September 2, 2026

Atty. Michael Wesley Poa testified under oath after being called by the prosecution; the chair declared him a hostile witness.

Poa confirmed that he had served as DepEd spokesperson, chief of staff and undersecretary, OIC undersecretary for finance, and head of the procuring entity.

Poa testified that he had no personal knowledge of DepEd's confidential-fund operations and that his involvement began when he received the AOM.

The AOM identified ₱15.54 million in informer rewards for the first two quarters as lacking required supporting documents, and Poa summarized the deficiency as missing documentary evidence of success.

Poa said he sought an accomplishment report through Usec. Nolasco Mempin and based his explanation to COA on the documents and AFP certifications supplied to him.

Poa testified that the AFP certifications were the only evidence of success attached to the AOM reply, but he could not truthfully say whether all the roughly ₱15 million in rewards related to the youth leadership summits.

Poa said the AOM reply represented DepEd management's position based on the special disbursing officer's inputs and the certifications, while his later description of the connection as a theory reflected his lack of personal knowledge.

Poa testified that he briefed Vice President Sara Duterte on his AOM answers, that she acknowledged receiving the response, and that she did not prevent its filing.

Poa said the August 8, 2024 credit notice covered the first and second quarters only and that, as far as he knew, COA had not reopened it or issued notices of suspension or disallowance for the periods discussed on cross-examination.

Poa described the September 2023 COA meeting as a discussion about required supporting documents and an audit-query proposal, saying COA rejected that route and required an AOM.

The prosecution called Atty. Michael Wesley Poa, and the clerk administered the oath.

After the defense clarified that it had not stipulated to the prosecution's merits offer, the chair declared Poa a hostile witness and allowed leading but not misleading questions.

The prosecution completed its examination, followed by defense cross-examination, prosecution redirect, defense recross, and senator-judge interventions.

The chair released Poa from the witness stand after no further senator-judge registered to intervene.

The court then addressed future witnesses and scheduling before adjourning until September 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. offered Poa's testimony to argue that a trusted Duterte aide without operational knowledge was directed to answer COA and relied on AFP certifications that did not establish the claimed informer-reward-success chain.

Tolosa read Joint Circular 2015-01 as requiring a documented connection among an informer, paid information, and a successful activity, and argued that the AFP certifications did not supply that connection.

The prosecution treated the September 2023 COA meeting as evidence of Poa's earlier involvement and characterized the request for an audit query as an effort to use a less formal step before an AOM.

Tolosa emphasized that the credit notice covered only the first and second quarters, that no comparable notice covered the third quarter, and that the period for possible review had not expired.

Atty. Reynaldo Robles argued that the joint circular prohibited transferring a cash advance even between accountable officers and therefore also barred transferring it to a project or security officer.

Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro said the prosecution planned to finish presenting its confidential-fund evidence by September 9 while seeking reasonable stipulations from the defense.

Atty. Sheila C. Sison called the prosecution's 13-point offer rhetorical and misleading, distinguished replying to an AOM from answering for the confidential-fund amount, and objected to its insulting characterization of Poa.

Sison argued that the prosecution mischaracterized the AFP officers' earlier testimony and that their answers about whether youth summits were regular AFP programs did not establish that DepEd supplied no information.

Sison objected that the COA-meeting record supported a request for an audit query, not a request that COA refrain from issuing an AOM.

Through its cross-examination, the defense emphasized the August 8, 2024 credit notice and elicited that, as far as Poa knew, COA had not reopened it and the audit observations had not become notices of suspension or disallowance.

Sison asked for the general purpose of two newly named prosecution witnesses so the defense could prepare, while expressly stating that she was inquiring rather than objecting.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked why Poa was being questioned about a conversation between Edward Fajarda and a House member when Poa did not appear in the cited exchange.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan asked whether DepEd had the vault contemplated by the joint circular and whether Poa checked for one while preparing the AOM reply.

Pangilinan observed that gaps about the vault and custody of records made it difficult to determine how the confidential funds were handled and whether the supporting documents were genuine.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked what factual basis supported DepEd's representation that AFP activities directly resulted from information supplied by paid informers and whether any separate supporting document existed.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked why an audit query was requested before an AOM if the use and liquidation of the funds could be explained through the ordinary audit process.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian asked why Poa's AOM reply used definite language while his later testimony described the documentary connection as a theory.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano distinguished alleged theft from disputed compliance with the joint circular and said the latter required examining whether a disbursement was illegal, irregular, or improper.

Cayetano asked whether one special disbursing officer could practically serve a nationwide school system and whether using a project or security officer to receive funds would itself be improper.

Sen. JV Ejercito proposed a caucus to reconcile the trial calendar with budget hearings, and Sen. Migz Zubiri called for a plan to expedite the proceedings while preserving legislative and budget work.

The chair struck the phrase “abogadong walang alam” from the prosecution's offer as discourteous.

The chair declared Poa hostile, allowing leading but not misleading questions.

The chair sustained a misleading-question objection and limited judicial notice of prior House statements to the fact that they were made, not their truth.

The chair directed the prosecution to question Poa from the transcript rather than replay a House member's accusations.

The chair sustained the defense objection to questions about a conversation involving Edward Fajarda, said those questions applied more to Fajarda than to Poa, and directed the prosecution to move on.

The chair ordered subpoenas for Edward D. Fajarda, Marisa B. Grande, Police Major Jovelin D. Magay, Atty. Sunshine Chary A. Fajarda, and Bresilo R. Sabaldan for the September 7–9 trial dates, while preserving preparation time for the defense if needed.

The chair excused Edward Fajarda for September 7 because of his health, directed another medical assessment, and left a written stipulation proposal open for defense comment.

The chair adjourned the trial until September 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

The prosecution's evidence-in-chief remained underway, and future witness offers remained subject to the chair's review for relevance and necessity.

The general purposes of the proposed testimony of Police Major Jovelin D. Magay and Bresilo R. Sabaldan were not disclosed during the sitting.

A proposed stipulation concerning Marisa B. Grande awaited the defense's response, while a separate written proposal concerning Edward Fajarda still had to be submitted and his later attendance depended on medical fitness or an accepted stipulation.

The October–November trial calendar remained tentative and subject to confirmation after further discussion of budget and legislative work.

The next fixed proceeding was September 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Poa on the limit of his operational knowledge: “Wala talaga akong personal knowledge sa operations mismo ng DepEd.”

Poa on the basis of his documentary reasoning: “wala akong personal knowledge and I'm just basing it on the document, the certification.”

Poa on whether all the rewards related to the youth leadership summits: “Hindi ko po talaga kayo masasagot truthfully.”

Poa on whether personnel who assisted the Vice President could include him if wrongdoing were proved: “Posible po. Sana po hindi, pero posible po.”