Week 15 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial

Week 15 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial brought about the formal end of the prosecution's case against Sara Duterte. However this is not without great contention. At first it was said they would drop article 3, bribery allegations, to speed up the process. Indeed this was looking like a trial that would last into early 2027. 

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/10/12/2562542/prosecutors-rest-impeachment-case-vs-vp-sara

To expedite the long-drawn proceedings, the House prosecution team has decided to conclude its presentation of evidence against Vice President Sara Duterte before the Senate impeachment court today.

House lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said this has been the consensus of both the public and private assigned prosecutors handling all the Articles of Impeachment, with the remaining bribery charge to be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman under Jesus Crispin Remulla.

“From the conclusion of the testimony of the expert witness we wish to seek the guidance of the impeachment court as to when we will be filing the formal offer of exhibits,” Luistro said, acknowledging that the bank records’ testimony is quite lengthy.

Luistro also confirmed the decision to forgo the bribery charge, which was done to expedite the proceedings and come to its final conclusion at the soonest time possible.

When the Senate impeachment court resumes its hearing today, Luistro said that financial analyst expert lawyer Alexander Cabrera will once again take the witness stand for the cross-examination to be conducted by the defense panel. This will be followed by a redirect examination by the prosecution and a re-cross by the defense, if necessary.

The prosecution has earlier filed a manifestation before the Senate impeachment court that Cabrera will be its last witness and it will no longer be presenting evidence on Article III, or the bribery charge where officials of the Department of Education were supposed to testify.

Luistro added the prosecution will also be seeking guidance from the court if it will push through with the calling of additional witnesses, particularly on Impeachment Article I or the allegation that Duterte misused P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd), which used to be headed by Duterte.

The House prosecution panel also sought to allay concerns over its decision to drop the bribery charge against Duterte, saying the allegations could still be referred to the ombudsman or the Department of Justice for possible investigation.

Luistro said the withdrawal of the charge, handled by fellow prosecutor Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores, would not prevent authorities from pursuing the allegations through separate legal proceedings.

“Please don’t lose hope in the bribery charge because even if we have already manifested that this is withdrawn as shared already by honorable Flores, there are proper agencies or offices which have jurisdiction over this case,” said Luistro, chairperson of the House committee on justice.

The charge involved allegations that Vice President Duterte gave money to DepEd officials to influence procurement decisions during her term as education secretary.

Among the allegations was former DepEd undersecretary Gloria Mercado’s account of receiving nine envelopes containing P50,000 each.

However the prosecution ended up dropping two additional articles of impeachment. Article 1, misuse of confidential funds, and article 4, grave threats. Both of these articles were already given weeks worth of testimony.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2322841/impeachment-court-approves-prosecs-move-to-drop-3-of-4-charges-vs-vp

The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday allowed the House prosecution panel’s move to withdraw all but impeachment article II or Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth.

“The court accepts and confirms the prosecution’s manifestation… Articles I, III, and IV from this point forward are hereby withdrawn,” Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said.

After 38 days of presentation, lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro made the manifestation expressing intent to no longer pursue Articles I, III, and IV, referring to Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats, respectively.

Luistro said their evidence for Article II would be enough to convict Duterte, and it would be more practical for the court to only consider one charge instead of four to expedite the process and to give leeway to the Senate to engage in its legislative processes.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison criticized the move, saying that in doing so the prosecution had wasted the resources of the impeachment court, and it would force the already “compromised” defense not to present its own evidence.

Sison further said that due process must not be trumped by the need to expedite the impeachment trial. 

Escudero, however, qualified his ruling with the following conditions:

• The prosecution “must accept the legal consequences” of dropping the charges they had already presented in court
• Articles IV and I, the articles they had already presented, may not be revived against Duterte during the same term or in the 20th Congress
• Article III may still be filed in a separate impeachment case, but not in the current trial
• No vote will be made for Articles I, III, and IV, nor will the impeachment court receive exhibits from the three
• The respondent need not present its exhibits for Articles I, III, and IV as it will no longer be adjudicated
• The sub judice rule will no longer cover Articles I, III, and IV, thereby allowing all parties, including Duterte herself, to respond to pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution
• Documents, pleadings, and records of Articles I, III, and IV will remain in the court’s custody for completeness, transparency, and accountability, but confidential documents may be subject to redaction or sealing when uploaded for public access

Following the ruling, the prosecution has 10 days, or until October 23, to file its formal offer of exhibits on Article II alone. 

Thereafter, the defense will be given 10 days upon receipt of the formal offer before the court makes a resolution.

This is an unprecedented move by the prosecution. After weeks of presenting testimony to back up articles 2 and 4 they are now tossing them out which means they have wasted several months of everyone's time. Not only that but now the defense might not be able to respond to that testimony. In effect this could mean a mistrial which is one of those possible "legal consequences" mentioned by Senator Escudero. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2322814/sison-allowing-withdrawal-of-impeachment-charges-leads-to-mistrial

There will be a mistrial if the impeachment court allows the prosecution to withdraw three of four Articles of Impeachment and effectively prevent Vice President Sara Duterte from countering the evidence already presented, Atty. Sheila Sison said on Tuesday.

Sison, lead counsel for the respondent, explained in her manifestation that the prosecution cannot “unilaterally determine” how the defense panel can proceed in terms of rebutting the evidence presented by the prosecution.

But if the court does so, by allowing the withdrawal of the articles, it will show the “unmistakable characteristics” of a mistrial.

“We believe that even as we respect the prosecution’s decision to withdraw the three articles or the two articles today in addition to Article III or the bribery article, the prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will proceed, or which accusations the judges may hear.  And which accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer,” Sison said.

“Now if the withdrawal is intended to shorten the proceedings of this case, or of the presentation of the respondent’s evidence so the court may immediately proceed to judgment, then we believe that the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial,” she added.

According to Sison, a mistrial happens when the “fundamental balance between accusation and defense” is compromised — which will happen if the defense does not get the right to counter the prosecution’s evidence.

“We have spent government resources, time, energy, of this court and of all the participants in this trial presenting so-called evidence and hearing testimonial evidence from the witnesses that the prosecution had chosen to present before this Honorable court,” she said.

“And yet, the defense would now appear to be forced to limit its presentation or its rebuttal to those evidence to whatever it is that the prosecution had decided to retain in the articles of impeachment.  This we will never allow,” she added.

Sison said during her manifestation the claims raised by the prosecution when it presented Articles I and IV have already entered public consciousness, and therefore the defense must be given the chance to counter them or else it will be unfair.

Before Sison spoke, lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said that aside from Article III or the allegation that Duterte bribed Department of Education officials, the prosecution is foregoing Article I or claims of confidential fund misuse within the vice president’s office; and Article IV or her grave threats against ranking officials.

This means the prosecution will only be presenting Article II or unexplained wealth allegations in their formal offer of evidence.

However, the issue with the prosecution’s decision is that Articles I and IV have already been presented — meaning, witnesses and documents have already been made public.

Why would the prosecution risk a mistrial? In the name of expediency? It defies all reason. Why not leave them intact? Start having Saturday sessions. 

The prosecution justified this move by claiming the defense wanted to lengthen the trial because they have no evidence to present.  

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2323529/duterte-impeachment-articles-dropped-as-defense-seeks-to-stretch-trial

Two members of the prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial admitted Wednesday that they dropped three articles of impeachment because they believed the defense would only seek to delay the proceedings.

In a press briefing, Manila Rep. Joel Chua and Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said they decided to drop three of the four articles of impeachment because they believed the defense had no evidence or witnesses to present and would merely rely on delaying the trial.

“We have seen through their strategy; they will just lengthen this process because, to be honest, they have no evidence to present. That’s why we picked the strongest article, or the strongest as the people think, because while we say that all articles are strong, the people said this has more weight,” Chua said, referring to Article II.

During Tuesday’s trial, lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro manifested before the Senate Impeachment Court that the prosecution was dropping Article I, which concerns the alleged misuse of confidential funds in Duterte’s offices; Article III, which involves claims that Duterte bribed Department of Education employees; and Article IV, which deals with her alleged grave threats against ranking officials.

The prosecution will present only Article II, which concerns allegations that Duterte had unexplained wealth not declared in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

Tolosa pointed out that the defense panel’s reaction to the lifting of the sub judice rule on the dropped articles was also “telling.” 

“When the presiding officer lifted the sub judice rule on the dropped articles for the respondent’s benefit, what did the defense say? They said they didn’t want to,” he said.

“Let’s make it simple. What does this mean? They want the court to stop them from talking because they don’t want to. Why? I’ll say this directly: They have no evidence. That is just mere posturing, so they will have an excuse."

Asked where they learned of the alleged defense strategy, Chua and Tolosa said it had been obvious “from the start” because “they were not able to present anything.”

“If you remember, this issue with the confidential funds started as early as 2024, and we have been talking about it since then. Their only legal strategy or remedy has been to question the jurisdiction of the committee and the impeachment court. But they cannot present anything about its merits,” Chua explained.

“If they really have any evidence, they should have presented it first to the COA (Commission on Audit). The COA is only asking for one thing: receipts to prove that they really bought the medicines, but they can’t present anything. So, given that it has been two years and you still cannot show a single receipt, and you appealed a decision that has now reached finality, what more should we assume?” he added.

Tolosa agreed, saying that from Duterte’s answer to the articles of impeachment to the pretrial brief, the defense had merely “copied” the prosecution’s list of witnesses.

“From the answer, what explanation did they give regarding grave threats, confidential funds, and bribery? Nothing. It’s all general denials and technicalities. Let’s look at their pretrial brief. What evidence did they present? Who were the witnesses they listed to answer our allegations in the complaint? Again, none,” he added.

Tolosa also noted that the prosecution did not pursue its plan to call Duterte to the witness stand because the defense immediately objected, leading the panel to decide that it did not need to present the vice president.

“When we said that we’re considering calling the vice president as a witness to give the senator-judges the opportunity to hear from the vice president herself, how did they respond to these important allegations? What did they say? They were already objecting to it even if there is no formal motion yet,” he said.

“And we heard several times the defense hinting that they would prefer to file a demurrer to evidence instead of presenting evidence after we conclude our presentation of evidence. So it is clear from the start, with respect to these articles that we dropped, they do not have any evidence to present,” he added.

During Tuesday’s trial, Duterte’s lead impeachment lawyer, Sheila Sison, warned Luistro and the prosecution that a mistrial could result if the impeachment court allowed the withdrawal of the three articles, effectively preventing Duterte from countering the evidence already presented.

Sison also questioned the prosecution panel’s sudden move, noting that the public and senator-judges had already heard the evidence presented, which involved the use of government funds and the participants’ efforts.

According to Sison, there was no issue with withdrawing Article III because the prosecution had not presented any evidence for the accusation. However, she took issue with the withdrawal of Articles I and IV because documents had already been presented and made available to the public. 

In light of claiming the defense has no evidence to present that makes the withdrawal of three articles even more perplexing. 

The prosecution has already presented a rather strong case on two of the articles being dropped. Why not leave them intact? In effect the prosecution has aired out Sara's dirty laundry, made all those documents public, and then said, "Fuggedaboutit!" Well, the defense isn't going to do that and if they decide to seek a mistrial the prosecution has only themselves to blame. 

More importantly the withdrawal of three articles is a betrayal of the public trust. The House deliberated on four articles of impeachment, decided they were strong enough to warrant an impeachment, and passed them on to Senate. The two articles being dropped concern serious breaches of the law which deserve an answer. Now, unless those articles are taken up as criminal cases, which, knowing the Philippines justice system could take a prolonged amount of time, there will be no accountability for Sara's alleged grave threats against President Marcos and her alleged misuse of confidential funds. 

Undermining the seriousness of this situation is the fact that the prosecution took a "wacky photo" in the Senate building. 

https://mb.com.ph/2026/10/15/wacky-wacky-gatchalian-orders-probe-into-house-prosecutors-viral-session-hall-photos

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said on Thursday, October 15, he has ordered an investigation into the veracity of the “wacky" photos taken inside the Senate session hall and its hallways, saying such actions should not be allowed within the institution.

This was after group photos of the House prosecution panel surfaced on social media.

“The Senate session hall is sacred because this is where we deliberate on many of our important laws and discuss important issues, so this institution must be respected,” Gatchalian said.

Gatchalian said he had directed the Senate Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) to review closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage to verify the authenticity of images circulating online.

“So I’m having the CCTV footage checked because AI is so prevalent nowadays, to be honest. I just want to make sure that the images are not AI-generated or manipulated using Photoshop,” Gatchalian said in an interview.

He added that he would state once the allegations had been verified.

Gatchalian was also asked about videos showing other individuals, including lawyer Salvador Panelo and a vlogger, dancing in a Senate hallway.

“It is not right to engage in ridiculous behavior inside our institution,” he added.

“If it's real, we'll issue a statement,” he said.

Gatchalian said those involved would be sent letters and issued warnings if the alleged acts were confirmed.

“They will be sent letters and given a warning,” he said.

And, yes, this photo is real. It was an expression of genuine joy according to Batangas Rep. Luistro.

The lead prosecutor of Vice-President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial apologized Thursday for the prosecution team’s wacky photos inside the Senate session hall, which caught the attention of Senate President Win Gatchalian.

Calling it “an expression of joy among genuine friends”, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said prosecutors were excited after resting its case and were looking forward to their first break after 39 days of trial.

She said prosecutors posed for a “serious” photo inside the hall when someone suggested that they do a wacky pose as well.

“It was indeed an expression of joy among genuine friends after long days of preparation and trial,” Luistro said, noting that the prosecution has been together since July 6.

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/10/15/-genuine-joy-luistro-apologizes-for-prosecution-s-wacky-photo-inside-senate-2328

With the dropping of three articles of impeachment and the defense yet to present their case, there is nothing to celebrate. It's far from over. 

Week 14 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial

Week 14 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial featured testimony from the Anti-Money Laundering Council on day one. This testimony is related to allegations of ill-gotten wealth and undeclared assets on her SALN. AMLC Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura testified that between 2011 and 2024 Sara Duterte's bank transactions ran as high as 55 million pesos. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2317346/amlc-witness-bank-reported-dutertes-p9-m-transactions-in-2011-2013

Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank transactions of over P500,000 from 2011 to 2024, including a P55 million interaccount transfer, were reported by various banks to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), its Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura said Monday.

Private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia, during her examination of Buenaventura, pointed to the covered transaction reports (CTRs) of Duterte and her husband, Atty. Manases Carpio, from 2007 to 2025.

CTRs refer to transactions above P500,000.

Referring to AMLC records, Buenaventura testified on the following 24 of the 375 CTRs from the joint bank account of the vice president and former President Rodrigo Duterte:

• Reported by Bank of the Philippine Islands – J Vargas Branch
  • P9,785,744.55, March 9, 2011, debit memo
  • P9,109,644.80, April 8, 2013, over-the-counter cash withdrawal
  • P41,721,035.62, March 28, 2014, interaccount transfer
  • P55,131,747.32, March 28, 2014, interaccount transfer
  • P20,000,000.00, March 28, 2014, interaccount transfer
  • P20,000,000.00, March 28, 2014, interaccount transfer
  • P16,852,832.94, March 28, 2014, interaccount transfer
  • P20,000,000.00, March 28, 2014, interaccount transfer
  • P20,000,000.00, March 28, 2014, interaccount transfer
• Reported by Philippine Savings Bank – Wilson Branch
  • P1,945,265.88, December 26, 2018, time deposit placement debit memo
  • P1,945,265.88, December 26, 2018, time deposit placement credit memo
  • P1,984,235.15, January 23, 2020, time deposit placement debit memo
  • P1,984,235.15, January 23, 2020, time deposit placement credit memo
  • P2,005,340.22, December 28, 2020, time deposit placement debit memo
  • P2,005,340.22, December 28, 2020, time deposit placement credit memo
  • P2,012,498.18, December 23, 2021, time deposit placement debit memo
  • P2,012,498.18, December 23, 2021, time deposit placement credit memo
  • P2,020,879.39, September 22, 2022, time deposit placement debit memo
  • P2,020,879.39, September 22, 2022, time deposit placement credit memo
• Reported by Banko de Oro Unibank – Davao Riza Branch
  • P5,969,000.00, December 20, 2024, over-the-counter cash withdrawal
  • P5,969,000.00, December 20, 2024, over-the-counter cash withdrawal
• Reported by Landbank of the Philippines – San Pedro Branch
  • P2,371,000.00, December 5, 2024, over-the-counter cash withdrawal
• Reported by Metropolitan Bank & Tco-Davecolan
  • P1,700,000.00, December 20, 2024, over-the-counter cheque encashment

In addition, the AMLC records indicated that on April 1, 2014, Duterte purchased a life investment insurance policy worth P20,000,000 from BPI AIA Life Assurance Corp.

Buenaventura also detailed six of the 363 CTRs from Carpio’s accounts. In particular, the prosecution highlighted six of Carpio’s transactions made on a single day.

• Reported by Banko de Oro Unibank – Davao Riza Branch
  • P15,000,000.00, August 6, 2024, over-the-counter cheque encashment
  • P8,000,000.00, August 6, 2024, over-the-counter cheque encashment
• Reported by Philippine National Bank – Davao Branch
  • P5,000,000.00, August 6, 2024, over-the-counter cash withdrawal
  • P5,000,000.00, August 6, 2024, over-the-counter cash withdrawal
  • P3,000,000.00, August 6, 2024, over-the-counter cash withdrawal
  • P5,000,000.00, August 6, 2024, over-the-counter cash withdrawal

Those are massive transactions flagged because they were each over 500,000 pesos. The accounts of both Sara and her husband were flagged due to transactions allegedly linked to the flood control scandal and drug trafficking. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2317479/amlc-sara-duterte-spouse-transactions-linked-to-flood-control-drugs

The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) on Monday disclosed several transactions by Vice President Sara Duterte and her spouse, Atty. Maneses Carpio, that were flagged for allegedly being related to the flood control scandal and drug trafficking.

During the 33rd day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, AMLC Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura disclosed several suspicious transaction reports (STRs) before the Senate Impeachment Court while being questioned by private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia.

STRs refer to reports filed by covered institutions on transactions that exhibit specific red flags or irregularities under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, regardless of the amount involved.

Among the STRs revealed during the trial were premium payments made to The Mercantile Insurance Co. on July 4, 2019, and Nov. 15, 2019.

“Based on records, as reported by the covered person, the reason indicated is graft and corrupt practices,” Buenaventura said.

Asked what the narrative was, or the explanation behind the suspicion, Buenaventura said the following:

“Several news outlets recently released a list of individuals and corporations identified as being involved in the DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) flood control issue, prompting the filing of an STR.”

Meanwhile, another STR, dated Aug. 1, 2024, linked Duterte’s husband, Mans Carpio, to drug trafficking, particularly PSBank accounts under his name, which were flagged following criminal complaints tied to a 2017 P6.4-billion shabu smuggling case.

Among the accused in the said case, based on the STR narrative, was Carpio, who owned two separate PSBank accounts, one peso and one dollar account.

“Both accounts were still active, with average daily balances for the past six months amounting to P519,787.44 and USD6,411.05, respectively,” the narrative read, which was likewise based on press accounts.

Another STR, dated Dec. 5, 2024, also flagged transactions Duterte allegedly committed for malversation of public funds and property.

“The client is alleged to have misappropriated confidential funds to her office,” Buenaventura said in reading the STR explanation, which also directly cited various news reports.

The STR narrative also cited COA’s disallowance of P73 million in confidential funds in 2022 under Duterte’s office.

At the end of last week former Senator Trillanes alleged that Sara Duterte had received millions of pesos from China. She vehemently denied that allegation but testimony from the AMLC seems to have vindicated Trillanes. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2317576/trillanes-vindicated-anew-amlc-says-carpio-firm-got-p319-m-from-china

It appears that former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV has been vindicated again, as a government official has confirmed the food company owned by lawyer Manases Carpio, husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, got funds over P319 million from China.

At Duterte’s impeachment trial on Monday, counsel for the prosecution Mae Divinagracia asked Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura about the total amount of inward financial transactions involving Carpio’s CALE88 Foods Corp., or money that came from mainland China and Hong Kong to the said company.

In response, Buenaventura said it is P319,326,770.41 — an amount that is close to the figure provided by Trillanes during a press briefing last Friday.

“Let’s go to Table 5 of your summary, based on your summary, Table 5, and the CTRs (covered transactions report) and STRs (suspicious transactions report) of CALE88, how much was the entire value of remittances from China that CALE88 received?” Divinagracia asked.

“The entire value, your Honor, the aggregate amount placed under aggregate Letter c, aggregate PHP with subtotal a, what was indicated in our tabular summary is P319,326,770.41, your Honor.  Based on the records, our tabular summary records,” Buenaventura said.

“‘The title of Table 5 your Honors is the CTRs pertaining to inward remittances to CALE88 Foods Corporation from (a) China and (b) other countries, (Item 5) your Honor,” he added.

Aside from this the table also showed that there are a total of 143 CTRs and three STRs on CALE88; 141 of the 143 CTRs were financial transactions from China and two from Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, all three STRs involved transactions from China.

Buenaventura, during the hearing of the House of Representatives’ committee on justice on the two impeachment complaints against Duterte, explained that covered transactions referred to bank transactions over P500,000, which banks report to AMLC.

Suspicious transactions, meanwhile, refer to those whose amounts are not determined, but were reported by banks because there is something questionable in terms of how funds were sourced.

There are other CTRs recorded by AMLC outside of China, including 13 from Ukraine, six each from Russia and Kazakhstan, four from Lithuania, two each from Tajikistan and South Africa, and one each from the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

All in all, there are 178 CTRs and three STRs, representing a total amount of P368.8 million worth of transactions.

Regarding the suspicious transactions from China, Buenaventura said that these were flagged because “there is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose, or economic justification.”

Trillanes signified his desire to testify before the Senate Impeachment Court, but eventually withdrew to supposedly relieve the prosecution panel of pressure.  Instead, the former senator presented his would have been testimony during a press conference in San Juan last Friday.

One of the items that Trillanes discussed was the alleged P319 million that went into CALE88 — despite having a paid-up capital of P125,000 from 2021 to 2025, having low electricity costs, and no rank-and-file employees.

Trillanes said that the P319 million was sent by Chinese firms in tranches, from 2023 to 2025.

Meanwhile, the Tapang at Malasakit Foundation, which Duterte listed herself as an incorporator in her 2022 Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, reportedly received a P150 million donation from the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines in 2019.

All of these transactions add up to more than Sara Duterte's declared wealth for that time period. The AMLC executive said he could not the discrepancy. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2318505/amlc-exec-stumped-by-gap-in-sara-duterte-saln-vs-bank-records

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura admitted on Tuesday that he could not explain the gap between Vice President Sara Duterte’s declared net worth and reported financial transactions involving her and husband Manases Carpio.

Raising the “absurd possibility” of adding Duterte’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) from 2022 to 2025, Presiding Officer and Sen. Francis Escudero came up with a total of P336 million.

This figure, however, was still short of the P424 million that reportedly went in and out of the couple’s bank accounts during  the same period, Escudero said, citing AMLC records submitted to  the Senate impeachment court.

“It still did not reach P424 million. Meaning to say, assuming that nothing was spent from all of their assets and everything was deposited in the bank, it still would not reach this amount,” Escudero pointed out, while asking questions to AMLC Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura.

Buenaventura was presented by the prosecution in relation to allegations that Duterte had amasses unexplained wealth and failed to declare all her assets in her SALNs.

“In your opinion—and I’ll ask again, in the realm of possibilities—what would explain this huge amount? Is it possible that it was simply money going in and out?” he asked the witness.

Noticing that Buenaventura was struggling to respond to his question,  Escudero surmised that that the witness could not explain the gap. 

The witness agreed, saying: “I cannot explain it.” 

Escudero further pressed the witness to explain how the couple’s transactions could have amounted to P424 million when the vice president’s monthly salary was only P350,000.

“Apologies po your your honor, I cannot explain,”  Buenaventura answered.

Escudero raised the same questions on the reported P4.4 billion combined transactions of the couple from 2007 to 2025. 

“Again, I bring it to its absurd point. We tried to add to all of the amounts in the combined Salns for those covered period of 2007 to 2025, it totaled only P840 million,” he said.

“In the realm of possibilities again, can you explain how it could reach that amount knowing that the highest salary in 2025 was at P98 million and the lowest salary in 2007 was at P7 million?  Can you explain it, Sir?”

Buenaventura said he would not be able to explain or answer  the question as he just relying on their  records.

When Escudero asked again if he could think of any possible explanation, the witness said, “I’m also having some difficulty explaining it.”

“So you also cannot explain why the amount reached P4.4 billion, based on the data I relayed to you regarding the SALNs?” the presiding officer asked further.

“I cannot answer that, Your Honor,” the  AMLC official said.

However, suspicious transactions do not prove illegal activity according to the AMLC. 

Testimony was also heard from BPI Central Metro Manila Branches division head Marwin Galvez. Sara Duterte and her Father Rodrigo Duterte had a shared account which exhibited patterns consistent with  concealment of finances. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2319161/prosecution-seeks-to-show-dutertes-hid-p96m-via-unused-managers-checks

The prosecution on Wednesday attempted to show a pattern of concealment involving around P96 million in funds from a Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) account jointly held by Vice President Sara Duterte and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.

Prosecution counsel James Bryan Ibrahim Alih traced a series of manager’s checks that remained unutilized and were subsequently returned, saying the transactions showed how the funds could be moved out of the account without appearing in its year-end balance.

The prosecution first traced P41.72 million from a time deposit that matured in March 2011 and was used to purchase a manager’s check.

Noting that a manager’s check becomes stale if unutilized after six months, Alih later cited records showing the same amount was used to purchase another manager’s check in October 2011.

Defense counsel Michael Poa objected, questioning the relevance of presenting the transactions.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero agreed, saying that they dated back to 2011.

“Where is this leading to, counsel?” Escudero asked.

“Without preempting the prosecution panel, may I venture a guess where this is headed? You’re trying to establish a pattern aimed at proving concealment,” Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson said.

Alih agreed, saying, “That’s what we’re trying to say, Your Honor, we’re trying to establish a pattern. Apologies that it takes quite some time because I wanted to do it right with the documents.”

“But the point eventually is that the manager’s checks being circulated were not reflected in the year-end balance because the funds were still floating,” Alih explained.

Through the interjections of Escudero, BPI Central Metro Manila Branches division head Marwin Galvez explained that when a manager’s check is issued, the amount is deducted from the purchaser’s account and transferred to the bank’s settlement account, which is separate from the client’s account.

According to Galvez, the funds remain in the settlement account to back the manager’s check while it remains outstanding.

If the manager’s check lapses without being used and is returned to the bank, Galvez said the funds may be returned to the purchaser’s account.

After the clarification, Escudero ruled to allow Alih in his presentation.

Alih, however, opted to dispense with the matter and said, “I guess, given that there was already a clarification on that matter, to save the Court’s time, I would move on from that P41 million, Your Honor,”

“Because this is already part of the records, so that I don’t have to go through this, Your Honor, a similar time deposit that became a manager’s check in the amount of P55 million was also running during the same years, simultaneously with this P41 [million], bringing the total to P96 million.”

Sen. Bam Aquino, sitting as a senator-judge, later asked Galvez whether the “scheme” of purchasing manager’s checks and leaving them unutilized was a known method of “keeping money.”

Galvez also told Aquino that “there are instances, Your Honor, when a client purchases a manager’s check but does not use it.”

Aquino said, “Sorry, do you mean it is used or deliberately not used?”

“‘The point of the prosecution is that the manager’s checks were deliberately left unused to make the funds disappear from the account and then return. Is this a normal practice, or is this just a theory of the prosecution, or is this actually done by people in the banking industry?” the senator-judge pressed further.

Later, to further support their claim of a pattern of concealment, Alih presented documents showing that the manager’s checks were subsequently purchased in October 2011, April 2012, October 2012, April 2013, and October 2013—six months apart, or the validity of a manager’s check.

Alih pointed out that the P96 million that had “floated” over the years appeared to have later been used to purchase four P20-million insurance plans from Philam Life, as shown in the instruction letters dated March 2014.

“What was the purpose of the authorization to transfer?” Alih asked Galvez.

“Based on the account specified in the instruction, the authority to transfer was to debit account 9539 and transfer the funds to BPI’s settlement account for BPI-Philam Life Insurance Corporation,” Galvez replied.

Galvez also confirmed that the transfers were used to purchase the four P20-million plans, based on the instruction letters.

Meanwhile, Alih also presented Manager’s Check No. 20536 dated May 30, 2016 that showed that the remaining P16 million was eventually paid to Sammy Uy.

This, according to Alih, “completes” the P96 million that the prosecution attempts to show that the Dutertes allegedly tried to hide. 

It would appear that both Sara and her father were involved in a scheme to hide money. The point of this testimony was to establish a pattern that Sara has long been concerned with hiding both her wealth and its sources. That is something the defense will have to address when it comes time to present their case. 

According to one witness Sara's unexplained wealth amounts to 817.87 million pesos. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2320698/vp-dutertes-total-unexplained-wealth-at-p817-87m-witness-report

The table prepared by prosecution witness, lawyer and accountant Alexander Cabrera, alleges that Vice President Sara Duterte had a total unexplained wealth of P817.87 million from 2022 to 2025.

On Friday, day 37 of Duterte’s trial, House Prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno led the direct examination of Cabrera, whom the prosecution sought to establish as an expert witness.

After being furnished with the financial records of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, along with the businesses linked to them, Cabrera prepared a forensic report. Cabrera presented tables before the impeachment court.

“We prepared a summary of the findings, if I’m not mistaken, in Table 39,” Cabrera told the impeachment court.

“Your Honor, I will be showing Table 39, which is shown in the report itself; it’s not a summary but from the report itself,” Diokno said.

Total undeclared assets and income were said to be at P190.63 million in 2022; P167.38 million in 2023; P263.22 million in 2024; and P195.70 million in 2025.

Cabrera explained that included in his report were the years 2022 to 2025 as “These are the years when Vice President Sara Duterte was serving as vice president."

Cabrera’s testimony was offered to tie together and present the “bigger picture” for the prosecution’s presentation of Impeachment Article II that alleges Duterte amassed unexplained wealth; did not fully or truthfully declare all her assets, liabilities, and net worth in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN); and failed to divest her business interests during her tenure as vice president.

That's 817.87 million explanations needed from Sara and her defense team. Because of time constraints impeachment  Article 3 which concerns allegations of bribery has been dropped by the prosecution. That leaves lawyer and accountant Alexander Cabrera as the prosecution's final witness in this trial. Once they have submitted a written formal offer of evidence the defense will begin making their case to the court. 

Week 13 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial

Week 13 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial saw the first scheduled full week of testimony. That's five days rather than the normal three days allotted by the Senate. However, Wednesday was set aside for a strategic pause. The reason being so both sides can prepare for the next two weeks of full day marathon sessions. 

“The Impeachment Court is not pausing because it is behind; it is pausing because the Court is aggressively ahead of schedule. Since opening Article II on September 14, the proceedings have advanced at a rigorous pace, with the prosecution already presenting six witnesses in an eight-day span that demonstrates a clear commitment to moving the trial forward without unnecessary stalling through highly focused presentation of evidence,” Tongol said in a statement.

“Tomorrow is a deliberate Strategic Procedural Pause designed to clear the floor so both panels can prepare for the grueling, whole-day (10:00 AM to 6:30 PM) marathon sessions running continuously from October 1 to 15,” he added.

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/1004181/senate-impeachment-court-cancels-hearing-on-wednesday-for-strategic-pause/story/

If they aren't prepared by now they will never be prepared. 

The first day featured testimony about the number of weapons owned by Sara and her husband. They own 51 guns some of which are class A weapons which are not for the public unless they were purchased before the date that restriction became law. Some Senators questioned the relevancy of this testimony but the question had to do with accusations of unexplained wealth and Sara not declaring 30 firearms on her SALN.

The most anticipated testimony this week came from Sara's brother, Davao Mayor Baste Duterte. He was questioned about Gencorp which was award several contracts under his term and in which Sara Duterte has an interest. He claimed he had never heard of GenCorp until the trial. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2313409/baste-duterte-quizzed-over-govt-deals-with-sara-duterte-linked-firm

Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte was grilled on Tuesday over the city government’s deals with GenCorp Industries  Inc that his sister, Vice President Sara Duterte, declared in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. 

Baste Duterte was declared a hostile witness by the Senate impeachment court trying the case of the vice president. 

In his direct examination of the witness, public prosecutor Theodore Te zeroed in on the mayor’s public statement on September 21 that GenCorp  “was rigorously evaluated and determined to have submitted the lowest calculated responsive bid or offer.”

Baste Duterte confirmed making the statement when asked by the prosecutor.

Te next showed the impeachment court a request for quotation by Davao City for  the second quarter of 2024 which contained an item  under “Line of Business,” saying that “the supplier must have a certificate issued by the CMO through the head of business bureau indicating that the line of business has been operational for at least five years in the market and shall be submitted as part of the eligibility documents.”

Still responding to the prosecutor’s query, the mayor confirmed that the 5-year  period was a requirement imposed by the local government to interested bidders.

“So, I’ll go back to your statement, sir. You said that you had  rigorously evaluated GenCorp Industries Incorporated. So, in that evaluation, sir, were you able to determine if GenCorp indeed complied with this particular requirement imposed by the City of Davao?” Te then asked. 

“I do not know that as of now. We can check our records in the city,” the hostile witness said.

When Te pressed further whether he had personal knowledge that GenCorp has been in existence for at least five years, Baste Duterte answered: I do not know. It is presumed that GenCorp has complied.” 

Te thanked the witness for volunteering the statement that “it is presumed that GenCorp has complied” with the requirement.

(And so, when you say that, sir, that’s not part of the rigorous evaluation that you made for GenCorp?” the prosecutor  pointed out.

At this point, defense lawyer Justin Nicol Gular interjected, saying the question was argumentative.

“Your Honor, I’m simply using the witness’ own statement, Your Honor,”  the prosecutor said.

Baste Duterte also maintained that GenCorp had  19 contracts with Davao City, contrary to the 15 deals recorded by the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS.)

Testifying for the prosecution on Monday, PhilGEPS Electronic Government Procurement Operations Division chief Rendell Sopeña said GenCorp had 15 deals worth  P34. 216 million with Davao City, but only four went through  public bidding. 

The remaining 11 according to Sopeña,  were awarded  to the company  “through negotiated small-value procurement.”

How is it the Mayor does not know what's happening in his own city? Through the power of delegated authority. 

https://www.dzrh.com.ph/post/baste-duterte-confirms-delegated-authority-for-city-contracts

Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte confirmed during the 31st day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial that he had delegated authority to a city official to sign contracts on his behalf.

During direct examination by House private prosecutor Theodore “Ted” Te, Baste acknowledged that Attorney Tristan Dwight Domingo, the Davao City Assistant City Administrator for Administration, had been authorized to sign awards and contracts for the city under his delegated authority as mayor.

Te asked whether Domingo had the authority to sign contracts for the City of Davao on his behalf.

“Yes. I named him as my representative,” Baste said.

Baste also confirmed that the authority was formally delegated to Domingo and that contracts signed by the city official were executed under the mayor’s authority, including his authority as head of the procuring entity.

Te then asked whether the delegation was made so Baste would not have to personally sign every contract subjected to bidding, allowing him to devote more time to his other responsibilities as mayor.

“That is true,” Baste replied.

However, when Te asked whether he was personally aware of all the contracts signed by Domingo on his behalf, Baste clarified that he was not aware of every transaction.

Asked whether there were contracts signed by Domingo that he had not personally seen, Baste explained that he would become aware of a transaction if it reached his table or if there was an irregularity.

“No, if it comes to my table. Yes, I would be aware of it. If there is an irregularity, then I would be aware of it,” Baste said.

Te then connected Baste’s testimony to contracts previously mentioned in the proceedings, noting that the documents covered by his statement dated September 21 did not carry his personal signature.

“That’s correct,” Baste confirmed.

He likewise confirmed that the contracts were signed by Domingo pursuant to the delegated authority granted by the mayor.

“Yes,” Baste said.

When Te asked whether he had revoked Domingo’s signing authority, Baste answered, “No.”

Te then clarified that Domingo continued to possess the authority to sign contracts on behalf of the mayor.

“Yes,” Baste replied.

Baste’s testimony formed part of the prosecution’s examination into transactions involving the Davao City government and companies linked to the impeachment allegations against his sister, Vice President Sara Duterte.

It's odd that Baste says he never heard of GenCorp until the trial. Yet he knows there were 19 contracts and not 15. Perhaps he researched all that information in the few days between hearing of GenCorp and testifying. While plausible that Sara never disclosed her business interests to Baste, delegating authority does not relieve him of any responsibility as to contract procurements. The buck stops with him.

https://mb.com.ph/2026/09/29/baste-duterte-admits-the-buck-stops-with-him-on-davao-city-contracts

Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte has admitted before senator-judges that he is the final accountable officer for city government procurement despite delegating his contract-signing authority to another official.

“You are aware, Mr. Mayor, that delegating your signing authority to Atty. Domingo does not delegate your accountability as the HOPE,” Te said.

“Of course,” Mayor Duterte replied.

“You are still the final accountable officer,” Te followed up, to which the witness answered in the affirmative.

Needless to say his testimony was found to be incredulous by the prosecution.

Adiong, spokesperson of the prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte impeachment trial, is particularly incredulous over the Davao mayor's claim that he was unaware of his Vice President-sister's financial interest in Gencorp Industries Inc., which secured millions of pesos in contracts from the city.

“We were not born yesterday. We know that a mayor is familiar with the ins and outs of his city,” Adiong said in a post-hearing press conference Tuesday.

Adiong said the volume of documents passing through the mayor’s office did not excuse him from knowing about transactions involving the city government.

“Signing of voluminous papers does not give one an excuse to be blinded, especially on matters relating to the economy of his own constituents,” he said.

https://mb.com.ph/2026/09/29/cong-zia-reacts-to-mayor-bastes-impeachment-trial-testimony-we-were-not-born-yesterday

As mentioned Wednesday's testimony was paused to give time for the defense and prosecution to prepare for all day testimony on Thursday and Friday. 

On Thursday Sara Duterte's undeclared properties were entered into the record. 

https://mb.com.ph/2026/10/01/cost-of-alleged-undeclared-duterte-properties-life-changing-to-common-pinoys-says-prosecutor

To ordinary Filipinos, the million-peso properties being discussed in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial represent life-changing money. 

Solon-prosecutor Bukidnon 2nd district Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores underscored this on Thursday, Oct. 1 in a bid to give context to the ongoing discussions on article II, which covered the respondent's alleged unexplained wealth. 

Flores made the point as the prosecution panel presented land registration records on two properties involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases "Mans" Carpio, with acquisition prices totaling about P9.45 million.

“Some may say this is only a few million pesos, but for ordinary Filipinos, P6 million is already a huge amount," Flores told senator-judges while presenting records on a property in Matina, Davao City.

Laywer Kathy Florence Baldonado from the Davao City Register of Deeds testified that the 379-square-meter property was purchased for P6 million in July 2024 and registered to Carpio, who is married to Duterte.

During the comparison of the land records with Duterte’s 2025 statement of assest, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), no entry could immediately be identified as matching the P6-million purchase.

However, the defense argued that the Matina property may correspond to one of the assets declared in the SALN.

Flores reiterated his point when prosecutors presented records involving another property, this time in the Island Garden City of Samal, purchased for P3,453,849 in 2018.

“Some may say, again, that this is only a few million pesos, but for others, P3.4 million is already a huge amount, Your Honor," said the prosecutor.

Acting Samal Register of Deeds lawyer Marco Pineda testified that the property was covered by an active and uncancelled title registered to Carpio.

When the 2018 Deed of Absolute Sale was compared with Duterte’s 2019 SALN based on the acquisition year, location, and value, Pineda said he could find no corresponding entry that perfectly matched the property.

“Nothing matches the land described in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 2018, sir,” Pineda told the Senate impeachment court. 

Article Ii accuses Duterte of failing to fully and truthfully disclose her and her spouse’s assets, liabilities, and net worth. 

This is another lapse the defense will have to explain. 

But, once again, testimony was cancelled for the next day, Friday. Thursday was also curt short so the defense could peruse financial documents.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2315160/impeachment-trial-ends-early-over-late-amlc-docs-confidential-mark

Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial ended early on Thursday due to concerns raised by her defense team, including the confidentiality of documents submitted by a prosecution witness.

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Atty. Ronel Buenaventura was scheduled to testify for the prosecution on Thursday in connection with allegations that Duterte had amassed unexplained wealth and failed to declare it in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

However, Duterte’s lead defense counsel, Shiela Sison, informed the court that they had received the AMLC summaries only on Thursday morning.

“We just noticed that this document consists of the summaries, including the cover letter submitted by the Executive Director of the Secretariat of the Anti-Money Laundering Council, Atty. Ronel Buenaventura, consisting of 11 pages, actually has on each and every page of this document a strictly confidential mark,” Sison said. “And this repeats in the entire submission, including the accompanying summaries identified as Annex A and so on and so forth.” 

“There is also a portion in the cover letter dated October 1, 2026 of the Executive Director of AMLC addressed to the lead of the panel of the prosecutors explicitly saying that the AMLC is not waiving the confidentiality of AMLC records,” she added.

House prosecutor Chel Diokno disputed Sison’s claim, saying that the AMLC documents were provided to the defense team on Sept. 2. 

“That is, I believe, enough time for them to have produced the documents and prepared for the presentation of the witness from the AMLC,” Diokno said.

Senator-judge Vicente “Tito” Sotto III expressed strong reservations about postponing the proceedings.

“I am not aware of what the presiding officer’s ruling would be, but I have very strong reservations about postponing any proceedings this afternoon because all this time, I thought that the prosecution and the defense have been ready with this since July, since the time we took the oath. And they already know what’s coming, right?” Sotto said.

“So I don’t think many would enjoy a postponement only because they were not given proper time. This was since July, and I understand September too, the defense was given,” he added.

In the end, the Senate Impeachment Court granted the defense team’s request for ample time to prepare for the direct and cross-examinations of the AMLC witness.

“On the requested time of the respondent or counsel for respondent to prepare adequately for the AMLC, I believe this is only the first time that this is being done in excess of the day,” Presiding Officer and Sen. Francis Escudero said.

“So, ex comitate, ex aequo, out of courtesy and equity, the chair grants the time requested by the counsel for respondent for time to prepare for the direct and cross-examination of the AMLC witness on Monday,” he added.

The 32nd day of the trial on Thursday was supposed to be the first full day of proceedings, scheduled from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. However, the court adjourned the session at 3:30 p.m.

The court also canceled Friday’s trial and decided to resume proceedings next week to hear the testimonies of officials from financial institutions. 

Senator Sotto is right. The defense and prosecution have had more than adequate time to prepare for these documents. As stated at the beginning, if they aren't prepared now they will never be prepared.