Sara Duterte’s lawyer cites lack of COA findings vs ‘fruit salad-y,’ funny names
During Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, her defense team argued that the seemingly humorous names of individuals listed as recipients of confidential funds do not necessarily indicate that the names are fictitious. Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer questioned prosecution witness Xylene del Campo, who had audited the documents, suggesting that the names appearing in Duterte's acknowledgment receipts (ARs) should not be automatically dismissed as fake simply because they seem funny. Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan countered that the names were presented incidentally and were part of how the funds were used for medical purposes. The presiding senator, Francis Escudero, acknowledged that the impeachment complaint did reference some names as fictitious, but allowed the defense to continue their questioning. The exchange highlighted the debate over whether the unusual names constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
MANILA, Philippines, During the 15th day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on August 12, 2026, the defense team emphasized two key arguments: that the unusual names listed in the confidential funds acknowledgments were not indicative of fictitious accounts, and that the Commission on Audit (COA) had no objection to the simultaneous disbursement of funds across multiple locations on the same day. Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer repeatedly brought up names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Andy Lim,” “Christine Applegate Estrada,” and others during her cross-examination of COA-Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (ICFAO) state auditor Xylene del Campo. She asked whether these names, which some had described as “funny” or “fruit salad-y,” were included in the COA’s two notices of disallowance against the Office of the Vice President (OVP). Del Campo responded that none of the names were mentioned in the disallowance notices. Ferrer then posed a more direct question: Did the humorous nature of the names imply that they were fictitious? Before Del Campo could answer, prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan interjected, objecting to the question as misleading. Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero acknowledged that Kapunan had previously joked about the names, allowing Ferrer to continue her questioning. When Escudero directly asked Del Campo whether the names were mentioned in his notice of disallowance or in the audit observation memorandum (AOM), Del Campo confirmed that they were not. Ferrer then referenced a portion of the transcript from a House committee on good government hearing, where Gloria Camora, representing the COA-ICFAO, explained the reasons for disallowing the OVP’s confidential funds. Among the cited issues were non-submission of documents related to reward payments, non-compliance with Joint Circular No. 2015-01, and failure to submit revised accomplishment reports. The “funny” nature of the names was not listed as a ground for disallowance. Later, during discussions on the simultaneous disbursement of funds across different locations on the same day, Ferrer challenged the prosecution’s claim that such activity raised concerns. She asked Del Campo whether the COA-ICFAO had taken into account the location of disbursements. Del Campo stated that the office had not included location data in its findings. Ferrer then pressed further, suggesting that if disbursements occurred in multiple places on the same day, the COA-ICFAO’s findings would not cover them. Del Campo reiterated that the COA presumed regularity based on the sworn certification of the special disbursing officer. Earlier, during the trial, the prosecution had highlighted instances where acknowledgment receipts were issued from different locations, such as Bulacan, Makati City, Davao City, and Agusan del Sur. However, the defense argued that the COA had no issue with such practices. Ferrer also pointed out that the COA-ICFAO had not ruled out the use of codenames or aliases in the acknowledgments, citing testimony from another prosecution witness, state auditor Roderick Wamil, who noted that the 2015 COA joint circular was silent on the use of such terms. Throughout the proceedings, tensions flared between the defense and prosecution teams. Escudero frequently mediated disputes, particularly when Kapunan accused Ferrer of misusing cross-examination procedures. He reminded both sides that the court sought to maintain decorum and prevent unnecessary conflict. Despite the friction, the trial proceeded with the defense continuing to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence, emphasizing that the COA had not found any irregularities in the use of the confidential funds.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
During Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, prosecutors highlighted inconsistencies in the distribution of her confidential funds. The case centers on acknowledgment receipts showing cash disbursements made across multiple regions of the Philippines on the same day, raising questions about their feasibility. Prosecutor Lorna Kapunan questioned whether the special disbursing officer (SDO) could have been present in all those locations simultaneously, comparing the situation to the fictional ability of Superman to fly. The receipts, signed by alleged fictitious individuals, were submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA) to justify the use of secret funds. Gina Acosta, Duterte's former SDO, admitted transferring cash to her security officer, leading the COA to issue a notice of disallowance for P37 million.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal arguments and evidence presented during the impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the prosecution's claims and the defense's objections, maintaining neutrality in tone and framing.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports that the COA cleared the Department of Education over the P75 million issue, citing the credit notice and compliance with the Joint Circular. It aligns directly with the primary source and provides precise details.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral, presenting the defense's point without taking sides. It includes direct quotes from the COA auditor, maintaining a balanced tone.
The article reports that recipients of Vice President Sara Duterte's confidential funds received payments on the same dates but at different locations, according to documents submitted by the Department of Education (DepEd) to the Commission on Audit (COA). These documents were presented during Duterte's impeachment trial. At the time, Duterte served as education secretary and submitted a total of 1,080 acknowledgment receipts (ARs) as part of the financial records under scrutiny.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information regarding the timing and distribution of funds without overtly criticizing or praising Sara Duterte. It focuses on the procedural aspect of the financial records being submitted during her impeachment trial, which suggests a balanced reporting approach rather
Why factuality (85): The article mentions that recipients of the confidential funds were paid on the same dates but at different locations, which is supported by the primary source. However, it lacks specific details about the exact locations and dates mentioned in the original document.
Why objectivity (80): The article presents the information neutrally but focuses on the logistics of the payments rather than the legality or implications, which might make it seem less focused on the central issue of misuse.
During Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, her defense team argued that the seemingly humorous names of individuals listed as recipients of confidential funds do not necessarily indicate that the names are fictitious. Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer questioned prosecution witness Xylene del Campo, who had audited the documents, suggesting that the names appearing in Duterte's acknowledgment receipts (ARs) should not be automatically dismissed as fake simply because they seem funny. Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan countered that the names were presented incidentally and were part of how the funds were used for medical purposes. The presiding senator, Francis Escudero, acknowledged that the impeachment complaint did reference some names as fictitious, but allowed the defense to continue their questioning. The exchange highlighted the debate over whether the unusual names constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced discussion between the defense and prosecution teams regarding the interpretation of the 'funny' names in the financial records. While the defense frames the issue as a misunderstanding or mischaracterization, the prosecution counters with the claim that these names,
Why factuality (85): The article reports on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, citing specific names from acknowledgment receipts (ARs) submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA). It references the defense team's argument that the names being 'funny' does not imply they are fictitious. The information
Why objectivity (70): The tone leans slightly towards the defense perspective, emphasizing the 'funny' nature of the names and questioning the prosecution's interpretation. While it presents both sides (defense and private prosecutor), the framing gives more weight to the defense arguments, suggesting a potential bias.
During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, COA auditor Xylene Del Campo testified that the Department of Education (DepEd) had its P75 million in confidential funds cleared by the Commission on Audit (COA) through a credit notice. This clearance came after an evaluation of DepEd's financial documentation, which was deemed compliant with relevant regulations. The funds were released in three quarterly installments of P37.5 million each, with the first two quarters already cleared, while the third remains under review. The defense team used this information as part of their strategy, arguing that DepEd had received a credit notice confirming compliance. However, the prosecution's impeachment case focuses on Duterte's alleged misuse of confidential funds during her tenure as DepEd secretary and later as Vice President.
Bias read (Center): While the article discusses a politically sensitive impeachment trial involving high-profile figures, the reporting appears to present both the prosecution's claims and the defense's counterarguments based on COA findings. There is no clear ideological slant in the framing of the story, and the tone
Why factuality (70): The article discusses the filing of a grave threats case against Sara Duterte but does not connect it directly to the impeachment trial or the misuse of confidential funds. It lacks context linking this development to the main topic covered in the primary source.
Why objectivity (65): The article is more focused on the legal action against Duterte rather than the impeachment trial itself, making it less relevant to the core issue of the misuse of confidential funds. It presents the information factually but lacks balance in context.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
PH
![[Tambay] Goal nina Robin at Imee, guluhin, lituhin tayo sa impeachment trial](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=newsinfo.inquirer.net%2Ffiles%2F2026%2F07%2FScreenshot-2026-07-16-at-6.39.03-PM-e1786527488366.jpg&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)