Prosec: Why let Poa talk about secret funds if he’s unaware of ops?

MANILA, Philippines — Why did Vice President Sara Duterte pick Michael Poa to answer questions from the Commission on Audit (COA) about P112.5 million in Department of Education (DepEd) confidential funds if he had no firsthand knowledge of the operations the money was supposedly spent on?

That was one of the points that House private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. tried to clarify as he questioned Poa, former DepEd spokesperson when Duterte still headed the department, who testified on Wednesday as a hostile witness on the 21st day of the vice president’s impeachment trial.

In a statement, the prosecution said it included that issue in a 13-point offer for Poa’s testimony.

Article continues after this advertisement

Despite being one of the defense lawyers and their legal spokesperson, Poa was presented as a witness, the statement said, for being Duterte’s former DepEd spokesperson, chief of staff, officer-in-charge of finance, and head of the procuring entity. Poa was also the former spokesperson of the Office of the Vice President (OVP).

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: Poa admits learning CF handout to security exec only at House

13-point offer

Following is an overview of the 13-point offer of the prosecution, as described in its statement:

Point 1

This described Poa as “one of the Vice President’s most trusted men,” a relationship the prosecution considers central to his assignment.

Article continues after this advertisement

Points 2 to 4

These focused on Poa’s knowledge. Tolosa offered to prove that Poa had “no prior participation in the operational use of the confidential funds before COA issued its Audit Observation Memoranda (AOM), yet Duterte directed him to prepare the responses.”

Article continues after this advertisement

According to the prosecution, the officials Poa consulted could not supply firsthand information either. These were former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda and then-Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin.

“The documents eventually gathered consisted principally of Armed Forces certifications,” the statement said, referring to the certifications issued by the military on DepEd’s participation in the 2023 Youth Leadership Summits.

Points 5 to 7

These challenged the resulting explanation, with Tolosa alleging that Poa supplied COA with theories and presumptions despite not knowing how the money was spent.

Tolosa said the AFP certifications “did not identify an informer, information purchased, reward paid, or successful operation linked to the payment — the four elements Tolosa used to frame the [COA] Joint Circular requirement.”

According to Tolosa, Poa acknowledged when he said: “There’s no connection at all.”

The prosecution intends to establish that the certifications proved the YLS activities occurred, but did not mention anything about DepEd’s making its alleged reward payments.

Point 8

This focused on Col. Dennis Nolasco, who was then a DepEd security officer.

Tolosa alleged that, following Duterte’s instruction, Fajarda handed the confidential funds to Nolasco. And yet, Nolasco’s name did not appear in Poa’s explanations to COA or during a House hearing.

Point 9

This alleged that Poa and Zuleika Lopez, OVP chief of staff, sought to have COA send an audit query rather than an AOM.

According to the prosecution, this showed the officials’ separate roles to Duterte.

“Different hands carried out the steps. One principal directed them all,” Tolosa argued.

Points 11 and 12

These questioned “the sufficiency of the liquidation despite COA’s issuance of a Credit Notice.”

As Tolosa argued, the notice “rested on military certifications that did not establish the underlying informers, information, or payments, leaving more than ₱15 million in claimed rewards and the broader ₱112.5-million fund without an explained money trail.”

Point 13

The prosecution reserved this for other relevant matters that may come out during Poa’s examination.

‘Rhetoric to provide drama’

“Rhetoric aimed to provide drama in this proceeding,” defense lawyer Sheila Sison said about parts of the offer.

Sison disputed Tolosa’s characterization that Poa answered for ₱112.5 million, saying he replied to audit observations rather than assumed responsibility for the funds.

WATCH: Defense calls prosecution’s 13-point offer on Poa ‘rhetoric’

She also stressed that a COA Credit Notice is an official audit document informing an agency of amounts allowed in audit and rejected the prosecution’s claim that it did not resolve the underlying issue.

Sison took exception to Tolosa’s description of Poa as “ang abogadong walang alam” – a lawyer who knows nothing.

READ: Prosecution, defense teams clash over supposed insult vs Poa

Tolosa explained that he was describing how Poa repeatedly said in the past that he had no personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were used.

But he apologized to Poa, saying: “If I offended you in any way, sir, I’m very sorry for that. That’s not my intention.”

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordered the phrase stricken, calling it “discourteous.”

He then asked why the prosecution was calling a witness who claimed to lack knowledge,

Tolosa said that was precisely the material issue: Why did Duterte select Poa to answer COA instead of officials who handled or received the money?

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

After Sison clarified that she had not stipulated to the prosecution’s factual offers, Escudero ruled independently that “the chair will proceed to declare Attorney Poa as a hostile witness.”

That allowed Tolosa to ask leading questions, but, as Escudero reminded him, “ not misleading questions.” /atm