Prosecution weighing if VP Sara's ex-security chief Lachica's testimony necessary

The House prosecution team is yet to be convinced that it would need to call in Colonel Raymund Lachica as a hostile witness, even amid testimony that he disbursed P500 million in confidential funds from 2022 to 2023.

“There are a lot of things that you need to consider when deciding if you will call a hostile witness to the stand, unless it is absolutely necessary. Because the risks include...baka magsinungaling yung witness [the witness could lie]. But, we minimize the risk if there are statements under oath. That is one of the things we are considering [before deciding on Lachica’s case],” House prosecution team spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa, Jr. said in a press conference on Monday.

In her testimony at the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) repeatedly said it was Lachica who received the funds for disbursement.

At the trial on Monday, Senate impeachment court presiding office Francis Escudero asked the prosecution why it has yet to call for Lachica—the starring character in Acosta’s testimony—saying the prosecution must ensure that the gains in presenting a certain hostile witness, including Lachica, will outweigh the risks.

READ: Who is Col. Raymund Lachica, mentioned at VP Sara Duterte impeachment trial?

Acosta has testified that she disbursed the P500 million worth of the OVP’s confidential funds to Lachica on the orders of the Vice President, and because Lachica was supposedly an expert on confidential operations.

Acosta, however, also told the impeachment court that transferring such disbursement duties to Lachica is not provided under the 2015 guidelines on the use of confidential and intelligence funds.

Ahead of her testimony before the impeachment court, Acosta also told a 2024 House inquiry that she disbursed OVP confidential funds to Lachica on Duterte's orders, and that she would not have done it otherwise.

“We saw a while ago, how the cross-examination went. Since Acosta is a hostile witness [for the prosecution], the defense just supplied all the details. She was just answering the questions with yes, yes, yes. That’s the downside there,” Tolosa added.

House prosecutor and Manila congressman Joel Chua agreed, saying that calling in hostile witnesses would be a last resort.

“Even if this does not involve Colonel Lachica, having a hostile witness is a last resort, for when you don’t have anyone else to present to prove your case,” he said.

“We have Acosta and [ex-DepEd SDO Eduard] Fajarda, and [OVP Assistant Chief of Staff] Lemuel Ortonio as hostile witnesses. We don’t want to use more hostile witnesses to prove our case,” Chua added.

Like Acosta, Fajarda also testified during the 2024 House inquiry. — BM, GMA News