Vice President Sara Duterte ordered the release to security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica of the P125 million in confidential funds that Office of the Vice President (OVP) disbursing officer Gina Acosta withdrew in cash and placed in four travel bags, Acosta confirmed before the Senate impeachment court on Monday.
This is despite a joint circular requiring the designated disbursing officer to personally draw, disburse and account for the funds.
“Nag-utos po sa akin na i-release ang pera na P125 million sa security officer na si Colonel Lachica ay si Ma’am Sara Duterte,” Acosta testified.
During questioning by private prosecutor Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan, Acosta identified Duterte as the official who directed her to turn over the confidential funds to Lachica, then head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.
“May instruction po sa taas, Your Honor, ng aking head of agency na kung ma-encash ko po ang cheque, i-release ko po kay Sir Lachica,” Acosta said.
Acosta also confirmed withdrawing the entire amount in cash from the Land Bank of the Philippines on Dec. 20, 2022.
“Nilagay ko po sa aking apat na bag,” she said, describing them as oblong-shaped travel bags.
The P125 million was reportedly released to the OVP in bundles of P1 million and subsequently declared spent within 11 days, from Dec. 21 to 31, 2022, including the holidays.
Acosta affirmed her earlier testimony before the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability that Duterte ordered the transfer because Lachica supposedly knew how to carry out confidential operations.
“May utos po ni Ma’am Inday Sara na sa kanya po i-release kasi siya po ang nakakaalam kung paano po i-implement ang mga programs and activities in line po sa confidential activities,” she said.
Acosta further testified that she relied on the liquidation documents and information provided by Lachica and did not reject or question his submissions.
Earlier testimony showed that any amount left unspent by Dec. 31 would have been returned to the National Treasury and could not have been retained as OVP savings.
The OVP reported that the money was used for payments of rewards, purchase of information and other confidential operations. However, state auditors questioned supporting documents bearing names that lawmakers have described as suspicious or possibly fictitious.
Auditors also flagged the use of confidential funds for supposed surveillance activities conducted during Christmas parties, tree-planting activities, TUPAD payouts and wheelchair distributions.
The Commission on Audit also found deficiencies involving reward payments, including the absence of proof that the confidential operations had succeeded.
Purchases of items such as tables, chairs, desktop computers and printers were also unsupported by the official receipts or sales invoices ordinarily required for commercial transactions. ||
