VP Duterte’s P612.5 Million Bank Withdrawals ‘Unusual’ But Not ‘Suspicious’

Two former branch managers at Land Bank of the Philippines described the controversial P612.5 million in cash withdrawals allegedly made on behalf of Vice President Sara Duterte as “unusual” but not necessarily “suspicious.”

The LandBank transactions represented P500 million in confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million for the Department of Education (DepEd), which Duterte used to head.

Violeta Constantino, former branch manager of LandBank Shaw Boulevard, and Nenita Camposano, former branch manager of Landbank DepEd, were presented by the prosecution team on Wednesday as Duterte’s Senate impeachment trial marked Day 10.

Constantino and Camposano, with 32 and 34 years of banking experience, respectively, testified on the series of cash withdrawals totaling P612.5 million to kick off the deliberations on Article I of the impeachment complaint for Duterte’s alleged violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust.

Constantino said the P500-million cash withdrawals made by the OVP on four separate transactions of P125 million each were “unusual.”

Constantino testified that she personally oversaw the encashment of four checks worth P125 million each in December 2022 and January, April and July in 2023 or a span of eight months.

She said the checks were encashed by former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta, and that three to four “gym bags” were needed to physically carry the money during each visit.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked Constantino if it was ordinary or if she had seen any government agency withdraw such an incredible amount in cash.

“Is it normal?” Tulfo asked.

“This is unusual,” Constantino replied.

She said the OVP gave prior notices regarding the separate transactions to allow the branch to request and prepare the cash, explaining that a single withdrawal of P125 million widely exceeded the ordinary cash and vault limits of the branch.

Constantino said it was the first time her branch had processed a cash transaction of such an amount. She added that her branch typically maintained around P20 million in cash for daily operations.

She made the remark during the questioning of Sen. Risa Hontiveros, saying the transactions were unusual not only because of the enormous amount involved, but also because the money was withdrawn entirely in cash.

Constantino said they were not aware it would be used for alleged intelligence activities. She said that any encashment of over P500,000, while not yet a suspicious transaction, is unusual.

“But this is not just P500,000 but P125 million. So it’s 250 times and it was more unusual because it was a cash withdrawal,” Hontiveros said.

Constantino explained that government agencies and other institutional clients generally make disbursements through checks rather than withdrawing such large amounts in cash.

The defense stipulated that the four LandBank checks were authentic, payable to Acosta and encashed by her as OVP special disbursing officer.

But during Sen. Joel Villanueva’s questioning, Constantino said there was nothing “suspicious” in the encashment for them to alert the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Villanueva pointed out that there is a bank definition on what constitutes an “unusual” transaction.

He cited the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular Number 1215, which reads: “A transaction is considered unusual when it shows patterns that are inconsistent with the account owner’s usual behavior, is not commensurate with the known business or financial capacity of the account owner, or deviates from the account owner’s profile.”

Constantino explained that while all transactions over P500,000 are considered “covered” transactions, it does not automatically become a “suspicious” transaction that raises a red flag.

Camposano said the same about the DepEd encashment of three checks dated February, April and July 2023 at P37.5 million each.

“For government agencies, it was unusual,” Camposano said, adding that the usual is at most P10 million encashment.

“So, in your 34 years, was this the first time you had to deal with P37 million cash three times in a period of three quarters?” Sen. Kiko Pangilinan asked.

“With the DepEd, no sir. But it was the first with an encashment that big,” Camposano replied.

Camposano also told the court that the DepEd official who withdrew the cash would leave the bank via the fire exit after each transaction.

She also recounted that before the transactions, DepEd chief administrative officer Sonia de Leon called the bank to request a cash reservation for the amount.

Camposano then instructed a teller to forward the request to LandBank’s cash center. Once the cash was available, Camposano informed De Leon who, in turn, notified DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda.

Fajarda’s identity had to be verified before the cash was released to him in the backroom. After collecting the cash, Fajarda left through the fire exit, Camposano said.

Both Constantino and Camposano cited bank confidentiality when pressed by the senators if they had reported to AMLC the encashment as a “suspicious transaction.”

Camposano agreed that the encashment was not “regular,” when asked by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian if she agrees that it was an irregular transaction for the DepEd to encash such a huge amount in three tranches.

The impeachment court will proceed with the regular presentation of evidence where the prosecution is allowed to present its evidence on all Articles of Impeachment before the defense takes its turn.

Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero said there was no agreement between prosecution and defense for the presentation of evidence to be on a per-article basis.

He said there is precedent that showed the same pattern during the 2012 impeachment trial of the late chief justice Renato Corona.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson questioned why neither the prosecution nor the defense presented a competent witness on the handling of confidential and intelligence funds, saying such testimony was necessary to help senator-judges evaluate the evidence against the Vice President.

“I’m only wondering,” Lacson said.

With a background in law enforcement intelligence, Lacson said intelligence and confidential funds are intended for specific operational needs rather than routine disbursements.

“I hope we can hear from a competent witness on the handling of intelligence or confidential funds so we can make an informed decision later on. I noticed the cash withdrawals appeared to follow a regular quarterly pattern of January, April and July. My understanding is that funds are requested only when there is an actual intelligence-gathering operation or confidential activity requiring them,” he said.

For next week’s impeachment trial, the prosecution will present two Commission on Audit (COA) officials to testify on the Vice President’s alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds. – With Daphne Galvez, Mark Ernest Villeza