Former Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica could fill a key gap in the prosecution’s case against Vice President Sara Duterte over the use of confidential funds, but calling him as a hostile witness could also expose prosecutors to risks, a University of the Philippines law professor said.

Paolo Emmanuel Tamase, associate dean and assistant professor at the UP College of Law, said prosecutors must weigh the value and reliability of Lachica’s testimony before deciding whether to put him on the stand.

“The two most important factors are: Is the testimony of the hostile witness important? And is he reliable?” Tamase said.

Lachica has emerged as a central figure in the impeachment trial after former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that she released P500 million in confidential funds to him in four P125-million tranches on Duterte’s orders.

OVP Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio separately testified that Lachica was designated to handle the confidential funds despite not being an OVP employee and that he, Duterte and Lachica were among those involved in implementing the funds.

Lachica has said he is willing to testify if lawfully summoned and would tell the truth, subject to applicable laws and security restrictions. The prosecution, however, has said it may no longer need him after presenting Acosta and Ortonio, while lawmakers have urged the parties to consider calling him.

Risk of an unknown witness

That reluctance, Tamase said, reflects the difficulty of putting an untested hostile witness on the stand.

“When you call a hostile witness, there are risks,” he said. “You don’t know, first, whether he will tell the truth. And second, even if he doesn’t lie, whether he will say directly what he knows.”

Acosta and Ortonio were also treated as hostile witnesses, but prosecutors had an advantage because both had previously appeared in congressional proceedings. Their earlier statements could be used to challenge them if their testimony before the impeachment court differed.

Lachica, by contrast, did not testify in the House proceedings, leaving prosecutors with less certainty about what he might say before the Senate.

“There is no assurance for the prosecution that they can confront him with testimony that he previously gave,” Tamase said.

The uncertainty matters because Lachica’s testimony could either reinforce the prosecution’s account of the transactions or provide the defense with an explanation of how the money was used after it was released.

That makes the decision to call him less straightforward, even as his name has repeatedly surfaced in the trial.

Senate could summon Lachica

If neither side calls Lachica, the question then shifts to whether the Senate impeachment court itself could bring him before the proceedings.

Tamase said it could potentially do so, citing Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s earlier statement that the impeachment court could compel Lachica to testify if neither the prosecution nor defense presents him after the parties have presented their evidence.

“Impeachment is unique. It is not really a court process. It is a truth-finding process,” Tamase said.

The Senate has not previously exercised such a power in the impeachment trials of former President Joseph Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona, he said.

But even if Lachica is eventually called, Tamase said the Senate should keep its focus on the broader question of Duterte’s own responsibility rather than turn the proceedings into a general investigation of the OVP.

“Ultimately, what the Senate should focus on is who is responsible, whether the vice president is constitutionally responsible, and whether she is guilty of the impeachable offenses filed against her,” he said.

That question of responsibility, rather than simply the whereabouts of the money, also underpins the prosecution’s presentation of the OVP evidence.

DepEd could reinforce pattern

The same question of Duterte’s personal involvement could arise as the impeachment court turns to the Department of Education’s confidential funds, Tamase said.

Michael Poa, a former DepEd undersecretary who is now part of Duterte’s defense team, is expected to testify on the department’s handling of confidential funds.

His testimony could give the Senate a clearer picture of whether the same chain of authority seen in the OVP was present at DepEd, where Duterte served as secretary.

Tamase said Poa’s testimony could help establish whether Duterte exercised similar knowledge and control over confidential-fund transactions at the department.

“If the testimony of Atty. Poa is consistent with the testimony of others that he was simply following the orders of Vice President Sara, then it establishes a pattern for both the OVP and DepEd,” he said.

But, as with Lachica, the prosecution faces risks in presenting a witness whose testimony it cannot fully predict.

Poa’s legal experience and current role on Duterte’s defense team could make him a difficult witness for prosecutors to control, Tamase said.

“There are always risks,” he said. “It doesn’t mean he will not tell the truth. His obligation is to tell the truth. But he will not necessarily be as easy for the prosecution to lead toward what they want to hear.”