THE former disbursing officer of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) testified on Monday that Vice President Sara Duterte had ordered the release of P500 million in confidential funds to her security officer, even though he was not bonded, in violation of government rules on the use of such funds.
Testifying on Day 17 of Duterte’s impeachment trial, witness Gina Acosta, the former special disbursing officer at the OVP, admitted she turned over hundreds of millions in cash to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, even though he was not covered by a fidelity bond as required by government regulations.
Private Prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan said the cash transfer violated provisions of Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which states that only duly designated and bonded special disbursing officers (SDOs) or heads of agencies are legally authorized to draw and disburse confidential funds.
A bonded officer is a public officer or employee who is covered by a fidelity bond, a type of insurance underwritten by the government that protects against loss, misuse, theft, or unauthorized handling of public funds and government property by accountable officers.
"We said that the reason why we need a fidelity bond is to protect the money painstakingly earned by the people. Question: Is the Colonel Lachica who was given P125 million, plus P375 million, or a whopping total of P500 million — this is the people’s question to you, Gina Acosta — was he able to post a fidelity bond?" Ligutan said.
In response, Acosta said that she released the funds to Lachica because he was designated by Duterte as her security officer and was considered the person with expertise in implementing confidential activities.
She confirmed that Lachica was not a bonded accountable officer, and that she remained the accountable person responsible for the liquidation of the funds.
"The security officer, Colonel Lachica, as he is the commanding officer of the VPSPG, he is not a bonded officer your honor, but the accountable officer remains to be me. I am still the accountable person your honor that’s why I was the one who did the liquidation," Acosta said.
She added that Lachica signed a document acknowledging receipt of the P125 million confidential fund and that she indicated the purpose for which the funds were intended.
Ligutan asked Acosta whether she ceded responsibility for disbursing confidential funds to Lachica every time the OVP received the secret funds — for the fourth quarter of 2022 and the first three quarters of 2023.
"That’s correct, Your honor; he is the security officer who was designated by Vice President Sara Duterte to implement the confidential activities,” she said, adding he was the expert in such activities.
After this, Ligutan said Acosta’s answers appeared repetitive, as she kept saying she gave the duty of disbursing confidential funds to Lachica.
Ligutan pointed out that transferring the confidential funds to Lachica may have led to other violations since the military official was not an organic employee of the OVP.
He referred to a provision in the Joint Circular, which states that under no circumstance shall the confidential funds be transferred from one accountable to another.
Another provision also states that “no transfer of funds or appropriation through cash advances or any form of payment from one agency to another for purposes of confidential and intelligence activities shall be allowed.”
The testimony forms part of the House prosecution’s presentation on the first impeachment charge involving Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds.
No receipts
Under questioning by Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, Acosta confirmed there were no official receipts for the P75 million in medical and food expenses allegedly used for the agency's confidential activities.
Acosta said she had reviewed the documents submitted by Lachica and noticed that some acknowledgment receipts were missing basic details such as dates, names, and signatures.
When she sought verification, Lachica allegedly told her that the transactions involved sensitive and confidential operations and that the documents he provided were all that could be submitted.
Acosta said she only relied on the documents submitted by Lachica as the basis for liquidating the confidential funds.
More unusual names
She also admitted she did not personally witness Lachica hand confidential funds to individuals who signed acknowledgment receipts, including Antonio Pagong, Timon Andrew Pusa, Don Piang, May Pamana, Shane Ngitngit, and Xuniso P. Belat.
Receipts showed Antonio Pagong purportedly receiving P100,000 for the purchase of information; Timon Andrew Pusa receiving P100,000 for the rental of a transport vehicle; Don Piang receiving P250,000 for transport rental; Shane Ngitngit for P150,000; and Xuniso P. Belat for P100,000.
"I did not see him do it, your honor, I am not on the ground. He was the one who implemented it, your honor," Acosta said when asked whether she personally saw Lachica hand the money to the recipients.
Escudero also asked Acosta whether she personally knew that the funds had been given to the listed recipients or actually spent for supplies.
"No sir," Acosta said, repeating that she relied on Lachica and the documents he submitted to her in accounting for the confidential fund expenditures.
"I verified it from him, I asked him," she added.
She said Lachica told her that the documents he provided served as proof of the expenditures and that the operations involved “sensitive and confidential information.”
Acosta also confirmed that the recipients of the agency's confidential funds are real people, but the names used were fictitious.
This, after Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo asked Acosta whether she was aware that some names listed in the documents were allegedly not the recipients’ real names.
Tulfo also questioned whether Acosta considered the use of such names acceptable in documenting confidential fund transactions.
Acosta said the recipients were real people, but the aliases were not their actual names, and that she relied on submissions by Lachica.
"They are real people," Acosta told Tulfo.
Acosta also maintained that the Commission on Audit's joint circular governing confidential funds did not require the recipients' names to be indicated in the documents.
She confirmed she knew Lachica could not disburse funds because he was not covered by a fidelity bond, but she released the funds to him because Duterte designated him.
Pressed by Tulfo on whether buying tables and chairs and holding tree-planting activities fall under confidential activities as OVP documents showed, Acosta said the confidential aspect applied during area inspection and survey work ahead of the planting — events which Duterte would attend — and that furniture purchases were for use in operations.
Senator-Judge Lito Lapid questioned Acosta about two names bearing the surname "Lapid" that appeared among the recipients of the confidential funds.
During his interjection, Lapid raised the possibility that the names could have been aliases or referred to individuals who did not actually exist.
"My father said, as long as it’s Lapid, they’re my relative. I would be grateful to the defense and to Lachica if my relative had been given the money," Lapid said in Filipino.
"If not, if that was an alias, then what about our name and surname that you merely used as an alias, when it turns out there was no real person?" he added.
Acosta said she relied on the acknowledgment receipts submitted by Lachica.
Lapid also asked why Acosta relied on Lachica’s documents and whether she had verified his background or whether his office had its own intelligence funds.
"I don’t know, your honor," Acosta replied.
'Stupid in the name of blind loyalty'
Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo called Acosta "stupid in the name of blind loyalty" as he questioned her reliance on the documents and explanations provided by Lachica despite seeing the same signature on receipts bearing different names.
During his interjection, he pointed out that several acknowledgment receipts bore different names but appeared to carry the same signature.
He asked why Acosta did not challenge the documents despite the apparent irregularity.
Acosta said she verified the documents with Lachica, who told her that the transactions were “sensitive information, confidential in nature.”
She maintained that Lachica was the person tasked to implement confidential operations on the ground.
"So for me, in this case, you're stupid in the name of blind loyalty," the senator told Acosta, saying she followed instructions of someone in authority with her eyes closed.
He later expressed his sympathy towards Acosta.
"You know what, madam, from the bottom of my heart, I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for you because I believe in my heart that you are not corrupt. You didn’t touch even a single centavo of those confidential funds amounting to hundreds of millions and billions," he said.
"What hurts is that the people who benefited from it, who pocketed some of that money — or pocketed all of it — are smiling now while you’re here being grilled and sweating. You look pitiful, and you might even end up in jail. My heart goes out to you," he added.
Lachica testimony
The prosecution panel said it is considering asking the Senate impeachment court to subpoena Lachica after he was repeatedly identified as the person who received the OVP confidential funds.
Prosecution spokesman Ace Barbers and public prosecutor Bukidnon 2nd District Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores said no final decision has been made since the panel is still weighing whether Lachica’s testimony is still needed to substantiate the case amid overwhelming evidence and the time required to complete Article I.
“The whole prosecution team is discussing who among the prospective witnesses will be subpoenaed if we think that the testimonies and evidence presented by previous witnesses are not yet enough,” Barbers said in Filipino at a press conference after Monday’s trial at the Senate in Pasay City.
Defense counsel Michael Wesley Poa on Monday said the prosecution may simply be weighing its strategy before deciding whether to present Lachica as a witness.
Poa made the remark when asked whether the prosecution was hesitant to call Lachica after senator-judges raised questions about the former military officer during Monday’s proceedings.
“I don't want to say [they are] hesitant and cast aspersions against the prosecution. It is really their prerogative,” Poa told reporters during a post-trial briefing.
He said the prosecution likely has its own “game plan,” just as the defense does, and may be assessing how Lachica’s testimony would fit into the overall presentation of its evidence.
“I’m sure they have a game plan, just as much as we have our own game plan,” Poa said.
Poa said prosecutors would have to consider how Lachica’s testimony would contribute to the “arc” of their narrative, including whether his testimony would help or hurt their case. WITH PNA
