September 7, 2026

Marizza B. Grande, PSA Assistant National Statistician for the Civil Registration Service, described supervising verification and reviewing official replies. She outlined a process of receiving requests, searching the Civil Registry System, consolidating results and securing review and approval.

Grande confirmed that 1,685 of the 2,669 names from the DepEd and OVP lists submitted for verification had no corresponding birth, marriage or death record, approximately 63%. Divinagracia said the submitted names excluded receipts containing only signatures or unreadable names.

Reverification of single-match entries produced 37 death certificates: 32 for names on the OVP list and five on the DepEd list. Grande also identified birth-record matches indicating 20 minors on the OVP list and five on the DepEd list.

On cross-examination, Grande said PSA had received a list and request letter, not the acknowledgement receipts themselves. She confined the certifications to records available in the database. Earlier, answering the chair about Beatrice Cuenca, she said she could not identify the receipt signer from the matching birth record.

Grande said PSA had not obtained the individuals' consent before releasing the civil-registry documents. Answering Escudero, she said PSA relied on Section 13(f) of the Data Privacy Act, checked the request's legitimate purpose and limited the information to what was proportionate to the request. She identified the House committee's ongoing investigation as the purpose and confirmed that the 2026 certifications had been requested by the public prosecutor without a subpoena.

Grande acknowledged that births, marriages and deaths can go unregistered and that delayed registration affects search results. Confronted with her earlier hearing testimony, she confirmed having said that negative results were not 100% accurate.

Atty. Mae Sancho Divinagracia offered the PSA evidence to support the prosecution's contention that confidential funds were liquidated under nonexistent names and names matching deceased people and children. She urged the court to consider Grande's testimony together with the other prosecution evidence.

Divinagracia challenged the suggestion that disclosure of sensitive personal information necessarily violated the Data Privacy Act. She invoked Section 13(f), arguing that the exception covered information used to establish claims and defenses in legal proceedings.

After Grande was excused, Divinagracia argued that the alias theory should have been disclosed in the answer or at pretrial, when the parties were defining the issues. She said the prosecution had prepared its case without that disclosure.

Rep. Gerville Luistro announced that the prosecution would advance unexplained-wealth evidence and present bribery evidence afterward, retaining both parts of its case.

Answering Hontiveros, Gular said the receipt names were aliases and described the information as classified. He said the defense would address the matter during its presentation of evidence.

Gular questioned the release of civil-registry documents without individual consent, raised the protection of sensitive personal information, and asked whether the 2026 certifications had been issued without a request or subpoena from the impeachment court.

Atty. Sheila C. Sison responded to the prosecution's late-disclosure complaint by arguing that the prosecution first had to discharge its burden of proof. She said the defense had not yet reached its evidence presentation and could decide whether to present evidence when that stage came.

Sison requested advance copies of documents the next police witness would identify and reserved the right to seek additional examination time depending on their volume.

Hontiveros pressed Gular to clarify whether the receipt entries were real names or aliases after noting that the cross-examination had explored both possibilities.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked whether the 63% result was usual, unusual or highly unusual. Grande called it unusual. Asked whether other verification requests reached 50%, she answered no and cited 30% to 40% as the highest.

Villanueva asked how PSA could verify a person behind an alias. Grande said it would need the real identity and details such as birth date, birthplace and parents' names; she agreed that an alias alone, without information linking it to that identity, would not establish the person behind a receipt.

Sen. Bam Aquino asked how many people were outside birth registration. Grande cited 96.6% registration in the 2020 census and an unofficial 2024 estimate of 97% to 97.1%, and said many of those still unregistered were indigenous people, Muslim Filipinos and residents of remote areas.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked about delayed registration and checking the submitted names against PhilSys. Grande said a person who had not completed delayed registration could receive a negative result, and that PSA had not checked the names against the national ID system.

Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian asked whether PSA investigated if the people behind unmatched names actually existed; Grande said it had not. Hontiveros compared that process with the Alice Guo case, for which Grande described a registered birth and a fact-finding investigation.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo questioned similar handwriting and signatures under different receipt names and urged calling Lachica and his DepEd counterpart. Asked whether the prosecution had traced parents or guardians of children whose names matched records, Divinagracia said it had not, citing unknown whereabouts and limited time.

Later, Erwin Tulfo proposed that the court summon Lachica and Nolasco if the prosecution would not present them, so senator-judges could question them about the confidential funds and the Vice President's involvement.

In the Fajarda stipulation exchange, Presiding Officer Francis Escudero framed the agreement as receipt of funds by Nolasco upon the Vice President's instruction. He recorded the parties' differing descriptions of the transfer as turnover or disbursement, and the defense agreed to stipulate.

Escudero directed the prosecution to provide the court and defense with Grande's summary and to furnish the defense the 2026 request letters and PSA replies for cross-examination.

The chair sustained objections to speculative questions about what confidential information deceased persons or a three-year-old might have supplied.

Escudero declined to compel the defense to present its theory or evidence-in-chief at that stage. He said the prosecution could object during the defense presentation and noted that the defense might instead choose to file a demurrer.

After the prosecution withdrew its request to call Edward Fajarda on humanitarian grounds, Escudero recalled the subpoena. He cited a medical certificate and Senate medical confirmation that Fajarda required another 30 days to recover.

The chair granted Manulife, PNB and Union Bank more time to comply with document subpoenas. He directed financial institutions to submit their compliance personally to the clerk, who would compare electronic and paper versions and give both parties matching sets.

The sitting began with proposed stipulations concerning Edward Fajarda's appointment, confidential-fund transactions and signed documents, following a report on his medical condition. Grande was then sworn as the prosecution's tenth witness.

Grande completed direct examination before lunch and faced defense cross-examination after the recess. Following redirect, the defense declined recross; senator-judges continued questioning before Escudero excused her.

Gular, answering Hontiveros: "But these are, in fact, aliases, Your Honor, for the consideration of this court."

Luistro confirmed that the prosecution did not intend to present Lachica and Nolasco. Responding to Erwin Tulfo, Escudero described a possible later court decision to call witnesses after the parties' evidence presentations and before judgment, with court-called witnesses answering senator-judges' questions.

Before the next police witness, Escudero asked the prosecution to establish whether the PNP had a separate report and provide it in time for cross-examination. He said the defense would receive preparation time if the documents were voluminous or supplied too late.

The prosecution planned to continue its next witnesses on September 8. Escudero adjourned the trial until 10 a.m. that day and separately said the session would be called at 3 p.m.