Sen. Rodante Marcoleta arrives at the Sandiganbayan on September 10, 2026 for ongoing court proceedings regarding plunder charges and violations of Presidential Decree No. 46 involving allegedly undeclared campaign funds. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News
MANILA — Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s donor claimed that it was the lawmaker who allegedly solicited a donation from him, according to a witness presented by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Atty. Maria Mananghaya-Henson, director of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Bureau, returned to testify on Thursday during the Sandiganbayan Third Division’s bail hearing for Marcoleta, who is facing a plunder case over the alleged P75 million in “ill-gotten wealth” from donations.
Ombudsman presents Marcoleta’s TV show remarks on donations as evidence in bail hearing
Henson said the claim was made by Marcoleta’s donor, businessman Aristotle Viray, in his counter-affidavit submitted during the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation. Viray is also an accused in the case.
She added that Viray claimed in the document that he knew Marcoleta even before the election.
Meanwhile, Henson said another co-accused, businessman Joseph Espiritu, stated in his reply to the Ombudsman that he made the donation as a gesture of friendship.
“He (Espiritu) stated that it (donation) was because of friendship. But in our reply, Espiritu did not specify how many years he knew Marcoleta… it was a mere alibi,” Henson said.
Marcoleta, Defensor attend second bail hearing on plunder case
She added that even if Marcoleta and Espiritu were truly friends, the amount Espiritu gave Marcoleta was “egregious” or beyond what was acceptable, considering that Marcoleta was a sitting congressman at the time.
The prosecution earlier alleged that the donations were given to Marcoleta by reason of his position.
“The fact that he was a sitting congressman is not an important fact here, but the fact that he wanted to run for Senate,” Marcoleta’s lawyer Atty. David Gabriel replied.
He also questioned if there was proof that the donations caused any monetary damage to the government.
“The actual receipt of money is what makes it illegal, it makes it unexplained and ill-gotten wealth… the moment the money was transferred to Marcoleta is already illegal because he was a sitting official,” Henson replied.
Sandiganbayan or impeachment court: Who decides if Marcoleta, Estrada can vote?
The senator’s camp previously argued that the funds were campaign donations, and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) rather than the court.
However, Henson said Marcoleta’s camp characterized the gifts as campaign donations only when it was “convenient” for them.
Henson said that in Marcoleta’s verified position paper filed before the poll body, he claimed the donations were not earmarked for campaign purposes and became part of his personal funds.
ALLEGED CONNIVANCE AMONG ACCUSED
Henson said the graft-busting body found there was a “connivance” among the accused to conceal the purpose of the gifts.
She said this is shown by the belated payment of donor’s tax and the belated notarization of the deeds of donation, which she claimed does not legitimize the “illegal” money reportedly received by Marcoleta.
“The sequence of the events were Marcoleta was asked to explain his SOCE (Statement of Contribution and Expenditures), he said he did not receive contributions for that matter. He asked for an extension to file his answer, then in that extension, that’s where the payment of the taxes came from. Even the deeds of donation appeared to be merely an afterthought,” Henson said.
DILG: No special treatment for Marcoleta at New Quezon City Jail
The donations were reportedly made in January 2025, while the donor’s tax for Defensor and Espiritu was allegedly paid only in December 2025. An employee of Marcoleta allegedly paid both taxes, according to Henson.
“In the donor tax, it was clear it was paid by the same person… later we found (he) was working for Marcoleta…. it is clear from the documents that Marcoleta had a hand and control in payment of donor’s taxes,” Henson said.
“Even if they said they (accused) were not talking to each other, they came to the same place, same day, to notarize their deed of donation,” she added.
In a clip of a television show presented in court, Marcoleta said his donors requested not to disclose their names.
“Senator Marcoleta was more bound to his donors more than the law,” Henson said after the presentation of the video.
The Sandiganbayan Third Division said the prosecution has two final witnesses to present in the bail hearing.
Marcoleta says 16-vote conviction threshold in Duterte impeachment trial should be fixed