniintay natin, I'm going to read it, sir. on the finding that payment of rewards to informers must be supported with documents evidencing success of the information gathering and or surveillance activities on the account of the information given by the informer.

Financial rewards were given to informers for leads and/or integral information received, which in turn allowed the department to formulate narrowly targeted programs, information campaigns, and interventions against recruitment, violent extremism, and other criminal activities in specially identified communities. Now, let's go exactly with respect to the AFP certificates. Attached hereto as Annex B-1 to B-4 are the certifications. These certifications refer to those AFP certificates we've been discussing, sir. Yes, the four certifications. So, certifications issued by relevant partner agencies evidencing the success of various programs, projects, and activities directly resulting from the information provided by informers during the specific period. Sir, clear dito sa letter ninyo, hindi nyo na ho sinabi dito, like what you said a while ago, that it was just based on your theory. Wala ho tayong makitang word na ginamit nyo yung theory dito, tama, sir? Yes or no, please, sir.

Already answered, counsel.

Witness answered, yes.

Yes, thank you, sir. You also did not use the word presumption, no? Just like what you explained in Congress.

Yes, sir.

Yes. And, in fact, you will admit that these theories, presumptions that you had, you presented them as facts when you responded to the AOM. Correct, sir?

Well, argumentative, Your Honor. That's not argumentative. Very clearly argumentative. And, in fact, imputing a motive on the witness, Your Honor. I

will have to disdain the objection, counsel. Reform or move on.

So

this is your statement here, again, which we've just read. Activities directly resulting from the information provided by informers during the specific period. This so-called information, you have no knowledge whatsoever what that is, right?

The information that was exchanged?

Yes, sir.

This—

information that you referred to?

Yes, sir.

Yes. Okay.

So, to be fair with you, Sabi nyo ano, at first you said it was just based on your presumption, it was your theory, but this was before you heard the explanation of the AFP officers. Correct, sir?

No, sir. I said that after they actually already explained.

Ah, so they

Already—

During the course of the hearing, di ba? Okay, sir.

Ganun ho ba? Akala ko kasi, ang paliwanag nyo, while you're preparing that letter, Yun yung pinapaliwanag nyo, no? Kung bakit nyo ginamit yung AFP certificates. Kasi nga, ang presumption nyo, teorya nyo, as what we've explained, meron kayong binayaran na impormasyon dahil sa impormasyon na to, naisagawa itong YLS activities. So, naedyo na gulo na ko, no? Ang sinasabi nyo, itong teorya nyo, nabuo nyo lang after nyo na marinig yung AFP officers?

No, no, no, sir. I think this is... I think I'll need to explain if, of course, the Honorable Court will allow, and of course, if you will not object to me trying to explain.

Tama ho ba? Nung sinabi niyo ho na yung ginamit niyo yung words kanina, it was based on your presumption, it was your theory, ang sinasabi niyo ho doon, nung ginamit niyo yung AFP certificates, inattached niyo sa letters, yun ho yung pinapaliwanag niyo. kung bakit nyo sila ginamit.

Opo, dahil wala akong personal knowledge. Kaya kailangan ko sabihin impression.

Tama, tama, sir. Tama,

tama. Okay.

So, ngayon, kaya nga ang sinasabi ko, at that time, you just relied on your presumption and your theory kasi at that time na sinubmit mo yung letter mo sa COA, hindi mo pa naririnig yung explanation ng AFP officers. Tama ba?

Hindi po.

Ah, narinig nyo na yung explanation?

Explanation?

No, no, no. That's not the way it is, sir. Kaya ko siya sinabing theory kasi siyempre, noong time na nag-submit ako ng explanation sa COA, wala akong personal knowledge and I'm just basing it on the document, the certification. So ang tanong doon, ano yung train of thought ko? Bakit ko siya in-attach? So that's why I used the word theory. It has nothing to do with the chronology on whether I heard the explanation of the AFP officers before or after. Sorry, I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

also. Yes,

of course, of course, of course.

Thank

Thank you for clarifying. So, ngayon, nung narinig nyo na yung explanation nila, sa harapan nyo nagtestigo sila. Sinabi nila, hindi ginamit ang pera ng DepEd. At ang sinabi nila, you will recall, wala silang ginamit na information na nakuha from any informant na binayaran ng DepEd para maisagawa ito. This is new information to you. That's what I was getting at. Tama ko ba iyon?

I have an objection, Your Honor.

What's your objection?

counsel?

There's a statement in the question that is actually misleading, Your Honor. I do not remember. Any of the two witnesses yesterday from the AFP or Philippine Army saying that there was no information that was used coming from the Department of Education. In fact, that was a rejected stipulation yesterday. I

would have to sustain, counsel. There was no such statement. Quite the contrary. Two of the certifications said that they got information from DEPED, specifically the certification issued by Colonel, as pointed out by the Senate President in his questioning intervention yesterday. in the certification of Colonel Panopio.

Thank you, Your Honor. Reform

counsel. Okay, in that case,

Your Honor, may we request that that

video number 11 be played, Your Honor, by the tech booth.

Yes. This video, Your Honor, shows a portion of that hearing held on October 17, 2020, sorry, October 17, 2024, Your Honor, before the CGGPA of the House of Representatives.

So

Ang sinasabi mo is that AFP conducted these seminars because you gave them the information that this sector is vulnerable?

Not me per se, but that is the theory, Your Honor.

AFP.

Colonel Boransing, sir.

Colonel Boransing, you are recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

When the YLS was conducted in your area by your division,

You conducted it because it was a regular program of your division. Tama po ba?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Yes. Now, how about you, Colonel Panopio?

Did you conduct a YLS in your area with your division or with your battalion because it is a regular program of your battalion or FDFB?

Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Chair.

See? Mr. Poa, do—

You want me to ask the others? They will still be giving me the same answers po.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Your Honor, I am not in a position to really tell you kung talaga ba—

Then who is in a position to tell me that?

Sino?

It would probably be the Secretary, Your Honor, or the ones that are responsible for the confidential funds. Kasi wala naman po talaga. And again, I'm under oath. Wala po talaga akong—

Who is responsible for the confidential funds?

Your Honor, the Secretary and the SDO are the only ones that are privy.

They would have been here to answer these questions. Para mas malinaw po, kasi right now everyone is really confused, no? Una, why will you be using certification for activity of another unit? Tama ba? It's confusing, right? If it's just between us nga, it's confusing. Now, if you hear the answers of the AFP, silang lahat had nothing to do with DepEd. When they conducted the YLS, it had nothing to do with DepEd. It was their own programs that they were pursuing. Now, here comes Usec. Mempin collecting the certifications from the activities conducted by AFP, submitting it to you, and you submitting it to COA to justify your expense.

Yes, Your Honor.

It's wrong, di ba?

Yes, but—

From all— No matter how you look at it, it's so wrong.

Yes. Mr. Chair?

Yes, please proceed.

But, yes, but actually, that's really what happened, Your Honor.

So ang sinasabi mo is that AFP conducted these—

May I ask if there is a question from the playing of this video, Your Honor?

None yet, counsel, I believe.

I'm going to ask him questions, of course. Can we please flash the TSN, Your Honor?

Your Honor, Mr. Counsel, may I request for just a copy just because I cannot read

the TSN on the screen.

A copy or just read it to him, Atty. J? You can also read it to him if you wish. Okay. Sige. So, as we've heard a while ago,

Representative Flores,

Okay.

Now, if you hear the answers of the AFP, silang lahat had nothing to do with DepEd when they conducted the YLS. It had nothing to do with the DepEd. It was their own programs that were pursuing. Now, here comes Yusek Mempin, collecting the certifications from activities conducted by AFP, submitting to you, and you submitting it to COA to justify your expense. Again, it's wrong, diba? Can we please flash it?

Page 129, Your Honor.

Sorry, 131.

Okay,

here we go.

Can you please zoom in to that portion? It was stated, it's

wrong, diba? Let's take a look at the response given by the witness, please.

Can we zoom in, please?

Okay.

Representative Flores, it's wrong, di ba? Answer, Mr. Poa. Yes. That was your response, Atty. Poa? Yes, but. Yes, Your Honor? Yes, yes, I will get there. I will get there. But then you said, but? Okay. Ito yung sagot nyo, no? Please proceed. Una, Representative Flores stated, no matter how you look at it, it's so wrong, no? And then there was answer, Mr. Poa, but yes, factually, so this is the but that you're referring to. That's really what happened, Your Honor. I really got the certifications, I got the documents, evidencing payment, the debts, which are the acknowledgement receipts, I attached them because that's what COA was looking for and submitted to the COA. When you said but, you did not, based on this, you did not change your answer that it's wrong, using those certifications. What you just said, when you said yes, ang sinasabi mo lang, pero wala kasi akong personal knowledge, kaya ginamit ko pa rin ito mga ito. Tama ho ba?

That's argument, Your Honor.

Let the document speak for itself, Counsel. That was the witness answer under oath.

And also, Your Honor, may I just give a quick moment to manifest something important, Your Honor. This is exactly what the presiding officer prohibits. in its earlier ruling when it granted the motion to take judicial notice. We can review the journal. It says there that this court will not allow the reading of third-party statements not of that witness, Your Honor. That's what's been happening. Your Honor, it's precisely statements. Allow

Attorney

Sheila to finish. Started with the playback of the TSN, of Congressman Flores. and repeated the statement, his statement from the TSN, etc., etc. And in fact, this entire line of questioning, this is another ground for objection to these questions from the prosecutor. It's non-sequitur, Your Honor, because if you take a look at this document, the questions of Representative Flores to Attorney Powa in that hearing was different from the question that he asked of the AFP officers. To Atty. Powa, the question was about the information, about the intelligence information. But to the AFP officers, the TSN clearly shows that his question was, regular program niyo

po ba ito? wala pong anuman na nasabi sa TSN na ito ng tanong ni Representative Flores ay tungkol sa impormasyon. Natural, sasagot yung AFP officers tungkol sa kung regular program ba nila ito. Hindi naman tinanong ni Representative Flores kung walang impormasyon na nakuha mula sa Department of Education, Your Honor.

I have a longer litany, but Attorney J., what do you say? I think at this point, it's

really clear. This is not an opportunity that should be used by the defense to pontificate, argue their position.

That's too much already. Under the rules, if you're objecting to my question, just state the objection. No need to pontificate and explain your theory of the case. Second, Yes, precisely. It is very clear. The order of this honorable court, when it took judicial notice of these TSNs and videos, it's only of the fact that they happened, that these statements were uttered. But, it does not constitute proof of the truth of these statements. That is precisely, we have this very own witness here today, whose statements we just watched. But, again, Your Honor, please. I don't...

Chair will make a ruling,

counsels, please.

Attorney J., the prosecution has had its fair share of pontificating. I think you're still ahead by

a

couple compared to the respondent. I'm using your words. You're still ahead.

Number two, insofar as the statements of the Honorable Flores is concerned, that is covered by the chair's ruling, which you kept on repeating. And number three, I would have to say that it's misleading, counsel, because I have to sustain the objection on the ground that it's misleading, counsel, because although those were statements made in the CGGPA and Committee on Justice, The statements made by the witness presented here, namely Colonel Boransing and Colonel Panopio, and the certifications submitted and made part of the records, all state that there was collaboration between the DepEd and the AFP, those signing the certifications, and that for two certifications, I believe, one of Panopio and the other of Sangdan. said that they got information from the DepEd insofar as identifying the areas is concerned. Regardless of what they answered there, again, we only gave judicial notice as to the fact that they said those statements, not as to the truth of those statements. From the point of view of this court, so far that's what we have.

Unless you intend to call them to dispute that? So far, that's what we have. So kindly, reform counsel. Your Honor, with

all due respect, we have to show the question propounded by Representative Flores to show context so that we will understand what it is that the witness was responding to. Second, the point there is the concession given by the witness when asked, mali ito, di ba? tama. That's the main point there. But we will move on, Your Honor.

Move on, counsel, chair, the lady may the ruling. May

we ask you also, Your Honor, to take booth. Please play video number one. This shows portions of the hearing conducted on October 17, 2024.

For me, forgive me po. Ang labo kasi na you're saying na ito yung information that we gathered using this reward money, supposedly.

May I ask that this be paused for a while,

Your Honor?

Kindly pause it.

Yes, Attorney Sheila. I think the court

just ruled a moment ago, Your Honor. This cannot be replayed and used to confront the witness because as far as this witness is concerned, This remains to be a third-party declaration, Your Honor.

Your Honor, third-party declaration. We can see Attorney Poa right there. That was him testifying. But,

Your Honor, the playback right now is not of Attorney Poa but of Representative Flores

speaking, Your Honor.

Again, Your Honor, it's context so we will understand. the answer given by Atty. Poa. Are we saying we can't believe the answers given there by the witness that we're watching right now, her co-defense counsel, Atty. Poa?

Then, Your Honor, all the counsel has to do is to confront the witness with the answer he gave.

That's precisely what we're trying to do. But to give context, of course, we have to see the question first so that we will know the context of that answer. There was no ruling stated by the Honorable Court preventing us from showing these videos, Your Honor. Counsel,

counsels, please. We're nearly about to break for lunch. Lower it down a notch.

Attorney Jay, you can just ask attorney po. You remember being asked and answering in this manner? Again, because clearly, Attorney Jay, the Honorable Flores, whom I see there, if I'm not mistaken, is making, or at that time was making, some conclusions and clear accusations which we will try to avoid in this court unless you want to present the Honorable Flores. So kindly phrase... or this chair can do it so that we can get somewhere before we pause for lunch. Ask the question that the Honorable Flores asked and let the witness answer without showing that video of the Honorable Flores anymore, counsel.

Please proceed accordingly, counsel.

You have the TSN with you.

I'm very sorry, Your Honor, but I will have to most respectfully ask for reconsideration. There is no such thing, counsel. Only a

member of the court can seek a reconsideration or appeal from the ruling of the chair. Kindly proceed, counsel.

The reason why we're showing this, it's because the TSN was not able to faithfully capture what was shown in that video. So, for purposes of accuracy, we need to see that video. Now, if we will just limit what we will show, to the answers given by Atty. Poa. It will not make any sense. For example, we will start with the part where he said, Yes, Your Honor.

Your Honor, no one will understand what he was saying yes to. The question is precisely very important and it's

part of the answer.

Again, Atty. Jay, ask Atty. Poa, when you were asked during the hearing, so on and so forth,

do

you remember your answer and response?

Again, proceed counsel.

Your Honor, I think on their cross-examination, they were allowed a lot of times to show videos and confront our witnesses with those videos on cross-examination. I'm on direct examination. I'm allowed to show previously inconsistent statements. And that's what I'm trying

to do, Your Honor.

Again, counsel, inconsistent statement by Atty. Poa, not by the Hon. Flores. Again, counsel, please move on.

Representative Flores, this is on page

131.