MANILA, Philippines — A former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer has delivered testimony that House prosecutors believe could become one of the most significant pieces of evidence in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, a member of the House prosecution team, described Gina Acosta’s testimony as a “smoking gun” after she told the Senate impeachment court that Duterte instructed her to turn over P125 million in confidential funds to then Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group commander Col. Raymund Dante Lachica.
Ridon’s characterization is the prosecution’s assessment, not a finding by the Senate impeachment court. Duterte has not been convicted of any wrongdoing, and the impeachment proceedings remain ongoing.
Acosta’s P125-million account
Acosta testified that on December 20, 2022, she withdrew P125 million in cash from the Land Bank of the Philippines’ Shaw Boulevard branch after serving as the OVP’s designated special disbursing officer.
She said the money was placed in bundles and packed into bags before she turned it over to Lachica, following what she testified was an instruction from Duterte.
The testimony is significant because confidential funds are subject to specific government rules governing their handling, disbursement and liquidation. Prosecutors have argued that the transfer of the money to a security official who was not the OVP’s designated special disbursing officer is central to the controversy.
The Philippine News Agency reported that Acosta also acknowledged that she would not have handed the money to Lachica without Duterte’s instruction.
VERA Files separately reported that Acosta described how the P125 million was withdrawn in cash and placed in four duffel bags, giving the impeachment court a more detailed picture of how the large amount was physically transferred.
Why prosecutors consider the testimony important
For the prosecution, Acosta’s testimony goes beyond documentary evidence.
Earlier witnesses and auditors discussed records involving the confidential funds. Acosta, however, was the former OVP employee who testified about personally withdrawing the money and handing it over.
That distinction is one reason Ridon said her testimony was particularly damaging to the defense’s position.
PNA reported that House prosecutors viewed Acosta’s testimony as evidence that Duterte was directly involved in the handling of the P125 million, while GMA News reported Ridon saying the testimony directly identified Duterte as the person who ordered the transfer.
Acosta was also declared the prosecution’s first hostile witness, allowing prosecutors to ask her leading questions during the proceedings. TV5 and ABS-CBN reported that the Senate impeachment court granted the prosecution’s request after questions were raised about Acosta’s relationship with the OVP and her previous statements.
The COA issue behind the controversy
The P125-million transfer is tied to a much broader dispute over the use of confidential funds during Duterte’s tenure as vice president and education secretary.
One of the impeachment allegations involves the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the OVP and the Department of Education.
The Commission on Audit has previously questioned portions of the OVP’s confidential-fund spending. GMA News reported that P73 million of the P125 million was disallowed by state auditors because of violations involving the rules governing confidential funds.
The prosecution has also highlighted the unusually short period in which the P125 million was reportedly disbursed.
According to COA records discussed during the trial, the money was released to the OVP on December 20, 2022, and the OVP reported that the funds were disbursed within 11 days. The defense disputed entering into a stipulation regarding that timeline, although prosecutors maintained that the figures came from documents submitted by the OVP itself to COA.
But one major question remains
While Acosta’s testimony may strengthen the prosecution’s narrative, it does not automatically establish that Duterte committed an impeachable offense.
The Senate impeachment court still has to evaluate the testimony together with documentary evidence, audit findings and testimony from other witnesses.
VERA Files noted that Acosta’s testimony left two major issues for the court to examine: whether Duterte had the authority to order the release of the funds and whether Lachica, as the person who received and implemented the funds, had the authority to handle them.
That distinction could become crucial as the trial progresses.
What happens next?
The prosecution is continuing to present evidence related to the confidential-funds allegations, while Duterte’s defense is expected to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence and testimony.
The defense has also indicated that it will comply with changes to the Senate impeachment court’s schedule as senators work to speed up the proceedings.
The Senate has been conducting the case as an impeachment court under Case No. 004-2026, with the official Articles of Impeachment and other prosecution and defense documents publicly listed in its impeachment records.
The trial therefore remains far from over.
For the prosecution, Acosta’s testimony could be a pivotal link between the P125-million cash withdrawal and Duterte’s alleged involvement.
For the defense, the coming testimony and cross-examination will be an opportunity to challenge that interpretation.
And that leaves the biggest question hanging over the trial: will Acosta’s account ultimately be enough to convince the Senate impeachment court that the P125 million transfer amounted to an impeachable offense—or will the defense succeed in creating reasonable doubt around the prosecution’s case?
Leave a Reply