Senator-judge Lito Lapid questioned a former Office of the Vice President (OVP) disbursing officer on Monday regarding suspicious fund receipts [1].
The interrogation occurred during Day 17 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte [1]. The proceedings aim to determine if confidential funds were misused or if the documentation provided to justify expenditures was falsified.
Lapid questioned Gina Acosta, a former OVP Special Disbursing Officer, about acknowledgment receipts that listed fund recipients sharing the surname “Lapid” [2]. The senator sought to verify if these individuals actually existed or if the names were merely aliases used to mask the movement of government money [2].
According to reports, there were two alleged recipients sharing Lapid's surname [3]. The senator-judge probed the process by which these names were recorded and whether the OVP had conducted proper verification of the identities of those receiving the funds [2].
This line of questioning follows a broader investigation into the OVP's handling of confidential and intelligence funds. The trial has focused on whether the office bypassed standard accounting rules to distribute money without sufficient oversight [1].
Acosta provided testimony on the administrative handling of these receipts. Lapid questioned whether the names appearing on the documents were imaginative or based on actual personnel [3]. The proceedings are part of a larger effort to ensure accountability in the use of public funds within the executive branch [1].
Throughout the session, the senator-judge focused on the authenticity of the paperwork. He asked Acosta to clarify the relationship, if any, between the listed recipients and himself [2].
“Senator-judge Lito Lapid questioned a former OVP disbursing officer on Monday regarding suspicious fund receipts.”
The emergence of names sharing a presiding judge's surname on expenditure receipts suggests potential irregularities in how the OVP documented its spending. If these recipients are proven to be aliases, it would provide evidence of systemic fraud in the disbursement of confidential funds, strengthening the case for impeachment based on the misuse of public resources.
