The Senate impeachment court shifted focus to Article I on Day 10 — the charge that Vice President Sara Duterte misused ₱612.5 million in confidential funds — as two retired LandBank branch managers described the Office of the Vice President's cash withdrawals as "unusual" in both size and form. Crucially, both witnesses stopped short of calling the transactions suspicious, testifying the checks were properly funded and processed through legitimate channels. Here are the highlights of Day 10:
Prosecution opens Article I with two ex-LandBank managers
Led by Rep. Joel Chua, the prosecution called Violeta Constantino, former manager of LandBank's Shaw Boulevard branch, and Nenita Camposano, former manager of LandBank's DepEd branch, as its first witnesses on the confidential-funds charge. Constantino testified to four checks of ₱125 million each — ₱500 million total — encashed by an OVP special disbursing officer between December 2022 and July 2023. Camposano testified to three checks of ₱37.5 million each — ₱112.5 million total — encashed by a DepEd special disbursing officer while Duterte served as DepEd secretary.
"First time po" — decades on the job, nothing like it
Speaking from 32 years with LandBank, Constantino told Sen. Risa Hontiveros the ₱125-million encashments were the largest she had ever processed; her branch's previous record was around ₱500,000. She said what made the withdrawals unusual wasn't only the size but the form — cash rather than check. Each encashment ran more than six times her branch's average daily transaction volume, requiring the OVP to call ahead so the branch could source the cash. The money, she said, was released in the backroom in 125 bundles of ₱1 million each, loaded into three to four gym bags carried out by OVP personnel themselves. Camposano gave similar testimony for DepEd, noting the department's routine cash disbursements ran about ₱100,000 a month for contractual workers' overtime — nothing close to the sums in question.
"Unusual" — but not "suspicious": the key distinction
Despite calling the withdrawals unusual, both retired managers were adamant, under senators' questioning, that they saw nothing technically suspicious about the transactions. Both testified the checks were properly funded, backed by an advice, and processed through legitimate channels — meaning "unusual" described the size and cash form of the withdrawals, not any irregularity in the paperwork or authorization behind them.
Sen. Joel Villanueva pressed further, asking Constantino to clarify her own use of the word "unusual." She confirmed it matched the Bangko Sentral's definition of a transaction inconsistent with an account's usual behavior — a description of pattern, not of wrongdoing. Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, "suspicious transaction" is a distinct, formally defined term that does not depend on the amount involved; it requires specific red flags such as the absence of a legal purpose, unverified client identity, or a clear mismatch with the account holder's financial capacity — none of which the witnesses attributed to the OVP or DepEd withdrawals.
Both witnesses were careful when senators pressed on whether the transactions had actually been flagged to the Anti-Money Laundering Council, citing the AMLA's bar on bank officers disclosing whether a suspicious-transaction report was filed. Constantino would only say LandBank is "compliant" with its reporting obligations for covered and suspicious transactions, while Camposano noted that any transaction above ₱500,000 is reported to the AMLC automatically by the bank's system — a routine compliance step, not a flag of suspicion.
Lacson: court still needs an intel-funds expert
Sen. Panfilo "Ping" Lacson flagged a gap in both panels' witness lists — no one "competent" to testify on how confidential and intelligence funds are actually handled and disbursed in practice. He noted the quarterly pattern of the OVP's withdrawals struck him as unusual, since such funds are typically drawn for specific intelligence operations rather than on a routine schedule. Prosecutor Rep. Joel Chua said the prosecution has a reserved witness — possibly a retired intelligence officer — while defense counsel Michael Poa said the defense has its own reserved witness to call "when we feel necessary."
Defense waives cross-examination for the first time
For the first time in the trial, the defense declined to cross-examine a witness at all, waiving questioning of Constantino after stipulating upfront to the authenticity of her checks. It took only a brief cross of Camposano, drawing out that DepEd disbursing officer Edward Fajarda exited through a fire door because the LandBank branch sits inside the DepEd compound. Poa's early stipulation to all seven checks spared the court the hours of document-by-document authentication seen during the grave-threats phase.
Cayetano video draws prosecution objection
Separately, the House prosecution panel — through Rep. Leila de Lima — objected to Sen. Pia Cayetano's social media post of a spliced video of Rep. Chel Diokno discussing the Duterte bank-record subpoenas, calling it misleading and a violation of her oath of impartiality as senator-judge. Earlier in the day, Escudero cut short De Lima's opening remarks on the confidential-funds charge, ruling that arguments on ultimate guilt should come from witness testimony rather than prosecutorial statements.
What Happens Next
The trial resumes Monday, August 3 at 10 a.m., when the prosecution turns from how the confidential funds were withdrawn to how they were used, liquidated, and accounted for. Escudero approved subpoenas for Commission on Audit auditors Roderick Wamil and Xylene Mae Del Campo, set to testify August 3 and 4, followed by House records official Marivic Para on August 5.
Previous Trial Days
- Day 1 (July 6): The Senate formally convened as an impeachment court; Sen. Chiz Escudero was elected presiding officer, ruled 16 votes are needed to convict, and both panels delivered opening statements.
- Day 2 (July 7): The prosecution opened its case on Article IV; NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung authenticated videos of Duterte's November 2024 "kill" remarks.
- Day 3 (July 8): The defense cross-examined Calilung, who admitted no personal knowledge of any alleged hitman; the court granted subpoenas for OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez.
- Day 4 (July 13): NBI's Jeremy Lotoc testified the alleged threats were "real" and "serious"; the NBI admitted no validated information yet on the alleged hitman.
- Day 5 (July 14): Lotoc completed his testimony; the prosecution dropped two witnesses and shifted focus to Duterte's financial records.
- Day 6 (July 15): Both panels argued over bank and tax secrecy; the court set its subpoena ruling for July 20.
- Day 7 (July 20): The court granted subpoenas for Duterte and Carpio's bank, tax, and AMLC records.
- Day 8 (July 21): NBI Director Matibag closed out Article IV's evidence phase, citing "persons of interest" in the hitman probe; Escudero admonished Matibag over an unrelated SEA Games funds disclosure.
- Day 9 (July 22): The prosecution rested its case on Article IV after Matibag's cross-examination concluded; subpoenas went out to six banks, BIR, and AMLC; the NBI said the hitman search was down to fewer than 20 persons of interest.
- Day 10 (July 29): The trial moved to Article I; two retired LandBank managers called the OVP and DepEd's multimillion-peso cash withdrawals "unusual" but not suspicious, testifying the checks were properly funded and processed; the defense waived cross-examination of a witness for the first time; Lacson called for an intelligence-funds expert witness.
Sources: Sara Duterte trial recap, July 29: 'Unusual' transactions, defense waives cross (Philstar.com); LIVE UPDATES: Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial (July 29, 2026) (GMA News Online); OVP, DepEd withdrawal of huge amounts of cash 'unusual' — ex-LandBank managers (GMA News Online)
