If Piñol was referring to the documents used by Trillanes in his allegations against Duterte’s hidden wealth that was published by Inquirer, then let’s take a look at the bank transactions in those documents.
At first look, it was obvious that the document used in the image with the “November 20, 2011” transactions was different from those posted by Inquirer in their online news site. Just look at the formats of the dates used in both documents.
Now, let’s zoom in on the transactions made in 2011 on the documents used by Inquirer.
Clearly, whoever has re-typed Trillanes’ documents that Inquirer published messed up the dates. They even encoded the first deposit of P41,721,035.62 two times, when in Trillanes’ documents it was only credited once.
[ads1]
The encoder could have mistakenly typed the October 20, 2011 transactions as November 20, 2011 transactions. Looking at all the 11’s in “20111020,” though, could have easily tricked one’s eyes. Or could it have been a deliberate mistake on the person who re-typed the documents and who first posted it online showing the November 20, 2011 transactions?
BPI has already clarified that the documents did not come from them and were not even in the same format as the bank statements that they issue. But since these documents were already circulating online, emphasizing on the “November 20, 2011” mistake, then it is only right to point out that in Inquirer’s published documents, there were no such transactions on that day at all!
Be Informed. Beat the Trolls, Share the Truth!
[ads3]
