Barbers cites common denominator between hostile witnesses Acosta, Ortonio
At A Glance
- Robert Ace Barbers said Gina Acosta and Lemuel Ortonio gave similar "template" answers and pointed to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica as the person handling the OVP's confidential funds.
- Their testimonies detailed four P125-million fund tranches released from December 2022 to the third quarter of 2023.
- The prosecution questioned why Lachica received the funds despite not being the OVP's designated SDO or a bonded officer.
Clockwise: Robert Ace Barbers, Gina Acosta, Lemuel Ortonio (House PPAB, Senate PRIB)
What do hostile witnesses Gina Acosta and Lemuel Ortonio have in common? They answered prosecutors' questions using similar "templates", House impeachment adviser Robert Ace Barbers observed.
Of course, there's the fact that they're aides of Senate impeachment trial respondent Vice President Sara Duterte.
Acosta used to be Duterte's special disbursing officer (SDO) in Davao City and in the Office of the Vice President (OVP); on the other hand, Ortonio served as OVP assistant secretary and assistant chief-of-staff.
For the past three hearings, the House prosecution panel grilled the two about the implementation of the OVP’s confidential funds. Both have pointed to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, Duterte’s security officer, as supposedly the person in charge.
“Template ang sagot ni Gina Acosta, template din ang sagot ni Ortonio (Gina Acosta's answer was a template, and so was Ortonio's),” Barbers said.
The prosecution’s position was that Lachica had no authority to receive and disburse the confidential funds since he was not an organic employee. Worse, he was not the OVP's designated SDO.
The hostile witnesses' testimonies--template-based or otherwise--nevertheless placed key facts on the record concerning four P125-million confidential-fund tranches released from December 2022 through the third quarter of 2023.
Acosta testified that she turned the cash over to Lachica, then the commander of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG), after Duterte designated him to carry out confidential activities.
Ortonio, meanwhile, repeatedly said his knowledge of ground operations and the information he used in drafting OVP responses to the Commission on Audit (COA) came from the security officer.
Barbers said the panel believes it has already presented relevant testimonial and documentary evidence.
“Sa aming paniniwala sa prosecution panel, nailatag namin ang mga nararapat na makitang ebidensya at marinig na ebidensya ng ating mga senator-judges,” he said.
(As the prosecution panel, we believe that we have presented the evidence that our senator-judges should see and hear.)
Why give secret funds to Lachica?
The former three-term Surigao del Norte congressman said the testimony of Ortonio also reinforced Acosta’s account on Lachica’s role.
He said court testimonies described Lachica as neither the OVP SDO nor a fidelity-bonded accountable officer, even though Acosta said he received the confidential fund cash for implementation.
“Hindi siya special disbursing officer at wala siya dapat kinalaman sa paggamit nitong pondo, dahil hindi rin siya bonded officer...Much more reason [to ask] na bakit mo binigay sa kanya?” he underscored.
(He is not a special disbursing officer, and he should have nothing to do with the use of these funds because he is not a bonded officer either. All the more reason to ask, why did you give it to him?)