THE House prosecution team on Monday said the release of P500 million in Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential funds to an unbonded officer bolsters the misuse charge against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.
Former OVP special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta testified as a hostile witness that she released four P125-million cash tranches to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica from December 2022 through the third quarter of 2023.
Lachica was not fidelity-bonded, while Acosta remained the accountable officer. She said Duterte had designated Lachica to implement the OVP’s confidential activities.
Former Surigao del Norte Rep. Ace Barbers, an adviser and spokesperson for the House prosecution team, said the release itself raised a fundamental issue over the use of the funds.
“But the issue really is that these funds was found to have been misused. Paano ’yan na-misuse? Eh kasi nga, una, ibinigay mo ’yan doon sa hindi authorized,” Barbers said at a press conference.
“So there’s already a big question mark doon, di ba? Kasi nga bakit mo bibigay ’yan sa hindi bonded?” he added.
Barbers said the four releases totaling half a billion pesos could not be treated as an ordinary transaction.
“Alam mo na hindi biro ’yan. That’s P125 million, and if you total all those disbursements, that’s kalahating bilyong piso ’yan,” he said.
He said violations were already apparent before the money reached its purported recipients because the funds were released to a person who was neither bonded nor the SDO authorized to disburse them.
House prosecutor Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores said Acosta’s testimony had already established the crucial point even if the panel ultimately decides not to call Lachica as a witness.
“Whether Lachica testifies or not, it’s already admitted na hindi siya (Acosta) ang nag-disburse ng pera, binigay niya kay Lachica, di ba?” Flores said.
Acosta repeatedly acknowledged that she had no personal knowledge of how Lachica actually spent the money and relied instead on his statements, fund utilization reports and supporting documents in preparing the liquidation.
The prosecution said this also raised questions over Acosta’s certifications to the Commission on Audit (COA).
The documentary trail itself came under scrutiny after Acosta testified that Lachica signed internal documents acknowledging receipt of each P125-million release but later took them back after liquidation.
Acosta said she no longer had copies, although she maintained that the releases were reflected in her cash disbursement record.
Flores said the absence of the acknowledgment documents left no copy directly showing that Lachica received the cash.
“Wala silang copy, wala man silang duplicate man lang na nagpapakita na in truth and in fact, tinanggap ni Lachica ’yung pera at si Lachica ang nag-disburse,” he said.
The prosecution has not ruled out calling Lachica, whose name repeatedly surfaced in Acosta’s testimony.
Barbers said the panel would assess whether additional testimony was necessary and could ask the impeachment court to subpoena Lachica if needed.
Flores said prosecutors were also mindful of the need to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the trial, arguing that Acosta’s testimony had already established key aspects of the fund trail.
“We’re fighting against time also, eh. Ayaw namin na humaba sobra itong trial na ito,” Flores said.
metrosundaily
