Manila: Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo on Monday questioned why apparent red flags in the Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential fund records did not prompt its former special disbursing officer (SDO) to withhold transactions or seek further verification.
According to Philippines News Agency, during the 17th day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, Tulfo pressed former OVP SDO Gina Acosta over acknowledgement receipts bearing unusual aliases and, in some instances, different names carrying the same signature. Receipts presented during the hearing showed Antonio Pagong purportedly receiving PHP100,000 for the purchase of information; Timon Andrew Pusa receiving PHP100,000 for the rental of a transport vehicle; Don Piang receiving PHP250,000 for transport rental; Shane Ngitngit for PHP150,000; and Xuniso P. Belat for PHP100,000.
Tulfo expressed disbelief over the acceptance of such records, questioning why a list of informants with names like Belat, Pagong, and Pusa did not raise concerns. Acosta acknowledged that the names were unusual but said she relied on documents submitted by then-OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica. Tulfo further questioned a record showing several informant names with what he described as the same signature, suggesting it warranted further scrutiny.
Acosta stated that she had consulted Lachica about the signatures, but he assured her the information was 'sensitive and confidential.' She said, 'Pina-reply ko po yun, si Col Lachica, Your Honor. At ang sagot naman niya sa akin, Ma'am Gina, those are sensitive information, Ma'am Gina. At saka, confidential in nature po yun.' Tulfo challenged Acosta's acceptance of Lachica's explanation despite the repeated signature under different names.
Acosta defended her actions by stating that Lachica was the official responsible for implementing confidential activities, thus she trusted his judgment. 'Kasi siya po ang nag-implement sa mga confidential activities, Your Honor, on the grounds. Siya po ang inatasan na mag-implement. Siya po ang implementor po, Your Honor,' she explained.
Tulfo criticized Acosta's 'blind loyalty,' arguing that an accountable officer should have questioned records that appeared irregular rather than deferring to a superior's explanation. Earlier in the trial, Acosta testified that she encountered aliases such as Mary Grace Piattos, Chippy McDonald, Pusa, and Pagong, maintaining that these referred to real people, albeit not their true names.
