Witness: Co’s kickbacks had ‘receipts’ — that were later ‘thrown away’

Wirt Walter Rosales said alleged kickbacks were accompanied by written “acknowledgment receipts.” He gave this testimony before the Sandiganbayan antigraft court on Thursday.

Rosales, Alcantara’s former personal assistant, linked the receipts to payments allegedly delivered by then-DPWH engineer Henry Alcantara. The claim matters because the documents could potentially provide a record of payments, though the excerpt does not describe their contents.

The testimony concerns former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co. The source does not state the payments’ amounts, dates, or whether the receipts were admitted as evidence. For now, Rosales’s statement is witness testimony in an ongoing court case, not a final finding of guilt.

An acknowledgment receipt is a written record confirming that someone received money, goods, or another item. It usually identifies the amount, date, recipient, and purpose, creating a traceable link between the parties. It matters because an authentic receipt can support a payment claim, although it does not prove the payment was lawful.

In the reported case, Wirt Walter Rosales, formerly Alcantara’s personal assistant, told the Sandiganbayan that alleged kickbacks delivered to former Ako Bicol representative Zaldy Co came with acknowledgment receipts. Those documents could support testimony by showing what was allegedly handed over, when, and to whom.

The receipt remains evidence, not a final verdict. Investigators and the court would still examine authenticity, signatures, amounts, surrounding records, and whether the transaction matched Rosales’s account. The source reports testimony on Thursday, not a completed judicial finding, so “alleged” remains important.

Zaldy Co is a former Ako Bicol party-list representative named in testimony about alleged kickbacks. Henry Alcantara was then a Department of Public Works and Highways engineer, while Wirt Walter Rosales was Alcantara’s former personal assistant and a witness before the Sandiganbayan.

Rosales said alleged payments delivered to Co by Alcantara came with “acknowledgment receipts.” This portrays Co as the alleged recipient, Alcantara as the alleged deliverer, and Rosales as the witness describing the arrangement. These remain allegations, not proven findings.

The testimony was given at the Sandiganbayan antigraft court on Thursday. The source does not state the alleged kickback amount, explain the receipts’ contents, or report a final ruling. Such documents could help test payment claims, but a receipt alone does not establish wrongdoing.

The account identifies three key people and three connected institutions or groups. They are Zaldy Co, Henry Alcantara, Wirt Walter Rosales, the Sandiganbayan, DPWH, and Ako Bicol party list. Together, they frame an alleged payment chain and its courtroom examination.

Rosales, Alcantara’s former personal assistant, testified about alleged kickbacks delivered to Co. Alcantara was then a DPWH engineer, while Co was a former Ako Bicol representative. The key mechanism is documentation: Rosales said the deliveries came with acknowledgment receipts.

The testimony is being heard by the Sandiganbayan antigraft court. The excerpt does not provide a verdict, confirm the receipts’ authenticity, or establish wrongdoing. For now, the account shows an allegation under judicial examination, with documents potentially important to the court’s review.

Disposing of acknowledgment receipts could remove records linking money, dates, and recipients. That matters because the court must test whether Alcantara’s alleged payments to Zaldy Co were real, not merely claimed.

In this case, Wirt Walter Rosales, Alcantara’s former personal assistant, testified that alleged kickbacks came with acknowledgment receipts. If those documents were destroyed, prosecutors might lose direct support, while the defense could challenge the witness’s memory. Still, disposal alone would not prove kickbacks; it would show potentially important evidence is missing.

At Thursday’s Sandiganbayan hearing, the court must weigh Rosales’s account against remaining records and testimony. The source does not say who disposed of the receipts, when, or whether copies exist. Judges will also need to examine how the documents were kept and whether other evidence matches Rosales’s account. Those gaps make the disposal important, but not conclusive.

The Sandiganbayan is the Philippines’ special anti-graft court. It hears criminal cases alleging that public officials abused their positions. Its specialized role helps ensure corruption allegations receive focused judicial review, rather than being handled as ordinary disputes.

One example is the case involving former Ako Bicol representative Zaldy Co. Witness Wirt Walter Rosales, formerly an assistant to DPWH engineer Henry Alcantara, told the court that alleged kickbacks came with “acknowledgment receipts.” Such documents could help connect alleged payments to officials, but the court must still test their authenticity and credibility.

The Sandiganbayan is currently hearing evidence, not announcing a final verdict. The source reports testimony but no conviction or sentence. Defendants can challenge the receipts and witness statements, while prosecutors must prove corruption beyond reasonable doubt. This process gives serious allegations a formal legal forum.

Kickbacks are secret payments or benefits exchanged for winning public contracts or approving inflated bills. They divert money meant for roads, bridges, and schools, raising costs for taxpayers. They can also reward poor work when decisions serve private gain rather than public safety.

In the reported Philippine case, witness Wirt Walter Rosales described alleged payments involving former Ako Bicol representative Zaldy Co. He said they came from then DPWH engineer Henry Alcantara. Rosales was Alcantara’s former personal assistant and said the payments came with “acknowledgment receipts.” That detail could help investigators trace transactions, though allegations still require proof.

The excerpt provides no conviction, total amount, or nationwide estimate. Still, the practical risk is clear: diverted funds can mean fewer completed projects, higher prices, or repairs sooner. Strong bidding rules, independent inspections, transparent payments, and punishment for proven wrongdoing help protect public money.