Marcoleta: P75M donation was 'personal fund,' Comelec witness testifies

Senator Rodante Marcoleta claimed that the P75 million donation he received in 2025 was part of his "personal funds," a Commission on Elections (Comelec) official testified in court, in relation to a plunder charge against the senator. Atty. Victoria Kadeja Besinio of the Comelec Political Finance and Affairs Department, a witness for the prosecution, made the testimony during Day 1 of the hearing on the petition for bail filed by Marcoleta. "With regard to his verified position paper, Senator Marcoleta said that those funds were received by him in his personal capacity, and so they became part of his personal funds, and that those funds were not earmarked or restricted for purposes of the campaign, and that they were received by him prior to the campaign," Besinio said during the questioning of Sandiganbayan Third Division Associate Justice Ronald Moreno. "That is what he stated in his position paper," Besinio added. Besinio also testified that the Comelec did not make a determination as to the nature of the P75 million donation received by Marcoleta from three donors. Marcoleta and the three individuals who donated such an amount to him, namely former Anakalusugan party-list Rep. Michael Defensor, Joseph Espiritu, and Aristotle Viray, are all facing a P75 million plunder charge over Marcoleta's undeclared P75 million worth of campaign donations. They are also facing separate charges of violation of Presidential Decree 46, which prohibits public officials from receiving gifts. When Marcoleta received the donation, he was an incumbent Sagip party-list representative. Prior to the start of the bail hearing, Moreno also said that the P75 million plunder charge filed by government prosecutors against Marcoleta is a valid criminal information. Moreno made the clarification during the hearing on Marcoleta's motion asking the anti-graft court to defer its issuance of a 90-day suspension order on Marcoleta pending a P75 million plunder charge against him over undeclared campaign donations. "If there is no valid information, how come the court found that probable cause exist, thus the issuance of warrant of arrest [against Marcoleta]? Otherwise, we would have dismissed the case outright," Moreno said after Marcoleta's defense team repeatedly said that their motion to withhold the issuance of suspension order was filed since there is no valid criminal information against Marcoleta. "If there is no probable cause, then we have the obligation to dismiss the case outright," Moreno added. Marcoleta's counsels then said that their contention that there is no valid information is due to the Sandiganbayan's lack of jurisdiction, saying that the matter is within the purview of the Commission on Elections. Moreno then pointed out that Marcoleta's camp has argued in its motion to withhold suspension order and dismiss the case that he should not be suspended because the Ombudsman's allegations do not constitute the offense of plunder. —VAL, GMA News