MANILA – Former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta on Monday admitted that she did not personally witness former OVP security chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica hand confidential funds to individuals named in acknowledgment receipts submitted to account for the agency’s expenditures.

Acosta, testifying as a hostile witness for the House prosecution in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, acknowledged that she relied on Lachica and the documents he submitted to account for the confidential funds she released to him.

House prosecution counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan presented several acknowledgment receipts bearing unusual names, including Antonio Pagong, Timon Andrew Pusa, Don Piang, Shane Ngitngit and Xuniso P. Belat.

The receipts indicated payments of PHP100,000 to Pagong for the purchase of information, PHP100,000 to Pusa for the rental of a transport vehicle, PHP250,000 to Piang for transport rental, PHP150,000 to Ngitngit, and PHP100,000 to Belat.

Ligutan asked Acosta whether she personally saw Lachica give the amounts to the individuals named in the receipts.

“Hindi ko siya nakita, Your Honor, kasi wala po ako doon sa ground. Siya po ang nag-implement, Your Honor,” Acosta said.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero likewise asked whether Acosta personally knew that the money reached the listed recipients or was actually spent for the stated purposes.

“Wala po,” Acosta replied.

Acosta said she instead verified the transactions with Lachica himself.

“Nag-verify po ako sa kanya, Your Honor. Tinanong ko po siya,” she said.

According to Acosta, Lachica told her that the documents he submitted served as proof of the expenditures and that the operations involved sensitive and confidential information.

Asked whether she ultimately relied on the same person who supplied the documents to verify the transactions, Acosta answered, “Opo.”

P500 million released to Lachica

Acosta also confirmed that she released four PHP125-million cash tranches to Lachica from December 2022 through the third quarter of 2023, for a total of PHP500 million.

She said Lachica was not covered by a fidelity bond when he received the funds, while she remained the accountable officer.

Acosta testified that Duterte had designated Lachica to implement the OVP’s confidential activities.

She also admitted that Lachica signed acknowledgment documents when he received each cash tranche but later retrieved the documents after submitting a fund utilization report and after the funds were liquidated before the Commission on Audit (COA).

Escudero asked whether the same procedure was followed for all four releases.

“Yes, Your Honor,” Acosta said.

Same procedure used in Davao City

The prosecution also questioned Acosta about her previous stint as SDO of Davao City, where Duterte had served as mayor.

Ligutan said Davao City received PHP460 million in confidential funds annually from 2019 to 2022, or PHP1.84 billion over four years. Acosta said she could no longer recall the exact amounts allocated to the city.

Escudero later asked whether the practice of releasing confidential funds to a security officer or other unbonded person, obtaining an acknowledgment, and allowing the recipient to retrieve the document after liquidation was also followed during her time in Davao City.

“Opo, Your Honor,” Acosta replied.

The admission came after Ligutan described the procedure as a “modus operandi,” prompting an objection from the defense.

Escudero cautioned against using the term, noting that “modus” could carry a secondary meaning, and instead reframed the question as whether it was Acosta’s standard operating procedure as an SDO in both Davao City and the OVP.

Acosta confirmed that it was.

The testimony is part of the House prosecution’s presentation of evidence on the first impeachment charge, which concerns Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds.

The proceedings also placed renewed focus on the evidentiary basis for the liquidation of the OVP’s confidential expenditures, particularly Acosta’s admission that she had no firsthand knowledge of whether Lachica actually made the payments reflected in the receipts.