The House prosecution panel believes that the testimonies of the two former bank executives strengthen the credibility of alleged Vice President Sara Duterte bagman Ramil Madriaga.

While Madriga's name wasn't mentioned during continuation of respondent Duterte's Senate impeachment trial Wednesday, July 29, it was brought up in

discussions with media afterwards as the two prosecution witnesses' statements were scrutinized.

As it turned out, former Land Bank of the Philippines (LandBank) managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano independently matched significant details from Ramil Madriaga’s earlier account on how part of the Vice President’s confidential funds was handled.

House impeachment adviser and prosecution panel spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers highlighted Constantino’s testimony that a P125-million withdrawal was far outside the scope of transactions she normally encountered during her banking career. This level of withdrawal happened four times.

"Unusual din na nagkatugma ’yung testimony ni Ramil Madriaga at nitong ating first witness, who is the bank manager," he said.

(It was also unusual that the testimony of Ramil Madriaga matched with that of our first witness, who is the bank manager.)

Barbers compared those details with Madriaga’s sworn testimony before the House Committee on Justice in April. Madriaga alleged that four large bags containing the OVP’s P125-million confidential fund were taken from the DepEd central office on Dec. 20, 2022.

Madriaga--currently detained at Camp Bagong Diwa--said he had been told that each bag contained between P30 million and P35 million.

He further alleged that the money was delivered to different destinations in less than 24 hours. Duterte’s camp has denied Madriaga’s allegations and questioned his credibility.

Barbers pointed to the similarity in the amount involved—P125 million—and the use of several large bags in the separate accounts. Constantino, however, did not testify about what happened to the cash after it left the bank, nor did she identify Madriaga as having received it.

Barbers said the significance lay in the alignment of details provided in two separate proceedings months apart.

Prosecution panel spokesperson Lanao del Sur 1st district Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong pointed to similarities involving the date of the transaction, the containers used for the cash and the number of bags described by the witnesses.

“Of course yes, kasi 'yung pagpresenta hindi naman magkakilala 'yung dalawang bank managers at saka si Madriaga. Pero may pagkakapare-pareho 'yung sinasabi nila,” Adiong said when asked if the witnesses remarks were significant in relation to what Madriaga said in the past.

(Of course yes, because in the presentation the two bank managers and Madriaga didn’t even know each other. But what they said had similarities.)

Constantino and Camposano separately testified on confidential funds withdrawals and check encashments linked to Duterte on Wednesday, July 29. This was part of the presentation of proof on article I, which was on alleged confidential funds misuse.

“I don't think this is a made-up story agreed by these three individuals. So it would definitely give credence and credibility to the testimony of Madriaga,” said Adiong, who like Barbers is the prosecution panel's "layman" spokesperson.

Adiong argued that the matching details carried weight because the two retired bank managers and Madriaga--an alleged intelligence officer of the previous Duterte administration--had no apparent relationship that would explain a coordinated account.

“Yung description nung nilagyan ng pera, 'yung ano yung bag, ilang bag ang nilagyan, at saka 'yung date na pinag-releasesan nitong cheque na ito may kakapagkakapareho,” he noted.

(The description of where the money was placed, what kind of bag, how many bags were used, and the date when this check was released all had similarities.)

Madriga submitted last April to the Committee on Justice a 24-page supplementary affidavit that covered roughly a decade of his high-level interactions with the Duterte family.

Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville "Jinky Bitrics" Luistro, the justice panel chairperson, observed that the testimony received by the Senate impeachment court was consistent with details placed on record during the earlier Justice Committee proceedings.

“Well, without dwelling on the trial kanina (earlier), if the question pertains only on the question of consistency, I think it was re-emphasized na 'yung testimony kanina (earlier) is somehow consistent to the testimony during the time of the Justice proceeding. That is without dwelling on the trial,” Luistro noted.

Madriaga has yet to testify before the Senate impeachment court. The prosecution has said any decision to call him as a witness will depend on the progress and requirements of the trial.

His credibility and the evidentiary value of any testimony he may give will ultimately be determined by the impeachment court.