No final word yet if prosecution will present Lachica, Ridon says

MANILA, Philippines — Even if the prosecution considers Col. Raymund Dante Lachica’s possible testimony unnecessary to strengthen its case against Vice President Sara Duterte, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon has clarified that there is no final decision on whether Lachica will be called as a witness.

In a statement, Ridon — a member of the 11-person House of Representatives prosecution panel — said the panel is still discussing the next witnesses that will be presented for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte, which involves allegations of confidential fund (CF) misuse.

Lachica, the former Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) head, has been mentioned several times during Duterte’s trial, as two Office of the Vice President (OVP) personnel — former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta and Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio, the deputy chief of staff — claimed that the military official knows how the CFs were spent.

Article continues after this advertisement

“There is no final decision from the prosecution on whether Lachica will be presented as a witness. The panel continues to discuss the witnesses that will be presented next,” Ridon said.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: Barbers: Not scared to present Lachica, testimony just unnecessary now

“With the testimony of Acosta and Ortonio regarding the confidential funds, several personalities were mentioned, including the vice president. It is the Senate Impeachment Court’s role to weigh the testimonies and other pieces of evidence, and to rule on the accountability of the personalities mentioned,” he added.

Ridon said this after prosecution spokesperson and impeachment adviser Robert Ace Barbers said in an online press briefing Friday morning that they are not afraid of the possibility that Lachica could be presented before the Senate Impeachment Court — contrary to the belief of the prosecution’s critics.

Barbers reiterated that the reason Lachica has not been called as a witness, despite some senator-judges believing his testimony will be important, is because the prosecution considers any possible testimony to be unnecessary.

Article continues after this advertisement

The spokesperson explained further that the prosecution has no basis for knowing what Lachica will say since he did not appear before the House committee on good government and public accountability during its hearing, unlike other witnesses such as Acosta and Ortonio.

Barbers said that the prosecution feels that whatever they would have needed from Lachica was already provided by Acosta and Ortonio, the sixth and seventh witnesses of the panel. However, he said that this does not preclude the defense panel from presenting Lachica.

Article continues after this advertisement

Lachica was named by Acosta as the person she entrusted with the OVP’s CFs from the fourth quarter of 2022 through the third quarter of 2023, based on Duterte’s orders. This represents a total of P500 million in CF allocations, or P125 million per quarter.

Acosta and Ortonio’s repeated references to Lachica as the one who knows how CFs under the OVP were spent have prompted senator-judges to ask whether the prosecution would present the ex-VPSPG head.

During the trial, Presiding Officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero, along with Senator-judge Joel Villanueva, asked whether the prosecution would present Lachica as a witness.

Escudero admitted that they cannot compel the prosecution to present Lachica as it will depend on its strategy, but he hopes that the official will be subjected to questioning to clarify matters.

Last Monday, both public prosecutor Manila Rep. Joel Chua and counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said in a press briefing that the prosecution has not decided whether there is a need to present Lachica.

Both Chua and Tolosa were asked several times why the prosecution seems to hesitate to present Lachica, considering that they will also call three military officials who said in a congressional probe in October 2024 that they would not have issued certifications if they had known that the Department of Education (DepEd) under Duterte used them to justify rewards for informants.

In response, the prosecution members said that they have to be careful about presenting hostile witnesses as they may suddenly lie.

READ: Prosecution panel still gauging whether to present Lachica

Acosta was grilled during the 17th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial as she admitted that she left the CFs to Lachica despite the latter not being a bonded official.

The prosecution panel believes this is a violation of Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which set guidelines on the proper use, liquidation and auditing of secret funds.

Under Item No. 6.1.2 of the Joint Circular, cash advances for confidential and intelligence funds “shall be drawn by duly designated and bonded SDOs or HoA (head of agency) for the implementation of a program, activity, and project chargeable to the corresponding CF.”

READ: Acosta admits handing CF to Lachica despite knowing he was not bonded

In the OVP’s case, it is Acosta who made the bonds as the SDO, and not Lachica.

Also, counsel for the prosecution Amando Virgil Ligutan pointed out that transferring the CF to Lachica may have prompted other violations since the military official was not an organic employee of the OVP.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Despite being asked different questions, Acosta has been giving the same answers — leading Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo to conclude that the former SDO is “stupid in the name of blind loyalty.” /das