Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro (left), Vice President Sara Duterte (Speaker's office, Facebook)

Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville Luistro says there's a prima facie case of malversation against Vice President Sara Duterte as well as an apparent case of breach of public trust in connection with over P10.4 million in confidential funds that are unaccounted for, alongside other alleged irregularities.

“So, where is this amount now? In conclusion, I wish to believe that the confidential fund of the Department of Education (DepEd) was not properly recorded at its best, or misspent or misappropriated at its worst,” Luisto said on Tuesday, Nov.5, during the hearing of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.

The panel--often referred to as the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee of the House of Representatives--is conducting an inquiry in aid of legislation on the alleged misuse of confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs) under Duterte, who is a former DepEd secretary. 

According to the lawyer-solon, only the two P2-million confidential fund allocations — or a total of P4.2 million—have been liquidated by Duterte who was then holding the DepEd post in a concurrent capacity, while there were no acknowledgement receipts for the rest. 

Luistro said the liquidation covered only one of the four DepEd programs, which was anti-insurgency. 

In contrast, programs about “abuse prevention and control within schools, anti-illegal activities operation, anti-extremism/terrorism programs” remained unaccounted for. 

The CIFs issued to Duterte at the time was P15.5 million. 

“What is consistent with respect to their location is equivalent only to the amount of P4.2 million. So there remains also an unexplained amount of P10.4 million,” she said.

These were among the agency’s confidential program, which was in the form of “payment and rewards for informants,” when, in truth and in fact, it should be the other way around, said Luistro who maintained that only agencies tasked with national security concerns that does so. 

“It is the humble submission of this representation that there is a prima facie case of malversation and, in addition an apparent case of breach of public trust. For us to be able to know whether there is malversation, four elements must be present,” she stated. 

First is the person should be a “public official,” second is he is the “custodian of fund,” third is the “fund must be for public purpose,” and last but not the least–that the public official took, appropriated, misappropriated or consented, or negligence permitted another person to take them.” 

“For the information of the public, the malversation can be done intentionally. We call it ‘dolo’, which is with criminal intent. And it can be done as well by negligence. We call it ‘culpa’ or by negligence. In other words, with or without criminal intent,” Luistro explained further.

“If the four elements are present, which I believe they are, there is prima facie case of malversation. With respect to the breach of public trust, this is violation of public's confidence in a public officer's ability to serve with integrity, impartiality and in accordance with law,” she said. 

“Public trust is mandated by no less than the fundamental law of the land,” Luistro emphasized.