BANK OF COMMERCE MAY BE
COVERING UP SOURCE OF CASH GIFTS

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino "Nene" Q. Pimentel, Jr. (PDP-Laban) today expressed strong suspicion that the management of the Bank of Commerce is covering up its involvement in the Palace cash gift controversy to prevent Senate probers from uncovering the source of the money and the personalities involved.

Despite the fact that the bill wrappers, used in bundling the P500,000 received by Pampanga Fr. Ed Panlilio during the Oct. 11 meeting in Malacañang, bear the Bank of Commerce logo and a signature of its employee, Pimentel said he found it unbelievable that the bank could not even identify the branch where the money was deposited and withdrawn.

"Apparently, the bank is trying to cover up this mess by its vice president's explanation going around in circles," he said.

Under questioning by Pimentel during Wednesday's hearing of the Blue Ribbon Committee and Committee on Local Government, Bank of Commerce executive vice president Arturo Manuel, Jr. confirmed that the bill wrappers used in bundling the P500,000 in P1,000 denomination given to Panlilio carried the official logo of his bank and the signature of Winona Yumul-Bondoc, a cash custodian at the mini-cash center in Angeles City. The date was also indicated -- July 22, 2007.

But Manuel could not give a paper trail of the money - from the mini-cash center to the branch of the bank where it was delivered and withdrawn. He failed to identify the branch where the withdrawal took place, and because of this he could not identify the owner of the deposit, the person who withdrew the money and the teller who processed the transaction.

Manuel also told the hearing that the date appearing on the bill wrapper indicates when the money was bundled and verified by the cash custodian (Bondoc), but not when it was withdrawn.

Dumbfounded by the explanation of the bank executive's explanation, Pimentel remarked that he could not imagine a bank releasing such a huge amount of money without having a paper trail of its movements.

"It defies logic to me that you cannot present a paper trail that would show where the money came from," the minority leader said.

"You come here without any knowledge regarding the subject matter at issue. If that is so, for all intents and purposes, you come here like Pontius Pilate and wash your hands off any taint of the questionable dealings by your bank."

Manuel also said: "The cash movements from the mini-cash center will be prompted by either an excess cash being remitted to the nearest Bangko Sentral cash office, the requisition of a branch within the area or remittance of excess cash from the mini-cash center to the head office cash center."

When Pimentel asked whether the management of the Bank of Commerce bothered to conduct an inquiry by requiring Bondoc to give an explanation, Mr. Manuel replied "no."

His answer prompted Pimentel to say that the bank was being insensitive for its seeming lack of interest in unraveling its own involvement in the Palace payoff scandal.

"My God, the whole country is agog over this thing and the Bank of Commerce does not bother about it. Why would that be the case? Can you kindly put on record why you have a nonchalant attitude about this thing?"

Pimentel then requested the Senate investigating panels to invite Ms. Bondoc to the next hearing on the case.