Sara Duterte trial recap: More aliases on receipts, cash trail to Sara's guard

MANILA, Philippines, August 25 ------ It was a visibly nervous Gina Acosta who told the impeachment court that she bears sole accountability for the Office of the Vice President's P500 million in confidential funds — even as she testified she does not know how the cash was handed out, or who recipients like "Pusa" and "Pagong" really are.

Vice President Sara Duterte's former special disbursing officer finished her direct examination Monday morning and sat through cross, redirect and recross before fielding questions from the senator-judges. Monday was Acosta's second and final day on the stand, and the eighth of the trial devoted to Article I, which accuses Duterte of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds at the OVP and the Department of Education (DepEd).

Much of the day was spent by the prosecution and the senators getting Acosta to say on the record, before the court, what the public has already gathered from previous House hearings and earlier witnesses. Among other findings today, Acosta confirmed the recipient names on the OVP acknowledgement receipts are aliases and not real names; that she released every peso of the secret funds, in cash, to a single man Duterte had handpicked to be the "security officer" of her confidential operations — Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, then-head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group; and that this arrangement was already the practice during her time as SDO in Davao under then-Mayor Sara Duterte.

Acosta admitted she cannot vouch for who the actual payees of the OVP’s confidential funds are, as the paper trail rested entirely on the word of Lachica. Here are the three highlights from today's proceedings.

1. Gina Acosta points to Lachica every time she is asked about how confidential funds were spent

Acosta, the prosecution's first hostile witness, repeatedly gave the same templated answer to questions about where the P500 million in confidential funds actually went: that she disbursed the cash to Lachica, who then implemented the confidential operations on the ground, and that she was not there to personally witness him do so.

By mid-morning, at the tail-end of prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan's direct examination, presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero had heard it enough times to cut short Ligutan's questioning and ask that he move to another point. "I think the witness has said that about 20 times already that she was not there," Escudero said.

Ligutan presented Acosta with several acknowledgement receipts submitted by the OVP to the Commission on Audit bearing questionable names. The court, and the public, saw P100,000 was paid to an "Antonio Pagong" for purchase of information, P100,000 to a "Timon Andrew Pusa" for vehicle rental, P250,000 to a "Don Piang," and P150,000 to a "Shane Ngitngit."

Acosta testified she did not personally witness Lachica's payments to these individuals and relied only on his fund utilization reports. Ligutan through his questions established that Lachica, despite being entrusted with the full amount of the OVP's confidential funds, posted no fidelity bond with the Bureau of the Treasury, while Acosta did as the OVP's accountable officer.

Any public officer who takes custody or disbursement of government funds is legally required to post a Treasury fidelity bond, to protect the state against financial loss or misuse. Not doing so could subject an individual to criminal or administrative liability. Acosta confirmed she knew Lachica could not disburse for lack of a bond but released the money to him as the person "on the ground" because Duterte had designated him. "Si Lachica, siya ang commanding officer sa VPSPG, [hindi] po siya bonded, pero ang accountable pa rin, ako. I am still the accountable person. That's why ako po ang gumawa ng liquidation," Acosta said.

When Ligutan repeatedly pressed Acosta on whether she had any way to independently verify if the named payees in the receipts actually received the money, Acosta deflected and again reiterated her reliance on Lachica. Acosta explained that her liquidation reports certified only the technical accuracy of paperwork entries — such as dates and amounts — rather than whether funds were legitimately spent on the ground.

She confirmed that Duterte’s own signature on the documents, certifying that cash advance purposes were "duly accomplished," was similarly based entirely on Lachica’s submissions. She further acknowledged that Lachica dictated the specific activities outlined in the OVP's 2022 and 2023 physical and financial plans. Ligutan also implied the arrangement she had with Lachica, under Duterte's orders, was a "modus operandi," as Lachica was allowed to retrieve his signed acknowledgment receipts after liquidation, leaving Acosta with no record of the cash handovers.

Following a defense objection, Escudero rephrased Ligutan's question and asked if this was the "standard operating procedure" used both at the OVP and during Duterte’s tenure as mayor in Davao City. Acosta admitted that it was.

2. A 'Lapid' and a 'Hontiveros' among confidential fund payees, besides 'Pagong,' 'Pusa' and 'Belat'

The oft-ridiculed recipient names on the OVP's acknowledgement receipts drew questions from senator-judges, two of whom found their own surnames among them.

Upon her questioning, Acosta confirmed that the OVP kept no record of the actual identities of the persons who received the confidential funds and she saw no need to ask for one. Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked Acosta whether she knew recipients named "Mary Grace Piattos" and "Pusa, Pagong, Ngitngit, Belat" were not real names. "Pusa, Pagong, may apelyido bang Pusa Pagong sa Davao?" Tulfo asked. "Pero alam mo na ito po hindi totoo mga pangalan?" "Totoong tao po sila," Acosta answered. "Totoong tao pero hindi po totoong pangalan," Tulfo said. "Yes po, your honor," she said.

Asked why the OVP kept no record of the true identities, Acosta said Joint Circular 2015-01 does not require recipient names on acknowledgement receipts. Sen. Risa Hontiveros confronted Acosta with a receipt bearing the name "Clarisse Hontiveros," dated Feb. 24, 2023, which she pointed out was her own birthday.

Acosta said she had already raised some receipts with Lachica, who told her they were sensitive and confidential and that he alone knew the recipients' real identities. Asked whether her supposed namesake was among those she flagged, Acosta said no. The ones she questioned, she said, were those missing signatures, missing names or other details. Hontiveros later asked what the joint circular requires of a special disbursing officer: "Trust or receipts?"

Acosta said she trusted the documents Lachica gave her because of Duterte's act of appointing him security officer. Sen. Lito Lapid, asking his first questions of the trial, noted the prosecution had flagged two receipts bearing his surname, and asked what it meant if those were just aliases rather than relatives.

Acosta repeated her templated answer that it is Lachica who would know as he was the one who dealt with the supposed recipients personally. On the documents showing many informant names carrying a single signature, Sen. Raffy Tulfo asked Acosta why that had not prompted her to scrutinize them further. Acosta said she relied on Lachica's submissions and accepted his explanation that the matters were confidential. "For me, in this case, you are stupid in the name of blind loyalty," Tulfo told her.

Sen. Bam Aquino asked when she first saw the names. Acosta said they were in the receipts Lachica turned over, before they surfaced publicly, but that she was checking amounts against the object of expenditures and paid them little attention. Once Lachica told her the operations were confidential, she said, she took the names to be aliases.

3. Who else handled the money, and will Lachica be asked?

Escudero took the last round of questioning himself and sought to confirm whether Acosta would say, on the record, whether Lachica could have distributed the cash alone.

The acknowledgement receipts Acosta reconciled show payments to different people in five to eight locations across the country on the same date. Escudero asked Acosta who physically handed over that money. Acosta said she could not say. She was not on the ground, and Lachica was the implementor. "Kahit po si Colonel Lachica, hindi naman po siya si Superman," Escudero said. "Hindi naman niya kayang gawin 'yon na siya lang."

The likely answer, he told her, is that other people distributed the funds, people who appear nowhere in the OVP's records. Sotto had reached the same point earlier. He established that an SDO cannot delegate disbursing authority and that the OVP has no regional officers, then cited Acosta's own utilization report listing confidential activities in over 100 areas nationwide within 11 days in 2022.

Asked whether one man could cover that many areas in 11 days, Acosta said she could not say. Escudero also sought a direct confirmation from Acosta on whether Lachica himself hand the money to the people who signed the receipts, thus making him a disbursing officer. Acosta maintained it was she who disbursed to Lachica, who then "implemented" the activities. After further interrogation, Acosta only slightly conceded to Escudero that any payments Lachica made came "during the implementation." Lachica is on the witness list but the prosecution has not decided yet when it would present him.

Source: philstar.com