Suspicious paperwork tied to the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President drew sharp scrutiny in the Senate impeachment court, where Sen. Raffy Tulfo pressed a former disbursing officer over acknowledgment receipts bearing identical signatures attached to different names, along with entries listing recipients whose identities were never verified.
The witness, Gina Acosta, who served as special disbursing officer for the OVP, told the court she had leaned on Col. Raymund Dante Lachica for those transactions. Lachica, then the head of Vice President Sara Duterte’s security detail, was designated to run the office’s confidential operations, and Acosta said the classified character of his work led her to trust the records he turned in rather than independently confirm them.
That explanation did not satisfy Tulfo, who at one point asked Acosta to rate her own intelligence — whether she saw herself as sharp, ordinary, or dim. She held her ground, repeating that her role had been to carry out Lachica’s directions in dealing with the covert fund releases.
Tulfo answered by telling her, “You’re stupid in the name of blind loyalty.”
Acosta’s insistence that she was not present when the money changed hands became a recurring theme. She maintained she had no firsthand view of the disbursements because operations were run on the ground by Duterte’s security officer, to whom the vice president had entrusted the funds.
The friction extended beyond Tulfo. Sen. Panfilo Lacson voiced his own exasperation at being unable to draw a direct response, telling Acosta he could not pull an answer out of her. Members of the prosecution offered differing readings of her conduct, with some suggesting she was being cautious rather than following a rehearsed line.
Acosta is the first hostile witness called in the proceedings against Duterte, whose removal is being sought over the alleged misuse of confidential funds channeled through the OVP and the Department of Education. Her account has been cited by legal observers as a link between the accusations before the Senate and the audit findings that flagged irregularities in how the money was spent and liquidated.
