FORMER Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer Gina Acosta on Monday testified that Vice President Sara Duterte ordered the release of P125 million in confidential funds to her security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica for distribution, even though he was not qualified to disburse the cash.
During the 16th day of the impeachment trial, Acosta confirmed that her “head of agency” gave the instruction that once she encashed the check for the confidential funds, she was to release the money to Lachica.
This violated a joint circular requiring the designated disbursing officer to personally draw, disburse and account for the money.
“The person who ordered me to release the P125 million to the security officer, Colonel Lachica, was Ma’am Sara Duterte,” Acosta told the impeachment court.
During questioning by private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan, Acosta identified Duterte as the official who directed her to turn over the confidential funds to Lachica, then head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.
“Your Honor, my head of agency instructed me that if I am able to cash the check, I should release it to Sir Lachica,” Acosta said.
She also confirmed withdrawing the entire amount in cash from the Land Bank of the Philippines on Dec. 20, 2022.
“I put it in my four bags,” she said, describing them as oblong-shaped travel bags.
She said she personally saw the money behind the teller’s area and packed the P1,000 bills into the bags herself.
Acosta said then-OVP assistant chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio accompanied her when she received the funds, while their driver was a member of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.
She added that LandBank security personnel assisted in moving the cash after she had placed it in four bags.
They arrived at the OVP past 4 p.m. and brought the bags to an extension office, Acosta said. She then called Lachica to inform him that the P125 million confidential fund check had been encashed.
The P125 million was reportedly released to the OVP in bundles of P1 million and subsequently declared spent within 11 days, from Dec. 21 to 31, 2022, including the holidays.
Item 6.1.2 of Joint Circular No. 2015-01 governing the use of confidential and intelligence funds provides that all cash advances for confidential funds must be personally drawn, disbursed, and accounted for solely by the duly designated and bonded SDO and cannot be transferred to anyone else.
Acosta affirmed her earlier testimony before the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability that Duterte ordered the transfer because Lachica supposedly knew how to carry out confidential operations.
“Ma’am Inday Sara instructed that it be released to him because he is the one who knows how to implement the programs and activities related to the confidential activities,” she said.
Acosta further testified that she relied on the liquidation documents and information provided by Lachica and did not reject or question any of his submissions.
Earlier testimony showed that any amount left unspent by Dec. 31 would have been returned to the National Treasury and could not have been retained as OVP savings.
The OVP reported that the money was used for payments of rewards, purchase of information and other confidential operations.
However, state auditors questioned supporting documents bearing names that lawmakers have described as suspicious or possibly fictitious.
Among the names that appeared in acknowledgment receipts were “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Chippy McDonald,” “Any Lim” and “Pikit.” “Mary Grace Piattos” was listed as having received P70,000 as a reward in the form of medicines.
Auditors also flagged the use of confidential funds for supposed surveillance activities conducted during Christmas parties, tree-planting activities, Tupad payouts and wheelchair distribution.
The documents submitted to support these expenses allegedly contained only certifications that no untoward incident occurred, without specific operational accomplishments.
The COA also found deficiencies involving reward payments, including the absence of proof that the confidential operations had succeeded.
Purchases of items such as tables, chairs, desktop computers and printers were also unsupported by the official receipts or sales invoices ordinarily required for commercial transactions.
Hostile witness
Acosta, who handled cash advances involving the OVP’s confidential funds, was declared a hostile witness by the Senate impeachment court upon the request of the House prosecution.
Ligutan presented Acosta to prove the alleged irregular disbursement, cash withdrawal, and failure to properly liquidate P500 million in OVP confidential funds spanning late 2022 and 2023.
While direct examiners are normally barred from asking leading questions, a hostile witness declaration permits the examining counsel to propound leading questions as if conducting cross-examination.
Ligutan argued that since Acosta submitted a sworn counter-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman stating that Duterte is not responsible or should not be held liable for any misuse of confidential funds, “[there is] interest [that] is directly adverse to the prosecution’s case.” After Escudero established that she stands to lose work if Duterte is convicted by the impeachment court, he ruled that she is a hostile witness.
When proceedings were delayed by Acosta’s claim that she did not understand questions posed in English or Tagalog and responded in Bisaya, Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo urged the impeachment court to compel her to speak in Tagalog during her testimony.
Tulfo argued that Acosta had answered some questions in Tagalog during a previous House hearing, but she spoke in Bisaya before the impeachment court, which prompted translations from the House prosecution.
“Mr. President, I have here the transcript of the hearing in Congress. I don’t understand why she seems to be having such difficulty speaking Filipino here when, in fact, she answered in Filipino during the hearing in Congress last November,” he said.
Tulfo cited excerpts of the witness’ replies in Filipino and English when she first appeared at a hearing in the House of Representatives.
Among the portions he cited were Acosta’s responses concerning incentive payments, her authority as special disbursing officer, and funds she said were returned to her by then-Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica.
Tulfo also read an exchange involving the name “Piattos,” which figured in the House inquiry into acknowledgment receipts for confidential fund expenditures.
“Even the word discretionary. She’s a government official, she doesn’t know what discretionary is?” the senator said.
“Mr. President, enough of this deception. Please, Mr. President, compel this witness to speak in Filipino. Even Visayans understand Filipino and can speak Filipino. What are we, foreigners? Are we Japanese or Chinese?” Tulfo said.
“I know, Ms. Witness, you can understand Filipino and you can speak Filipino because it’s right here. There are several pages of it. Your answers were in Filipino. When you were asked in English, you answered in English. Why does it seem like you’re having such a hard time now? At this rate, Mr. President, we’ll be here for a year,” he added.
Escudero acknowledged Tulfo’s concern and directed Ligutan to stick to one language when questioning Acosta instead of translating every question automatically.
Mocking Congress
Impeachment endorser and Manila Sixth District Rep. Benny Abante blasted Vice President Duterte for her continued refusal to appear before the Senate impeachment court, calling it a mockery of the constitutional process and the Congress.
The lawmaker insisted it should be Duterte to personally address the charges against her instead of leaving the explanation to current and former OVP personnel and her defense team.
Whether Duterte will testify is a matter for the defense, which presents its case after the prosecution rests.
“I think the vice president should come because she continues to make a mockery of Congress,” Abante said in a post-trial briefing following the adjournment of Day 15 of the vice president’s trial.
He also questioned why Duterte attended the recent arraignment of her brother, Davao City Rep. Paolo “Pulong” Duterte, in a separate criminal case and also her filing of a second perjury case against her alleged former bagman Ramil Madriaga but has not appeared before the impeachment court.
“Does that mean the Office of the Vice President can make a mockery of the constitutional mandate of Congress to investigate and to put up an impeachment court?” Abante said.
“She should come forward. She herself should explain. It’s pathetic to see her staff explaining on her behalf. I am calling on the vice president now, have mercy on your staff. You yourself should come here. You should not hide,” he added in English and Filipino.
The lawmaker further reasoned that the impeachment trial must ultimately answer questions of accountability and public trust rather than become another contest between opposing political camps.
Duterte has not participated in the hearings since the impeachment trial started last July 6.
No trade-off
Also on Monday, members of the House prosecution team insisted they have no knowledge of any talks for a “trade-off” involving Duterte’s resignation that would pave the way for her to run in the 2028 elections.
House prosecution panel adviser and spokesman, former Surigao del Norte representative Robert “Ace” Barbers, said that any purported political negotiations are outside the prosecution’s mandate.
“As far as the prosecution panel is concerned, we are in this process of determining truth and accountability,” Barbers said in Filipino and English in a press briefing at the sidelines of Day 15 of the vice president’s impeachment trial.
“I don’t know if that would be a possible scenario, at least in my own personal opinion,” he added.
The former lawmaker was replying to questions about unverified reports that Duterte had privately reached out to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and offered to step down in exchange for being allowed to pursue the presidency in 2028.
“If there are any talks regarding those supposed trade-offs, that is not a matter for the prosecution panel. Our task is to proceed with the trial, present the evidence, and ensure that the public understands what that evidence is,” he said, stressing that the prosecution’s authority comes from the constitutional accountability process, rather than any political arrangement outside the Senate impeachment court.
Meanwhile, House prosecutor and San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora cautioned against treating reports circulating online as established fact.
“Actually I saw that in several Facebook posts, but of course we have no confirmation about that and with so many trolls now we don’t know what is true. So, let’s just wait if that is indeed true,” she said.
