Impeached witness
He’s angling for a slot in the Witness Protection Program by testifying against VP Duterte and thus avoiding prosecution.
Text size
He’s angling for a slot in the Witness Protection Program by testifying against VP Duterte and thus avoiding prosecution.
House star witness Ramil Madriaga’s credibility in the House Committee on Justice’s impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte has been repeatedly challenged on multiple grounds, including the lack of corroborating evidence and his own criminal background.
Madriaga, currently detained at Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City on kidnap-for-ransom charges (as the alleged leader of the “Madriaga Kidnap for Ransom Group,” was granted temporary court approval to testify before the House panel on 14 April.
He’s angling for a slot in the Witness Protection Program (WPP) by testifying against VP Duterte, thereby avoiding prosecution.
He describes himself as a former aide and confessed “bagman” for the Duterte family, claiming involvement in intelligence, sabotage, campaign organizing via groups like ISIP Pilipinas, and the handling of large cash amounts, allegedly including the Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential funds and money tied to POGOs (Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators) and drug sources during the 2022 campaign and beyond.
His claims included specifically coordinating with OVP security personnel to move duffle bags of cash, supposedly containing P33 million to P35 million each, from Department of Education (DepEd) vehicles and other operations.
He has a 1997 kidnap-for-ransom conviction, but was later acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2003 for insufficient evidence, and claimed past work in agencies like the National Security Council, National Bureau of Investigation, and the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. However, these have not been independently verified in recent reporting.
VP Duterte has categorically denied any personal or professional relationship with him, calling his claims baseless, and filed a perjury complaint against him in March 2026, attributing his actions to desperation while in detention.
The most pointed recent critique of Madriaga’s testimony came in an affidavit by Army Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former Chief of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) and the head of OVP security operations.
Lachica has issued multiple statements, including formal denials in January and March 2026, with a fresh rebuttal tied to the 14 April proceedings, explicitly addressing Madriaga’s claims.
In his statement responding to the remarks attributed to Madriaga in the impeachment proceedings, Lachica stated: “The statements raise serious concerns regarding both their accuracy and the speaker’s familiarity with actual organizational structures and operational processes.”
He pointed out that Madriaga’s references to certain individuals and their roles did not align with the established chain of command and real world operational realities.
“This inconsistency alone calls into question the reliability of his claims.” Lachica emphasized that allegations must be grounded in clear, verifiable evidence rather than assumptions or speculation.
This directly targeted Madriaga’s assertions of working closely with Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco, Lachica’s deputy, on “tactical transport services,” VIP security, and cash movements within the VPSPG-OVP framework.
Lachica has repeatedly affirmed under oath and in public statements that he has never met, worked with, or coordinated with Madriaga.
Madriaga was never part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the VPSPG, or any unit under his command.
Neither was he an operative, asset, nor connected to the intelligence or security units he claims to have operated within.
Lachica had gone further by filing cyberlibel complaints against Madriaga in January 2026, citing the “false, malicious, and entirely without factual basis” nature of the claims, which he says were disseminated for “personal grievance and legal self-interest” rather than verified facts.
Madriaga’s testimonies are noticeably hollow as they rely solely on his word, with no receipts, bank records, authenticated photos, or independent witnesses.
As a person deprived of liberty facing serious non-bailable charges, Madriaga’s emergence as a witness, via an affidavit submitted while detained, has been framed by the VP’s camp as the “weakest link” in the impeachment case, driven by a desire for a plea deal or release. He was transported from jail specifically for the hearing.
In sum, his lack of credibility stemmed from mismatches flagged by the person best positioned to know, who is Lachica, combined with zero verifiable documentation and a witness profile marked by ongoing criminal proceedings.
