Prosecution pushes for testimony of Defense Counsel Poa on VP Duterte's COA response

MANILA – The House prosecution on Wednesday laid out a 13-point offer of proof for the testimony of lawyer Michael Wesley Poa, seeking to establish why Vice President Sara Duterte assigned a trusted aide with no firsthand knowledge of field operations to respond to Commission on Audit (COA) questions concerning P112.5 million in Department of Education (DepEd) confidential funds.

Private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. presented Poa as a witness based on his previous positions as Duterte’s DepEd spokesperson, chief of staff, officer-in-charge of finance and head of the procuring entity; former spokesperson of the Office of the Vice President (OVP); and current defense counsel and legal spokesperson.

Tolosa’s first point described Poa as "one of the Vice President's most trusted men," underscoring the relationship that the prosecution considers central to Duterte's decision to assign him to respond to COA.

The second through fourth points focused on Poa's knowledge of the confidential fund's operational use.

Tolosa offered these points to show that Poa had no prior participation in the operational use of the confidential funds before COA issued its Audit Observation Memoranda (AOMs), yet Duterte directed him to prepare the responses.

The prosecution said the officials whom Poa consulted likewise could not provide firsthand information. Former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda referred him to then-Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin, while the documents eventually gathered consisted mainly of certifications from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Points five through seven challenged the explanations subsequently submitted to COA.

Tolosa alleged that Poa provided COA with theories and presumptions despite having no personal knowledge of how the funds were spent on the ground.

The prosecution said the AFP certifications did not identify an informer, the information purchased, the reward paid, or a successful operation linked to the payment — the four elements Tolosa cited in explaining the requirements under Joint Circular No. 2015-01, considered as the "rule book" for confidential and intelligence funds.

The prosecution said it intends to establish that the certifications showed that military activities took place, but did not establish that the alleged reward payments from DepEd confidential funds were actually made.

The eighth point, meanwhile, focused on Col. Dennis Nolasco.

Tolosa alleged that, upon Duterte’s instruction, Fajarda turned over the confidential funds to Nolasco, but Nolasco’s name did not appear in Poa’s explanations to COA or Congress.

The ninth point alleged that Poa and OVP chief of staff Zuleika Lopez sought to have COA issue an audit query instead of an AOM.

The next point linked the separate roles of the officials involved to Duterte.

"Different hands carried out the steps, one principal directed them all," Tolosa said.

Points 11 and 12 questioned the sufficiency of the liquidation documents despite COA’s issuance of a Credit Notice.

Tolosa argued that the notice was based on military certifications that did not establish the identities of the informers, the information obtained or the payments made, leaving more than PHP15 million in claimed rewards and the broader PHP112.5-million fund without an adequately explained money trail.

The 13th point reserved other relevant matters that may arise during Poa’s examination.

'Rhetoric'

Lawyer Shiela Sison of the defense panel, on the other hand, described portions of the prosecution’s offer as "rhetoric aimed to provide drama in this proceeding."

She disputed Tolosa’s characterization that Poa answered for the PHP112.5 million, saying he merely responded to audit observations and did not assume responsibility for the funds.

Sison also stressed that a COA Credit Notice is an official audit document informing an agency of amounts allowed in audit, rejecting the prosecution’s assertion that the notice did not resolve the underlying issue.

Sison separately moved to strike Tolosa’s description of Poa as “Ang abogadong walang alam (the lawyer who knows nothing).”

Tolosa, in response, explained that he was referring to Poa’s repeated disclaimers of personal knowledge about how the confidential funds were used and apologized.

"If I offended you in any way, sir, I’m very sorry for that. That’s not my intention," he said.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero ordered the phrase stricken from the record, describing it as discourteous.

When Escudero asked why the prosecution was presenting a witness whom it claimed lacked knowledge of the transactions, Tolosa said this was precisely the issue the prosecution sought to establish — why Duterte chose Poa to respond to COA instead of officials who handled or received the money.

After Sison clarified that she had not stipulated to the factual assertions in the prosecution’s offer, Escudero independently ruled that “the Chair will proceed to declare Atty. Poa as hostile witness," allowing Tolosa to ask questions. (PNA)