Marcoleta’s bail petition in plunder case submitted for resolution

MANILA — Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s petition for bail in his plunder case over the alleged non-declaration of P75 million in donations has been submitted for resolution, the Sandiganbayan Third Division said on Thursday.

Associate Justice Fritz Delos Santos made the announcement as he presided over the first day of Marcoleta’s trial, a week after the court concluded hearings on his bail petition.

This comes after both parties filed their respective memoranda summarizing their exhibits, and the court resolved the prosecution’s formal offer of exhibits for the bail hearing on Oct. 6.

During the trial proper, the prosecution accused the defense of repeatedly blocking its attempts to present witnesses.

The prosecution made the argument after Marcoleta’s counsel asked the court to exclude the testimony of Cecil Federizo, who notarized the deeds of donation involved in the case, and Lucia Paula Corrales, the clerk of court who received the notarial book containing the notarized deeds.

Federizo also emailed the court on Oct. 5 asking to be excused as a prosecution witness.

“Every time we would subpoena a witness, there would be a motion from the defense seeking that these witnesses be excluded from testifying. If that would be the case, every notary public representative will be excluded from testifying,” the prosecution said.

The prosecution said Federizo’s testimony was important to establish the circumstances surrounding the notarization of the documents, but it was unable to interview her to verify if its theories on the notarization were consistent with the facts.

Maria Mananghaya-Henson, director of the Office of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Bureau, earlier testified that the anti-graft agency found an alleged connivance between Marcoleta and his co-accused donors to conceal the purpose of the gifts.

Henson said the alleged scheme was shown by the delayed payment of donor’s taxes and the delayed notarization of the deeds of donation.

The donations were reportedly made in January 2025, while donor’s taxes paid by donors former lawmaker Mike Defensor and businessman Joseph Espiritu were allegedly settled only in December 2025. Henson also testified that a Marcoleta employee paid both taxes.

Associate Justice Delos Santos asked the prosecution if calling Federizo to the witness stand without specifying the questions it intended to ask would amount to a “fishing expedition.”

“Even assuming that it is a fishing expedition, she (Federizo) is listed as a witness of Marcoleta,” the prosecution replied.

The prosecution noted that Federizo was listed as a defense witness in the pretrial brief, but the defense opposed her testimony after the prosecution sought to present her as its witness.

Marcoleta’s counsel, David Gabriel, said the defense was seeking Federizo’s exclusion on the ground of attorney-client privilege since she had previously served as Marcoleta’s counsel.

Associate Justice Karl Miranda then questioned why the defense insisted that privilege covers notarization. He said a notary has a duty to the affiant but also to the public, which is why the officer is called a notary public.

The prosecution said it is up to the witness to state in what capacity she acted, and up to the justices to weigh the relevance of her testimony.

Gabriel said the prosecution appeared to be seeking evidence that could undermine the deeds of donation.

“They are expecting to obtain evidence from the witness to either prove that the deed of donation was not executed properly. This is a violation of presumption of innocence. If it’s an attempt to impugn the deed of donation, then we have a problem,” Gabriel said.

The lawyer for co-accused Aristotle Viray also argued that the prosecution was calling witnesses “merely to make it appear that they have an abundance of evidence.” The prosecution dismissed the remark as “very improper.”

To resolve the issue, the parties agreed to stipulate on the due execution, genuineness and authenticity of the documents from the witnesses.

The defense also manifested that it would no longer present Federizo as its witness.

The prosecution was given until Oct. 15 to file its formal offer of additional exhibits while the defense was directed to comment five days after receiving the prosecution’s submission.

The trial will resume Oct. 19, when the defense is expected to present its witnesses.

Meanwhile, David Gabriel dismissed an earlier claim by broadcaster Ramon Tulfo that, according to his source, Marcoleta and Senator Jinggoy Estrada would soon be released on bail by the Sandiganbayan. Tulfo also claimed that Marcoleta’s case would be downgraded from plunder to graft.

“We do not know where his information came from, but we are confident that, since the funds in this case are private funds and Comelec characterized them as election contributions, this is not, for us, a case of plunder,” Gabriel said.

The defense earlier claimed that the funds donated to Marcoleta were campaign donations. The prosecution argued that Marcoleta himself stated, in a verified position paper submitted to the Comelec, that the funds became part of his personal funds.

Victoria Besinio III of the Comelec’s Political Finance and Affairs Department also testified earlier that the poll body made no categorical finding on the donations. She added that Marcoleta’s submission of a donor’s tax return undermines his claim that the funds were campaign contributions, since such contributions are exempt from donor’s tax.

Estrada’s lawyer, Laurence Arroyo, said he was likewise unaware of what Tulfo was referring to.