July 29, 2026

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.

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.

The Chair limited counsel opening statements, recorded the stipulated admissions, and retained the original order of evidence after the parties did not agree to an alternative.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether the LandBank branch held the OVP account and whether a former vice president had opened it. Violeta Constantino said the OVP's MDS account had been transferred to the branch in September 2022 when the office moved to Pioneer, Mandaluyong. Tulfo then pressed whether the 125-million-peso cash withdrawals were normal, whether large government withdrawals were exempt from ordinary bank procedures, whether the branch knew the money was for intelligence funds, and whether other agencies made comparable cash withdrawals. Constantino said the withdrawals were unusual in her experience, there was no exemption, and the branch had received advance advice; although staff wondered about the cash's purpose, they did not ask, and she did not know it was for intelligence funds. She added that other government clients had moved to online systems rather than make withdrawals of that size. In a second round, Tulfo asked whether the four 125-million-peso transactions had to be reported under AMLA and whether they were documented through LDDAP and an advice to debit account. Constantino invoked AMLA confidentiality on reporting information, said an advice had been issued, and said the agency could answer whether LDDAP applied.

Across two rounds with Violeta Constantino, Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo challenged the detail and controls around the OVP's 125-million-peso cash encashment. He used an approximate 125-kilogram calculation to test her account of the three-to-four gym bags; she recalled that the bank provided a trolley and said it had no cash-delivery agreement. Tulfo also asked who gave the bank advance notice and how it verified an authorized collector; Constantino identified Queenie Masangkay as the caller and said the prior advice sufficed. Returning to the account-opening process, Tulfo pressed for the OVP's documented point of contact and approved signatories. Constantino said a government account required an agency request and Bureau of Treasury approval, but initially could not name the cash-division head or describe a pre-set contact arrangement; she later recalled written communication and IDs from OVP officers. With Nenita Camposano, he invoked COA Circular 2015-01 and pressed LandBank's verification of Edward Fajarda as the DepEd special disbursing officer. Camposano said the bank had received no document appointing Fajarda as SDO; it paid him because he was the cheque's named payee and had presented identification. She said Sonia De Leon, the head of cash division, gave advance notice. Tulfo pressed the distinction between accepting a named payee and confirming an SDO's designation. The Chair later noted that the bank paid the named payee, while the circular limited who could be named on such checks, and Chua said a later witness would address Fajarda's designation.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino first clarified that the money had been downloaded from the Treasury to the OVP and elicited Constantino's statement that Gina Acosta was the check's payee. He then asked whether an unusually large cash withdrawal triggered AMLA reporting. Constantino declined to discuss a particular report, but said government transactions were not exempt; the exchange treated amounts over PHP500,000 as covered, rather than automatically suspicious. She said a suspicious transaction was one the bank found doubtful and that this transaction had not been regarded as suspicious despite being unusual. He then asked Camposano whether she knew the money was for confidential funds, then probed the distinction between covered, suspicious, and unusual transactions. Camposano said covered-transaction reporting was system-driven, with no human intervention, and applied to inflows, outflows, and encashments above PHP500,000. Branch staff identified transactions they found doubtful for suspicious-transaction reporting, but Camposano declined to say whether this transaction was reported. She described an unusual transaction as merely out of the ordinary, not necessarily suspicious, and said not every unusual transaction was reported as suspicious.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked Violeta Constantino whether she knew the concept of confidential or discretionary funds; she said she did not. He used a one-off DFA emergency withdrawal as an example to stress that an unusual amount does not itself make an encashment illegal, and Constantino said this encashment was not illegal. Cayetano contrasted private-account KYC inquiries when activity departs from a customer's pattern with a documented government withdrawal involving identified personnel: the amount could be notable, he said, but the bank would still release it. He then asked Nenita Camposano about confidential, intelligence, and discretionary funds; she said she was not familiar with them. He said a withdrawal's usualness depends on a branch or agency's pattern: repeated intelligence-fund withdrawals may be usual, while a one-off withdrawal may not be. He framed the witnesses' answers as branch-specific descriptions, distinguishing usual and unusual from suspicious and covered transactions, which carry legal implications. He then asked the prosecution whether confidential funds were useful for DepEd; Rep. Joel R. Chua said this was the first time DepEd had received them. Cayetano recounted that he had opposed giving DepEd confidential funds, suggesting that a Vice President's need could instead be met through the OVP, and urged a clear distinction among covered, suspicious, usual, and unusual transactions so the record would not prejudice either side.

Across two rounds with Violeta Constantino, Sen. Risa Hontiveros examined why the OVP's 125-million-peso cash encashment stood out in the branch's experience. Constantino said it was her first such withdrawal in 32 years at LandBank and that cash rather than cheques made it unusual; when Hontiveros pressed a 500,000-peso comparison, Constantino maintained that usualness depended on a customer's regular pattern, while this amount was a first in her experience. Hontiveros then asked about the branch's cash capacity and escalation process. Constantino declined to disclose the cash-on-hand limit for security, the exchange put ordinary daily transactions at about 20 million pesos, and she said any cash need could be referred to the cash center. She could not characterize an agency's total half-billion-peso cash withdrawals, but said she could not recall another agency withdrawing that much in cash over a comparable period. Asked how the bank satisfied itself that the withdrawals were authorized, she pointed to an issued advice, the check to Gina Acosta, and funds in place. With Nenita Camposano, Hontiveros tested the release of 37.5-million-peso cash tranches to DepEd. Camposano said she had no reaction to an amount she had called unusual and had not been told its purpose. Asked about the 112.5 million pesos released in three tranches, she could not recall the bags' size, only that there were perhaps two bags each time. When Hontiveros asked how the branch knew the transactions were approved by then-Vice President Sara Duterte, Camposano said the funds went through DBM and BTr and that the bank had an advice bearing DepEd authorized signatories. Hontiveros returned to whether those elements changed the character of the releases, and Camposano maintained that 37.5 million pesos in cash was unusual.

Sen. Joel Villanueva questioned why four 125-million-peso cash withdrawals would remain unusual if they recurred. Constantino first called the withdrawals unusual, but agreed that a continuing series could become usual. Asked what the bank actually reviewed before release, she said LandBank checked the cheque's issuance, signatories, and payee, and that once the advice had entered the system and funds were available it could release the cash; she regarded the transactions as legitimate, not suspicious. She said the OVP cash division gave one or two days' notice of each requirement, and the bank could prepare within 24 hours. With Nenita Camposano, Villanueva established that her LandBank branch was inside the DepEd compound, then contrasted the large DepEd cash releases with withdrawals by other government agencies. She agreed the releases were unusual for DepEd during her tenure but did not know whether that reflected confidential funds; she said the branch's role was to verify and pay funded instruments and regarded the transactions as legitimate. On the payee arrangement, Camposano said the bank paid the person named on the cheque and did not know whether the agency rotated special disbursing officers. She said a change in an agency's authorized signatories required specimen signatures and a letter naming them. In a later second-round interjection, Villanueva cited BSP Circular 1215's description of unusual transactions as patterns inconsistent with an account owner's usual behavior, known business or financial capacity, or profile. He asked whether Camposano's use of "unusual" fit that category. Camposano responded by asking whether that was why it was unusual, and Villanueva restated the question.

After the Chair recognized him, Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian asked Violeta Constantino whether the 125-million-peso cash withdrawal was unprecedented in her 32 years at LandBank and what her largest prior cash withdrawal had been. She said it was the first she had seen at that scale and put the earlier maximum at 500,000 pesos. He asked about comparable private-company withdrawals; she said private firms used cheques rather than cash. Constantino could not recall whether the visitors discussed the money's purpose during their four branch visits. Asked whether the large cash withdrawal was reported to AMLC, she said LandBank complied with reporting requirements. In the Camposano round, Gatchalian mapped the branch's normal business: payroll was credited rather than withdrawn in cash, while smaller cash encashments covered overtime and contractual staff. Camposano could not recall precise figures but put the typical cash amount at about 100,000 pesos; she had seen other government agencies encash sums around 37.5 million pesos. She said cash had to be requested that morning before the cash center's noon cutoff, and a later request did not guarantee next-day delivery. She had no staff discussions about comparable withdrawals by prior DepEd officials. In a later follow-up, Gatchalian asked why the DepEd withdrawals were unusual if other agencies also made large cash encashments. Camposano said such amounts were routine for some other agencies but, at DepEd, only the three transactions had occurred.

Across two rounds with Violeta Constantino, Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan examined the controls around the OVP's 125-million-peso cash encashment. He established that LandBank treated Gina Acosta as the cheque payee, while Queenie Masangkay gave advance notice; Constantino knew Masangkay from the OVP account-opening visit but could not explain why the roles differed. She said other agencies largely used cheques or online transactions, and put an ordinary cash withdrawal at about 500,000 pesos or less. Pangilinan also reserved his objection to withholding AMLA-reporting information from the Impeachment Court; the Chair replied that bank officers could not disclose whether they had reported a covered or suspicious transaction. In his second round, Pangilinan asked whether a 125-million-peso cheque dated and encashed on the same day was also unusual. Constantino said the agency had given two days' notice and that December rules allowed the same-day release; she treated the amount, not the timing, as unusual. Pangilinan later reiterated that the bank's confidentiality duty differs from the AMLC's records, and the Chair said that was the Court's earlier ruling. With Nenita Camposano, Pangilinan examined why the three 37.5-million-peso DepEd cash releases were described as unusual. Camposano said ordinary cash transactions at the DepEd branch were around 10 million pesos and that the three larger releases were the first such encashments at DepEd in her experience. Pangilinan also asked whether other government agencies had made similarly large transactions; Camposano was concerned that naming them could violate bank secrecy, and Pangilinan understood her to mean that such transactions had occurred elsewhere but not at DepEd.

Sen. Imee Marcos asked why prosecutors had not called Jean Abaya, the former LandBank operations head whom she recalled from a House hearing as having direct knowledge of the full cheque encashments and dealings with Gina Acosta. Prosecutor Chua said Constantino, not Abaya, was branch manager when the cheques were encashed. Marcos asked whether Abaya directly dealt with Acosta; Constantino said Abaya was next in rank, but that she herself dealt directly with the OVP. Asked why Abaya, rather than Constantino, had told the House the full amount of each cheque was withdrawn, Constantino said Abaya later succeeded her as branch manager and, as operations manager, was aware of the transactions. Marcos also pressed an apparent change in Constantino's House-hearing recollection about who packed the cash. Constantino denied that she had forgotten who put the money in bags and asked to revisit the transcript, saying her uncertainty had been about who carried the cash out. With Nenita Camposano, Marcos asked her to reconcile House Good Government Committee testimony that large cash encashments were regular with her hearing testimony calling the 37.5-million-peso DepEd releases unusual. Camposano said the House answer referred to large withdrawals generally at the branch by private and government clients. She maintained that the DepEd withdrawals were unusual only because they were the only such large withdrawals by DepEd during her tenure; Marcos accepted that large withdrawals nevertheless occurred at the branch.

Sen. Panfilo "Ping" M. Lacson questioned why neither side had called an expert on handling intelligence and confidential funds. Drawing on prior intelligence and law-enforcement experience, he contrasted the apparent quarterly pattern of cash withdrawals with the operational needs that, he said, should trigger confidential-fund spending, and suggested a retired intelligence officer. Rep. Joel R. Chua said the prosecution had reserved a witness or witnesses to explain how confidential funds are handled. Lacson replied that the witness list showed no competent specialist and that COA was not one; Chua reiterated the reservation. He also challenged the use of a category between covered and suspicious transactions under AMLA. He said a deposit or withdrawal above PHP500,000 was covered whether or not it was suspicious, and pressed the point that the statute did not use a separate doubtful or unusual label. Camposano said covered transactions were automatically reported; suspicious transactions were investigated after a concern and reported if the investigation did not dispel it. After Villanueva raised the BSP circular's definition of unusual, Lacson said he had confused that term with kaduda-duda, and the Chair distinguished suspicious from unusual.

Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" Ejercito clarified the branch's experience with the 37.5-million-peso DepEd cash encashments, which Nenita Camposano had described as unusual. Ejercito put ordinary branch transactions at 10 to 20 million pesos, and Camposano said they ran at about 10 million pesos. He asked whether that was the largest cash release the branch had made for a single client; she said it was. His questions placed the withdrawals' start in February and confirmed that, in her time, there were no comparable subsequent releases: the three were the only ones.

Sen. Loren Legarda asked whether LandBank had conducted an internal review after the congressional inquiry into how the cash had been prepared, authorized, and released. Nenita Camposano said she was already assigned to LandBank's DOTr branch and did not know whether the DepEd branch had reviewed the transactions or changed its process; she said she had not been called after her statements. Legarda asked what that meant for the current process. Camposano said current BSP guidelines permit cash releases up to PHP1 million and require approvals above that; she confirmed the guideline came after the congressional inquiry. Legarda distinguished that regulatory change from an internal assessment of the episode, and Camposano said she was not familiar with any such review.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla asked Camposano to distinguish "unusual" from "suspicious." She agreed that unusual meant not ordinary, while suspicious meant doubtful, and said she had seen nothing doubtful in the transaction. Padilla characterized that as meaning it was not illegal. Turning to prosecutor Joel Chua, he asked whether confidential funds were ordinary; Chua said they depended on the government agency and its head, and Padilla accepted that they were not simply routine.

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 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.

Constantino and Camposano described the cash withdrawals as unusual in their respective banking experience.

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.