Who handled the ?500 million? 5 things from Day 16 of Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial

Four large traveling bags carried ?125 million in cash out of a LandBank branch in December 2022. On Day 16 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer Gina Acosta told the Senate impeachment court what she said happened next: the money was turned over to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica on Duterte’s instruction.

Acosta also testified that the arrangement went beyond that first ?125 million. She said she released a total of ?500 million in OVP confidential funds to Lachica in 2022 and 2023 on orders from Duterte.

That put a basic question at the center of Day 16: after the special disbursing officer withdrew the cash, who was actually handling it?

Article I accuses Duterte of systematic misappropriation and irregular liquidation involving ?500 million in OVP confidential funds and ?112.5 million released to the Department of Education while she was education secretary. These remain allegations that the prosecution has to prove before the Senate impeachment court.

Five things to know from Day 16

1. Gina Acosta became the prosecution’s first hostile witness

The impeachment court declared Acosta a hostile witness after Presiding Officer Francis Escudero considered her employment relationship with Duterte and her position in an Ombudsman counter-affidavit that Duterte had not misused confidential funds.

The ruling allowed prosecutor Amando Ligutan to ask Acosta leading questions. Escudero reminded him that misleading questions were still prohibited.

Calling someone a hostile witness does not mean the court has decided that the witness is lying. It changes how the party that called the witness may question that person.

2. Acosta said Duterte ordered the money released to Lachica

This was the day’s central testimony.

Acosta said she released ?500 million in OVP confidential funds in 2022 and 2023 to Lachica, who headed the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, on Duterte’s orders.

The first ?125 million was received by the OVP on December 21, 2022. Acosta had also told a House inquiry in 2024 that she would not have given that money to Lachica without Duterte’s approval.

Acosta’s testimony establishes what she says Duterte instructed her to do. It does not, by itself, settle whether Duterte committed an impeachable offense. The Senate still has to weigh the testimony with the documents, the applicable rules and the defense’s evidence.

3. The handoff ran into a problem with the confidential-fund rules

Joint Circular No. 2015-01 governs the release, use, reporting and audit of confidential and intelligence funds. It says confidential-fund cash advances are to be drawn by a duly designated and bonded special disbursing officer or the head of the agency. It also says a cash advance cannot be transferred from one accountable officer to another.

GMA News reported that Acosta’s delegation of the funds to Lachica was contrary to Section 6.6.1 of that circular.

This distinction matters. The issue is no longer simply whether the OVP withdrew the money. The trial is examining whether the way the cash was handled after withdrawal followed the controls required for confidential funds.

4. The ?125 million left the bank in four large bags

Acosta gave the court a physical picture of the December 2022 withdrawal.

She testified that the ?125 million was placed in four large black traveling bags. Two LandBank security guards carried or dragged two bags each from the bank and brought them to an OVP vehicle, with Acosta following them.

The prosecution later showed an AI-generated image to illustrate what ?125 million in cash inside bags might look like. The defense objected to its accuracy. The court allowed it after the prosecution made clear that the image was only a simulation and was not being presented as the actual bags or actual cash involved.

The image may have made the amount easier to picture, but the evidence remains the testimony and documents, not the AI illustration.

5. Acosta said the 2022 plan had no specific targets because it was still a plan

Ligutan questioned Acosta about the OVP’s Physical and Financial Plan for the ?125 million released in 2022.

Acosta confirmed there were no specific numbers, locations or costs for the surveillance operations and no specific targets for the listed activities. Her explanation was straightforward: “Wala po, Your Honor. Kasi plano pa lang po.”

She also said the Physical and Financial Plan used generic descriptions, while the accomplishment report recorded actual activities. GMA reported that the accomplishment report included tree planting, Libreng Sakay, financial assistance and medical assistance, although those specific items did not appear in the Physical and Financial Plan.

The joint circular requires confidential-fund allocations to be supported by a Physical and Financial Plan approved by the agency head, with proposed amounts for programs, activities and projects that will become the basis for disbursements.

Then came the argument over Bisaya

Part of Day 16 shifted away from the money when Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo questioned why Acosta was repeatedly answering in Bisaya.

Tulfo pointed to transcripts of the 2024 House hearings where Acosta had answered questions in Filipino. He asked the court to require her to speak in Filipino during the impeachment proceedings.

It became one of the most discussed moments online, although the language dispute does not answer the more important question about how the confidential funds were handled.

What netizens were saying

The posts below are individual reactions and should not be treated as a scientific measure of public opinion.

One X user focused on where the cash went after the handoff to Lachica, asking: “kanino naman ito napunta next?”

Another reacted to Acosta’s manner of answering, writing: “Gina Acosta is living up to her hostile witness status.”

Others pushed back against treating Acosta’s testimony as proof of the entire impeachment charge. One X user argued that her statement that Duterte ordered the release “by itself does not automatically prove grounds for impeachment.”

The split is worth noting. Critics focused on the ?500 million handoff and the rules governing who may handle confidential-fund cash. Skeptics of the prosecution focused on what still needs to be proven beyond the fact that Duterte allegedly gave the instruction.

So where did the money go?

The four bags made for a striking image, but Day 16 was really about who handled the cash after it left the bank.

Acosta testified that she turned the money over to Lachica on Duterte’s instructions. That puts the next question squarely before the impeachment court: What happened to the ?500 million after Lachica received it, and do the records account for how it was spent?

That is what the prosecution still has to establish.