MANILA, Philippines — A former Office of the Vice President (OVP) official’s testimony has emerged as one of the most closely watched pieces of evidence in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, after she told the Senate impeachment court that Duterte personally instructed her to turn over P125 million in confidential funds to a security official.
House prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon has described the testimony of former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta as one of the prosecution’s potential “smoking guns.” But the legal significance of the testimony will ultimately be decided by the Senate impeachment court—not by the prosecution’s characterization of it.
During the Aug. 17 proceedings, Acosta testified that she withdrew P125 million in cash and, following Duterte’s instruction, handed the money to then Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica. Acosta said the transaction took place on Dec. 20, 2022.
The P125-Million Question at the Heart of the Case
The prosecution argues that Acosta’s testimony is significant because it directly connects Duterte to the decision to transfer the confidential funds to Lachica.
Acosta also acknowledged under questioning that she could not point to a provision in the government’s Joint Circular No. 2015-01 authorizing a security officer to carry out the disbursement of confidential funds. However, she maintained that Lachica received the money to implement confidential operations and that utilization reports were later submitted.
That distinction is now central to the impeachment battle: Was the transfer an authorized way of implementing confidential operations—or evidence of an improper handling of public funds?
Ridon has argued that the alleged misuse began with the order to transfer the P125 million, linking the transaction to later questions surrounding acknowledgment receipts bearing names that became controversial in previous investigations.
Why the Testimony Could Matter
Acosta was presented as a hostile witness by the prosecution, a designation approved by the impeachment court. Reports from the proceedings noted that her employment is coterminous with Duterte’s tenure, a circumstance raised during discussions surrounding her testimony.
The prosecution’s broader case has also relied on testimony from Commission on Audit officials regarding questioned and disallowed confidential-fund disbursements. One state auditor previously testified that the agency head bears responsibility for the utilization of confidential funds, while separate testimony addressed disallowed OVP disbursements.
Still, impeachment proceedings are not decided by a single witness alone. Acosta’s account is expected to be weighed alongside documents, audit findings, other witness testimony and the arguments of Duterte’s defense team.
Receipts Also Under Scrutiny
Another potentially important development involved the Senate impeachment court’s comparison of acknowledgment receipts submitted by both sides. According to the court’s reported findings, 3,616 receipts overlapped between the prosecution and defense submissions, while 876 of the prosecution’s 4,492 receipts had no counterpart in the defense’s submissions.
The figures do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing. But they underscore how the battle over documents and the paper trail surrounding confidential funds remains a major front in the trial.
The Bigger Picture: A Crucial Test for Both Sides
For the prosecution, Acosta’s testimony offers something it has been working to establish: a direct account linking Duterte to a specific decision involving the handling of P125 million in confidential funds.
For the defense, the challenge will be to contest the prosecution’s interpretation of that transaction and demonstrate that the handling of the funds had a lawful basis. Duterte’s legal team had earlier maintained that the prosecution had not presented a definitive “smoking gun” directly implicating her, setting the stage for a sharper evidentiary battle as the proceedings continue.
The prosecution has indicated it is still considering additional witnesses, including whether Lachica himself should testify. Acosta’s testimony is also part of a broader case involving allegations over the handling and liquidation of confidential funds—a case Duterte and her defense are entitled to challenge before the impeachment court.
The bottom line: Acosta’s testimony may have given prosecutors one of their strongest narratives yet, but calling it a “smoking gun” remains the prosecution’s assessment. The decisive question is whether the Senate impeachment court finds that the testimony, corroborating records and other evidence meet the standard necessary to hold the Vice President accountable.
As the trial resumes, the P125-million cash transfer—and who authorized, received and accounted for it—could become one of the defining issues in the case against Sara Duterte.
Leave a Reply