September 2, 2026

Counsel and senator-judges repeatedly examined the circular's rules for rewards to informers, documentary evidence of successful information-gathering or surveillance, and transfers of cash advances. Their competing readings remain attributed to the speakers in the transcript.

The prosecution displayed this memorandum and read its observation that ₱15.54 million in informer rewards for the first two quarters lacked the supporting documents specified by the circular. Referring to the memorandum, Poa said the document stated that documentary evidence of success was lacking.

Poa testified that he signed and filed the response after gathering information from the special disbursing officer and military certifications. Senator-judges questioned him about the response's representation that activities directly resulted from information provided by informers; Poa attributed that wording to DepEd's position and the material supplied to him.

Defense counsel identified this second memorandum as D-I-110-DE while setting out the stipulated COA and DepEd records at the start of Poa's examination.

Defense counsel identified the reply as D-I-93-DE among the stipulated records. Later, the Senate President said he was comparing the two DepEd replies signed by Poa while questioning why their definite wording differed from Poa's later description of his reasoning as a theory.

This certification was among the military records attached to DepEd's response and examined during Poa's testimony about whether the records connected paid informers and particular information to successful activities.

This certification was among the military records attached to DepEd's response and examined during Poa's testimony about whether the records connected paid informers and particular information to successful activities.

This certification was among the military records attached to DepEd's response and examined during Poa's testimony about whether the records connected paid informers and particular information to successful activities.

The prosecution and defense examined the notice's coverage and effect. Poa said it covered the first and second quarters only and that, as far as he knew, COA had not reopened it; the defense elicited that the cited audit observations had not progressed to notices of suspension or disallowance, while the prosecution noted that no comparable credit notice covered the third quarter and that the review period had not expired.