Duterte’s perjury case vs Madriaga junked

MANILA, Philippines — The Taguig prosecutor’s office has dismissed the perjury case filed by Vice President Sara Duterte against her former aide, Ramil Madriaga, for “lack of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.”

Duterte filed the complaint against Madriaga in March after he accused her of bankrolling her vice-presidential campaign in 2022 with “dark money” from drug lords and the now-banned Philippine offshore gaming operators or POGO.

Madriaga also claimed having personally delivered duffel bags of money to three different locations – the Department of Education, which Duterte headed until 2024; a bar in Quezon City, and the parking grounds of the Office of the Ombudsman – drawn from the Vice President’s P125-million confidential funds.

During the second impeachment hearing against Duterte at the House of Representatives in April, Madriaga claimed that the P125 million was not disposed of in 11 days but just 24 hours.

Duterte in August filed a second perjury complaint against her former aide after the latter supposedly made false statements in his supplemental affidavit last April.

In a 19-page resolution by Taguig Assistant Prosecutor Duke Thaddeus Maog, the prosecutor’s office found that while the evidence presented by the Vice President disputed Madriaga’s account, it fell short of bringing the case to court.

“While the evidence submitted by complainant raises questions regarding the respondent’s version of events, it does not independently establish that the respondent knowingly and deliberately asserted falsehoods under oath upon material matters,” the resolution read.

The prosecutors emphasized that junking the case “does not constitute a judicial or prosecutorial declaration that the respondent’s affidavit is truthful or that the factual allegations contained therein are accurate.”

“The dismissal of the present complaint signifies only that the evidence presently submitted is insufficient to establish the particular offense of perjury under the applicable prosecutorial standard,” the resolution said.

Madriaga’s lawyer Mark Anthony Palad said the dismissal of the complaint was an “important vindication” of his client’s position.

“The strength of a case is not measured by the volume of papers filed, the amount of media attention generated, or the stature and position of the person making the accusation. In the end, allegations must still be tested against the evidence and the law,” Palad said.

Paolo Panelo, Duterte’s new spokesman, said they saw this decision coming despite filing an “airtight” case.

“I warned of this possibility. We understood the realities,” Panelo told “Storycon” on One News, adding that the case had been politicized.

Mans eyed as  hostile witness

The House prosecution panel, meanwhile, is considering calling the Vice President’s husband, Manases Carpio, as a hostile witness in the presentation of evidence on the alleged unexplained wealth article in her impeachment case.

Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, a member of the House prosecution, said Carpio could be called as a witness if he is named in some bank and financial records.

House prosecutors have alleged that Duterte’s bank transactions totaling P6.77 billion between 2006 and 2025 were inconsistent with her declared assets.

Carpio filed a complaint against several lawmakers and government officials, including Ridon, over the disclosure of financial records involving him and Duterte.

The Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaint without prejudice to jurisdictional grounds. Carpio’s camp said the dismissal was not a determination based on the merits and that he may refile it before the ombudsman. – Evelyn Macairan, Michael Punongbayan, Emmanuel Tupas, Ghio Ong