Forensic experts from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) told the House Committee on Justice on Tuesday that handwritten entries on acknowledgment receipts tied to the confidential funds of Vice President Sara Duterte were likely written by only a small number of individuals.
NBI Director Melvin Matibag and forensic document examiner Carolyn Pitoy presented a four-page handwriting analysis report covering 36 receipts. Their findings suggested that as few as seven individuals could have authored all the handwritten entries across the documents.
“There are seven groups of handwritten receipts that were found to be written by one and the same person. Pitong magkakagrupo po, na bawat grupo, isang tao lang ang sumulat,” Pitoy told lawmakers.
She clarified that the estimate does not rule out other possibilities, noting that a single person may have written only specific portions—such as dates, names, or signatures—across multiple receipts.
The forensic review examined handwriting characteristics including form, structural patterns, stroke direction, alignment, and execution. The analysis covered documents bearing the names of alleged recipients such as Jason Bitangcol, Selsa Arojable, Samson Samuel, Hedda Claribelita Tamayo, Jayson Reignold Ngo, Joseph Caraceo, Raymond Mamon, Angel Marie Abrigo, Anthony Santos, Sabel Salazar, and Milky Secuya.
The receipts were first flagged during a 2024 inquiry by the House Committee on Good Government and Accountability into the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds by the OVP and the Department of Education. Lawmakers had earlier raised concerns over potentially fictitious names, including the widely cited “Mary Grace Piattos.”
The NBI’s latest findings have deepened doubts about whether the funds were actually distributed to legitimate beneficiaries.
Lawmakers, including Brian Poe of FPJ Panday Bayanihan Party-list and Jonathan Keith Flores of Bukidnon’s 2nd District, asked whether the bureau had examined the remaining roughly 4,000 receipts.
The NBI said its analysis was limited to the 36 documents requested by the House panel but assured it is “more than willing to examine all the documents” if formally directed.