Malacañang on Tuesday said the prosecution team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has already presented sufficient evidence to merit her conviction over the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
This comes after former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer Gina Acosta, during Monday’s hearing, pointed to what appeared to be a continuing practice of entrusting confidential funds to a security officer under Duterte, from her years as Davao City mayor to her tenure at the OVP.
‘Ayon sa Palasyo, in a way, in a way, yes. Pagdating sa pagturo kay Bise Presidente, kay Col. [Raymund Dante] Lachica na sila ang nag-control ng pondo para sa confidential funds,’ said Palace Press Officer Claire Castro when asked whether she believed the prosecution had presented enough evidence to warrant Duterte’s conviction over the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
(According to the Palace, in a way, yes. When it comes to pointing to the Vice President and Col. Lachica as the ones who controlled the funds for the confidential funds.)
But Castro noted that the decision remains in the hands of senator-judges: ‘Depende po iyan sa magiging desisyon ng mga judges. Lagi naman nilang sinasabi na ito ay pulitika at mukhang hindi sila pupunta sa ebidensiya.’
(It depends on the decision of the judges. They always say that this is political and that it seems they will not look at the evidence.)
‘Pero ang mga kababayan natin, mas marami ang gusto na ebidensiya ang gamitin kaysa sa isyu ng pulitika. Kasi kapag ebidensiya ang ginamit natin, mas matutugunan natin, unang-una, ang due process, justice, at kung ano ang nararapat at magiging benepisyo nito sa ating bansa at sa taumbayan,’ she continued.
(But our fellow Filipinos, the majority of them, want the evidence to be considered rather than the political issue. Because if we base our decision on the evidence, we can better uphold due process and justice, determine what is appropriate, and ensure what will ultimately benefit our country and the Filipino people.)
What Acosta said
During the 17th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, Acosta said it was standard operating procedure (SOP) in both offices to turn over confidential funds to Col. Lachica, despite knowing that he was not a bonded officer.
When prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan asked whether she remembered the amounts disbursed in Davao City from 2019 to 2022, Acosta repeatedly said she could not recall the amounts, citing the passage of time and her age.
In the same cross-examination, however, Acosta was able to answer questions on whether the Commission on Audit had issued audit observation memoranda or notices of disallowance involving Davao City’s confidential funds during her tenure. She said none had been issued.
This prompted Ligutan to point out the contrast, saying Acosta appeared able to recall certain events when questioned by the defense despite repeatedly saying during direct examination that she could not recall them.
Acosta clarified that she could recount events but not specific amounts.
Castro, during today’s briefing, flagged the supposed ‘pattern’ in Acosta’s testimony, describing her responses as evasive and repetitive.
‘Dito ay makikita ng sambayanang Pilipino kung paano naging dekahon ang sagot ng witness [Acosta]. Paulit-ulit kahit sa ang daling tanong, doon pa rin at doon at doon ang iikot ang sagot niya,’ Castro said.
(Here, the Filipino people can see how evasive the witness [Acosta] was in answering the questions. She kept repeating the same response, even when asked simple questions. No matter what was asked, she kept circling back to the same answer.)
”Pag hindi na niya alam, sasabihin niya hindi naiintindihan or hindi niya alam. Pero lumalabas pa rin ang totoo, dahil itinuro niya pa rin si VP Sara at saka si Colonel Lachica,’ she continued.
(When she no longer knew the answer, she would say that she did not understand or that she did not know. But the truth still came out because she still pointed to VP Sara and Colonel Lachica.)
The Palace official said that if the confidential funds were not properly accounted for, it would constitute prima facie evidence that the funds were used for personal purposes.
‘Paano magkakaroon ng magandang liderato kung ang mga pondong ito, sa ganito pa lang na halaga ay mahihirapan na silang i-account. Tandaan natin, this is a public fund and this confidential fund is part of public fund,’ Castro continued.
(How can there be good leadership if they are already having difficulty accounting for funds of this amount? Let us remember that this is public money, and these confidential funds are part of the public funds.)