[ANALYSIS] Duterte impeachment trial Day 17: Lachica and some 'stupid' remarks

In legal parlance, the idiom "there is more than one way to skin a cat" means that a lawyer, judge, or litigator can use multiple distinct legal strategies, procedural tools, or causes of action to achieve the same legal objective. 

On Day 17 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, prosecution lawyer Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan, defense counsel Atty. Lindon Miguel Bacquel, and the senator-judges took turns asking in different ways why the witness, special disbursement officer Gina Acosta, transferred the P125 million in confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President to Army Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, the VP's former security command chief.

Last week, Acosta confirmed transferring the funds at the behest of Duterte.

Fake names, fake people?

Lachica was supposed to have distributed, in turn, the P125 million to thousands of people to fund the OVP’s confidential operations, all meant to keep Duterte out of harm’s way in the performance of her duties across the country, ranging from tree planting to free bus rides, among others.

Duterte was supposed to have received threats against her and her family, probably the only plausible reason why the funds had been emptied in such a short time, in the last 11 days of December 2022.

The COA had flagged the OVP’s liquidation report of the P125 million, but left questions hanging why the recipients of the confidential funds bore what seemed like fictitious names, including “Belat,” “Pagong,” “Pusa,” on top of other names mentioned the past hearings like Mango, Keso, Bacon, Piattos. Others had the surnames of incumbent senators.

Because the names could have been fake, the prosecution and the senator-judges alleged that the recipients were not at all real people and thus the P125 million funds had been misused. 

The trial lasted for about five hours, with the prosecution and the senator-judges trying to crack Acosta to spill the beans on Duterte—if the latter had received some amount, if Lachica had deposited part of it to private bank accounts, or had returned some of it to the VP.

They got a negative answer all throughout.

What the prosecution and some senator-judges had established so far, based on the Joint Circular of 2015, was that there was a break in the chain of accountability because only Acosta was allowed to release or disburse the funds. Nobody else. Lachica was not an “accountable” officer.

But that's not something new.

Funds misused?

That's one violation—a major violation—as far as they were concerned. According to senator-judge Kiko Pangilinan, Acosta, being the official SDO, should make the final disbursement to the final beneficiary and not Lachica.

Viewers could hardly blame the prosecution and some senators to conclude that the OVP had misused the funds on these grounds. In the past weeks, COA has said the issuance of a Notice of Disallowance on the P125 million, was tantamount, quoting the joint circular, to a presumption that Duterte had benefited from the fund.

In reply to questions raised by senator-judge Imee Marcos, Acosta said Duterte had not received any amount from the P125 million fund, nor had Lachica given the vice president part of it.

Lachica's name had been mentioned probably 100 times by Acosta, Ligutan, Bacquel, and the senator judges, but Acosta stood firm on her position. She trusted Lachica “in implementing the confidential operations” which required the use of the confidential funds for two major reasons: because Duterte trusted Lachica, and because Lachica was more qualified than her to implement confidential operations.

On why she trusted Lachica and by extension, the vice president, Acosta said she was only doing her job. Neither the prosecution nor the senator-judges, however, could crack her open to say that either Lachica or Duterte used the funds for personal use.

Did Duterte give instructions to Lachica as to how to spend the funds? “Hindi ko po alam,” said Acosta.

Ligutan called the OVP system of disbursement a “scam,” a word his colleague Atty. Lorna Kapunan used while interrogating another witness a few weeks back.

He then called it a “mafia.” Escudero called his attention and suggested the use of standard operating procedure instead.

Tito called Acosta's reply a “template” reply. Other senator-judges observed that she made the same response over and over again to their questions.

“Predictable ang mga sagot mo,” said senator-judge Raffy Tulfo.

Ligutan said she lacked “common sense.”

On Tulfo’s suggestion that Lachica could have been by now driving a luxury car like a Ferrari or wearing a luxury watch like Rolex, Acosta quickly replied: “Wala pong ganyan si Colonel Lachica.”

They tried several ways, until or even after presiding officer, sneator-judge Chiz Escudero remarked that she had answered the same question about 20 times.

'Blind loyalty'

Tulfo called Acosta “stupid, pero in the name of blind loyalty.”

Ligutan as well as senator-judges Risa Hontiveros, Erwin Tulfo, and Bam Aquino tried a different tack and told Acosta if she weren't afraid.

“Ikaw ang makukulong, ikaw ang managot,” said Hontiveros.

“Iba nagkasala, ikaw ang mapaparusahan. Delikado ka,” Ligutan added.

All these questions could have been best answered by Lachica himself. Asking Acosta repeatedly seemed like they were barking up the wrong tree.

Last week, PhilSTAR L!fe ran a short intro about Lachica, and why he was an important witness. But for the questions on Acosta that ended up on Lachica, the prosecution seemed cool about seeking him to take the witness stand. “Pinag-aaralan pa po. We will in due time,” said lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro.

In due time, you should, said Escudero, adding it was the call of the prosecution to request for Lachica’s appearance.

Acosta cited Lachica’s name many, many times, because she had been asked many, many times with the same question: Why was it Lachica—and not you—who released the funds to the ultimate beneficiary? Come to think of it, Acosta wasn’t alone in sounding like a broken record.

At one point, we got the feeling that this was Acosta’s trial, not of anybody else. Still, there were too many gaps in her testimony.

Lachica would provide the link to the many recipients of the confidential funds. Thus, we wondered why the prosecution showed no excitement to present Lachica to fill the gap.

Get the cat out of the bag.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.