August 25, 2026

The OVP assistant secretary testified that he signed four Land Bank checks and accompanied special disbursing officer Gina F. Acosta when they were encashed; he helped prepare OVP audit replies but lacked personal knowledge of the actual spending.

The first liquidation report reflected 125 million pesos spent by December 31, 2022, and the witness said the December 21-to-31 period was 11 days; he also agreed that the first three accomplishment reports used the same six categories and 125 million-peso totals.

The witness said the medical-and-food-aid support he saw consisted of acknowledgement receipts rather than official receipts and that Gina F. Acosta requested a 150,000-peso emergency advance relayed by Colonel Raymond Dante Lachica.

In response to reformulated closing questions, the witness said that Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte knew about the confidential activities and their implementation and that his own fund-related actions were authorized by superiors.

The court declared Ortoño a hostile witness because of his continuing coterminous service under Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte, the respondent, and permitted leading, but not misleading, questions.

Direct examination moved through the confidential-fund request and plans, disbursement vouchers and checks, liquidation and accomplishment reports, audit memoranda, OVP replies, certifications, and protective-intelligence reports.

The prosecution completed direct examination near the end of the sitting; defense cross-examination had not begun.

The court set cross-examination, any redirect and recross, and senator-judge interventions for August 26, then adjourned the trial to 10:00 a.m. that day.

The prosecution argued that the OVP requested confidential funds before preparing the supporting physical and financial plan; the witness said the August 22 request had no attachments and the plan shown to him was prepared later.

The prosecution argued that OVP records used recurring totals, offered sparse operational detail, and gave different explanations for the same confidential fund.

The prosecution emphasized that the witness signed OVP audit replies as an organizational representative while disclaiming personal knowledge of the actual spending.

The defense characterized the prosecution's eleven-part offer as unproved conclusions, speculation, theories, and advocacy that it intended to test on cross-examination.

The defense stipulated to limited employment facts and specified documents, but not to the prosecution's inferences about what those documents proved.

The defense objected that the witness was being asked to interpret records he did not prepare; the Presiding Officer said the documents spoke for themselves.

The court declared Ortoño hostile based on his continuing coterminous service and adverse interest, allowing leading but not misleading questions; this governed the examination method and did not adopt the prosecution's proposed conclusions.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero sustained the defense objection to questioning about Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group salaries as irrelevant to the particular confidential-fund question and directed the prosecution to move on.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero sustained an objection to an argumentative question and said the witness's preceding answer stood.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero sustained objections to inflammatory characterizations, struck the challenged language, and reformulated the closing inquiry around knowledge, authorization, and supervision.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero required following-week witnesses to be announced on the preceding Wednesday except in unusual circumstances and directed proposed stipulations at least one day before a witness appears.

After the Presiding Officer had admonished prosecutors over words such as "scam" and "mastermind," Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano agreed with the ruling and urged both sides and senator-judges to be circumspect with emotionally charged labels. He said that a statement can live on in media even after being withdrawn or struck from the record, shaping public perceptions of the Court and its eventual decision; accusations should come from testimony or be carefully framed. Prosecutor Mae Divinagracia apologized for counsel's zeal and passion while saying the prosecution wanted to call a spade a spade. The Chair said the point would form part of its ruling and that counsel could do so within limits.

Sen. Juan Miguel "Migz" F. Zubiri asked how the impeachment schedule would fit with budget-season committee work, and whether the trial would finish before the December break or run into February. The Chair said it expected proceedings to end by year-end, but a specific impeachment calendar would follow the Finance Committee's budget schedule, which required time for passage.

On the limits of his knowledge, Ortoño said: "Unfortunately, ma'am, I was not able to read the reports, ma'am, because these are sealed already, ma'am. I submitted the documents only, ma'am, to the COA."

Asked about the Vice President's knowledge, Ortoño answered: "Based on my understanding, sir, and based on what I know, sir, yes, the Vice President knows about the confidential activities and how it is being implemented."

Defense cross-examination had not begun; possible redirect, recross, and senator-judge interventions also remained for August 26.

The court had not ruled on defense counsel Sheila C. Sison's August 12 manifestation and scheduled that ruling after a short explanation by Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan the next morning.

The clerk's comparison of acknowledgement receipts was not stated in the transcript; the court directed that the findings be furnished to the parties and senator-judges.