Then Senate candidate Rodante Marcoleta joins the UniTeam miting de avance on Aseana Avenue in Parañaque. Fernando G. Sepe Jr., ABS-CBN News/File
MANILA — The prosecution argued before the Sandiganbayan First Division that Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s own submission of donor’s tax documents undermined his earlier claim that the P75-million he received were campaign donations.
During the trial of Marcoleta’s alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, Comelec Political Finance and Affairs Department Attorney III Victoria Besinio testified that campaign contributions were exempt from donor’s tax.
Besinio was among the investigators who conducted the Comelec’s fact-finding investigation into the funds received by Marcoleta.
The prosecution said it presented Besinio to establish that the funds were not campaign contributions since these were not subject to donor’s tax.
The senator’s camp earlier argued that the funds were campaign donations and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of the Comelec rather than the Sandiganbayan.
Besinio said documents attached to Marcoleta’s verified position paper before the Comelec included copies of donor’s tax payments and bank deposit slips. She also noted the absence of deeds of donation in the submission.
The defense argued that Marcoleta’s statements on a television show that prompted the Comelec investigation established that his friends gave him money to fund his Senate bid, making the funds campaign contributions.
Ombudsman witness: Donor claims Marcoleta solicited donation
However, Besinio said Marcoleta stated in his verified position paper submitted to the PFAD that the donations became part of his personal funds, which contradicted his earlier statement in the interview.
She added that Marcoleta should have declared the funds in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) if they were campaign contributions.
According to Besinio, Marcoleta’s SOCE listed P112 million in campaign expenditures but did not include the P75 million donation.
Upon being questioned by the defense, Besinio said that PFAD did not make a categorical determination on the nature of the funds during its probe.
However, Marcoleta’s lawyer David Gabriel, cited a portion of the PFAD recommendation stating that the funds were used to finance Marcoleta’s campaign.
Meanwhile, the prosecution and defense stipulated the authenticity of a television clip in which Marcoleta said his donors requested anonymity.
The clip was played during the bail hearing before the court’s Third Division, which handles Marcoleta’s separate plunder case.
Marcoleta’s co-host excused as witness in last day of plunder bail hearing
Sandiganbayan or impeachment court: Who decides if Marcoleta, Estrada can vote?
Marcoleta gets 1-day medical furlough