MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution panel is not currently inclined to present former Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica as a witness in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, with private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan saying his testimony could be redundant.
Kapunan made the statement on Wednesday, August 26, a day after Lachica said he was prepared to appear before the Senate impeachment court and testify if he were lawfully invited.
“I don’t think we are going to present Lachica,” Kapunan said, explaining that his testimony could be “redundant” and “unnecessary” given the evidence already presented.
Why the prosecution says Lachica may no longer be needed
Kapunan said prosecutors have become confident in their documentary evidence concerning the confidential funds under scrutiny in the impeachment proceedings.
She also pointed to testimony already given by witnesses, saying that even witnesses presented under contentious circumstances had helped establish facts the prosecution believes are already sufficiently supported.
The issue surrounding Lachica became a major point of interest after former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that she released confidential funds to him.
According to Acosta’s testimony, she released a total of ₱500 million in four ₱125-million tranches to Lachica in 2022 and 2023, allegedly upon Duterte’s instructions.
Acosta had previously given substantially similar testimony during a 2024 House inquiry into the use of confidential funds.
That prior testimony is significant to the prosecution because it gives prosecutors an existing record against which any future testimony from Lachica could be compared.
Acosta’s testimony put Lachica at the center of the case
During the impeachment trial, Acosta testified that Lachica provided inputs and guidelines concerning confidential activities and was involved in implementing the activities funded through the OVP’s confidential funds.
She also acknowledged that Lachica’s name did not appear in the documents submitted to the Commission on Audit to support the questioned ₱125-million disbursement, according to reporting on the proceedings.
The prosecution has argued that the manner in which the money was released raises questions under the rules governing confidential and intelligence funds.
The relevant government guidelines provide that cash advances for confidential or intelligence funds should be drawn by designated and bonded special disbursing officers or the head of an agency, subject to the applicable requirements. The rules also restrict the transfer of such cash advances from one accountable officer to another.
The prosecution’s Article I case concerns allegations involving ₱612.5 million in confidential funds—₱500 million from the Office of the Vice President and ₱112.5 million from the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure as Education secretary.
Lachica says he is ready to testify
Despite the prosecution’s position, Lachica has indicated that he is willing to testify if properly invited.
That development has fueled speculation over whether the Senate impeachment court could eventually hear directly from the former security official whose name has repeatedly surfaced in testimony concerning the confidential funds.
But Kapunan rejected suggestions that the prosecution is avoiding Lachica because it fears what he might say.
She said the prosecution’s position is based on its assessment of the evidence already on record, not fear of a particular witness.
Manila Rep. Joel Chua, one of the House prosecutors, likewise questioned why Lachica was volunteering to testify, describing the situation as potentially a “trap” and raising concerns about the reliability of testimony that could not be cross-checked against his participation in the earlier House inquiry.
Prosecution is trying to shorten the trial
The decision comes as prosecutors attempt to streamline their presentation of evidence.
Earlier, Kapunan said the Senate impeachment court’s judicial notice of official House records could reduce the number of documents and witnesses the prosecution needs to present separately. The prosecution has been allotted 31 trial days for its presentation on Article I, but Kapunan said it may not need to use all of them.
The prosecution has also previously dropped witnesses whose testimony it considered redundant after evaluating evidence already presented.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that the prosecution has been open to revising its witness list and schedule in an effort to complete its presentation more quickly while maintaining due process.
What happens next?
The immediate question is whether Lachica will ultimately be called to the witness stand despite the prosecution’s current position.
For now, prosecutors appear to believe that the testimony and documentary evidence already presented—including Acosta’s account of the alleged ₱500-million releases—may be enough to establish the points they need for Article I.
The Palace, meanwhile, has said the evidence presented by the prosecution has strengthened its case for Duterte’s conviction, particularly testimony concerning the alleged handling and use of ₱125 million in confidential funds. That statement reflects the administration’s position and is not a finding by the impeachment court.
The Senate impeachment court will ultimately determine how it weighs the evidence and testimony presented by both sides.
The key question now is no longer simply whether Lachica will testify—but whether the evidence already on the record will make his appearance unnecessary.
Leave a Reply