Last hearing:Impeachment Trial - Day 15August 12, 2026
The VP Duterte impeachment trial — tracked claim by claim, with the evidence
Last updated:
Latest proceeding
August 12, 2026 — Impeachment Trial - Day 15
On Day 15, COA-ICFAO state auditor Xylene Mae del Campo continued testimony on the audit of the OVP and DepEd confidential funds, and the presiding officer ruled that the court will decide the admissibility of the disputed acknowledgement receipts only once they are formally offered, after the clerk compares both parties' certified true copies. The presiding officer also stated that a ruling, warning, and order was being drafted on counsels' public statements under Rule 18. The prosecution moved to reissue subpoenas for four intended witnesses for the August 17, 18, and 19 trial dates.
Read the latest recap →What changed since last update
- The ₱612.5M confidential-funds chargeSupports this claim
Witness agrees full P612.5M in OVP, DepEd confidential funds could face disallowance over transfers
Full detail
The witness testified that COA disallowed the OVP's P375 million in 2023 confidential funds because Acosta transferred them to Lachica, and laid out the confidential fund budgets: P125 million for the OVP in Q4 2022, P500 million for 2023 (of which P375 million was received), and P150 million for DepEd (against which a P112.5 million cash advance was taken). Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, citing House transcripts, said Acosta reported that P125 million was given to Lachica in Q4 2022 and that Fajarda, per transcripts dated November 25, 2024, said P37.5 million went to Colonel Nolasco. Gatchalian argued that if a special disbursing officer's transfer of funds to another person was the basis for disallowing the DepEd funds, then the Q4 2022 OVP funds and the entire DepEd confidential funds should likewise be disallowed. The witness agreed that the entire P612.5 million across the OVP and DepEd could potentially be disallowed and that accountable officers would need to return the funds.
- COA's ₱375M disallowanceSupports this claim
Court to rule on AR admissibility at formal offer; witness ties disallowance to proof-of-success standard
Full detail
Presiding Officer Escudero ruled that the impeachment court will decide the admissibility of the acknowledgement receipts (ARs) once they are formally offered, after the clerk compares the certified true copies submitted by both parties, without requiring the witness to attest that the copies match. The witness testified that the OVP's confidential expenditures were disallowed because the submitted Protective Intelligence Operations Reports and certification did not sufficiently prove the success of information gathering, stating the proof she required was an apprehension, while noting that Joint Memorandum Circular 2015-01 requires only 'proof of success of information gathering,' not an arrest. Escudero asserted that the witness's interpretation requiring apprehensions is not found in the circular. Counsel further elicited that no notice of suspension was issued for the OVP's confidential expenses for the first to third quarters of 2023, arguing the OVP had no opportunity to comment before the Notice of Disallowance was issued.
Witness says COA relied solely on submitted liquidation documents, has no fraud finding on CF use
Full detail
A COA witness testified that the agency's audit of the OVP and DepEd confidential funds was based solely on the liquidation documents submitted by the agencies and evaluated per the Joint Circular, adding that COA is not privy to the agencies' confidential operations. The witness stated that COA conducts only compliance audits and has no official finding of fraud regarding the OVP or DepEd confidential funds, that it reviews submissions and issues Audit Observation Memoranda, and that it presumed regularity of disbursements based on the SDO's certification under oath. The witness confirmed that DepEd confidential expenses totaling 75 million pesos for two quarters were allowed in audit per Credit Notice 2024-162 dated August 8, 2024.
- Court bars COA witness from citing Q3 AOM issued after his ICFAO exitContradicts this claim
Witness details Wamil's AOM authorship timeline and says he left OVP files in custody without transmittal
Full detail
The witness testified that Mr. Wamil prepared the fourth-quarter 2022 AOM for the Office of the Vice President and was still present when the 2023 first- and second-quarter AOMs were issued. She stated that Mr. Wamil drafted the third-quarter 2023 AOM but that the division chief finalized it after he was no longer at COA-ICFAO. The witness further testified that when Mr. Wamil was transferred to COA Pasay, he left his files, including working papers, in the custodian's office rather than personally turning them over to her, and without a separate transmittal or endorsement letter.
Every claim is attributed to a speaker · status shows evidence state, not a verdict · sources are tiered by provenance · both sides get equal weight.How this works →
The case at a glance
See all claims →Article I — Misuse of Confidential Funds (OVP and DepEd)
- Factual claim“Contested” means:Both sides have put forward evidence or arguments and the matter is actively disputed. Neither position has been substantiated or rejected by the record as tracked so far.as of
- Factual claim“Evidence presented” means:Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.as of
- Factual claim“Evidence presented” means:Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.as of
Article II — Unexplained Wealth and SALN Non-Disclosure
- Factual claim“Contested” means:Both sides have put forward evidence or arguments and the matter is actively disputed. Neither position has been substantiated or rejected by the record as tracked so far.as of
Article III — Bribery of DepEd Officials
- Factual claim“Pending evidence” means:A side has signaled it intends to introduce evidence on this claim, but that evidence has not yet been formally presented or tested in the proceeding.as of
Article IV — Grave Threats and Incitement to Sedition Against the President
- Factual claim“Contested” means:Both sides have put forward evidence or arguments and the matter is actively disputed. Neither position has been substantiated or rejected by the record as tracked so far.as of
Rulings & cross-cutting
- Factual claim“Evidence presented” means:Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.as of
- Factual claim“Evidence presented” means:Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.as of
- Procedural claim“Sustained” means:A procedural or legal position was upheld by the relevant body (e.g. a court or the impeachment court). This is a ruling on procedure or law, not on the underlying factual allegations.as of
- Procedural claim“Sustained” means:A procedural or legal position was upheld by the relevant body (e.g. a court or the impeachment court). This is a ruling on procedure or law, not on the underlying factual allegations.as of
- Factual claim“Unverified” means:The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.as of
- Factual claim“Evidence presented” means:Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.as of
- Factual claim“Contested” means:Both sides have put forward evidence or arguments and the matter is actively disputed. Neither position has been substantiated or rejected by the record as tracked so far.as of
- Procedural claim“Deferred” means:A procedural or legal question has been raised but a ruling is still pending.as of
- Factual claim“Contested” means:Both sides have put forward evidence or arguments and the matter is actively disputed. Neither position has been substantiated or rejected by the record as tracked so far.as of
- Factual claim“Unverified” means:The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.as of
- Factual claim“Unverified” means:The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.as of
- Factual claim“Unverified” means:The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.as of
- Procedural claim“Deferred” means:A procedural or legal question has been raised but a ruling is still pending.as of
- Procedural claim“Sustained” means:A procedural or legal position was upheld by the relevant body (e.g. a court or the impeachment court). This is a ruling on procedure or law, not on the underlying factual allegations.as of
- Legal claim“Deferred” means:A procedural or legal question has been raised but a ruling is still pending.as of
- Legal claim“Sustained” means:A procedural or legal position was upheld by the relevant body (e.g. a court or the impeachment court). This is a ruling on procedure or law, not on the underlying factual allegations.as of
- Factual claim“Unverified” means:The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.as of
- Factual claim“Evidence presented” means:Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.as of
The four Articles of Impeachment
All articles →An Article of Impeachment is a formal charge approved by the House and tried by the Senate. It defines what the prosecution is trying to prove; it is not itself a finding that the respondent committed the alleged conduct.