IMPEACHMENT WATCH: Article I- Misuse of Confidential Funds (Part Two)

The prosecution has wrapped up its presentation of evidence on Article I –Misuse of Confidential Funds. This second part summarizes what transpired from the time Gina Acosta, the former Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) of the OVP, was presented as a hostile witness.

Acosta's testimony became the turning point

Acosta’s testimony was important because she was the OVP SDO who actually withdrew and handled the ₱125 million confidential fund.

Her testimony was that:

• she withdrew ₱125 million in cash from LandBank on December 20, 2022;

• she did so as the OVP's SDO/accountable officer;

• she said VP Duterte personally instructed her to release the money to Col. Raymund Lachica, then head of her security group;

She said she would not have released the money without Duterte's approval. This directly placed Duterte in the chain of authority over the ₱125 million.

However, Acosta also created an important complication for the prosecution: she maintained that she—not Lachica—was the disbursing officer.

On several occasions, she repeated what appeared to some senator judges as a “template” response saying that that she was the SDO, but Lachica was the one who implemented the project because he was the one knowledgeable in the field.

But, she could not identify any provision in the Joint Circular 2015-01 authorizing the SDO to allow another person to actually disburse the funds.

Second hostile Witness

The prosecution next presented Lemuel Ortonio, the Assistant Chief of Staff of the OVP. His testimony was significant because he essentially confirmed that Duterte knew about and authorized activities involving the confidential funds.

Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero questioned him about what Lachica actually did with the ₱125 million. Ortonio initially distinguished between Acosta — the person who disbursed the money, and Lachica — the person who implemented/coordinated the confidential activities.

Ortonio acknowledged that Lachica spent the money and made payments in connection with the confidential activities, which raised the question if he could legally do so despite not being the OVP’s SDO.

Escudero also pursued the issue of the acknowledgment receipt. If Lachica was the ultimate recipient/end-user of the ₱125 million, why was there no acknowledgment receipt retained in the OVP records showing his receipt of the money?

The "end users" and supposed recipients

The prosecution then presented Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande on September 7 who testified on the names appearing as recipients/payees in the confidential-fund documentation.

She testified that some names were unusual, including names that matched those of deceased persons and even children in their database.

Here, the prosecution tried to move the case to the fundamental questions of whether the funds were actually spent and whether the recipients actually existed and received the money.

The defense, meanwhile, acknowledged that some names appearing in the documents were aliases, and not real names.

No Confidential Fund Received by Military

The prosecution also presented two military officials who testified that no confidential funds were received in connection with the conduct of the Youth Leadership Summits (YSL) in 2023.

They had signed certifications on the conduct of the YSL activities which were apparently used as one of the documents to liquidate P15.5 million of DepEd confidential funds.

They testified that their units did not receive any money from the DepEd, the OVP, or the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group for those activities, and that the Army itself, together with other government agencies and local governments, handled their own costs associated with the activities.

They also alleged that they did not know that the certificates they had issued would be used to support liquidation. The defense, while agreeing that no funds were transferred from the DepEd to the AFP, claimed that it did not mean that confidential funds did not get disbursed in connection with said activities.

Defense Counsel as witness

On September 2, Michael Poa, former DepEd undersecretary and chief of staff during Duterte's tenure as Education Secretary, was also called as hostile witness.

Poa's central testimony was essentially that:

• he had no direct involvement or knowledge of how the confidential funds were spent;

• the handling of those funds was assigned to the SDO and security personnel;

• DepEd's operations were highly compartmentalized;

• being Duterte's chief of staff did not mean that he handled every function of the Secretary;

  
  

He also testified that COA had not issued a Notice of Disallowance or Notice of Suspension concerning DepEd's confidential-fund spending for the first three quarters of 2023, and that COA had not reversed the clearance concerning ₱75 million spent during the first two quarters.

Atty. Poa sought to distinguish between questionable documentation and illegal or disallowed expenditure.

No Need for Remaining Witnesses

Instead of presenting the remaining 15 witnesses, the prosecution announced that it would forego all of them including Col. Raymund Lachica or Col. Dennis Nolasco.

The prosecution claimed that evidence has now pointed to one person who can ultimately explain what happened to the confidential funds — Sara Duterte herself.

It characterized the evidence metaphorically as the pieces of a chess game — pawns, bishops, castles and horses — all pointing toward the person ultimately accountable: the Vice President.

As of September 8, the prosecution has rested its presentation on Article I, the alleged misuse of the ₱612.5-million confidential-funds. The court then suspended proceedings on September 9 to allow the prosecution to organize and mark its evidence for the next article.