Prosecution panel still gauging whether to present Lachica

MANILA, Philippines — Despite the name of Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG), being mentioned a lot of times during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, the prosecution panel is still gauging whether it will present the military officer.

During a press briefing after the trial on Monday, both public prosecutor Manila Rep. Joel Chua and counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said that the prosecution has not decided whether there is a need to present Lachica before the Senate Impeachment Court, even as his name popped up several times.

Lachica was named by former special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta as the person she entrusted with the Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential funds from the fourth quarter of 2022 up to the third quarter of 2023, based on Duterte’s orders. The military official’s name was mentioned a lot that senator-judges had to ask whether the prosecution intends to present Lachica later on.

“Insofar as pag-uupo na testigo ni Col. Lachica, ’yon ay hindi pa nade-desisyonan ng prosecution at ipa-finalize pa namin kung ano ang magiging laman ng mga testigo na ihahanay namin,” Chua said.

(Insofar as having Col. Lachica sit as a witness, the prosecution has not decided on that and we will finalize who will be the witnesses that we will line up.)

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

“Lagi naming sinasabi, it’s a continuing deliberation, dahil titignan muna namin, after ma-present ’yong mga ibang witnesses, then we will assess. Kailangan pa ba talaga ito? Or hindi naman na dahil regardless, kahit hindi na siya umupo sa stand, ’yong mga evidentiary targets namin ay na-meet na—(so) no other witnesses,” Tolosa added.

(We have been saying that it’s a continuing deliberation; we will check first because after other witnesses have been presented, we will assess. Do we need them? Or no longer needed because regardless of whether he sits or not on the witness stand, we have met our evidentiary targets—(so) no other witnesses.)

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

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

Hostile witness

“As a matter of trial strategy, as I’ve stated, whenever you present a hostile witness, you have to tread carefully. These matters are not, the decision whether or not to present a hostile witness, should not be reached haphazardly. Why? Because this is a hostile witness, it’s hard to control them; we do not know when they will lie or not,” Tolosa said.

“I’m not saying that they will lie, but that is one of the considerations. Especially here […] he can be subjected to separate criminal cases, court martial, that would expose him to personal liability. So again, I’m not saying that he will lie, but it may be some of the reasons that may cause him to do so or just stonewall, not even answer,” he added.

Chua said that despite their lack of a decision as of now, the prosecution said that they have not discounted the possibility of inviting Lachica to the witness stand.

“Well, first of all, 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. In all court proceedings, presenting a hostile witness is discouraged because first, you do not know what a hostile witness will say,” he said.

“Second, you do not know if he will lie or not, because what he will testify on is something that only he did, because it was only him who was present during disbursements; there is no other witness that can prove it,” he added.

Should the prosecution really refrain from presenting Lachica, Tolosa said nothing will prevent the defense from inviting him.

“If I remember correctly, naka-list siya as one of the witnesses ng defense. So they could certainly call him as their own witness should they see the need to do so, considering, like we said, we have heard for several days that he was the one pointed to by Acosta,” Tolosa said.

“So if they want to defend what has happened, they can call him,” he added.

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

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

Acosta has been grilled during the 17th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial as she admitted that she left the confidential funds (CF) 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 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.

Despite different questions, Acosta has been giving the same answers—leading Tulfo to conclude that the former SDO is “stupid in the name of blind loyalty,” while Senator-judges Vicente Sotto III and Panfilo Lacson said they cannot get any information from her.

Acosta is the sixth witness presented by the prosecution for Article I, or the allegations that Duterte misused the CF allocated to her offices. As the former SDO for the Office of the Vice President (OVP), Acosta is responsible for releasing CF allocations, such as payments for rewards and payments for information for confidential informants.

The former SDO has been on the witness stand since last Monday, August 17, before the Senate paused trial from August 18 and 19 due to inclement weather. /cb