Inquirer·Philippines·

Prosecution to drop bribery charge vs Sara Duterte

Translate

Dexter Cabalza, Dianne Sampang, Kenneth Christiane Basilio, Tina G. Santos

MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutors will drop the bribery charge against Vice President Sara Duterte, ending weeks of deliberations as they seek to shorten her impeachment trial and focus on evidence they believe is sufficient to secure her conviction on other allegations.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua said on Sunday the team would formally inform the Senate impeachment court on Monday of its decision to abandon Article 3 of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Duterte of bribing Department of Education (DepEd) officials to circumvent procurement rules during her tenure as education secretary.

“We believe that the evidence presented is already sufficient,” Chua said, denying that the decision stemmed from weaknesses in the bribery case.

Article continues after this advertisement

In a statement later in the day, lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said: “Our responsibility remains clear: to follow the evidence and bring a focused, well-supported case to its conclusion. That responsibility guides every decision we make.”

Cash envelopes

The decision followed weeks of discussions that began in September, after prosecutors completed presenting evidence on the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and DepEd.

Article continues after this advertisement

The bribery charge relied on testimony from former DepEd officials who said they received cash envelopes through Duterte’s subordinates.

Former DepEd procurement chief Gloria Jumamil-Mercado testified during a 2024 House inquiry that she received monthly envelopes containing P50,000 for nine months. Former bidding committee chair Resty Osias recalled receiving P12,000 to P15,000 from April to September 2023.

Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores, who headed the team assigned to present the charge, said the witnesses were prepared to testify that the money came from people under Duterte’s supervision and that they had been told it came from the Vice President.

“These are people who actually received money. They [would have] testified that it came from the person being charged in this particular case,” Flores told the Inquirer. “What was the reason they were given cash?”

Flores said the charge was among the easiest to prove but prosecutors agreed to streamline the trial because of “unforeseen events and delays.”

Former Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, a prosecution adviser, said he initially opposed dropping the charge, especially because surveys indicated that many Filipinos considered bribery the most serious allegation against Duterte.

“Although now, I realize that to abbreviate the proceedings, there’s logic to dropping it,” he said, adding that the remaining case was “strong enough already” to secure a conviction.

Prosecutors aim to finish presenting their evidence by mid-October, according to panel spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr.

‘Shortchanging Filipinos’

Malacañang warned that dropping the bribery charge could deprive the public of a fuller accounting of the allegations against Duterte.

“If they withdraw the bribery allegation against the Vice President, wouldn’t that shortchange or disadvantage Filipinos who want to know the whole truth about this?” Palace press officer Claire Castro said.

Castro said the Palace respected the prosecution’s discretion but questioned why it would abandon a charge included in the articles of impeachment.

“But they included it in the articles of impeachment, which means they have sufficient evidence to discuss this bribery issue in the impeachment court,” she said.

Ultimately, Castro added, “It is up to the prosecution to decide” whether dropping the charge was the right strategy.

Tactical advantage

The move raises questions about whether abandoning a serious allegation could affect public confidence in the case. Prosecutors insist they want to focus on the remaining charges rather than prolong proceedings with additional witnesses.

University of Makati public administration professor Ederson Tapia said streamlining the case could offer a tactical advantage if prosecutors were confident in the evidence presented. However, they would need to explain why the bribery allegation was included in the first place if they no longer intended to pursue it.

“The people may ask why a serious allegation was included in the first place if it will ultimately not be pursued,” he said.

“At some point, more witnesses and more allegations do not necessarily make a case stronger,” Tapia added, saying a tighter presentation could clarify the issues for the Senate and the public.

Financial records

The coming week is expected to be crucial to the prosecution’s remaining case, particularly the allegation that Duterte accumulated wealth not adequately reflected in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said an Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) official was expected to testify on Monday, followed by representatives from banks, insurance companies and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

“These witnesses or personalities are very important in providing clarity to the unexplained wealth allegation,” Gatchalian said in a radio interview on Sunday.

He said the witnesses could authenticate financial documents held by their institutions and explain their contents based on direct knowledge.

The AMLC witness’ appearance was postponed after the defense sought more time to address concerns involving the Anti-Money Laundering Act and financial confidentiality.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The financial evidence follows testimony on properties and firearms linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, as well as business interests and government contracts that prosecutors say warrant scrutiny. /cb

View the original on Inquirer →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.