The testimony of one individual could potentially shorten the debate over how Vice President Sara Duterte spent the funds entrusted to her. Yet the House prosecution panel appears to be avoiding him.

The name of Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group and formerly Duterte’s security chief, keeps surfacing at the impeachment trial.

At every hearing, someone brings him up. Both the prosecution and the hostile witnesses have described Lachica as one of those most knowledgeable about how the Vice President’s allocations were handled. Yet the man who could provide the answers remains conspicuously outside the prosecution’s line of fire.

He has said he is willing to testify and has committed himself to come to the impeachment court if asked — but he has not been asked.

The reason for not calling him is thin. One of the prosecutors, Rep. Joel Chua, said Lachica might complicate the story, which is a revelation.

Lachica was the special disbursing officer, or the man who handled the confidential funds. If anyone knows where the money went, it is him. Every line of questioning in the Senate trial has led to him. He is the convergence point.

It appears the prosecution fears that Lachica would reveal the truth, which is not what they seek to prove.

If a lawyer knows a witness will hurt his case, he keeps that witness off the stand. The prosecution’s silence on Lachica is a kind of admission. It says: We are not confident about what he would say.

If Lachica takes the stand and says the funds were properly spent, the case collapses. The prosecution cannot risk that. So they do not call him.

This raises a basic question: Why does the case against the Vice President hinge on people two or three steps removed from the money, while the man who actually disbursed it sits untouched, unheard and waiting?

The curiosity of the senator-judges will be sated, however. Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero explained the process of calling additional witnesses, but only after the prosecution and the defense finish presenting their evidence.

Lachica is a military officer. If he lies under oath, he faces more than the Senate court, as he may commit a violation of the Articles of War in a court-martial process. That makes him, in theory, a strong witness, one with real consequences hanging over any dishonesty. Which makes his absence even harder to explain.

Two witnesses so far have been declared hostile, which the prosecution considered a maneuver that produced results in its favor.

Grilling a hostile witness is not the same as proving theft. The prosecution has yet to get anyone to say plainly that the Vice President stole P125 million in confidential funds.

In the second article of impeachment, which concerns the alleged misuse of the funds, the pattern from the first, regarding the infamous witching-hour rant, has repeated itself: strong claims, but weak documentation; a prosecution leaning more on press conferences and side commentary than on the evidence presented before the court.

A case that avoids its most obvious witness does not inspire confidence. It inspires questions.

House prosecutor Chua said they dropped Lachica because he would complicate the story. Or did he mean the script?