Lachica ‘prepared to tell truth’ if called to testify

MANILA, Philippines — Army Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, whose name has repeatedly cropped up in the investigation of Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds, has declared his readiness to “tell the truth” if called to testify in her impeachment trial.

Lachica, the former head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG), issued a brief statement through the Office of the Vice President (OVP) after Tuesday’s hearing of the Senate impeachment court.

“I have never refused to appear or testify,” he said. “If lawfully called, I am prepared to tell the truth, subject to applicable laws and security restrictions.”

Article continues after this advertisement

Lachica has been a recurring figure in the testimony particularly of former OVP special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta on Aug. 17 and Aug. 24, where she admitted turning over P125 million in confidential funds to the military officer in December 2022.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: AFP ends Lachica inquiry to avoid ‘duplication’ with Ombudsman probe

Acosta said the cash, which was contained in four travel bags, was handed over to Lachica on Duterte’s orders.

In a House hearing in April, Ramil Madriaga, who claimed to have served as a “bagman” for Duterte, also mentioned Lachica as one of the people he worked with in delivering bags of cash totaling P125 million to different locations in December 2022.

Lachica at the time issued a statement denying the allegation, questioning Madriaga’s credibility and noting that he had given “three versions of his claim.”

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Luistro: ‘More inclined’ not to call Lachica as witness in Duterte trial

Lachica also denied having met Madriaga or worked with him under the OVP.

Article continues after this advertisement

The House prosecution team in the impeachment trial said it was still weighing whether to call for Lachica as a hostile witness.

“As for Colonel Lachica taking the stand, the prosecution has not yet made a decision on that; we still need to finalize the lineup of witnesses and the substance of their testimonies,” House prosecutor Joel Chua said after Monday’s trial.

On Tuesday, Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesperson Col. Francel Margareth Padilla disclosed that the AFP had terminated its inquiry into allegations involving Lachica.

She said the AFP opted not to pursue a separate military investigation since it would just duplicate the probe being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Meanwhile, Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon called on the Ombudsman to investigate Lachica, Duterte and Acosta for possible criminal liability in the use of about P500 million in OVP confidential funds in 2022 and 2023.

Given Acosta’s testimony, Ridon said, the Ombudsman should now determine whether Acosta, Duterte, and Lachica had committed “any actual malversation” of public funds.

As instructed by VP

Acosta, the prosecution’s sixth witness on the allegations involving Duterte’s use of confidential funds, repeatedly explained during direct examination that she released P125 million to Lachica mainly because Duterte personally instructed her to do so.

She acknowledged that she knew Lachica was not a bonded SDO—or an official covered by a financial guarantee—but still gave him the money, having been assured that it will be used for “confidential activities.”

The prosecution has argued that such an arrangement violated Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which requires confidential and intelligence fund advances to be drawn by duly designated and bonded disbursing officers or the head of agency.

Sen. Francis Escudero, the court’s presiding officer, and Sen. Joel Villanueva asked during Monday’s hearing whether Lachica would be called to the stand.

While acknowledging that the court could not compel the prosecution to call a witness it did not consider necessary, Escudero said he hoped Lachica would be presented for questioning.

Must ‘tread carefully’

Asked by Escudero to confirm if Lachica is on the list of prosecution witnesses, prosecution counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan replied: “Listed, but the prosecution has yet to decide if and when we [will] present Col. Lachica.”

Later in the posthearing media briefing, Chua said the panel was still studying its options regarding Lachica.

Prosecution counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. also explained that they had to “tread carefully” in presenting a hostile witness they might not be able to control.

“As a matter of trial strategy … whenever you present a hostile witness, you have to tread carefully,” Tolosa said, saying such a witness may refuse to answer or that the prosecution would have no way of telling if he’s already lying under oath.

But Chua clarified that “We did not say that we will not invite him. What we are saying is that we are studying if we have to call him.”

Like Tolosa, Chua said presenting a hostile witness is usually discouraged because prosecutors could not know what the witness would say.

He added that Lachica’s possible testimony would concern matters that only a military officer like him could directly address because he was the one present during the disbursements.

If the prosecution ultimately decides not to present Lachica, Tolosa said, the Vice President’s lawyers could have him as their witness “if they want to defend what has happened.

The prosecution’s decision on the matter would also depend on whether its “evidentiary targets” had already been met using other witnesses, he added.

Readily available

Earlier, Ligutan pointed out that putting Duterte’s confidential funds in Lachica’s hands for disbursement may have led to other violations since the Army officer was not an organic employee of the OVP.

Padilla, the AFP spokesperson, said the military had recommended ending its inquiry into Lachica’s actions because the Ombudsman had already taken cognizance of “complaints” involving the colonel.

She said the AFP respected the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and Lachica’s right to due process.

Lachica has been on an “unassigned” status at the Philippine Army headquarters since Oct. 4, 2025, after being relieved as VPSPG chief.

Padilla said such a status would ensure he would be available if needed in an investigation or related proceedings.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The AFP also said it would comply should Lachica be summoned to testify before the impeachment court. /cb