No need for Lachica testimony to prove VP misused confi funds – Barbers

MANILA, Philippines – The prosecution panel does not need Col. Raymund Dante Lachica’s testimony to prove its allegation that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte misused confidential funds, House impeachment team adviser and spokesperson Ace Barbers said Saturday.

Barbers said evidence already presented sufficiently established Duterte’s role as head of agency and approving authority over the confidential funds.

“Hindi namin kailangan iyong kanyang testimonya para makapagbigay-lakas o diin dito sa aming allegation,” Barbers said, referring to Lachica, during the Saturday News Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City.

Article continues after this advertisement

Lachica, former security chief of the Office of the Vice President (OVP), figured prominently in the testimony of two hostile witnesses presented by the prosecution—former OVP special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta and Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Acosta testified that she turned over four P125-million tranches of OVP confidential funds to Lachica upon Duterte’s instruction even though he was not the SDO or fidelity-bonded accountable officer for the money.

She also testified that she did not personally witness how the money was distributed and relied on reports and assurances from Lachica in preparing the liquidation documents for which she remained the accountable officer.

Ortonio, meanwhile, testified that Duterte approved the confidential fund disbursement vouchers and liquidation reports.

He also confirmed that only the vice president, as head of agency, and Lachica, as her chief security officer, had personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were actually implemented.

Article continues after this advertisement

Barbers said the prosecution believes these testimonies, together with those of Land Bank of the Philippines officials and Commission on Audit auditors, already support its allegations under Article I pertaining to Duterte’s misused of confidential funds.

He dismissed the possibility that prosecutors were holding back from calling Lachica out of concern that the security officer could take responsibility for the transactions and shield Duterte from accountability.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Anuman ang sasabihin niya na maaaring maka-turn around o maka-turn ng aming presentation ng ebidensya, sa aming paniwala, it will not matter. It will not matter,” Barbers said.

“Kasi matibay na at sufficient na sa ngayon, sa puntong ito, na itong mga witnesses na pinresenta namin ay nakapagbigay-lakas at magbibigay ng diin doon sa aming allegations of misuse, misappropriation, at of course, itong sinasabi nating irregular liquidation,” he added.

Barbers also rejected suggestions that the prosecution is afraid to put Lachica on the witness stand.

“Ba’t naman matatakot sa kanya?” he said.

He recalled that the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability repeatedly summoned Lachica during its 2024 inquiry into Duterte’s confidential funds, but he did not appear.

“Eh unang-una, tinatawag namin siya noon sa Committee on Good Government. Hindi naman siya humarap. Ilang beses siya pinatawag, hindi rin siya humarap,” Barbers said.

Barbers noted that the prosecution has already presented hostile witnesses who worked closely with Duterte.

“So hindi kami dapat matakot because tatlo na nga iyong hostile witness na pinresenta natin, mas malalapit ito sa ating Pangalawang Pangulo, di ba? At kailangan pa ba kami magdagdag ng pang-apat? Sa aking paniwala, hindi,” he said.

The prosecution is expected to next present Duterte defense lawyer and former Department of Education undersecretary and chief of staff Michael Wesley Poa. It plans to ask the impeachment court to declare him its third hostile witness.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

As for Lachica, Barbers said the prosecution sees no need to call him at this point but is keeping the option open should his testimony later become necessary.