August 17, 2026

The day’s principal witness was Office of the Vice President employee Gina F. Acosta, making her first appearance before the court. Over the defense’s objection, the court declared her a hostile witness under Rule 132, Section 13, permitting leading but not misleading questions during the prosecution’s direct examination.

When Acosta said she was confused during questioning, Senator-Judge Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri proposed a Bisaya-and-translation approach and Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo urged questioning in Tagalog. The chair directed counsel to use English or Filipino and translate only if Acosta requested it.

Acosta testified that she released ₱125 million to Colonel Raymond Dante Lachica after an instruction she identified as coming from Vice President Sara Duterte. That was her testimony, not a court finding.

Before Acosta’s examination, Marivic M. Pareja was offered as a House archives witness. The parties stipulated to the documents’ transmission to the Archives and its custodianship, while preserving the possibility of later proof that reproductions were unfaithful.

Acosta said that after the release, Colonel Lachica gave her utilization reports and would liquidate after confidential activities or operations were implemented. This was her testimony, not a court finding.

The Clerk of Court reported an administrative comparison of acknowledgment receipts: 3,616 common receipts, including 2,666 attributed to the OVP and 950 to DepEd, and 876 of the prosecution's 4,492 receipts without a respondent counterpart. The report was for the parties' and senator-judges' information and reference.

After opening formalities, the court resolved the preliminary House-records foundation through stipulations and limited judicial notice, excusing archival witness Marivic M. Pareja without substantive testimony. The order did not establish the truth or relevance of the records' contents.

The court then heard the prosecution's direct examination of Office of the Vice President employee Gina F. Acosta. Over the defense's objection, the chair declared her a hostile witness under Rule 132, Section 13, allowing leading but not misleading questions.

When Acosta said she was confused during questioning, Senator-Judge Zubiri proposed a Bisaya-and-translation approach and Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo urged questioning in Tagalog. The chair directed counsel to choose English or Filipino and translate only if Acosta requested it.

The examination also included a dispute over AI-generated imagery used to compare cash bags. Defense asked about the image's source and basis; the chair directed Acosta to answer and later noted defense's continuing objection to AI-generated representations.

In direct examination, Acosta testified that she released ₱125 million to Colonel Raymond Dante Lachica after an instruction she identified as coming from Vice President Sara Duterte. That was testimony, not a court finding.

The prosecution ended for the afternoon with Acosta still on direct examination; the chair stated that defense cross would follow, suspended her testimony, and adjourned early because of weather.

The chair reserved ruling on the prosecution's request for Atty. Ligutan to make a manifestation, while assuring that he would be heard before a ruling.

The court's judicial-notice treatment of the listed House documents was limited to their existence, submission, and status as official House records, not to the truth or relevance of their contents.

The court declared Acosta a hostile witness under Rule 132, Section 13 and allowed leading, but not misleading, questions.

The court allowed the contested Davao line of questioning for the stated purpose of establishing pattern or behavior, but said it would not add to the impeachment charges and noted the defense's continuing objection.

The chair treated the question about a security officer's role in disbursing confidential funds as asked and answered after Acosta gave her reasons.

The court granted Lemuel Ortonio leave to take a licensure examination and stated that he would be informed in advance of an anticipated Monday subpoena.

Senator-Judge Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri proposed simple Bisaya questioning and translation support after Acosta said she was confused.

Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo referred to a congressional transcript and urged that Acosta be asked to answer in Tagalog.

The prosecution sought a brief manifestation by Atty. Ligutan after saying the defense had alluded to him at the previous hearing.

The prosecution offered Pareja to establish her House archival role, the Archives' custody of committee records, and the identity of listed documents transmitted for storage and custody.

Prosecution counsel questioned Acosta on whether Joint Circular 2015-01 authorized a security officer to disburse confidential funds.

The defense opposed declaring Acosta hostile, arguing that the prosecution had to establish adverse interest through examination rather than a motion or manifestation and that the pending criminal case alone was insufficient.

The defense objected to the Davao confidential-fund material as beyond the impeachment case; its continuing objection was noted after the court limited the evidence's stated purpose.

“Ang nag-utos po sa akin na i-release ang pera na 125M sa security officer na si Colonel Lachica ay si Ma'am Sara Duterte.” — Gina F. Acosta, in her testimony about the release.

“Okay. To abbreviate the proceedings, the witness is so declared and Attorney Ligutan may ask leading questions of this witness. It's ordered.” — Presiding Officer Escudero, after declaring Acosta hostile.

“Thank you, Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo. Point well taken. Attorney Ligutan, to abbreviate the proceedings, kindly choose one language, English or Filipino, in asking the question. You don't have to translate each time unless the witness requests you to do so.” — Presiding Officer Escudero, resolving the language dispute during Acosta's examination.

Acosta's direct examination remained unfinished, and defense cross had not yet begun when the court adjourned.

The chair had not yet ruled on Ligutan's requested manifestation, but said he would be heard before a ruling.

The judicial-notice order did not extend to the truth or relevance of the House-record contents, and the defense retained the opportunity to show a reproduction was unfaithful to the original.