Vice Pres. Sara Duterte held a press conference at OVP Central Office, Mandaluyong City on Feb. 18, 2026. In the same briefing, she announced her presidential bid for 2028. Screen grabbed from Inday Sara Duterte livestream.
A House prosecutor in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial has questioned how confidential funds could have been documented as distributed on the same day across roughly 300 locations nationwide, adding another layer to the dispute over the authenticity of acknowledgment receipts submitted for liquidation.
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said Sunday that the receipts also contained inconsistencies involving ages, dates and identities of supposed beneficiaries, with some entries allegedly showing individuals receiving money twice on the same day.
The prosecution has been challenging documents used to account for Php 612.5 million in confidential funds allotted to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education while Duterte headed both offices.
Earlier in the trial, Philippine Statistics Authority Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande testified that some names appearing in the OVP and DepEd recipient lists matched records of deceased individuals or children, while several other names could not be found in the civil registry database.
Duterte’s defense later said the names listed in the confidential fund receipts were aliases used to protect confidential sources, disputing the prosecution’s suggestion that the entries proved the beneficiaries were fictitious.
The impeachment court has also examined 845 acknowledgment receipts submitted to liquidate the OVP’s Php 125 million confidential fund released in December 2022, including the receipt bearing the controversial name “Mary Grace Piattos.”
A former Commission on Audit official previously testified that the OVP’s 2022 liquidation records contained irregularities, including the use of acknowledgment receipts where other supporting documents were required under government auditing rules.
Adiong said the prosecution’s position was that liquidation forms alone could not establish legitimate spending without proof that the listed transactions and recipients were genuine, while Duterte’s camp retains the opportunity to challenge the documents and testimony as the impeachment trial proceeds.