In part one of analyzing the fifth week of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial we saw that, according to the COA, lack of receipts is prima facie evidence that funds were used for personal benefit. Apparently Senator Marcos does not understand this as she repeatedly badgered the witness, former COA auditor Wamil, into admitting that they had not written down that opinion, as if that mattered.
 |
| https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/753873/imee-marcos-points-out-lack-of-coa-findings-on-fake-names-stolen-funds |
Senator-judge Imee Marcos in Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday pointed out the lack of findings by the Commission on Audit (COA) on the use of fake names and whether the confidential funds allotted to Vice President Sara Duterte were stolen.
“Did the Notice of Suspension indicate any personal use or misappropriation of the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds?” Senator Marcos asked COA auditor Roderick Wamil.
Wamil was presented by the prosecution team to testify on Dutere’s alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds released to the OVP and the Department of Education (DepEd) when she was its secretary.
“That is a presumption. It does not have to be stated expressly because it is presumed, Your Honor,” the witness said, citing a 2015 joint circular on the release, use and audit of confidential and intelligence funds.
When Marcos insisted that there was no such findings by the COA, Wamil repeated that because it was presumed, there was no need to expressly state it in their audit.
“I understand that, but it’s not there,” the senator stressed. “Is there any COA finding in the various AOMs (Audit Observation Memorandum) were stolen?
At this point, the state auditor pointed out that there was a prima facie evidence that the funds were used for personal use and benefit based on the joint circular.
Before this, Marcos zeroed in on the absence of a COA finding, saying that the use of fictitious names in acknowledgment receipts was prohibited.
Wamil, who audited the OVP and DepEd’s confidential funds, explained that they had no basis to come up with that finding because it was not the focus of his audit.
“So the answer is no? There is nothing stating that the ARs [acknowledgment receipts] were fictitious,” Marcos said, adding that the COA did not flag the unusual names in the receipts.
“Because it is common for unusual names to be used when confidential or intelligence funds are involved,” she further added.
The state auditor reiterated that what the COA only did was compliance audit, and that there was no mention in the circular about the use of aliases.
 |
| https://mb.com.ph/2026/08/05/coa-witness-says-guidelines-silent-on-aliases-for-intel-agents-informants |
Former Commission on Audit (COA) Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office (ICFAO) State Auditor Atty. Roderick Wamil told the impeachment court on Wednesday that the guidelines governing confidential and intelligence funds do not explicitly allow or prohibit the use of aliases for intelligence agents or informants.
Testifying during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Wamil said the COA-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Joint Circular No. 2015-01 is "silent" on whether fictitious names or aliases may be used in documents supporting confidential fund disbursements.
His testimony came after Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo asked whether the circular required the disclosure of the actual identities of intelligence agents or informants who allegedly received confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President (OVP), citing names such as "Mary Grace Piattos," "Chippy McDonald," and "Mickey Mouse."
Wamil replied that the circular contains no provision on the matter.
"It is neither allowed nor prohibited," he said when Tulfo asked whether the absence of a specific rule meant the practice was permissible.
Tulfo then questioned why COA auditors did not seek to determine the true identities of the listed recipients during the audit of the OVP's confidential funds.
Wamil explained that the audit conducted by the ICFAO was a compliance audit, with auditors determining only whether the documents complied with the requirements set out in the joint circular.
"Our audit is a compliance audit. Whatever is provided in the circular serves as the basis of our audit," he said.
Later, Senator-judge Bam Aquino also questioned Wamil on the issue, asking whether previous COA guidelines had ever expressly allowed the use of code names or aliases.
Wamil said that, based on his recollection, even earlier circulars in effect during his time at the ICFAO did not contain any provision addressing aliases.
Aquino then asked whether COA expected the names appearing in supporting documents to belong to actual persons.
Wamil said the audit process is document-based, and auditors have no way of independently determining whether a listed name is an alias.
However, when Aquino asked if the expectation is that documents submitted to COA identify real individuals, Wamil replied in the affirmative.
The exchange formed part of the impeachment court's examination of the liquidation and auditing procedures for the OVP's confidential funds, an issue central to one of the articles of impeachment against Duterte.
While there are no guidelines concerning the use of aliases the audit was not about rooting out the truth of the recipient's names but "was a compliance audit, with auditors determining only whether the documents complied with the requirements set out in the joint circular." As seen in part one the documents lacked the proper requirements and did not follow the law. That, not the true identity of Mary Grace Piattos, is what is important. And, as Wamil testified, lack of proper receipts is prima facie evidence that the funds were used for personal gain. Surely that point is not missed on Senator Marcos. She is only attempting to defend her friend.
Likewise Senator Padilla also revealed his biases by coming to Vice President Sara Duterte's defense.
 |
| https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/753894/robin-padilla-says-ovp-confidential-funds-help-foil-rebel-attacks |
Senator Robin Padilla said on Wednesday that the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) confidential fund disbursements may have played a role in thwarting insurgent assaults, noting that the timing of the fund releases aligned with the founding anniversaries of the CPP-NPA and the NDF.
During the 13th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial,Padilla examined prosecution witness Roderick Wamil regarding a trio of P125 million confidential fund disbursements distributed between late 2022 and early 2023.
Wamil is the former state auditor of the Commission on Audit-Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) who audited the P500 million confidential funds released to the OVP in four 125 million increments, as well as the P112.5 million for the Department of Education (DepEd) released in three checks worth 37.5 million each.
“On all of these dates, December 26, March 29, April 24, there were no attacks. Every single one was foiled. There’s none. For the first time, there were no attacks because every time the CPP-NPA celebrates its founding anniversary, there is usually an attack.” Padilla said in Filipino.
When he started his clarificatory questions to the witness, Padilla referred to the first check for the OVP and asked, “The first check, 125 million, was issued on December 20, 2022. Are you aware that the founding anniversary of the CPP-NPA falls on December 26?”
Wamil answered, “I do not have personal knowledge about that matter.”
The senator-judge then cited a second P125 million check covering the first quarter of 2023 dated Jan. 31, 2023, noting that the NPA’s founding anniversary is on March 29.
Padilla likewise pointed to a third P125-million check dated April 18, 2023, saying it preceded the 50th founding anniversary of the National Democratic Front on April 24.
Padilla asked whether Wamil believed confidential funds and confidential agents played a significant role in preventing such attacks.
“My question is, do you believe that confidential funds and confidential agents play a significant role?” Padilla asked.
The witness declined to make that conclusion, saying it would depend on an agency’s mandate and that he had no personal knowledge of the anniversaries or the alleged security operations.
Padilla, a known ally of the Duterte family, further asked, “We all know that the DepEd is where, as we refer to it in relation to the Communist Party, some of them come from, right? There are different groups within the movement, the guerrilla group and the political group. The political group consists of students coming from universities, do you agree?”
“I cannot answer that po, Your Honor,” Wamil answered.
Duterte is facing impeachment over allegations of culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust stemming from the alleged misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds for the OVP and Deped, where she also served as secretary.
There are a lot of problems with this line of questioning. First of all Padilla should not be defending Sara. He is her judge not her lawyer. Second of all correlation does not equal causation. Simply because attacks did not happen when money was disbursed means nothing. It also does not take into account the weakness of the NPA and the operations of the AFP. Third of all Wamil has no idea where those funds went so he cannot answer the questions posed to him. Fourth, and last, the use of the funds are irrelevant when the question is: were the dispersement of the funds properly documented? The answer to that is a big NO.
 |
| https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1281109 |
The Office of the Vice President (OVP) failed to submit documents showing that the government benefited from confidential fund operations for which rewards were paid, a Commission on Audit (COA) auditor said Wednesday.
Former COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office state auditor Roderick Wamil told the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday that the OVP did not provide the required “evidence of success” for reward payments covered by its confidential fund liquidation.
“That is how we determine whether the payment of rewards was valid,” Wamil said during questioning by Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros.
Asked whether such documents would prove that the government gained something from the operations, Wamil replied: “Yes, Your Honor. That is why we require its submission.”
Wamil said the supporting documents submitted by the OVP for the fourth quarter of 2022 consisted only of acknowledgment receipts, without official receipts or sales invoices for purchases.
He described the submission as incomplete, saying COA needed official receipts or sales invoices to determine whether the items listed in the liquidation documents had actually been purchased.
During questioning by Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan, Wamil said auditors could not confirm from the documents alone whether the reported PHP122 million worth of medicines had truly been bought.
“No, Your Honor,” he said when asked whether the liquidation report was sufficient to establish that the medicines were purchased.
Wamil said the PHP125-million confidential fund liquidation covering Dec. 21 to 31, 2022 was supported by 849 acknowledgment receipts but not a single official receipt or sales invoice.
He added that it was the first time in nearly a decade of auditing confidential funds of more than 30 government agencies that he encountered a submission composed entirely of acknowledgment receipts.
Wamil also testified that the Department of Education, based on documents he initially evaluated, did not submit evidence showing the success of its surveillance or information-gathering activities.
He clarified that confidential funds, despite their sensitive nature, remain public funds and are therefore subject to COA scrutiny and documentation requirements.
Wamil also said that requiring receipts for medicines, food and other ordinary purchases charged against confidential funds would not compromise national security.
Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo asked whether submitting receipts for items such as medicines, shampoo, vinegar and snacks bought from stores could jeopardize national security.
“No,” Wamil replied.
Wamil explained that for purchases, auditors require proof of purchase in the form of official receipts or sales invoices, rather than information that could expose the identity of confidential informants.
He said acknowledgment receipts may be accepted for payments to individuals who provided information, while purchases from suppliers require official receipts or sales invoices.
“For the purchase of information, we allow acknowledgment receipts,” he said during questioning by Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva.
He also clarified that the audit of confidential funds is document-based and that COA evaluates the records submitted by an agency against the requirements of the joint circular.
The impeachment court is hearing the prosecution’s evidence under Article I of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Without the proper receipts there is absolutely no proof that the confidential funds were used to prevent terrorist attacks. Senator Padilla's line of questioning and his assertions remain baseless speculation.
In part one we saw that the defense would not agree that Sara spent her entire confidential fund in a mere 11 days despite the receipts showing otherwise. Now the COA says in just one day there were 111 disbursements.
 |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2278066/ovps-111-disbursements-in-one-day-its-unusual-says-coa-auditor |
In just one day, Vice President Sara Duterte’s office made 111 disbursements totaling P17 million in confidential funds, as revealed during her impeachment trial on Wednesday.
The disbursements were all dated December 23, 2022, according to Senator-judge Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan.
"We counted 111 disbursements in a single day, totaling P17 million. Would you consider that normal—111 disbursements in one day?," Pangilinan asked, directing his question to prosecution witness and former COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office auditor Roderick Wamil.
Initially, Wamil could not confirm the figures.
And on Pangilinan’s question whether he considered the disbursements usual, the witness noted the absence of a specific provision on that in a 2015 joint circular pertaining to the release, use and audit of confidential and intelligence funds.
“Yes, but the Circular says to prevent irregular, excessive, extravagant. So, would you consider this… does this fall under regular, irregular, o you wouldn’t know?” Pangilinan went on.
"I wouldn’t know," Wamil said. "But that is unusual. However, I wouldn’t say it is irregular because there is no provision governing that."
As part of the Commission on Audit’s (COA) Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, the witness audited the P500 million in confidential funds released to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and another P112.5 million under the Department of Education during Duterte’s stint as education secretary.
OVP’s liquidation records showed that P125 million of its confidential funds was disbursed from December 21 to 31, 2022 while the same amount was released in the first three quarters of 2023 .
But Pangilinan also observed that all the amounts in the acknowledgment receipts submitted by the OVP to the COA were round figures.
"What I noticed here is that all the amounts are round figures, with no centavos. The acknowledgment receipts are all for P250,000 or P500,000. Isn’t it true that official receipts are more likely to reflect amounts that are not whole numbers? They usually include centavos, don’t they?"
"So here, all the amounts are round figures—P250,000, P500,000. Not a single one includes centavos. There isn’t even one with a decimal amount. So that’s one of our concerns," the senator added.
Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds falls under Article 1of the four articles of impeachment lodged against her.
Even though there is no "specific provision on that in a 2015 joint circular pertaining to the release, use and audit of confidential and intelligence funds" it is undoubtedly unusual that so many disbursements in exact round numbers were made. Likely the defense will call that an opinion and object that there is no provision on how many disbursements can be made per day.
To sum up, week 5 was pretty damning for Sara Duterte. Former COA auditor Wamil testified there were two firsts regarding her confidential funds. One, her office only submitted acknowledgment receipts and two, medicines were listed as a reward for intelligence information.
 |
| https://mb.com.ph/2026/08/06/2-questionable-firsts-in-ovp-confidential-fund-liquidation-raised-in-vp-sara-trial |
Commission on Audit (COA) auditor Roderick Wamil has highlighted two "firsts" from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) when it comes to the liquidation of confidential funds, in this case amounting to P612.5 million from 2022 to 2023.
Wamil served as a witness for the prosecution in Vice President Sara Duterte's ongoing Senate impeachment trial, particularly on article I, which detailed alleged misuse of these confidential funds.
He handled the audit of the P612.5 million during his time with the COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (ICFAO).
On Wednesday, Aug. 5, Wamil testified before the Senate impeachment court that the OVP under Duterte was the first government agency in nearly 10 years to submit only acknowledgment receipts (ARs) to liquidate confidential funds.
Wamil, who served from September 2014 to February 2024 with the ICFAO, said he had audited the confidential funds of more than 30 national government agencies, as well as numerous local government units (LGUs).
The testimony referred to the OVP’s liquidation of P125 million in confidential funds covering Dec. 21 to 31, 2022.
"So it’s the first time in your 10 years that there were only ARs and no sales invoice or official receipt?," Senator-judge Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan asked Wamil.
"Yes. And that many ARs were immediately submitted," the witness replied.
Earlier, Wamil testified that the OVP submitted 849 ARs but no official receipts or sales invoices to support the liquidation of the P125 million in confidential funds.
The COA auditor also told the court Wednesday that he had never encountered medicines being given as "rewards" for intelligence work until he audited Duterte’s confidential funds.
Quizzed by Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros, Wamil said the practice was not normal based on his almost decade-long stint with ICFAO.
“It's not normal, your honor. It's the first time with the OVP, your honor,” Wamil said when asked whether medicines are normally given in exchange for intelligence information.
Hontiveros pointed to one AR showing that controversial confidential fund recipient "Mary Grace Piattos"--which pro-impeachment solons believed was a fictitious name--supposedly received P70,000 worth of medicines as reward for intelligence-gathering.
Wamil had earlier testified that the OVP’s liquidation reports reflected P122 million worth of medicines charged against its confidential funds.
He also testified that because the OVP submitted only ARs—and no official receipts or sales invoices—COA could not verify whether the reported purchases were actually medicines.
Hontiveros asked whether COA was able to determine what illness Piattos supposedly had or why medicines were given in exchange for intelligence information.
"I wouldn’t know, I would not be able to tell since it was not in the document that was submitted," Wamil replied.
Wamil said the audit records contained no information identifying the illness or explaining the purpose of the medicines.
He added that while the ICFAO’s audit is document-based, auditors are authorized under Joint Circular (JC) No. 2015-01—which governs the release, use, liquidation and audit of confidential and intelligence funds—to seek additional information when circumstances warrant.
Hontiveros also asked what it meant when an agency released reward payments without submitting proof that its intelligence or surveillance operations had been successful.
"That means the OVP did not comply with the requirements of the joint circular," Wamil said.
With testimony this black and white the onus lies squarely on the defense to explain these anomalies. But even if they are sufficiently explained the paper work still remains deficient and contrary to established rules.
