‘Unusual’ turned suspiciously usual

I allowed mind games to play in my mind, perhaps a way to make watching the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte more interesting, if not more cinematic. I have a special notebook and a smooth-sliding pen for my notations.

Day 10 saw the House prosecution presenting their witnesses—two Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank) bank managers—testifying on the “unusual” withdrawals of cold cash amounting to a total of P612.5 million in government funds. These were, we have been made to believe, part of the Vice President’s confidential funds and therefore none of our truckin’ business.

Four P125 million withdrawals from Landbank-Shaw Boulevard branch (2022 to 2023) and three P37.5 million withdrawals from Landbank-Department of Education (DepEd) branch (2023), for a total of P612.5 million. The payees named were from the Office of the Vice President (OVP), namely, Gina Acosta and Lemuel Fajarda.

Article continues after this advertisement

The first witness, former Landbank-Shaw Boulevard branch manager Violeta Constantino, was asked what she thought of the encashment of a check for P125 million. She said it was “unusual.” The Dec. 20, 2022 withdrawal/encashment was the first staggering amount in cold cash. This was followed by three more encashments of the same amount on Feb. 26, April 25, and July 14 in 2023.

The prosecution presented photocopies of the checks from the OVP. Following bank procedures, the originals had been shredded after a period of time. Just asking: would it be a violation of bank policies if someone saved those “unusual” checks from being shredded? I would save them if I could. You never know. (I have kept my decades-old journalist’s notebooks for whatever purpose they may serve. At one time, I went through old notes to find out if I had scribbled something from an interview that might help solve a crime being investigated years later!)

The word of the day on Day 10 was “unusual,” which means it could arouse suspicion, raise a red flag, or be a reason to inform the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). If I were a cross-examiner, I would ask the witness and throw her off guard. Would she also consider the succeeding encashments unusual because of their frequency? Simply put, doing something jaw-dropping once or for the first time is unusual, but doing it four times is no longer unusual or uncommon—and therefore usual or normal?

Nice try, I thought. Something in the vicinity of: if you tell a lie often enough, the lie would look like the truth. Another try: If you steal often enough, it becomes addictive and therefore you are suffering from a behavioral disorder and need therapy. I was playing tricks with my own mind. I began to imagine myself arguing with myself. I ended up with the idea that a wrongdoing can stand on its own, rain or shine, whether committed once or 77 times.

Article continues after this advertisement

See, the unusualness is no longer because of its “first-time-ness,” and the usualness because of its frequency, but also because of the eye-popping, staggering amount of cold cash that was being withdrawn. You put together the frequency and the huge amounts, and you have something really suspicious. Add the fact that the funds were for the VP’s confidential funds. But the two prosecution witnesses, Constantino and later, Nenita Camposano of the Landbank DepEd branch, described how the encashments went through standard banking procedures and therefore (in the face of it) did not seem to give reasons for one to be suspicious. But taken aback, why not? And did they act on it by reporting it to the AMLC? The witnesses invoked confidentiality.

The word suspicious is now in the picture. “Unusual but not suspicious, unusual but not illegal.” But how did the unusual become usual or commonplace? How does one explain the series of encashments of such huge amounts? As far as the bank managers were concerned, it was all in a day’s work, trabaho lang. At least that is how they seemed to project the bank operations involving the transaction with the OVP and the DepEd, notwithstanding who the payees from the OVP were. Some of these funds would end up with the likes of “Mary Grace Piattos” and other elementals.

Midway into the impeachment proceedings of Day 10, my cinematic mind began to pick up described scenes, that is, the bank’s so-called “back room” where the cash—in packs of P100 million each—was put into what looked like gym bags, how the bank provided a trolley for the bags to be brought to the waiting vehicles via the fire exit, but with no bank personnel providing assistance once the stash was outside the bank’s door. That was for security reasons.

Article continues after this advertisement

Something I wondered about: Banks have CCTVs within and around their premises. Were there recordings of those unusual withdrawal days? No senator-judge asked. Shucks, those were scenes straight out of an under-the-radar bank heist movie in my mind.

I was writing this piece while Day 11 (yesterday) of the impeachment trial was about to begin. I must end now to watch the show. Yesterday’s Inquirer headline story: “House team: Secret funds ‘no excuse’ to fake names” provides a ringside view.

—————-

Send feedback to cerespd@gmail.com