House panel to assess whether to present Madriaga in Duterte trial

MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution panel on Wednesday said it would first assess whether to proceed with presenting Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged aide, Ramil Madriaga, as a witness in her impeachment trial.

This was in response to the remarks made by Duterte’s legal counsel in her perjury cases against Madriaga, in which he claimed that presenting Madriaga would be detrimental to the prosecution’s case.

READ: Panelo: Madriaga could be VP Duterte’s ‘star witness’ in impeach trial

According to Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, however, the prosecution has almost finished substantiating Duterte’s misuse of confidential funds through the testimony of their current witness, former Office of the Vice President Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta.

This came after Acosta revealed during Monday’s proceedings that the vice president herself ordered the release of the P125 million in confidential funds to the former head of her security detail, Col. Raymind Lachica.

“Before Paolo Panelo runs his mouth about the prosecution’s presentation of witnesses, he should first make sure he is actually part of the impeachment defense panel, and not just a mere spectator like his father,” said Ridon, referring to Salvador Panelo.

“The prosecution will now have to decide whether other witnesses need to be presented in the coming days,” he added.

Lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, for her part, likewise maintained that presenting Madriaga would depend on the testimonies of the prosecution’s first witnesses.

“If the testimony of the first witnesses covers the testimony of Ramil Madriaga, it is possible that he will no longer be presented.,” said Luistro. 

“The prosecution carefully and regularly reviews the witnesses to be presented next. Its intention is to expedite the trial; thus, it avoids presenting witnesses whose testimonies would be superfluous, repetitive, or unnecessary,” she added.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, meanwhile, also said the prosecution is still determining whether the evidence it has presented is already “solid.”

“The issue here is clear — whether the use of confidential funds is correct or not,” said Chua.

“Based on Ms. Gina Acosta’s account, it is clear that there is a problem and a violation regarding the use of confidential funds, in light of the Joint Circular,” he added. The circular establishes who is accountable for confidential funds and how those funds may be transferred, disbursed and liquidated.

He then maintained that the prosecution intends to avoid a drawn-out trial, adding that once they believe they’ve established what is needed, the party will move on to the next article — unexplained wealth. /das