Col. Raymund Dante Lachica Challenges Ramil Madriaga’s Claims in Sara Duterte Impeachment Hearing

Philippine Army Col. Raymund Dante Lachica has challenged the credibility of Ramil Madriaga’s allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte, pointing to what he described as inconsistencies in Madriaga’s testimony and stressing that claims involving alleged multimillion-peso transactions should be supported by verifiable evidence and official records.

Colonel Raymund Dante Lachica Photo FB Page of Lachica

Philippine Army Col. Raymund Dante Lachica questioned what he described as inconsistencies in the allegations made by Ramil Madriaga during the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday, April 14, as he sought to challenge the credibility of claims linking him and members of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) to the alleged delivery of millions of pesos.

Lachica, who previously served as chief of the VPSPG, disputed allegations contained in Madriaga’s sworn statement, in which Madriaga accused Vice President Sara Duterte of corruption and other alleged irregularities. Madriaga also claimed that he had delivered millions of pesos allegedly on the instruction of the Vice President, with the supposed assistance of members of the VPSPG, including Col. Dennis Nolasco and Lachica.

Lachica has denied the allegations and previously filed a cyber libel complaint against Madriaga and his lawyer, Atty. Raymund Palad, in January. His latest statements focused on what he said were discrepancies between Madriaga’s sworn account and the claims presented during the impeachment proceedings.

READ OTHER ARTICLES:

According to Lachica, the alleged inconsistencies raise questions about the accuracy and reliability of Madriaga’s testimony. He maintained that serious accusations involving public officials and members of the military should not rest solely on unverified statements, particularly when the allegations concern the movement of large amounts of money and purported government transactions.

Lachica emphasized the importance of examining the evidence supporting Madriaga’s claims, including documentary records and other verifiable information that could establish whether the alleged transactions actually took place. He argued that testimony must be subjected to scrutiny and compared against available records before conclusions are reached.

The former VPSPG chief also rejected any suggestion that his name or position within the security group should automatically be interpreted as evidence of involvement in the alleged transactions. While acknowledging that allegations raised in an impeachment proceeding deserve appropriate examination, Lachica maintained that individuals named in testimony should be given the opportunity to respond and present evidence contradicting accusations against them.

The controversy centers on Madriaga’s allegations and the extent to which they can be substantiated through independent evidence. In impeachment proceedings, testimony may form part of the record, but the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of their claims remain matters for the appropriate authorities and proceedings to determine.

Lachica’s challenge therefore places particular emphasis on verification. He argued that allegations should be tested against documentary evidence, official records, timelines, financial documents, and other materials capable of confirming or disproving the claims. Without such corroboration, he suggested, testimony containing contradictions should be treated with caution.

The issue also highlights the importance of distinguishing between an allegation and an established fact. A person’s name appearing in a sworn statement or testimony does not, by itself, establish criminal or administrative liability. Claims must still undergo the appropriate legal and evidentiary process, particularly when they could affect the reputation and career of individuals who have been publicly identified.

For Lachica, the central question is not simply whether accusations have been made, but whether those accusations can withstand scrutiny when compared with verifiable evidence. He said he remains prepared to answer allegations against him through the proper forum and stressed that the facts should ultimately be determined through evidence rather than unsupported assertions.

The dispute comes as the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte continue to draw intense public attention. The allegations raised during the proceedings have placed various individuals under scrutiny, while conflicting accounts have prompted calls for closer examination of testimony and supporting documents.

As the proceedings move forward, the credibility of witnesses, consistency of their statements, and existence of independent corroborating evidence are expected to remain critical considerations. For Lachica, resolving the controversy requires a careful review of the records and a fair assessment of the individuals involved rather than relying solely on accusations made in testimony.

Ultimately, the controversy underscores a basic principle of due process: allegations, regardless of how serious they may be, must be separated from facts established by competent evidence. Lachica’s response seeks to put that distinction at the center of the discussion, arguing that the claims attributed to Madriaga should be carefully verified, inconsistencies should be addressed, and the reputations of individuals named in the allegations should not be judged solely on the basis of unproven testimony.