August 3, 2026

With 16 senator-judges present, the court called the case, heard the parties' appearances, and placed prosecution witness Roderick Wamil under oath.

Before direct examination, the parties negotiated stipulations over a large document set. The defense accepted the listed stipulations except all 845 acknowledgment receipts covering December 21-31, 2022, and the court recorded qualified stipulations concerning the OVP and DepEd fund allotments.

Wamil established his COA background and described the Joint Circular 2015-01 compliance post-audit. The prosecution then led him through OVP plans, vouchers, liquidation reports, accomplishment reports, and audit observation memoranda.

After the lunch recess, Wamil discussed the OVP's responses and acknowledgment receipts. The court marked his 19-page personal tabulation and later allowed the prosecution to present the receipt set through a summary while reserving the defense's challenges.

The prosecution reviewed selected receipts and the notice of suspension before moving briefly into the next OVP quarter. The court then stopped the unfinished direct examination and ordered Wamil to return under the same oath on August 4.

The court recorded the OVP's P125 million December 2022 allotment subject to the defense qualification that the Office of the President approved it on DBM's recommendation. It separately recorded the DepEd P37.5 million quarterly allotment for 2023 subject to the defense's General Appropriations Act qualification.

After a defense objection that a question called for a legal conclusion, the chair allowed Wamil to answer only insofar as he was explaining his audit interpretation of the submitted document.

The chair sustained the defense's leading-question objection immediately before the lunch recess.

The chair denied the defense motion to strike Wamil's answers about whether store names were confidential, but limited the witness to explaining how he evaluated the OVP submissions and said he was not testifying as an expert on confidentiality, regularity, or violations of Republic Act 3019.

When the defense continued to dispute the 845 receipts' provenance, chain of custody, and count, the chair said the court could not compel a stipulation and directed the prosecution to proceed with its proof.

The court allowed the prosecution to use Wamil's summary under Rule 130's voluminous-record provisions. The defense retained the right to test the table's accuracy and question individual receipt authenticity during cross-examination.

After the defense objected that prosecution counsel was coloring the contents of selected receipts, the chair said he understood the objection and directed counsel to proceed accordingly.

In the closing administrative order, the court granted BDO and Security Bank until August 13 to complete specified subpoena submissions, required additional copies, and deferred equal party access until the submissions were complete.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero flagged an impossible chronology in prosecution counsel's description of a check because the stated encashment date appeared to precede the check date. He directed the parties to validate the record; the observation itself was not evidence about the transaction.

Escudero asked where the Joint Circular required strict interpretation. Wamil answered that the language appeared in the last paragraph of section 1.0.

Escudero clarified that Wamil's phrase 'hindi pasok' referred to a receipt dated in 2023 and therefore outside the December 21-31, 2022 period being examined.

The prosecution offered Wamil to explain his audit role, the documents he reviewed, the resulting audit observations and notice of suspension, and the identity and authenticity of documents produced in court. This was an offer of proof, not a court finding.

To shorten the presentation, the prosecution sought stipulations over documents it described as OVP and DepEd liquidation submissions and as common exhibits, while accepting defense qualifications to the OVP and DepEd allotment stipulations.

Opposing the motion to strike, the prosecution argued that Wamil's store-name answers were grounded in the Joint Circular's permitted-use and documentation provisions and in his audit evaluation of the OVP submissions.

On the disputed acknowledgment receipts, the prosecution maintained that certified true copies produced by the COA witness under subpoena established their provenance and existence.

Invoking Rule 130's voluminous-record provisions, the prosecution proposed using Wamil's table instead of presenting all 845 receipts individually. Counsel said the intended general result was to show amounts and purposes she contended did not comply with Joint Circular 2015-01.

The defense agreed to most of the listed stipulations but excluded all 845 acknowledgment receipts covering December 21-31, 2022. It also declined to stipulate that the OVP used the entire P125 million within 11 days.

The defense qualified the OVP allotment stipulation by stating that the Office of the President approved the release on DBM's recommendation, and qualified the DepEd quarterly allotment by reference to the General Appropriations Act.

The defense stated that Wamil's testimony remained subject to cross-examination and objected when the prosecution sought a legal conclusion from him about a certification.

The defense moved to strike Wamil's opinions about whether store names were confidential, arguing that no specific Joint Circular provision established his competence to answer that question. It submitted to the ruling but preserved the objection.

The defense refused to stipulate that the 845 receipts were exactly the OVP and DepEd documents submitted to COA, preserving chain-of-custody concerns and citing inconsistent receipt counts during exhibit marking.

The defense noted that Wamil's receipt tabulation was an unsigned personal printout. It did not oppose use of the voluminous-record rule but expressly reserved the right to test the table's accuracy and individual receipt authenticity on cross-examination.

Wamil identified himself as a COA audit team leader, lawyer, and accountant with more than 11 years at the commission and prior service as a State Auditor in the Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office.

Wamil described his work as a compliance post-audit conducted after disbursement under Joint Circular 2015-01. He said he audited OVP confidential funds totaling P500 million across four quarters and DepEd funds totaling P112.5 million across three quarters.

Wamil testified that the OVP physical and financial plan and initial accomplishment report did not identify specific confidential activities. He also said the disbursement voucher referred to calendar year 2022 even though the plan concerned the fourth quarter, while the liquidation report covered only December 21-31.

Wamil said the first audit observation memorandum identified deficient plans and accomplishment reports, absence of documentary evidence of payments, and a period inconsistency in the disbursement voucher. These were his audit conclusions, not findings adopted by the impeachment court.

Although Wamil noticed that a fourth-quarter 2022 certification bore an execution date of January 10, 2022, he expressly said the audit made no particular finding on that document beyond the date because the required pro forma certification had been submitted.

Wamil said the revised accomplishment report listed specific activities but included P40 million for medical and food aid and P10 million for incentives or travel that he viewed as outside the circular's allowable confidential expenses. He also said reward payments lacked documents showing successful information gathering or surveillance attributable to the informer.

After the OVP submitted responses with acknowledgment receipts, Wamil testified that reward receipts still lacked documents showing successful information gathering and that purchases were supported only by acknowledgment receipts rather than sales invoices or official receipts.

Wamil's unsigned 19-page summary showed P125.15 million in expenses, including some receipts dated in December 2023. He later testified that the receipt total was P150,000 above the P125 million accomplishment-report total.

Wamil testified that identifying payment recipients was outside the Joint Circular compliance audit's scope. He also found no particular observation on several selected receipts for purchases of information because that purpose was allowable under the circular.

From a notice-of-suspension annex, Wamil said December 2023-dated receipts totaled P25.606 million and undated receipts totaled P3.276 million. He had no personal knowledge of events after the notice issued because he had transferred to another COA audit sector.

Explaining the post-audit, Wamil said: "Ginagawa po namin yung audit after the fact of the disbursement."

On the anomalously dated certification, Wamil emphasized: "Pero dito po, wala po kaming naging particular finding dito."

Describing the receipt table, Wamil said: "Since it is a personal note, so hindi ko na po pinirmahan yung tabulation."

After the prosecution briefly began the OVP's first quarter of 2023, Wamil's direct examination remained unfinished. The remaining examination of the OVP's first three 2023 quarters and the DepEd material was still to come, and defense cross-examination had not begun.

The provenance and exact count of the 845 receipts, along with the accuracy, authenticity, and evidentiary weight of Wamil's unsigned summary, remained contested and reserved for later testing.

The prosecution's theory that the receipt purposes and supporting records did not comply with Joint Circular 2015-01 remained an asserted inference from unfinished direct examination, not a merits finding by the impeachment court.

Wamil lacked personal knowledge of events after the notice of suspension, so any later OVP response, COA disposition, recovery, repayment, or disallowance outcome remained outside his August 3 testimony.

BDO and Security Bank still had until August 13 to complete specified subpoena submissions, and the parties had not yet received equal access to inspect the completed production.