Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said Tuesday she was ‘more inclined’ not to call Col. Raymund Lachica, the former head of Vice President Sara Duterte’s security detail, as a witness in her impeachment trial, although the prosecution has yet to make a decision.
Luistro made the pronouncement as the 18th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial ended, with the prosecution yet to decide whether to call Lachica to the witness stand.
To recall, Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer Gina Acosta mentioned Lachica several times during Monday’s proceedings. She admitted handing the OVP’s confidential funds to him, even though she knew he was not a bonded officer.
She also confirmed that Lachica was the one who released the funds for the implementation of confidential activities.
Despite the apparent reasons for calling Lachica as a witness, Luistro said she was ‘more inclined not to present’ him or Col. Dennis Nolasco, another former official of Duterte’s security detail who allegedly handled OVP confidential funds.
‘I will be very honest with you. I am more inclined not to present Lachica and Nolasco,’ Luistro said during a post-trial press conference.
‘My position is simple. Is there misuse? When Gina Acosta said that she turned over the entire amount to the security officer, who is a non-accountable officer, is there misappropriation? Is there irregular liquidation? For me, Gina Acosta’s testimony is clear,’ she added.
Luistro also said the prosecution is just waiting for the testimony of former Department of Education (DepEd) special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda to establish the alleged misuse of confidential funds through the department when Duterte was still education secretary.
‘But this is just my personal position. As a matter of practice, we always decide as a team,’ she clarified.
According to private prosecutor and prosecution team spokesperson Atty. Benjamin ‘Jay’ Tolosa Jr., the panel is still deliberating on the matter.
Tolosa, however, reiterated in the same press conference that there are risks associated with presenting another hostile witness.
‘[Calling a witness] presumes that if we put them on the stand, they will give us the truth. But we have no basis to make that assumption,’ Tolosa said regarding calling Lachica to testify as a hostile witness.
‘Every time you call a hostile witness, this is a decision that you cannot make lightly,’ he added.
Tolosa even used Acosta as a prime example of this risk, stating that she had already made statements under oath during hearings before the House of Representatives.
‘So, if she lies, we can call her out. Unlike here [with Lachica], it’s not that simple, especially since he’s under investigation,’ he explained.
‘We’re not saying that we are sure he’s going to lie. We’re not saying that. But what we’re saying is there is a possible motivation to lie,’ he added.
Tolosa on defense presenting Lachica: Go ahead
Conversely, the prosecution welcomed the idea of the defense inviting Lachica as one of its witnesses, saying that in this case, they would be free to cross-examine him.
‘Are we afraid of Lachica taking the witness stand? Definitely not. If the defense will call him, go ahead, right? And we’re ready to cross-examine him,’ Tolosa said.
The opportunity to cross-examine, Tolosa said, is one reason the prosecution needs to assess whether it would be strategic to present Lachica as a witness, especially if it has already established what it needs regarding Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds.
Luistro shared the same sentiment, saying it would not be risky for the prosecution if the defense decides to present Lachica as its witness.
‘Definitely not. As a matter of fact, it will provide us the opportunity to cross-examine Colonel Lachica and Colonel Nolasco without presenting them as part of the prosecution’s witnesses,’ she said.