August 24, 2026

Gina F. Acosta, the OVP's special disbursing officer for confidential funds, testified that the Vice President instructed her to hand the encashed money to designated security officer Col. Lachica for 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 Lachica signed the OVP internal object-of-expenditures document to acknowledge receiving ₱125 million. She said he took the signed paper back after liquidation, which she prepared from the documents he provided after the operations.

Acosta testified that liquidation relied on acknowledgement rather than official receipts; some receipts carried no date or recipient name. She said Lachica explained that sensitive transactions used aliases, and she accepted that explanation for the unusual names.

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.

Prosecution counsel argued that the Joint Circular prohibited one accountable officer from transferring confidential funds to another, and that Acosta's delivery of the cash to Lachica—whom counsel described as neither bonded nor accountable—was barred.

Prosecution counsel maintained that Acosta kept accountability for the funds even though Lachica carried out the operations and took receipt of the cash.

Prosecution counsel argued that the internal object-of-expenditures paper did not say Lachica received ₱125 million; counsel also challenged whether acknowledgement receipts established named recipients' cash receipt or the funds' end use.

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.

Defense counsel argued that the Joint Circular imposed no requirement that the SDO personally run confidential operations, have operational training or experience, or hold security-clearance authority.

Defense counsel elicited that the agency head appointed the security officer to run the operations, then argued that Acosta could rely on the officer's inputs for operational plans, reports, liquidation papers, and certifications.

Defense counsel emphasized Acosta's claimed review: she tallied each acknowledgement receipt, checked its stated purpose, coordinated with the security officer, and considered the submitted documents sufficient to link the expenses to confidential activities.

During prosecution questioning, defense counsel repeatedly objected to questions as argumentative, misleading or 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. Joel Villanueva examined Gina Acosta's role as the Office of the Vice President's special disbursing officer for confidential funds. He asked what qualifications should matter in selecting an SDO and what she had been told her job was. Acosta said she would choose someone with average knowledge, thinking, and character; as SDO, she was to hold, disburse, and process the related documents and had been directed to read the governing joint circular. She said she did not decide whether confidential funds would be used. Asked to describe the full process, Acosta traced a Vice Presidential request, Department of Budget and Management action, the approved financial plan, a disbursement voucher and supporting papers, check encashment and release to security officer Col. Lachica, followed by liquidation after documents showed the operation had ended. Villanueva then asked who determined the purpose, amount, recipient, timing, and final approval. Acosta said the Vice President made the request, Lachica implemented the operation and received the released funds, and she did not determine the recipient or timing. Villanueva pressed whether she had exercised any independent judgment, including by changing documents after audit observations, notices of suspension, or notices of disallowance; Acosta said her function was to process the papers and maintained she had performed it properly. He contrasted that account with her previous service as an SDO in Davao, where she said there had been no audit observation memorandum, and tested her review of the fund utilization and acknowledgement receipts; Acosta said she checked whether the amounts matched the implementing officer's account. Finally, he asked whether the safe box contained documents matching aliases to real names; Acosta said it had contained only an acknowledgement receipt, which had been submitted to the Commission on Audit and was no longer in the box.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan examined whether Gina Acosta's transfer of confidential funds to security officer Col. Lachica completed her duty as special disbursing officer. He distinguished a transfer to Lachica from a final payment for supplies or medicine and asked how Acosta could ensure the disbursement was proper if she did not know how the confidential funds were spent. Acosta said she remained accountable but relied on Lachica's utilization report and his designation by Vice President Sara Duterte to implement operations. Pressed on whether money could have gone to a personal account, to a named recipient, or to other people, Acosta said she did not know because she was not on the ground. Pangilinan then asked about the reported P122 million for medicines and P112 million for supplies. Acosta said she knew there had been such purchases but could not recall the specific amounts for tree-planting or Lakbay Aral activities, relying instead on utilization reports and acknowledgement receipts; when Pangilinan said documents could be false and could not establish where the money went, she again said she trusted Lachica. When Pangilinan returned to the medicine records, he asked why acknowledgement receipts described medicines worth P122 million as rewards for informers. Acosta said she could not explain because Lachica implemented the operations. Pangilinan said that left the accountable officer unable to say whether medicine had actually been bought, and Acosta said she relied on the documents supplied by the security officer. He then asked about turnovers of 70 or 80 million that Acosta released to Lachica in her extension office on the Vice President's instruction. Acosta said only she and Lachica were inside, leaving them as the only people who could confirm the handover. Pangilinan compared that practice with Acosta's earlier SDO service in Davao and challenged the use of acknowledgement receipts without official receipts or sales invoices in the OVP liquidation reports; Acosta said Davao likewise had no official receipts. In a final follow-up, Pangilinan cited the Joint Circular's requirement that an SDO disburse directly to the final legitimate recipient or purpose and asked whether Lachica was that final recipient. Acosta answered no. Pangilinan said the rule therefore placed the SDO, rather than Lachica, in the position to make the final disbursement, and summarized Acosta's explanation as a lack of access to confidential operations because she did not have security clearance. Acosta said Lachica submitted documents to her.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked Gina Acosta about her work before becoming the Vice President's special disbursing officer. Acosta said she had worked for the Davao City council as a stenographic reporter and later supply officer, knew Sara Duterte when she was vice mayor, and became an SDO when Duterte was mayor. Tulfo then asked about names such as Mary Grace Piatos, Chipie McDonald, Pusa, Pagong and Belat. Acosta agreed she had encountered them and did not know Pusa or Pagong as actual surnames, while saying the recipients were real people but the listed names were not their real names. Asked why the records lacked true recipient names and what the safe contained, she said the joint circular did not require the names and identified the CDR as the document stored there. Tulfo said Colonel La Chica lacked a fidelity bond and should not have disbursed funds; Acosta said she followed the Vice President's instruction to release the funds to the designated security officer. She said La Chica's fund-utilization report and object-of-expenditure list matched the amounts and expenses, so she found no improper spending. On Tulfo's challenge to using confidential funds for tree planting, tables and chairs, Acosta said the funds covered confidential surveying and inspection around tree-planting sites and equipment used in operations. When Tulfo resumed, he asked about Acosta's earlier explanation that P3.5 million in tables and chairs served confidential operations. Acosta said the acknowledgement receipts had come from Lachica and that she had not memorized Joint Memorandum Circular 2015-01. Tulfo then read the provisions he said limited confidential funds to purchasing information, surveillance transport, safe-house incidentals, and specialized technical equipment, while prohibiting furniture and general supplies even when they were said to support operations. In a final resumed question, Tulfo gave Acosta a hypothetical in which a security officer returned with conspicuous luxury assets after receiving 100 million pesos and told her not to ask because the matter was confidential. He asked whether she would let that pass or question it; Acosta said she could not answer because she had not experienced that situation.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo challenged special disbursing officer Gina Acosta's acceptance of confidential-fund records bearing aliases and a single signature for multiple purported informants. He asked why an accountable officer would not object to names including Bilat, Pagong and Pusa, or to multiple names carrying one signature. Acosta said she relayed the security officer's submissions and verified them with Col. Lachica, who said the information was sensitive and confidential; she accepted that explanation because he implemented the activities. Tulfo said that reasoning reflected blind loyalty rather than oversight, which Acosta said she did not understand. He also contrasted her lack of disallowances while she was an SDO in Davao with later OVP and DepEd disallowances. Acosta said Davao reports were submitted to the Department of the Interior and Local Government rather than the Office of the President, Senate or House, and said she could not remember whether the older records also used such aliases despite having served there for six years.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked whether special disbursing officer Gina Acosta could vouch for the accuracy of acknowledgement-receipt dates, purchases and amounts. Acosta said she relied on security officer Col. Lachica, who implemented the confidential activities. Hontiveros pointed to an acknowledgement receipt for Clarice Hontiveros dated on her own birthday and asked about its unusual detail; Acosta said she did not know it was the senator's birthday and said she had raised and verified receipt issues, while acknowledging that some receipts lacked signatures, names, dates or legible entries. Hontiveros then asked whether Acosta alone would be answerable if the funds could not be explained, even though Vice President Sara Duterte directed the cash encashment and designated Lachica to receive funds. Acosta accepted that she was the accountable officer but cited Lachica's designation as implementing officer. Hontiveros said the governing documents did not create an implementing-officer role and pressed whether it was fair for Acosta to bear the consequences of decisions by others; Acosta repeated that she was accountable and said the Vice President knew what she was doing.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson asked who held fiduciary responsibility for entrusted public funds, and special disbursing officer Gina Acosta said it was hers rather than Col. Lachica's. He examined what happened each time she withdrew 125 million pesos, asking whether the cash first entered her office vault or went directly to Lachica. Acosta said the full fourth-quarter 2022 amount did not enter the vault; in the first quarter of 2023 she released about 80 million pesos to Lachica based on stated expenses, and she released the second- and third-quarter amounts in three tranches each. Lacson also said purchases of supplies still required invoices or official receipts from real persons even if used for confidential activities. Acosta said her reading of the Joint Circular did not require the names or invoices. He then asked whether preparing and signing the physical and financial plan was merely ministerial. Acosta said she acted with the security officer's inputs and discussed the program, while Lacson stressed that treating the role as ministerial would be inconsistent with her fiduciary responsibility.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III tested whether the Office of the Vice President's special disbursing officer could delegate her responsibility. Ms. Gina Acosta said she was the person authorized to disburse but had released confidential funds to the security officer; Sotto maintained that the special-disbursing authority itself could not be delegated. He then contrasted the reported distribution across 132 locations nationwide in 11 days with Acosta's statement that the OVP had no regional officers. Acosta said Vice President Sara Duterte had designated Colonel La Chica to implement confidential operations on the ground, but she could not say whether La Chica alone had covered all 132 locations, saying only that he was the OVP's appointed security officer and BPSBG commanding chief.

Sen. Imee Marcos asked whether Vice President Sara Duterte ever handled, saw, or took any part of the confidential funds after Gina Acosta withdrew them and turned them over to Colonel La Chica. Acosta said she had not seen the Vice President do so. Marcos then examined Acosta's responsibility for liquidation and supporting documents, asking whether the Vice President reviewed the hundreds or thousands of records or personally authenticated each acknowledgement receipt. Acosta said she did not; the receipts came from La Chica in a brown envelope, and he was the official who implemented the activities and obtained the receipts. Marcos asked whether Acosta had noticed any suspicious or defective records and whether the Vice President knew of them. Acosta said some receipts lacked names, signatures, dates, or legible entries, which she raised with La Chica, but she had no knowledge that the Vice President knew of the defects.

Sen. Bam Aquino pressed special disbursing officer Gina Acosta on when she first saw unusual purported-recipient names, including Piatos, Belat, Pagong and Pusa, and why she did not determine whether they were aliases. Acosta said her review of almost 800 acknowledgement receipts focused on whether expense amounts matched the fund-utilization report and permitted categories, although she had noticed some unusual names. She said Col. Lachica told her the recipient information was sensitive and confidential, and she relied on him because he was the Vice President's designated security officer. Asked whether she had verified names individually or pursued an internal inquiry after the issue became public, Acosta said she had not: she understood the governing circular to require no particular acknowledgement-receipt format and left the matter to Lachica. Aquino said that left the accountable officer without an effort to obtain the recipients' real identities, even through a confidential list.

Sen. Manuel "Lito" Lapid followed up on the second 125-million-peso cash delivery, asking where the 45 million went after Gina Acosta released 80 million to Colonel La Chica. Acosta said the 45 million remained in the vault. Lapid asked whether Vice President Sara Duterte had seen the bags or whether they went directly to La Chica; Acosta said she packed the cash after the bank withdrawal and brought it to her extension office. She clarified that the 45 million stayed in the vault and was released only after La Chica submitted a fund-utilization report and object-of-expenditure list about a month after the first release. Lapid raised the possibility that records bearing the Lapid name could be aliases rather than real recipients. Acosta said she relied on documents from La Chica because the Vice President had designated him security officer and implementer of confidential operations. Asked whether she knew of La Chica's intelligence capacity, Acosta said she did not.

Sen. Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri asked whether Colonel La Chica could have misused confidential funds after Gina Acosta released all of them to him, including by reporting a payment to a person who did not exist. Acosta said she relied on La Chica's fund-utilization report. Zubiri compared the risk to a recipient being made to sign for more than was actually received and asked whether the acknowledgement receipts had been independently verified. Acosta said she had verified them through La Chica because he implemented the activities and was the expert. Zubiri said that left her relying on one person. He also asked why the listed medicine, expense and fuel payments had no receipts; Acosta said the confidential nature of the activities was why she trusted La Chica, who had been designated security officer by Vice President Sara Duterte, and said disclosing recipients could endanger them.

Sen. Joseph Victor 'JV' Ejercito challenged special disbursing officer Gina Acosta's repeated reliance on Col. Lachica's assertion that the 125-million-peso disbursements were confidential. He said a disbursing or finance officer would naturally ask how such a large sum was used and pressed her on whether that question had ever occurred to her. Acosta said she had verified the matter with the security officer, then said it was confidential in nature. The exchange put at issue whether that explanation relieved an accountable officer of asking how released public funds were spent.

The Chair directed the testimony, ruled on objections, controlled evidence handling, and set the hearing's recognition and timing procedures.

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.