August 24, 2026

Gina F. Acosta, the Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer for confidential funds, testified that the Vice President told her to release the encashed confidential funds to designated security officer Col. Lachica, who would implement the confidential activities.

Acosta described four quarterly ₱125 million cash advances. She said the last quarter of 2022 was released in full to Lachica, while later quarterly amounts could be released in multiple tranches based on his object-of-expenditure requests.

Acosta testified that she relied on Lachica's statements and documents because he implemented the operations on the ground and she lacked access to security information and personal knowledge of the actual implementation or final recipients.

Acosta testified that she had Lachica acknowledge receipt of the ₱125 million by signing the OVP's internal object-of-expenditures document. She said he took that signed receipt back after she completed the liquidation, which she based on documents he supplied after implementing the confidential activities.

The liquidation record used acknowledgement receipts rather than official receipts. Acosta testified that some acknowledgement receipts lacked a date or name, accepted Lachica's explanation that the transactions were sensitive and confidential, and treated unusual recipient names as aliases after that explanation.

Acosta acknowledged that the four liquidation reports were initially submitted before all acknowledgement receipts had been collected, explaining that the operations covered different locations and that the reports faced submission deadlines.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian called the impeachment court to order, declared a quorum of 17 senator-judges, and recognized Presiding Officer Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero, who resumed the direct examination of Gina F. Acosta.

After the prosecution finished its direct examination, the court recessed for lunch and resumed with defense cross-examination; prosecution follow-up and a short defense recross followed.

Escudero then opened the floor to senator-judge interjections, beginning with Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan and a stated sequence of questioners.

After the final senator-judge question, Escudero excused Acosta and turned to scheduling, witness availability, subpoenas, and other administrative matters.

The prosecution argued that the Joint Circular barred transferring confidential funds from one accountable officer to another and that Acosta's transfer to an unbonded, non-accountable Lachica was more clearly prohibited.

Prosecution counsel maintained that Acosta remained the accountable officer even though Lachica implemented the operations and received the cash.

The prosecution argued that the internal paper did not itself state that Lachica received ₱125 million and that the available acknowledgement receipts and other documents did not prove either actual cash receipt by named recipients or the end use of the funds.

The prosecution challenged Acosta's certifications because she relied on Lachica's reports, documents, and information while lacking personal knowledge of whether the listed expenditures and recipients were genuine; it argued that this arrangement was deficient internal control.

The defense argued that the Joint Circular did not require an SDO to participate personally in confidential operations, possess operational experience or training, or hold authority to access security information or a security clearance.

Defense counsel elicited that the head of agency designated the security officer to implement operations and argued that the Joint Circular did not prohibit Acosta from using that officer's inputs and guidance in preparing plans, reports, liquidation documents, and certifications.

The defense emphasized that Acosta examined the acknowledgement receipts, tallied the amounts, checked their stated purposes, coordinated with the security officer, and was satisfied from the submitted documents that the funds related to confidential activities.

During prosecution questioning, defense counsel repeatedly objected that questions were argumentative, misleading, compound, speculative, or already asked and answered.

At the close, the defense deferred to the court's AFP subpoenas but objected that announcing the witnesses only one or two days before presentation conflicted with the pretrial notice requirement and impaired substantive preparation for cross-examination.

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan asked how Acosta could safeguard disbursement without knowing the ground operations and later questioned whether releasing the money to Lachica satisfied the Joint Circular's requirement that the SDO disburse to the final legitimate recipient or purpose.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo questioned why Acosta did not seek the real names behind apparent aliases and why she released funds to Lachica despite knowing he had no fidelity bond.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked why Acosta accepted Lachica's confidentiality explanation even when documents showed different informant names with a single signature, and whether she simply took his word for it.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian asked how Acosta could assure the public that the money was not pocketed without personal knowledge, and why the four liquidation reports were submitted before acknowledgement receipts were complete.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked what decisions Acosta herself made as SDO and whether her role amounted to processing and approving what passed through her without changing or withholding anything.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked whether it was fair for Acosta alone to bear accountability when other officials decided to encash the funds and release them to Lachica.

Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson asked who held fiduciary responsibility, traced whether the withdrawn cash passed through Acosta's vault, and challenged the absence of official receipts or sales invoices for supplies.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III asked whether an SDO could delegate disbursement and how Lachica could have covered 132 areas nationwide in 11 days if Acosta alone held that authority.

Sen. Imee Marcos asked whether Vice President Sara Duterte ever handled any of the cash and whether Acosta could say the Vice President knew of defects in the supporting documents.

Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino asked when Acosta first treated the unusual names as aliases and why, after more than a year of controversy, she had not initiated an internal inquiry or obtained a true-name list.

Sen. Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid asked where the roughly ₱45 million remainder of one ₱125 million withdrawal was kept after an initial release of about ₱80 million to Lachica.

Sen. Juan Miguel “Migz” F. Zubiri asked whether the unverified handoff to one trusted person left room for misuse and why the listed purchases were supported by acknowledgement receipts rather than official receipts.

Sen. Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito asked whether Acosta ever thought to ask how each ₱125 million release was used, given the ordinary duty of finance personnel to question such large transactions.

During the examinations, Escudero ruled on ordinary objections and motions, including allowing clarification of Acosta's answer, directing prosecution counsel to move on from an argumentative line, and denying a defense motion to strike.

Before acting on Edward D. Fajarda's request to be excused, the court directed the head of the Senate Medical and Dental Bureau to examine him, validate the medical findings with his physicians, and report whether and when he could testify.

The court ordered subpoenas for Col. Manaros Boransing II, Col. Magtanggol Panopio, and Col. Adonis Bahao for August 26 and later trial dates.

In response to the defense's short-notice concern, Escudero said the court would give respondent's counsel time to prepare and anticipated that cross-examination of a newly announced witness would occur the following week, providing more than five days.

The court expected Limuel Ortoño as the prosecution's next witness and deferred until the following day its ruling on the defense's August 12 manifestation and the prosecution's response.

Acosta testified, "I am still the accountable person, Your Honor."

Acosta's testimony did not independently resolve who ultimately received the cash or whether each listed activity and expenditure occurred; she repeatedly said she lacked ground-level personal knowledge and relied on Lachica's submissions.

Edward D. Fajarda's medical fitness and the date on which he could testify remained subject to the Senate medical bureau's examination and report.

The court had not yet heard Limuel Ortoño or the three subpoenaed AFP witnesses, and it had deferred its ruling on the defense's August 12 manifestation until the next day.