MANILA, Philippines — Ramil Madriaga was once expected to become one of the most explosive witnesses in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Now, prosecutors are asking a very different question:
Do they still need him?
The House prosecution panel has yet to make a final decision on whether Madriaga—who has described himself as having participated in the movement of confidential funds—will personally testify before the Senate impeachment court.
According to prosecution counsel and spokesperson Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr., the decision will depend on what the prosecution has already established through its witnesses and documents, and what gaps still remain in its case.
That distinction matters.
Madriaga has made some of the most dramatic allegations surrounding the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds, including a claim that ₱125 million was moved and disposed of in less than 24 hours in December 2022.
But Gina Acosta’s testimony may have independently established several critical events that happened before the point where Madriaga’s story becomes most controversial.
And that could significantly reshape how prosecutors present their case.
What Gina Acosta Told the Senate
Acosta, a former OVP special disbursing officer who remains employed by the Office of the Vice President, testified before the Senate impeachment court on August 17.
The impeachment court declared her a hostile witness, allowing prosecutors greater latitude in questioning her.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero noted, among other factors, Acosta’s continuing employment relationship with Duterte and her position in a counter-affidavit previously filed before the Ombudsman.
During her testimony, Acosta confirmed that she withdrew ₱125 million in OVP confidential funds and subsequently turned the money over to then-security official Col. Raymund Dante Lachica.
More importantly for the prosecution, Acosta testified that she did so upon the instruction of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Acosta also described the money as physical cash placed into traveling bags after it was withdrawn.
That detail overlaps with an important part of Madriaga’s earlier account.
Previous LandBank testimony had already established that the ₱125 million was prepared as physical cash, while witnesses have described the money being placed in approximately three or four bags. Acosta herself testified about four traveling bags.
The prosecution therefore now has testimony establishing several significant points without relying exclusively on Madriaga:
The ₱125 million existed as physical cash.
Acosta withdrew it.
The cash was placed in bags.
Acosta turned the money over to Lachica.
And according to Acosta, Duterte instructed her to make that turnover.
But that is also where the evidentiary trail becomes more complicated.
The Big Question: What Happened After Lachica Got the Money?
Madriaga’s importance has always been tied to what he claims happened after the money left Acosta’s hands.
During the House impeachment proceedings in April, Madriaga alleged that he participated in moving the ₱125 million after receiving instructions connected to Duterte’s security personnel.
He claimed that four cash-filled bags were involved and alleged that deliveries were made to several locations, including San Pablo in Laguna, a Quezon City establishment and the Office of the Ombudsman.
Madriaga further claimed that the entire ₱125 million was disposed of in less than 24 hours, contradicting earlier reports that the OVP spent the money over 11 days.
Those claims remain allegations and have not all been independently established in the impeachment trial.
That distinction is crucial.
Acosta’s testimony does not prove Madriaga’s entire account.
What it potentially does is corroborate parts of the chain leading up to the alleged handoff: the amount of money, the physical cash, the bags, Lachica’s involvement and Duterte’s alleged instruction to Acosta.
The prosecution must still determine whether Madriaga is needed to explain what allegedly happened next—or whether other witnesses, documents, communications or records can establish those events more directly.
Prosecutors Say They Are Building the Case Around Evidence, Not Headlines
Tolosa said the prosecution is reviewing its witness list based on what he described as its remaining “evidentiary targets.”
The panel wants to finish extracting relevant testimony from Acosta before deciding which witnesses are necessary next.
Former Department of Education special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda and former OVP Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio are among those whose testimony prosecutors are also considering as they build the confidential-funds portion of the case.
That approach could explain why prosecutors have not rushed Madriaga onto the witness stand despite the enormous public attention surrounding him.
Calling Madriaga would bring significant potential upside.
But it would also expose him to aggressive cross-examination.
Sara Duterte’s camp has repeatedly attacked his credibility, and Duterte has filed two perjury complaints against him.
The second complaint was filed at the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office on August 17 and concerns alleged false statements in Madriaga’s April 11 supplemental affidavit.
Duterte’s lawyers have denied Madriaga’s allegations and have publicly challenged his credibility.
That means the prosecution has a strategic calculation to make.
If documents and witnesses can establish the relevant facts without depending heavily on Madriaga, prosecutors could potentially reduce the amount of their case that depends on a witness the defense is determined to discredit.
But if the prosecution wants to establish where the ₱125 million allegedly went after Lachica received it, Madriaga may still become crucial.
Why Acosta’s Testimony Matters So Much
The prosecution has portrayed Acosta’s testimony as significant because she linked Duterte directly to the instruction to turn over the ₱125 million to Lachica.
House prosecutors have argued that allowing a security officer to effectively handle functions involving confidential funds raised questions about compliance with government rules governing special disbursing officers.
The House prosecution has described the arrangement as evidence of an improper delegation of responsibility.
The defense, however, can challenge both the prosecution’s interpretation of the applicable regulations and the significance of Acosta’s testimony.
And some parts of Acosta’s testimony have not necessarily favored prosecutors.
MindaNews reported, for example, that Acosta defended aspects of the OVP’s planning process for confidential funds and disputed interpretations offered by state auditors regarding the level of specificity required in physical and financial plans.
That is why describing Acosta simply as a witness who “proved” the prosecution’s case would go too far.
Her testimony contained admissions prosecutors consider important, but the Senate impeachment court—not either political camp—will ultimately determine how much weight those admissions deserve.
Madriaga Has Gone From Centerpiece to Strategic Option
Earlier in the impeachment process, lawmakers publicly described Madriaga as potentially important because his testimony could supply a missing link in tracing what happened to confidential funds after they left official custody.
Madriaga even executed a waiver allowing investigators to examine certain bank information, a move some lawmakers said could help determine whether his allegations were supported by a financial paper trail.
But impeachment trials are not won simply by presenting the witness with the most dramatic story.
They are built by proving individual elements through evidence that can withstand questioning.
If Acosta and other witnesses can independently establish enough of the prosecution’s case, Madriaga could become less essential.
If a major gap remains between the withdrawal of the ₱125 million and its alleged final destinations, however, prosecutors may eventually decide that only Madriaga—or witnesses and records connected to his account—can bridge it.
That is what makes the prosecution’s hesitation more interesting than it first appears.
They are not necessarily backing away from Madriaga.
They may be determining how much of his story they can prove without him first.
And when that assessment is finished, the next witness could reveal which part of the ₱125-million trail prosecutors believe is still missing.
Leave a Reply