July 29, 2026

The court convened, recognized the presiding officer, and addressed the July 22 journal before hearing an opening statement that the chair allowed subject to limits on factual and legal conclusions.

Violeta Constantino was sworn and testified about OVP cash encashments. After the parties' limited stipulations, the court directed prosecutors to proceed without further testimony on the stipulated matters.

After Constantino's examination, the chair opened senator-judge interventions under a two-minute limit, followed by further rounds before the lunch recess.

Nenita Camposano was sworn after lunch and testified about three high-value DepEd encashments, followed by senator-judge interventions.

The court excused Camposano, ordered subpoenas for later prosecution witnesses, retained the original order of evidence, and adjourned to August 3 at 10:00 a.m.

The chair permitted de Lima's opening only under a direction to avoid conclusions of fact and law; after a defense objection invoking the earlier no-opening ruling, the chair stopped the statement and noted the continuing objection.

The chair treated the parties' stipulated facts and check-related matters as admissions, allowing the prosecution to proceed without additional witness proof on those matters.

On AMLA confidentiality, the chair noted Pangilinan's manifestation and placed the cited bank-officer confidentiality provision on the record; it did not adopt Pangilinan's position as a ruling in his favor.

The chair ordered subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum for the prosecution-named witnesses.

Because the parties' written manifestations showed no agreement to an alternate procedure, the chair directed the prosecution to finish evidence in chief on all non-withdrawn articles before respondent evidence on the remaining articles.

Erwin Tulfo asked Constantino whether the OVP withdrawals were normal or unusual and about the bank's response.

Bam Aquino asked Constantino about the origin of the funds, reporting, and the application of AMLA rules to government transactions.

Alan Peter Cayetano used a hypothetical to distinguish a transaction described as unusual from one necessarily illegal.

Risa Hontiveros asked why the amount and cash form were described as unusual, while Joel Villanueva asked whether repeated withdrawals became usual and what documents the bank checked.

Panfilo Lacson manifested concern that neither party had offered a competent witness on the handling of intelligence and confidential funds.

Pangilinan manifested disagreement with Constantino's claimed AMLA confidentiality limit; this was a senator-judge position, not a court finding.

During Camposano's examination, several senator-judges asked about whether large government withdrawals were unusual or regular, their authorization, and the meanings of covered and suspicious transactions.

Cayetano cautioned against treating labels such as covered, suspicious, usual, and unusual as prejudging either side.

The prosecution said it was ready to present Article 1 witnesses concerning alleged confidential-fund misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation.

In its opening, the prosecution argued that confidential funds remain subject to accountability and characterized Article 1 as involving 612.5 million pesos through the OVP and DepEd. Those were prosecution claims, not court findings.

The prosecution presented Constantino and Camposano to describe the relevant LandBank encashment processes, then requested subpoenas for additional witnesses for the following settings.

The defense objected that the opening statement went beyond proper evidentiary presentation and raised fair-play concerns about statements heard even if later struck from the record.

The defense stipulated only to limited foundational facts about checks, witness identification, signatures, and processing; it reserved substantive positions rather than conceding the allegations.

The defense put reservations concerning exhibit markings on the record and reserved its ability to present positions when necessary.

In cross-examination, the defense tested the basis for Constantino's account of a person leaving through a fire exit; the chair limited the witness to matters within her knowledge.

Constantino, a retired LandBank employee and former Shaw Boulevard branch manager, testified about four OVP checks encashed while she was manager.

Constantino described advance OVP notice, a stated 125-million-peso encashment, verification of the check and identification, and cash release to the stated payee. She said the bank had advice in its system and no cash-delivery agreement.

Constantino invoked AMLA confidentiality rather than disclose reporting information. She said the encashment was not illegal, described its cash nature or size as unusual to her, and also said it was supported by advice and funding.

Camposano described three DepEd checks of about 37.5 million pesos, including cash reservation, verification, approval, and backroom release. She said it was the first such large DepEd encashment she had seen, while also describing advice and authorized-signatory checks.

Camposano distinguished automatically reported covered transactions from suspicious transactions that require a doubtful basis and an STR. She said not every unusual transaction is suspicious and declined to disclose STR information.

Camposano said 37.5 million pesos was the largest amount released, but explained that large withdrawals can be usual across clients and that these three DepEd transactions were unusual to her because only those three occurred.

Constantino said of the encashment, "Wala naman pong illegal dun sa encashment po."

Camposano said, "Hindi lahat ng mga unusual transaction ay nire-report namin as suspicious."

The record does not establish whether a suspicious transaction report was filed. Both bank witnesses invoked AMLA confidentiality when asked about reporting information.

The witnesses' descriptions of unusual transactions remained qualified: unusual in their experience did not itself mean illegal or suspicious.

Camposano could not answer whether LandBank later conducted an internal review because she had moved to another branch.

The next substantive stage was the continued prosecution evidence, with subpoenas ordered for Wamil, Del Campo, and Pareja and the trial set to resume on August 3.