Prosecution Not Keen On Presenting Lachica As Witness

The House prosecution panel no longer sees the need to call to the witness stand Col. Raymund Lachica, saying it has already established the alleged misuse of confidential funds and traced the accountability to Vice President Sara Duterte.

Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, a spokesman for the panel, said the prosecution is considering to no longer seek a subpoena for Lachica before the Senate impeachment court.

“With or without Lachica being presented by either of the sides, especially from the prosecution panel, we have already established the fact that there was misuse and the one who ordered the transfer of these funds is the Vice President,” Adiong said on Thursday, Aug. 27.

“The accountability for such violations is also going towards the direction of the Vice President, being the head of the agency,” he added.

The prosecution has presented Gina Acosta, Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer, and OVP Assistant Secretary and assistant chief-of-staff Lemuel Ortonio as hostile witnesses for the first article of impeachment, which accused Duterte of misusing confidential funds.

Acosta testified that Duterte instructed her to turn over P500 million of the funds in four tranches to Lachica, then the head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, even if he was not a fidelity-bonded official or a regular employee of the OVP.

Even without the testimony of Lachica, Adiong said the prosecution was able to complete the picture of the misuse of confidential funds and who was behind the actions that led to such violation.

The prosecution seeks to present lawyer Michael Wesley Poa as a hostile witness next week, as it pursues the charge involving the alleged misuse of P112.5 million in of the Department of Education (DepEd) confidential funds.

If the hostile witness status is granted, Poa would become the third prosecution witness to be declared as such by the Senate impeachment court in connection with the alleged misuse of confidential funds.

Adiong said Poa’s former position in DepEd and his involvement in responding to audit findings are among the matters relevant to his expected testimony, including DepEd’s response to an audit observation memorandum (AOM) on its confidential funds.

Lawyer Domingo Cayosa, former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, said Poa should be bound “to tell the truth as a lawyer” when presented before the witness stand.

The prosecution is also considering whether some of its prosecutors should relinquish their roles as spokespersons to adjust to the Senate impeachment court’s gag order.

The prosecution has 11 House members serving as public prosecutors, assisted by more than 20 private lawyers in presenting the impeachment charges against Duterte.

‘Para sa bayan,’ not ‘para sa bayad’

Meanwhile, Malacañang, without passing judgment on Sen. Robin Padilla for comparing confidential fund recipients with heroes who used aliases, said the cases were very different from one another as historical personalities hid their identities for the nation while informants did so for compensation.

“We do not want to be judgmental about what Sen. Robin Padilla did... but the situation before is different compared to that of the alleged recipients of millions of funds for information and for rewards,” Palace press officer Claire Castro said.

Padilla has drawn flak for likening heroes who used assumed names to the alleged recipients of confidential funds from Duterte’s office, with some critics saying the senator disrespected the memory of those who fought for the country’s freedom.

He made the comparison to justify what has been widely described as funny and unusual aliases seen in the OVP’s confidential fund receipts, which include the names Mary Grace Piattos, Andy Lim, Antonio Pagong, Timon Andrew Pusa and Xuniso Belat.

Padilla brushed off the bashing online about his interjections as he blamed the “trolls” for feasting on clips of his questioning of witnesses to point out that the country’s martyrs also had pseudonyms to escape persecution.

“Bashing, netizens? You mean trolls! As long as they have food to put in their mouths, I’m happy for them,” Padilla said of the online mockery.

Castro said it is within Padilla’s right to ask questions during the impeachment trial of Duterte, but pointed out that unlike the confidential fund recipients, there is an assurance that the heroes who used aliases are real people.

“Perhaps the heroes then who fought for the country did so without pay. But it seems that today’s informants will not act if not paid,” Castro said in a media briefing.

“And our heroes then, even if they used pseudonyms, we know that they are real people. For now, we do not know whether the ones in the receipts are true persons or ghost beneficiaries,” she added.

 Castro said the youth should be aware of the truth about the heroes who used aliases to defend the nation, not to conceal payments. – With Alexis Romero, Ghio Ong, Marc Jayson Cayabyab