“It’s based on these self-serving testimonies of these military assets, whose credibility in the first place should be questioned.”

CAGAYAN DE ORO — Lawyers of detained journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio and lay worker Marielle Domequil maintained that their clients are innocent, disagreeing with the court decision that was only based on testimonies from “rebel returnees” without supporting evidence.

On January 22, Tacloban City Regional Trial Court Branch 45 Judge Georgina Perez convicted the two accused for violation of Section 8(ii) of the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act, sentencing them to 12-18 years of imprisonment. They were, however, exonerated from their charges related to illegal possession of firearms and explosives.

Several international and local groups, especially the families of the accused, decried the court ruling.

Testimonial: Inside NPA camp

Four “rebel returnees” presented by the prosecution claimed they all saw Cumpio and Domequil at a New People’s Army (NPA) camp and handed cash, ammunitions, and tapetas (long pants that easily dry) to an NPA commander in Barangay San Andres, Catbalogan City, Samar, on March 29, 2019. 

The court said the two accused knew three of these former rebels.

During the alleged commission of the crime, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the NPA, were domestically designated as terrorist organizations through Proclamation No. 374 issued by former President Rodrigo Duterte on December 5, 2017.

Lawyer Julianne Agpalo of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers asserted on Thursday that there is no provision in the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act that says a president can designate an organization or an individual [as terrorists] by mere execution of an executive order.

The two accused refuted the allegations. In her testimonies, Cumpio stated that she responded to a mass evacuation that occurred in San Jose De Buan on March 29, 2019. The email she had sent to Alexander Philip Abinguna, part of the Tacloban 5, on that day was presented to show proof that she was not in the mountains of Catbalogan.

Domequil, on the other hand, testified that she was just at the Makabayan office in Tacloban City on that day, as she was not feeling well. Screenshots of her conversations with her sister, tweets, and Facebook activity log were also presented as proof.

For Judge Perez, this evidence did not establish the precise location of the two, adding that they were not able to present any witness to confirm their claims.

Another female rebel returnee, who is currently under the government’s witness protection program, claimed that she met Cumpio twice in a farm in Tolosa, Leyte, in 2016 and 2017 to allegedly discuss underground work. 

The latter denied the claim, saying that she was only 16 or 17 years old at that time and a student at the University of the Philippines Tacloban. 

Cumpio’s assertion, according to Judge Perez, is “not persuasive.” The Judge said that meeting with the said rebel returnee is “entirely plausible” since Cumpio was within the province of Leyte and she was already a journalist in 2015 at 16 years old.

Judge Perez stated that testimonies from different witnesses that “independently coincide on the material points of the incident” are a “strong badge of truth rather than fabrication.”

Agpalo, one of the legal counsel of Cumpio and Domequil, pointed out that the rebel returnees only provided their testimonies, saying that there was no “documentary or photographic evidence” to support their claims. 

“It’s based on these self-serving testimonies of these military assets, whose credibility in the first place should be questioned,” she added.

In a statement relayed to supporters a day after the promulgation, Cumpio said in Filipino, “I never thought one could be convicted of a crime based on other people’s stories.”

No links to communists

The Court of Appeals reversed on October 29, 2025, a local court ruling that granted the civil forfeiture petition filed against Cumpio and Domequil. The petition aimed to forfeit the over P500,000 cash seized from the accused during their arrest in February 2020.

In this case, Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr. stated that there was no further evidence presented, aside from “bare allegations” from former rebels, that would prove the accused’s alleged involvement in the activities of the communist movement.

Two rebel returnees—one of whom was the same witness in the terrorism financing charge against Cumpio and Domequil—also testified in this case, claiming that they witnessed the two accused allegedly meet NPA members and disburse funds and ammunition to them in Barangay San Andres, Catbalogan City, Samar, in 2019. 

Agpalo confirmed to Bulatlat that it was the same incident in question in the terrorism financing case of Cumpio and Domequil. However, the decision in the civil forfeiture case was not considered.

In the civil forfeiture case, the lawyer explained that the alleged March 2019 incident was used by the petitioner to prove that the “seized funds” from the accused were related to financing terrorism. Meanwhile, in the criminal case of the accused, the incident in question itself, she said, constitutes the crime of terrorism financing.

Following the guilty verdict, lawyers of Cumpio and Domequil assured that they will exhaust all legal remedies available, including the filing of a motion for reconsideration and a motion to post bail while the appeal is pending. (RVO)