MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution team is still deciding whether to call Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former security chief of Vice President Sara Duterte, to testify in her impeachment trial, despite repeated testimony identifying him as the person who received hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds.
The issue took center stage after former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer Gina Acosta repeatedly told the Senate impeachment court that she turned over confidential funds to Lachica on Duterte’s instructions.
But prosecutors say bringing Lachica to the witness stand is not an automatic decision.
House prosecution spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said on Monday that the panel must weigh the potential benefits and risks of calling a hostile witness. One concern, he said, is that a witness could give testimony that creates problems for the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution is also considering statements Lachica has previously made under oath as it determines whether his personal appearance is necessary.
Why Lachica has become a key figure
Lachica has repeatedly surfaced in testimony concerning the handling of the OVP’s confidential funds.
Acosta testified that she withdrew P125 million in cash from LandBank’s Shaw Boulevard branch on December 20, 2022, and later turned the money over to Lachica after receiving what she described as instructions from Duterte.
Acosta said she would not have released the money without Duterte’s approval.
Her testimony also raised a separate question: whether Lachica, as a security officer, was authorized under the applicable rules to receive and disburse confidential funds.
According to VERA Files’ review of the testimony, Acosta could not identify a provision in Joint Circular No. 2015-01 authorizing a security officer to perform the duties of a disbursing officer. She nevertheless said Lachica was considered knowledgeable about confidential operations and later submitted utilization reports to her.
The distinction is important because Acosta herself was the accountable officer responsible for disbursing the funds.
The P500-million question
The controversy is not limited to the P125 million withdrawn in December 2022.
GMA News reported that Acosta testified that she disbursed P500 million in OVP confidential funds from 2022 to 2023 to Lachica, allegedly upon Duterte’s orders.
The prosecution has been examining a broader trail involving approximately P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the OVP and Department of Education in 2022 and 2023.
VERA Files reported that the prosecution has been moving from witnesses involved in the encashment of the funds toward those who allegedly handled or received the cash, including Acosta and former DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda.
That makes the question surrounding Lachica potentially significant: prosecutors must establish not only where the money went, but also who was authorized to handle it and how it was ultimately accounted for.
Prosecutors may not need Lachica — for now
Despite his prominence in Acosta’s testimony, prosecutors appear reluctant to rely heavily on another hostile witness.
House prosecutor Joel Chua said hostile witnesses are generally viewed as a last resort, particularly when the prosecution already has other witnesses who can establish its case.
Chua pointed to Acosta, Fajarda and OVP Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio as hostile witnesses already being used by the prosecution.
The prosecution’s dilemma was also highlighted during Monday’s proceedings when Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero questioned why Lachica had not yet been called despite becoming a central figure in Acosta’s testimony.
The issue, therefore, is no longer simply whether Lachica can provide information.
It is whether his testimony would strengthen the prosecution’s case enough to justify the risks of putting him on the stand.
ABS-CBN: Three AFP officials being considered
ABS-CBN News reported that prosecutors were looking at three Armed Forces of the Philippines officials as potential upcoming witnesses, while Lachica was still being considered separately.
Notably, Lachica was not included among the three AFP officials identified as the prosecution’s immediate next witnesses.
This suggests that the prosecution may be trying to establish other parts of its case before deciding whether to confront the former security chief directly.
ABS-CBN’s reporting also underscored how Acosta’s testimony repeatedly brought Lachica back into the center of questions surrounding the confidential funds.
Missing receipts add another complication
The controversy intensified after Acosta testified that she no longer possessed acknowledgment receipts showing that Lachica received the P125 million.
In testimony reported by GMA News, Acosta said the documents had supposedly been returned to Lachica. She also acknowledged that she did not have official receipts documenting the expenditures.
That creates another evidentiary issue for the prosecution: how can the alleged transfer and subsequent utilization of the money be established if key documentation is no longer in Acosta’s possession?
The prosecution may therefore have to rely on testimony, sworn statements, financial records and other documentary evidence to connect the money to the alleged confidential activities.
The clock is also becoming a problem
The fight over witnesses comes as the impeachment trial faces mounting scheduling pressure.
VERA Files reported that two trial days were canceled because of heavy rains, leaving the proceedings roughly two to three days behind schedule.
The Senate impeachment court allotted 31 trial days for the prosecution’s witnesses on Article I, which concerns the alleged misuse of confidential funds. But witnesses have taken considerably longer than initially anticipated.
That could force prosecutors to make difficult decisions about which witnesses are essential.
And Lachica may be one of the biggest decisions yet.
What happens next?
For now, the prosecution has not definitively ruled out Lachica.
Instead, prosecutors are weighing whether his testimony is necessary, particularly given the evidence already presented through Acosta and other witnesses.
If Lachica is eventually called, his testimony could become one of the most closely watched moments of the impeachment proceedings because Acosta has placed him at the center of the alleged transfer and handling of confidential funds.
If he is not called, prosecutors will have to rely on existing testimony and documents to establish what happened to the money after it was released.
Either way, the central questions remain unresolved: Who was authorized to control the confidential funds, how were they actually used, and can the prosecution establish its allegations with evidence strong enough to withstand the defense’s challenge?
Those questions could become increasingly important as the Senate impeachment court moves deeper into the evidence surrounding the confidential-fund allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Leave a Reply