MANILA, Philippines — Unusual names including “Antonio Pagong,” “Timon Andrew Pusa” and “Xuniso P. Belat” surfaced Monday as prosecutors presented acknowledgment receipts linked to confidential-fund transactions of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.
The names were presented by private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan while questioning former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta about how confidential-fund transactions were documented and verified.
According to the receipts shown during the proceedings, Antonio Pagong was listed in connection with a ₱100,000 payment for the “purchase of information.” Another receipt listed Timon Andrew Pusa, also for ₱100,000, described as payment for the rental of a transport vehicle related to confidential activities. A third receipt identified Xuniso P. Belat in connection with another ₱100,000 payment for the purchase of information.
Other names cited during the proceedings included Don Piang, associated with ₱250,000; May Pamana, ₱150,000; and Shane Ngitngit, ₱150,000.
Acosta: She did not personally see the payments
The testimony took a significant turn when Ligutan asked Acosta whether she personally witnessed Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, the security officer tasked with implementing the confidential activities, hand over ₱100,000 to Pusa.
Acosta answered that she did not witness the transaction personally, explaining that she was not on the ground when the payment was allegedly made.
She likewise acknowledged that she had no personal knowledge that the money was actually handed to the individuals whose names appeared on the acknowledgment receipts.
Instead, Acosta said she relied on the documents submitted by Lachica and his explanations when verifying the transactions because he was the officer who implemented the confidential activities on the ground.
That distinction is crucial: the receipts establish that the names appeared in the documents presented to the impeachment court, but the testimony reported so far does not independently establish the identities of the people behind those names or prove that the named individuals personally received the cash.
A recurring issue in the OVP confidential-fund controversy
The latest names are not the first unusual names to surface in discussions about the OVP’s confidential funds.
Earlier in the impeachment proceedings, other acknowledgment receipts reportedly carried names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Renan Piatos,” “Pampano,” “Keso,” “Kamote” and other names that attracted attention because of their unusual or food-related wording.
The issue has become a recurring point of contention because of questions surrounding the documentation used to liquidate confidential-fund expenditures.
A Commission on Audit witness, state auditor Roderick Wamil, previously testified that COA’s audit did not include independently verifying whether names appearing on acknowledgment receipts were real people or aliases.
Wamil explained that auditors conducted a compliance audit based on the applicable rules and supporting documents. He said the governing joint circular was silent on whether aliases were allowed or prohibited, meaning the audit itself did not determine whether a particular name represented a genuine person.
This means the appearance of a name such as “Antonio Pagong” or “Timon Andrew Pusa” on a receipt should not by itself be treated as proof that the name was fake. Determining who actually received the funds, whether the transactions occurred as documented, and whether the expenditures complied with applicable rules are separate questions that remain part of the broader controversy.
₱500 million in OVP confidential funds under scrutiny
The receipts were presented as the Senate impeachment court continued hearing the case against Duterte.
The prosecution’s first impeachment article centers on allegations involving the misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of confidential funds from the OVP and the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure as vice president and education secretary.
Earlier testimony from Acosta placed ₱500 million in OVP confidential funds at the center of the proceedings. She testified that the funds were released to Lachica, the former chief of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.
In testimony reported earlier this month, Acosta said Duterte ordered the release of ₱125 million to Lachica in December 2022.
The cash withdrawals have also drawn scrutiny. A former LandBank branch manager previously testified that four checks worth ₱125 million each, totaling ₱500 million, were encashed, with OVP representatives using several bags to transport the cash.
What remains unanswered?
The appearance of the names has generated considerable public attention, but the central issue before the impeachment court goes beyond how unusual the names sound.
The questions now include:
- Who were the actual individuals behind the names listed on the receipts?
- Did the people named actually receive the money?
- Were the claimed purchases of information and transport services actually carried out?
- What evidence, beyond acknowledgment receipts, supports the transactions?
- Did the documentation comply with the rules governing confidential funds?
Those questions are particularly significant because Acosta testified that she relied on Lachica’s documents and explanations rather than personally witnessing the handovers.
As the impeachment proceedings continue, the names “Antonio Pagong” and “Timon Andrew Pusa” may attract the headlines—but the larger issue for the Senate impeachment court is whether the documentation can sufficiently establish how hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds were actually used.
Leave a Reply