After 38 days of presenting evidence, the House prosecution told the Senate impeachment court that it would no longer pursue three of the four Articles of Impeachment. Articles I, III and IV are out. Article II, the charge involving alleged unexplained wealth, incomplete SALN disclosures and continued business interests, is now the sole basis on which prosecutors are asking the Senate to remove Duterte from office.

For the public, the case has become easier to follow, but not necessarily easier to decide. The prosecution has placed financial records at the center of its case. The defense has not yet presented its evidence on Article II.

Here are the five developments that matter from Day 39.

1. Prosecutors put everything on Article II

Lead House prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro told the impeachment court that prosecutors would drop Article I on alleged misuse of confidential funds, Article III on alleged bribery involving Department of Education officials, and Article IV involving alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

“It will only stand on one: Article II of unexplained wealth,” Luistro told the court.

She said the prosecution believed the evidence already presented was enough to support removal for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. That remains the prosecution’s position, not a finding by the impeachment court.

Article II accuses Duterte of amassing wealth allegedly disproportionate to lawful income, failing to fully disclose assets and interests in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs), and failing to divest from business interests while serving as Vice President.

The change means senator-judges will no longer vote on Articles I, III or IV. Conviction or acquittal will turn on Article II.

2. The three withdrawn articles did not all leave the court in the same way

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero accepted the prosecution’s request, but his ruling drew an important distinction.

Articles I and IV were withdrawn with prejudice. Prosecutors had already completed their presentation of evidence on those charges. Escudero said they cannot be revived, refiled, reprosecuted or transmitted again against Duterte in an impeachment case during the same term.

Article III was withdrawn without prejudice because prosecutors had not presented evidence on the bribery allegation. Escudero said it cannot be revived in this particular trial, although withdrawal without prejudice leaves open the possibility of another proceeding subject to applicable law.

The court also lifted its Rule 18 restrictions on public discussion of the three abandoned articles because their merits are no longer pending before the impeachment court.

Withdrawal is not the same as an acquittal on the facts. Neither is it proof that the allegations were true. Those three articles will no longer be decided by the senator-judges in this trial.

3. The defense says it was denied the chance to answer accusations already aired in public

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison objected to the consequences of the withdrawal.

The prosecution had already presented evidence under Articles I and IV. The defense had expected to call its own witnesses and challenge that evidence. With those articles gone, Escudero ruled that Duterte’s defense presentation will be limited to Article II.

Sison argued that prosecutors should not be allowed to present accusations and evidence before the public, then withdraw the charges before the defense gets its opportunity to rebut them in court.

She also warned that if the purpose of dropping the articles was to shorten the proceedings at the expense of the defense’s presentation, the process could have “unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial.”

Escudero defended the lifting of Rule 18, saying Duterte would now be free to answer those allegations outside the impeachment court, subject to any other applicable court orders.

Day 39 produced two competing arguments about fairness. Prosecutors say they are entitled to narrow their case. The defense says dropping allegations after weeks of testimony leaves accusations in the public record without allowing Duterte to rebut them before the senator-judges.

4. The remaining case revolves around an alleged PHP 817.87 million financial gap

Article II now carries the entire prosecution case.

Financial forensic analyst and lawyer Alexander Cabrera, the prosecution’s final witness on the article, calculated PHP 817,874,867 in what he described as alleged undeclared assets and income involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, from 2022 through 2025.

The figure is important, but it needs the correct label. It is Cabrera’s forensic computation presented by the prosecution, not PHP 817.87 million that the Senate has already ruled to be illegally acquired or unexplained wealth.

His analysis included alleged undeclared cash, personal and real property, income discrepancies and amounts attributed to business interests. Among the figures presented were PHP 143.50 million in allegedly undeclared personal and real properties and PHP 111.85 million in alleged income discrepancies.

Cabrera described his approach as conservative. Other reporting on his testimony said the possible discrepancy could reach about PHP 1.5 billion under broader calculations. The lower PHP 817.87 million figure is therefore the safer number to use when describing the amount Cabrera actually tabulated before the court.

House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno argued that the strength of Article II is that much of the evidence did not originate with prosecution witnesses. He said bank records came from the banks, while other records came from agencies such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) pursuant to the impeachment proceedings.

That does not prove the prosecution’s interpretation of those records. It does mean that the defense will now have to address the documents and the computations built from them.

5. The next date to watch is October 23

Day 39 also set the timetable for what comes next.

The prosecution has until October 23 to submit its formal offer of evidence for Article II. The defense then gets 10 days from receipt to comment and object. Duterte has been given 26 calendar days from October 13 to prepare her presentation of evidence.

The trial resumes on November 9.

Escudero announced additional November hearing dates on November 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 23 as the Senate works around budget deliberations, holidays and other congressional business.

The prosecution’s claims are about to pass through another filter. Evidence presented during testimony is not automatically the same thing as evidence ultimately admitted and considered by the impeachment court.

What Sara Duterte said

Duterte interpreted the withdrawal very differently from the prosecution.

She said dropping the bribery article supported her position that prosecutors lacked evidence and maintained that the accusations against her had been fabricated.

She also rejected the possibility of stepping down.

“I will not resign, will never resign from the Office of the Vice President,” Duterte told reporters.

Duterte reiterated that she intends to run for president in 2028 and described the impeachment proceedings as an opportunity for voters to scrutinize her.

Those statements are the Vice President’s claims and political position. They do not resolve the evidence under Article II.

What netizens are saying

Online discussion immediately centered on whether dropping three articles was a retreat or a strategy.

In Reddit discussions, some users welcomed the prosecution’s decision because, in their view, concentrating on one article would shorten the proceedings and force attention onto financial records. Several commenters described Article II as the stronger case because it involves bank records and SALNs rather than disputes over testimony or language.

Others speculated that the move was intended to prevent the defense from stretching the trial through additional witnesses and cross-examinations.

There was confusion too. Some users asked why prosecutors would abandon three charges after spending weeks presenting evidence. Others questioned whether one article alone would be enough for removal.

Supporters of Duterte also viewed the withdrawal as evidence of weakness in the prosecution’s case. They echoed the defense’s concern that accusations had been aired publicly without giving Duterte an opportunity to respond to them in court.

These comments should not be treated as a measure of Filipino public opinion. Social media discussions are self-selecting, and the reactions visible on any particular platform may lean heavily toward certain political positions.

What the comments show is where part of the online argument has moved: away from whether all four impeachment articles can be proven, and toward whether the financial evidence under Article II can survive the defense’s challenge.

One article, and a much clearer test

Three articles disappearing from the case makes for a dramatic headline. But October 23 may tell us more about where this trial is going.

That is when prosecutors must formally offer the documents they want the senator-judges to consider under Article II. After that, the defense gets its turn to object, explain the transactions and challenge Cabrera’s calculations.

The PHP 817.87 million figure is still an allegation built from the prosecution’s analysis. The Senate has not yet decided that the amount is unexplained wealth.

For citizens following the case, this is the record worth watching: Which financial documents does the court admit? What do those documents actually show? And when the defense begins on November 9, can it account for the discrepancies the prosecution says it found?

The trial has gone from four accusations to one. From here, the numbers need to speak for themselves.

Financial forensic analyst Alexander Cabrera gave that reply when defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer questioned him about confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act during Day 38 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

The exchange drew reactions online, but the bigger story was in the financial records.

An alleged 817.87 million in undeclared assets and income. ?41 million withdrawn in just 73 minutes. Business interests and properties that may not have been fully disclosed in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).

These were among the matters examined by the Senate impeachment court on October 12, 2026.

Cabrera, a lawyer and certified public accountant, was the House prosecution’s final witness. His financial report covers the records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, from 2022 to 2025.

The defense questioned the reliability of his findings, the documents he examined and his qualifications as a forensic accounting expert.

Here are five highlights from Day 38.

1. The 817.87-million discrepancy: What the financial records show

Cabrera’s report identified approximately ?817.87 million in allegedly undeclared assets and income associated with Duterte and Carpio between 2022 and 2025.

The findings covered several categories:

• 207.70 million in allegedly undeclared cash balances.
• 143.50 million in allegedly undeclared real and personal properties.
• 111.85 million in allegedly undeclared personal income.
• 142.20 million in income associated with Cale 88 Foods Corp. and Metro Chow King Food Corp.
• 212.63 million in income associated with Gencorp Industries Inc., a company linked to Jollibee franchises in Davao City.

The financial analysis compared SALNs with banking records, tax filings and corporate disclosures.

Cabrera maintained that the calculations represented the results of his examination rather than unsupported accusations.

During cross-examination, Ferrer repeatedly referred to alleged business interests. Cabrera objected to that characterization.

“Wala pong nakalagay na ‘alleged’ sa report ko po.”

But Cabrera’s confidence in his calculations does not make the alleged discrepancies established violations of the law.

The Senate must still determine whether the financial records support the prosecution’s conclusions and consider any evidence offered by the defense.

There is also a distinction between undeclared assets, unreported income and unexplained wealth. They are related issues, but the legal findings depend on the evidence supporting each allegation.

2. The defense questions Cabrera’s financial investigation

One of the most substantive parts of the cross-examination concerned the documents Cabrera did not examine.

Ferrer established that Cabrera had not obtained financial documents directly from Duterte and Carpio or interviewed their personal accountants and corporate auditors.

Cabrera explained that his team relied on documents provided through the prosecution, including banking, tax and corporate records.

“Kung ano po ‘yong naibigay lamang sa’min, ‘yon lamang ang aming puwedeng pagbasehan,” he said.

He also acknowledged that his team had approximately three weeks to examine subpoenaed banking records received in September, although the broader financial analysis began months earlier.

The defense questioned whether that period was sufficient for an examination involving numerous accounts and corporate transactions.

Ferrer also challenged the basis for Cabrera’s conclusions about Duterte’s reported 20 percent interest in Gencorp Industries.

Cabrera acknowledged that his team had not examined the company’s stock certificates, stock and transfer book or franchise agreements. He maintained that his calculations were based on the available documents.

These admissions give the defense grounds to challenge the completeness of the investigation. They do not automatically invalidate the banking and corporate records already submitted.

The prosecution argues that the documents establish discrepancies requiring explanation. The defense maintains that an examination without complete source records can lead to inaccurate conclusions.

If additional financial records exist that could explain the discrepancies, they may affect how the Senate evaluates Cabrera’s findings.

3. 41 million withdrawn in 73 minutes: Why the transactions raised questions

One of the day’s most striking financial details involved ?41 million in cash withdrawals and encashments completed within one hour and 13 minutes.

The transactions occurred on August 6, 2024, and were identified in Table 24 of Cabrera’s report.

During questioning by Senator Risa Hontiveros, Cabrera described the speed and volume of the transactions as unusual.

“Sa ordinaryong tao po, unusual po. PHP41 million in cash, kailangan nyo po siyempre ng bag po doon,” he said.

Cabrera also explained why large cash withdrawals receive particular attention during financial investigations.

“Pero pagka po kasi cash, ibig sabihin, ayaw po ng trail.”

His statement reflected his interpretation of the transactions. It did not establish that the individuals involved intended to conceal money.

The issue for investigators is whether the withdrawals had legitimate purposes, who ultimately received the cash and whether supporting documents can account for the transactions.

The size of the withdrawals warrants examination. But cash withdrawals, even unusually large ones, are not automatically evidence of money laundering or unlawful enrichment.

The Senate will need to evaluate the transaction records and any explanations submitted by the defense.

4. NBI videos put Duterte-linked properties under scrutiny

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo introduced another issue during the hearing when he played National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) videos showing two large properties allegedly connected to Duterte and her family.

One property had two swimming pools.

The videos came from a separate NBI investigation into possible property acquisitions linked to allegations involving cash deliveries.

Tulfo questioned whether the properties shown in the footage appeared in Duterte’s SALNs.

He also referred to a parcel of agricultural land in Barangay Santo Niño, Island Garden City of Samal, with a reported acquisition cost of ?200,000.

Cabrera declined to make an immediate assessment of the videos without examining the relevant documents.

That was an important limitation. Aerial footage may show buildings and other improvements, but it cannot establish legal ownership, acquisition costs or the source of funds.

Those questions require land titles, tax declarations, transaction documents and verified financial records.

The NBI investigation and the Senate impeachment proceedings are separate processes. Evidence presented in one does not automatically prove the allegations being examined in the other.

For now, the properties remain part of an investigation, not an established finding of undeclared wealth.

5. Prosecutors abandon the bribery article as the defense prepares its case

The House prosecution has decided to withdraw Article III of the impeachment complaint, which involved allegations that Duterte bribed Department of Education officials to influence procurement decisions.

The panel informed the Senate impeachment court of its decision through a manifestation filed on October 6.

House prosecutor Jonathan Keith Flores explained that the prosecution wanted to shorten the proceedings and concentrate on the remaining articles.

Article II, involving alleged unexplained wealth, inaccurate SALNs and continued business interests, was the last article for which prosecutors presented evidence.

Article I concerns the alleged misuse of ?500 million in confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President and ?112.5 million under the Department of Education.

Questions also remained about whether additional military witnesses would be summoned in connection with Article I.

The withdrawal of Article III is significant because the prosecution will no longer seek a Senate conviction on that particular charge.

However, the decision does not amount to a finding that the bribery allegations were false. Prosecutors have said those allegations could still be referred to appropriate government agencies for separate investigation.

After Cabrera’s cross-examination ended, the prosecution opted not to conduct a redirect examination.

With its final witness finished, the prosecution was preparing to formally offer its evidence and address outstanding procedural matters before the defense presents its case.

Netizen reactions: Praise for Cabrera, criticism of courtroom tactics

The exchanges between Ferrer and Cabrera attracted considerable attention in online discussions, especially on Reddit.

Many commenters focused on the defense’s attempts to question Cabrera’s qualifications and impartiality.

One commenter in the r/Philippines impeachment trial megathread wrote:

“Gusto ata iparating na biased si Atty Cabrera at gusto nyang ma-convict si Sara. They can’t attack his credentials, kaya they’ll say he’s biased.”

Cabrera’s reply about confidentiality provisions also drew attention:

“I’m not scared naman po” Boom HAHAHAHAHAHA

Other commenters questioned the way Ferrer pressed the witness for yes-or-no answers.

A commenter in r/newsPH observed:

“Also, some questions can’t be answered with a yes or no. It is necessary to explain.”

In r/AccountingPH, a commenter who identified as an auditor praised Cabrera’s responses:

“Grabe, I’m so amazed by how Atty. Cabrera handles and answers questions sa impeachment court. As an auditor myself, nakaka proud lang and I can’t help but root for him. Tho I’m kinda curious, how he works kaya in an engagement? Strict ba siya or medyo kenkoy din?”

The online conversation also showed how the trial’s technical evidence can be overshadowed by courtroom exchanges.

Some viewers focused on the witness’s composure. Others questioned the defense’s approach.

These comments reflect reactions from particular online communities. They cannot be treated as a scientific measure of public opinion.

The defense’s questions about missing records, incomplete corporate documents and the methodology behind the financial report deserve examination regardless of how the lawyers or witness performed before the cameras.

That is a difference of PHP13.31 million, according to the House prosecution panel.

But can a difference between reported income and declared wealth establish unexplained wealth? And what happens when company shares disappear from an asset declaration without a corresponding transfer appearing in BIR records?

These were among the issues examined on Day 36 of Duterte’s impeachment trial, which focused on Article II, covering allegations of unexplained wealth, inaccurate asset declarations, and continuing business interests.

Five highlights from Day 36

1. A last-minute witness change delayed the hearing

Day 36 began with a dispute over the prosecution’s witness lineup.

Private prosecutor Erwin Matib, assigned to examine the BIR witness, reported being ill. The prosecution requested permission to present financial analyst and tax expert Alexander Cabrera first.

Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison objected. The defense had prepared for the scheduled BIR witness and argued that changing the order at the last minute would be unfair to Duterte.

The impeachment court suspended the morning proceedings. Matib eventually appeared in the afternoon and conducted the examination of BIR official Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez.

The proceedings ended at 6:07 p.m., with defense counsel Kristine Ferrer having begun cross-examination.

The delay raised a practical concern about trial management. Both sides have a responsibility to prepare their witnesses and examinations. The prosecution must present its evidence properly, while the defense must have a fair opportunity to challenge it.

2. The BIR presented a PHP 13.31-million difference between income and net worth

Garcia-Marquez, chief of staff of the BIR commissioner, testified about income tax records covering Duterte and Carpio from 2007 to 2025.

The prosecution argued that the couple’s reported earnings could not fully explain their declared net worth. The figures were presented as part of the allegations under Article II.

There is, however, an important accounting limitation.

An income tax return records income under applicable tax rules. A SALN reports assets, liabilities, and net worth at a particular date. They measure different things. Gifts, inheritances, certain capital gains, and changes in asset values may affect wealth without appearing as regular taxable income.

The prosecution therefore needs to establish the source and treatment of the assets, rather than rely on the difference alone.

3. BIR found no records of the reported transfer of Cale88 shares

Another significant disclosure involved Cale88 Foods Corporation, a company previously listed among Carpio’s business interests.

Garcia-Marquez testified that BIR database searches found no records documenting the sale, transfer, or other disposition of Carpio’s shares in Cale88. The agency also found no corresponding records of tax assessments or payments associated with such a transaction.

Cale88 had appeared in earlier asset declarations but was no longer listed in the couple’s joint 2025 SALN.

The company had also come under scrutiny over China- and Hong Kong-linked remittances. Reuters reported on October 6 that the National Security Council was examining concerns arising from these transactions, which banks had flagged to the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

The absence of transfer records does not, by itself, establish that Carpio retained ownership or that an unlawful transaction occurred. It does leave a question that requires documentary clarification: If the shares were transferred, where are the records establishing when and how that happened?

4. The prosecution questioned millions in cash holdings absent from separate SALN entries

The BIR witness also presented figures from the couple’s audited financial statements showing cash on hand and in banks over four years.

According to the House prosecution, Duterte’s SALNs did not separately identify these cash holdings.

House prosecution adviser Ace Barbers disputed the explanation that the amounts had been included under other personal properties. He alleged that the omissions amounted to deliberate concealment.

That remains the prosecution’s allegation, rather than an established finding of the impeachment court.

The figures must be reconciled with the actual SALN entries, including any assets grouped under broader categories. The defense must also have the opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation.

For citizens, the issue is straightforward. Public officials are required to disclose their assets under Republic Act No. 6713. If millions of pesos are recorded in financial statements but cannot be identified in asset declarations, the public deserves an explanation supported by records.

5. Tax return disclosures brought privacy and constitutional questions before the court

Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer objected to the public display of Duterte’s income tax returns, citing the Data Privacy Act and the confidentiality of tax information.

The impeachment court allowed summaries and comparison tables prepared from the BIR records to be shown publicly, while restricting the display of the original tax documents.

Another issue concerned a BIR Form 2316 associated with compensation from the Davao City government. The prosecution questioned whether Duterte had received additional government compensation while serving as vice president.

Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution prohibits the president and vice president from receiving other emoluments during their tenure. However, an October 9 ABS-CBN report identified the compensation in Duterte’s 2023 tax filing as pay from her time as mayor in 2022. The filing year alone cannot establish that she received prohibited compensation for work performed while vice president.

The hearing also exposed the limits of interpreting tax forms without their complete context.

The Philippine Star reported that blank entries for non-taxable income or income subject to final tax did not necessarily mean no such income existed.

These distinctions matter when the Senate evaluates the prosecution’s calculations and the defense’s explanations.

Netizen reactions: The money trail and the trial delays

Discussions around Day 36 reflected public interest in the financial evidence as well as frustration over courtroom delays.

A Reddit discussion thread devoted to Day 36 included viewers trying to catch up with earlier sessions and following the proceedings as they happened.

One participant commented:

“Catching up pa lang ako sa day 35, meron na agad for today’s vidyow”

Another wrote:

“agahan natin kasi busy ako bukas lol”

Both comments appeared in the Day 36 megathread on r/Philippines.These comments show viewers following the hearings closely, although they are not evidence of wider public sentiment.

The research supplied for this article also grouped reactions into those demanding financial accountability, those defending due process, and those frustrated by procedural delays. However, I could not independently authenticate the individual quotations in those groups. They have therefore been excluded.

The public discussion needs to distinguish between what witnesses testified, what prosecutors alleged, and what the impeachment court has actually established. A financial discrepancy can warrant further examination without automatically proving corruption.

What happens next?

The defense began cross-examining Garcia-Marquez on October 8, with questioning scheduled to continue on October 9.

The House prosecution also moved to narrow its case. ABS-CBN reported on October 9 that prosecutors had decided to drop the bribery article, allowing them to concentrate on other allegations.

For Article II, several matters remain to be resolved:

• Whether the PHP 13.31-million difference can be explained by lawful sources of wealth and accounting treatment.

• Whether the cash balances in the audited financial statements were properly reflected in Duterte’s SALNs.

• Whether Carpio’s Cale88 shares were transferred, and what records support that transaction.

• Whether the defense can reconcile the questioned documents with the prosecution’s evidence.

Conclusion: Follow the records, not the accusations

Day 36 gave the public specific figures and documents to examine. The PHP 85.34-million income figure and the PHP 98.66-million net worth comparison are now part of the public discussion. So are the cash balances and the missing BIR records relating to Cale88 shares.

The figures call for explanations. The defense has the right to test them, and the prosecution has the responsibility to prove its allegations.

As citizens, we can follow the original testimony, compare the financial records, and resist treating either an accusation or a denial as a final answer.

The most useful documents to watch in the next hearing are the SALN entries, the BIR summaries, and any records showing what happened to Carpio’s Cale88 shares.

The evidence should establish what happened to the assets. Political loyalties cannot settle that question.

The prosecution tried to show how tens of millions of pesos connected to accounts bearing Duterte’s name moved through time deposits and manager’s checks without appearing in year-end bank balances. The defense, however, pointed to an important detail in the records: Sara Duterte’s signature did not appear on the transactions involving a ?41.7 million BPI time deposit and subsequent manager’s checks.

Day 35 showed plenty of money moving through the accounts. What prosecutors still need to show is how much of it can actually be tied to Sara Duterte.

The October 7 hearing focused heavily on testimony from banking officials and the prosecution’s effort to compare Duterte’s declared assets with financial transactions presented before the impeachment court.

Five highlights from Day 35

1. Prosecutors traced a ?41.7 million time deposit that became a manager’s check

BPI Central Metro Manila Division Head Marwin Galvez testified that a joint peso time deposit was opened at BPI’s Julia Vargas branch on January 22, 2010 under the designation “Rodrigo Roa Duterte or Rodrigo Roa Duterte and Sara Z. Duterte.”

The initial principal was ?40.65 million. It went through 12 rollovers and reached about ?41.72 million by February 2011.

When the deposit matured in March 2011, its proceeds were used to purchase a manager’s check. The prosecution also presented a separate ?55 million time deposit that was converted in a similar manner, bringing the total amount in question to roughly ?96 million.

Private prosecutor James Bryan Ibrahim Alih argued that the repeated use of manager’s checks allowed the funds to remain outside the originating deposit accounts during year-end reporting periods.

According to the prosecution’s presentation, unused manager’s checks were repeatedly replaced after becoming stale, with renewals occurring at six-month intervals between 2011 and 2013. Prosecutors argued that because the funds were sitting in the bank’s settlement accounts rather than the original deposit accounts, they did not appear as December 31 deposit balances.

The testimony explained how the transactions worked. It did not, by itself, prove that the arrangement was designed to avoid SALN disclosure. That is still part of the prosecution’s case to establish.

Senator-judge Tito Sotto also raised the term “Tinikling,” which he said a banker friend used to describe repeatedly converting funds into manager’s checks around the end of the year.

Galvez said he was unfamiliar with the term in banking and knew “Tinikling” only as the traditional Filipino dance.

2. Sara Duterte’s signature was missing from the transactions

During cross-examination, the defense focused on who actually authorized the BPI transactions.

The original BPI documents examined during the hearing did not show Sara Duterte’s signature on the time deposit applications, rollover instructions or manager’s check requisitions.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero confirmed this after examining the bank records.

The defense also pointed out that the underlying joint account was structured so that Rodrigo Duterte could transact without Sara Duterte’s signature.

The absence of her signature does not answer every question about ownership or disclosure. But it does mean the records shown on Day 35 did not prove that Sara Duterte personally ordered or executed those transactions.

The prosecution will still have to establish whether she owned, controlled, benefited from or was required to disclose the funds.

3. The prosecution says the ?96 million pattern matters because of SALN disclosure

The prosecution’s case is not simply that large amounts of money existed.

Its argument is that the transactions should be examined alongside Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth to determine whether assets were omitted from required disclosures.

When the defense objected to the admission of transactions dating from 2010 to 2016, it argued that transactions occurring years before Duterte became vice president were irrelevant to the current impeachment charges.

The prosecution countered that the historical transactions were necessary to establish a financial baseline and an alleged continuing pattern of asset accumulation and concealment.

Escudero allowed the evidence, ruling that the historical accounts could be considered as part of that financial baseline rather than as separate offenses.

A large transaction does not prove unexplained wealth on its own. Prosecutors still have to show Duterte’s connection to the funds, whether she was required to declare them and whether any omission can be attributed to her.

4. Other bank records widened the Article II inquiry

Day 35 was not limited to BPI.

Metrobank Anti-Money Laundering Division Head Niña Ferren Aguilar presented records involving an account in the name of one of the minor children of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio.

The account showed year-end balances of ?1.8 million in 2022, ?1.3 million in 2023, ?1.458 million in 2024 and ?1.459 million in 2025.

Aguilar also explained how banks determine whether transactions warrant Suspicious Transaction Reports to the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

She said reporting decisions are not based simply on news reports or allegations. Banks assess factors such as transaction patterns, whether there is an apparent commercial justification and whether activity differs significantly from a customer’s declared profile.

BPI’s Galvez separately confirmed that Duterte and Carpio held nine active BPI accounts with combined ending balances of about ?8 million as of 2025.

These records give the impeachment court more material to compare with Duterte’s SALNs. The prosecution still has to show which assets were legally reportable and whether they were omitted.

5. Two Cale88 bank accounts were closed in July 2026

Security Bank Branch Banking Group Head Leslie Cham testified about accounts belonging to Cale88 Foods Corporation, a company linked to Carpio.

The company had two checking accounts opened in August 2024 and October 2025.

Both were closed in July 2026, the same month the Senate convened as an impeachment court. Cham also testified about eight active accounts belonging to another Duterte-associated company, GenCorp.

The timing of the Cale88 closures drew attention during the hearing.

But the testimony established only when the accounts were closed. It did not establish why they were closed or whether the closures were intended to conceal assets or avoid scrutiny.

If prosecutors want to use the closures as evidence under Article II, they will need to show more than timing.

The foreign currency question hits a legal barrier

The prosecution also attempted to ask BPI whether Duterte and Carpio maintained foreign currency accounts.

The defense objected, citing Republic Act No. 6426, or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.

Escudero sustained the objection. He ruled that foreign currency deposits were outside the scope of the subpoena issued to BPI and were covered by statutory confidentiality protections.

Section 8 of the law generally treats foreign currency deposits as confidential unless the depositor gives written permission for disclosure.

That ruling limits what prosecutors can obtain directly from BPI on foreign currency holdings.

For the defense, it was one of the clearer procedural wins of the day.

What netizens were saying

Online discussion quickly focused on the manager’s checks.

Some commenters treated the repeated conversion of deposits into manager’s checks as evidence that money was intentionally kept away from December 31 account balances. Others questioned whether such transactions could have been used to avoid SALN disclosure.

The research also recorded online discussions linking the BPI Julia Vargas transactions to financial allegations previously raised by former senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

These remain online interpretations, not findings of the impeachment court.

Duterte supporters, meanwhile, focused on the absence of Sara Duterte’s signature on the BPI documents.

Their argument is that if Rodrigo Duterte could transact independently from the joint account, prosecutors cannot simply assume that every transaction involving the account was controlled or even known by Sara Duterte.

The documents shown in court support one part of that argument: Sara Duterte’s signature was not on the transactions examined.

But the impeachment court still has to decide whether she had an ownership interest, control over the funds or an obligation to disclose them.

What Day 35 established

The prosecution produced bank testimony showing that substantial amounts moved through accounts carrying Sara Duterte’s name and explained how money converted into manager’s checks would no longer appear as a balance in the original deposit account at year-end.

The defense, in turn, showed that the BPI documents presented in court did not contain Sara Duterte’s signature on the transactions involving the ?41.7 million time deposit.

No one is disputing that the transactions happened. The issue is whether the prosecution can prove that Sara Duterte owned, controlled or was required to declare the funds.

The bank records alone do not answer whether the money was Sara Duterte’s, whether she controlled it, or whether it should have appeared in her SALN.

That is what the Senate impeachment court still has to determine from the evidence presented by both sides.

But that did not end the inquiry.

Instead, the Senate impeachment court moved closer to the records behind those numbers, as the prosecution began calling bank officials to authenticate Duterte’s accounts and transactions.

That distinction matters. The AMLC data can identify financial activity that banks were required or prompted to report. It cannot, by itself, prove that the money was illegally acquired. Day 34 showed that the next phase of Article II will depend on whether the prosecution can connect the transactions to actual bank records, declared assets and lawful sources of income.

The research provided for this article correctly identifies this shift, although several claims needed qualification after checking them against current news reports and official records. Sara Duterte Impeachment Day 34

Five things to know from Day 34

1. The defense established an important limit to the AMLC evidence

During cross-examination, AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura confirmed that simply reading a Covered Transaction Report or Suspicious Transaction Report does not allow the AMLC to conclude that the money came from an unlawful activity. He also said the AMLC had not independently verified whether all information contained in the reports was accurate.

That is an important distinction.

The P4.4 billion discussed in the trial represents the aggregate value of covered and suspicious transactions reported in connection with Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, from 2007 to 2025. It is not a finding that they possessed P4.4 billion in unexplained wealth, nor is an STR by itself proof of money laundering.

AMLC records showed about P1.63 billion in inflows, P1.3 billion in outflows and another P1.4 billion whose direction could not be determined.

This is where some social media shorthand becomes misleading. “P4.4 billion in transactions” and “P4.4 billion in stolen or unexplained money” are not interchangeable claims.

2. The P4.4-billion figure was corrected before the records reached the impeachment court

The research describes the reduction from an earlier P6.7-billion figure as resulting from a BPI “technical reporting glitch.” That wording goes farther than what I could independently verify.

Buenaventura testified that one of the covered institutions corrected 13 transaction reports and that the AMLC validated its data before submitting the records requested by the Senate. On Day 34, he stressed that the records submitted to the impeachment court were already the corrected set.

So the safer formulation is this: the earlier figure changed after corrections and AMLC validation.

The defense can use that history to question the reliability of the raw reporting process. But it does not follow that the P4.4-billion figure currently before the court is itself an acknowledged error.

3. Escudero pressed the gap between reported transactions and declared wealth

The significance of the AMLC figures became clearer when Presiding Officer Francis Escudero questioned how the financial activity compared with Duterte’s declarations of wealth.

The research records Escudero comparing the volume of transactions with the couple’s SALNs and asking Buenaventura to explain the difference. Buenaventura said he could not do so because the AMLC receives and organizes transaction reports rather than conducting a full audit of the couple’s finances. Sara Duterte Impeachment Day 34

That exchange should not be read as proof of wrongdoing. It identifies the question that Article II now has to answer.

Were the transactions ordinary movements of legitimate money, business receipts, transfers between accounts or other explainable activity? Or do authenticated bank records reveal assets or financial flows that cannot be reconciled with the disclosures required of a public official?

The AMLC witness could not answer that. The prosecution will have to.

4. The P319 million received by Cale88 is confirmed, but the China issue needs careful wording

Buenaventura confirmed that Cale88 Foods Corporation, a company linked to Carpio, received about P319 million in remittances from China and Hong Kong.

During Day 34, Sen. Risa Hontiveros separately raised the claim that some companies sending money to Cale88 were Chinese state-owned enterprises. That assertion should be attributed to Hontiveros rather than presented as an AMLC finding.

The research itself records another qualification: under questioning, Buenaventura said the AMLC records did not establish that the remitting companies were themselves direct organs of the Chinese government. Sara Duterte Impeachment Day 34

These are two different propositions.

The remittances are documented. Whether particular senders have state ownership, what commercial transactions the payments represented and whether any of the money has relevance to Article II still require evidence.

That is especially important because geopolitical suspicion cannot substitute for proof of unlawful enrichment.

5. The case began moving from AMLC summaries to actual bank documents

Perhaps the most consequential development came after Buenaventura’s testimony.

The prosecution called LandBank official Eunice Sumatra as its first bank witness. The research states that she was asked to authenticate records including payroll transactions, withdrawal slips and certificates of outstanding balances covering 2017 to 2025. Sara Duterte Impeachment Day 34

The House prosecution has said it intends to rely on financial evidence and bank and insurance representatives as the Article II presentation continues.

This changes the character of the inquiry.

AMLC reports tell the court what financial institutions reported. Bank witnesses can tell the court what the underlying accounts actually show.

That is where the unexplained-wealth allegation will face a more demanding test.

The defense apology mattered, too

Day 34 began with defense lawyer Mark Vinluan apologizing to the senator-judges over his remarks during the previous day’s cross-examination.

Vinluan had repeatedly raised possible criminal liability arising from the disclosure of confidential financial information. Senator-judges objected to what they regarded as threatening or intimidating language.

On Tuesday, Vinluan told the court that the defense intended only to test Buenaventura’s credibility and said he would be “more circumspect moving forward.” Escudero said the manifestation was well taken.

The episode matters beyond courtroom decorum. An impeachment proceeding must allow aggressive cross-examination while protecting witnesses, journalists and the court itself from intimidation.

The evidence should be contested through evidence.

What netizens were talking about

Online discussion remained heavily divided, but readers should be careful about treating comment sections as a public-opinion survey.

In a Day 34 Reddit discussion, much of the immediate chatter focused on the personalities and courtroom exchanges, including jokes about the defense lawyers and objections during the bank testimony. Other commenters turned their attention to the arrival of the LandBank witness and what authenticated bank records could add to the case.

The larger arguments visible around the trial followed two competing interpretations.

Duterte supporters pointed to the AMLC chief’s concessions: a covered or suspicious transaction is not itself proof of a crime, transactions can represent repeated movements of the same money, and the earlier aggregate had been corrected.

Critics focused instead on the scale of the transactions and asked whether Duterte and Carpio could document their sources and reconcile them with required financial disclosures.

Both sides now have something they can cite from the record. Neither side can fairly treat Day 34 as a verdict.

Follow the records, not the headline number

Day 34 narrowed the argument.

The defense showed why ?4.4 billion cannot simply be labeled unexplained wealth. The prosecution, meanwhile, has begun doing what it must do if Article II is to survive that objection: move past AMLC summaries and put the underlying bank records before the impeachment court.

For citizens following the trial, that is the record worth watching.

When the next bank witness takes the stand, the question is no longer whether billions of pesos appeared in an AMLC table. We already know they did.

The question is whether the prosecution can trace those transactions, identify who owned the money and show what, if anything, Sara Duterte was required to declare but did not.

Until those records are tested, ?4.4 billion is a lead. It is not yet a verdict.

Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said this as he rejected an attempt by Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense to stop Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura from testifying on financial transactions involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio.

The ruling cleared the way for one of Day 33’s main events: Buenaventura’s presentation of AMLC records as part of the prosecution’s case under Article II, which covers allegations of unexplained wealth and inaccurate disclosure of assets in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).

Buenaventura presented summaries of Covered Transaction Reports (CTRs) and Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) involving Duterte and Carpio.

A Covered Transaction Report (CTR) is the report a covered institution sends to AMLC when a transaction meets the threshold set by law. For bank transactions, Republic Act No. 11521 defines a covered transaction as cash or an equivalent monetary instrument exceeding ?500,000 within one banking day.

A Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) may be submitted regardless of the amount. The law lists circumstances that can make a transaction suspicious, including the absence of an apparent legal or economic purpose, an amount inconsistent with the client’s financial capacity, transaction structuring intended to avoid reporting rules, or activity that departs from the client’s usual transaction profile. Lawphil

That distinction matters. A CTR or STR is a reporting classification, not a verdict. The existence of one does not by itself establish that money was stolen, illegally obtained, or hidden from the government. The Senate still has to examine what the transactions represent and whether they support the allegations in the articles of impeachment.

Five highlights from Day 33

1. The defense failed to keep the AMLC witness off the stand. Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan invoked Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which requires the AMLC and its Secretariat to protect information received or processed and bars officials from revealing information they know because of their office. Escudero ruled that the provision protects AMLC information against unauthorized disclosure but does not prevent the agency from complying with a lawful and particularized subpoena from the impeachment court. Republic Act No. 1405, the Bank Secrecy Law, also expressly lists impeachment as an exception to the general confidentiality of bank deposits.
2. AMLC revised the Duterte-Carpio transaction total from ?6.7 billion to about ?4.4 billion. Buenaventura testified that AMLC records covering 2007 to 2025 contained 666 CTRs and 55 STRs involving Duterte and Carpio. He said the ?4.4-billion aggregate was lower than the ?6.7 billion previously presented during House proceedings after BPI corrected its data. Of the revised total, about ?1.63 billion was classified as inflows, ?1.3 billion as outflows, while roughly ?1.4 billion could not be classified as either.

    

   

   The correction is important. The ?4.4 billion should not be described as Duterte and Carpio’s “?4.4 billion in unexplained wealth.” It is an aggregate of transactions reported to AMLC over an 18-year period. The prosecution still has to show how particular transactions relate to its allegations and to the couple’s declared assets and income.

3. The prosecution focused on large withdrawals in 2024. Buenaventura testified that Carpio withdrew ?41 million on August 6, 2024, through six transactions at two banks. Of the total, ?23 million was withdrawn from BDO and ?18 million from Philippine National Bank. Prosecutor Mae Divinagracia said the withdrawals were inconsistent with the couple’s 2024 joint SALN, which she said declared no cash on hand or in bank. That is the prosecution’s position and remains subject to the defense’s response and the court’s assessment. Buenaventura also identified more than ?10 million in transactions involving Duterte in December 2024: a ?2.371-million over-the-counter withdrawal on December 5, a ?1.7-million check encashment on December 20, and a ?5.969-million withdrawal later that day.
4. The court allowed testimony involving foreign-currency accounts. Senator-Judge Imee Marcos objected when Buenaventura began discussing a non-peso account. Escudero overruled the objection and allowed the presentation to continue. The dispute matters because foreign-currency deposits have separate confidentiality protections, and the defense questioned whether information about them could be presented during the impeachment trial.
5. Cale88 Foods received ?319.3 million in remittances from China and Hong Kong, according to AMLC records. Buenaventura testified that the AMLC tabular summary showed ?319,326,770.41 in inward remittances to Cale88 Foods Corporation, a company linked to Carpio.

   That figure also needs careful wording. AMLC records establish that the reported remittances originated from China and Hong Kong. That does not by itself establish who ultimately provided the funds, why they were transferred, or whether the transfers were illegal. Those questions require the underlying banking and business records.

?4.4 billion is a big number. It is not the verdict.

The easiest mistake after Day 33 is to treat the ?4.4-billion figure as if AMLC had discovered ?4.4 billion sitting in Duterte and Carpio’s bank accounts.

That is not what Buenaventura testified.

The amount represents the aggregate value of covered and suspicious transactions reported to AMLC over many years. Some were inflows, some were outflows, and others could not be classified by AMLC as either.

Money can also move more than once. A withdrawal, transfer, reinvestment or movement between accounts can generate another transaction without creating new wealth.

The better question is therefore not simply: Why ?4.4 billion?

The Senate has to determine what the transactions represented, where the money came from, where it went, and whether the financial records are consistent with Duterte’s legally required disclosures.

This is where SALNs, bank records, corporate records and testimony from the financial institutions become important.

What Day 33 did not settle

The prosecution has not yet formally dropped the bribery allegation.

House prosecution spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said the panel appeared to be moving in that direction, but he also said discussions were still ongoing and that the decision had not been finalized. Saying that the bribery charge has already been withdrawn would therefore be premature.

There is also no official December 16 deadline for a verdict.

Escudero said reports that a verdict would be issued before December 16 were “not entirely accurate.” Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo also questioned why an impeachment court spokesperson had publicly given such a timetable.

The pace still depends on the evidence presented, objections, cross-examinations and the remaining witnesses.

What netizens were talking about

On Reddit’s Day 33 impeachment megathread, Cale88 quickly became material for political humor. One commenter posted: “Classmates, kain tayo ng banana chips. ?”

Other users focused less on the amounts and more on whether Buenaventura’s testimony could change political opinions. In another discussion, one commenter called him a “Bigatin na witness” but immediately questioned whether his testimony would persuade committed Duterte supporters.

There was also criticism of the defense’s attempt to prevent Buenaventura from testifying, while other commenters followed the technical arguments over the AMLC records and the meaning of the transaction reports.

These Reddit threads are useful for seeing one part of the online conversation, but they are not a public-opinion survey. The communities are self-selecting, and the Day 33 discussions I could independently verify leaned heavily critical of Duterte. It would be misleading to present them as representative of Filipino sentiment as a whole.

Follow the records, not just the headline number

Day 33 changed the discussion because the Senate now has specific records to examine: 666 Covered Transaction Reports, 55 Suspicious Transaction Reports, the ?41-million withdrawals, Duterte’s December 2024 transactions, and ?319.3 million in remittances to Cale88 Foods.

But none of those numbers can explain themselves.

For citizens following the trial, the useful comparison from here is between the AMLC summaries, the relevant SALNs, and the bank or business documents offered to explain each transaction. If a prosecution figure changes, as the ?6.7-billion figure already did, the correction should be reported. If a transaction has a documented lawful source, that explanation should also be reported.

Day 33 put the numbers before the court. The next test is whether the documents can explain them.

It did not go as planned.

Two land registry officials testified about properties registered to Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio. The House prosecution dropped former senator Antonio Trillanes IV as a witness. Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo criticized the prosecution’s handling of its witnesses. The expected testimony of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura was postponed.

The Senate is hearing Article II of the impeachment case, which accuses Duterte of failing to fully disclose assets and liabilities in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), among other allegations.

Here are five highlights from the October 1 hearing.

1. Is the Matina property in Duterte’s SALN?

Davao City Register of Deeds IV Kathy Florence Baldonado testified about a 379-square-meter property registered to Carpio in Matina, Davao City.

Land records showed that Carpio acquired the property in July 2024 for ?6 million. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

The prosecution questioned whether the property could be matched to an entry in Duterte’s 2025 SALN.

The defense said it could.

Defense counsel Lindon Bacquel presented records showing that Matina Crossing is officially Barangay 74-A. Duterte’s SALN contained a property entry under Barangay 74-A with an assessed value of ?82,000. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

This left the court with two sets of records to reconcile: the land title showing the purchase and the SALN entry the defense says refers to the same property.

The testimony established the existence and ownership of the property. It did not settle whether Duterte failed to disclose it.

2. The Samal property produced another records dispute

The second property witness was Marco Pineda, deputy register of deeds for the Island Garden City of Samal.

He testified about a 791-square-meter property in Barangay Matanos purchased by Carpio in March 2018 for ?3.453 million.

The prosecution compared the deed with Duterte’s SALNs, which contained property entries in Barangay Aundanao rather than Matanos.

The defense again turned to tax records. It presented a tax declaration for the property with an assessed value of ?346,000. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

Both property witnesses also acknowledged limits to what they could establish. Their offices maintain and authenticate land records. They do not investigate whether a particular land title corresponds to a particular entry in a public official’s SALN. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

For the senator-judges, the issue is not simply whether Carpio owned the properties. The court must determine whether Duterte’s disclosures properly accounted for them and what the differences between the records mean.

3. Trillanes is out as a prosecution witness

One of Day 32’s biggest developments involved someone who never took the witness stand.

Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville “Jinky” Luistro announced that the prosecution had decided not to present former senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

“The prosecution has finally decided not to present former senator Sonny Trillanes,” Luistro told the impeachment court.

She also confirmed that the decision was final.

Trillanes had been expected to testify about alleged bank accounts and financial transactions involving the Duterte family.

The prosecution did not explain its reason for dropping him during Luistro’s announcement.

That is worth keeping in mind when reading claims online about why he was removed. Unless supported by evidence or a statement from those involved, those explanations remain speculation.

4. Raffy Tulfo told prosecutors they were wasting time

Before the prosecution announced its decision on Trillanes, Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo criticized the way the House panel had been presenting witnesses.

“There are times na naglalagay kayo ng mga witnesses dito na hindi naman kailangan talaga. Nagsasayang lang tayo ng oras,” Tulfo said.

He also argued that if Trillanes were going to testify about bank accounts, he should appear before the AMLC executive director so that AMLC could subsequently confirm or challenge what he presented.

Tulfo’s remarks were criticism of the prosecution’s trial strategy. They were not a ruling on the evidence already presented or on Article II itself.

Shortly afterward, Luistro told the court that Trillanes would no longer be called.

5. AMLC testimony was postponed

AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura was expected to testify on Day 32.

That did not happen.

The defense objected that it had not been given sufficient time to examine material connected with his testimony. According to the research, defense counsel Sheila Sison said the documents had only been furnished to the defense that morning and also raised the confidentiality markings on the AMLC records. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

The dispute pushed Buenaventura’s testimony to another hearing.

The impeachment court has also been seeking financial records relevant to Article II, while officials from the BIR, banks and insurance companies have been called as the case moves further into Duterte’s financial records.

What those documents actually contain will matter more than assumptions about them.

What netizens were talking about

Online discussion during Day 32 centered heavily on Trillanes.

Some users questioned why the prosecution would remove a witness who had repeatedly made allegations about Duterte family bank accounts. Others argued that AMLC and bank officials could provide documentary evidence without relying on Trillanes’ testimony.

Those are competing interpretations. Luistro’s announcement itself gave no reason for the decision.

Tulfo’s criticism also drew strong reactions. Some commenters welcomed his demand that prosecutors move faster and choose witnesses more carefully. Others questioned whether a senator-judge should publicly scold prosecutors over their trial strategy while the case is still being heard.

The property testimony produced another familiar divide.

Those supporting the prosecution focused on differences between the descriptions and figures in the land records and Duterte’s SALNs. Those defending Duterte pointed to the barangay classifications and tax declarations presented during cross-examination.

Social media comments are not evidence of public opinion, much less evidence in an impeachment case. The discussions are useful mainly because they show where confusion can develop: a property can have different geographic descriptions, and its purchase price and assessed value are not necessarily the same figure.

The records have to do the work

Day 32 showed the problem with reading an impeachment trial through isolated numbers.

A ?6-million deed does not automatically prove a ?6-million SALN omission. An ?82,000 SALN entry does not automatically prove that everything required by law was properly disclosed either.

The prosecution has to connect the records to its allegation. The defense has to show why the apparent differences do not amount to nondisclosure. The senator-judges have to decide which explanation the evidence supports.

The same standard should apply when the AMLC, bank, tax and insurance records reach the witness stand.

For now, two property titles are in evidence, the defense has offered records it says correspond to them, and Trillanes will not testify for the prosecution.

The next question is narrower than much of the political argument surrounding the trial: when the financial records are finally presented, what will they actually show?

That was Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte’s answer when Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero asked whether he would have allowed the Davao City government to transact with GenCorp Industries Inc. had he known that his sister, Vice President Sara Duterte, had declared an interest in the company.

That exchange captured the central issue on Day 31 of the impeachment trial on September 29: what did the Davao City government know about GenCorp, and how close can prosecutors connect its contracts to the Vice President?

The trial is now hearing Article II, which covers allegations of unexplained wealth, inaccurate or incomplete Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and failure to divest from business interests.

Day 31 put the Vice President’s brother on the witness stand. But his testimony also showed the distinction the prosecution still has to establish. Evidence about GenCorp’s dealings with Davao City does not by itself prove wrongdoing by Sara Duterte.

Here are five highlights.

1. Baste Duterte was declared a hostile witness

Mayor Duterte appeared pursuant to a subpoena directing him to testify and produce Davao City records involving GenCorp and other companies. The impeachment court declared him a hostile witness, allowing prosecutor Theodore “Ted” Te to use leading questions. Sara Duterte Trial Day 31 MindaNews independently reported that Duterte took his oath at 10:11 a.m. and was declared a hostile witness.

The designation does not mean the court found him dishonest. In this context, it allowed the prosecution greater latitude in questioning a witness considered to have an adverse interest.

That distinction matters. Duterte is the respondent’s brother and was being questioned about transactions undertaken by the city government he heads.

2. Nineteen GenCorp contracts became the focus

Davao City had 19 contracts with GenCorp worth about P33.26 million, according to Mayor Duterte’s own accounting. He had previously said that four were secured through competitive public bidding and 15 through small-value procurement.

There is an important correction to the research here.

The research says that all 15 small-value procurement contracts “dispensed with competitive public bidding.” Sara Duterte Trial Day 31 But reporting on the previous day’s testimony by PhilGEPS division chief Rendell Sopeña said 11 of the 15 contracts were negotiated small-value procurements without public bidding, accounting for roughly P7 million to P8 million.

For that reason, I would not describe all 15 as contracts “without bidding.”

The larger issue remains relevant to Article II because Sara Duterte declared GenCorp as a business interest in her SALNs. GMA reported that GenCorp’s SEC filings did not list her as an incorporator or director, even though her SALN declared the company as a business interest.

That mismatch is one of the questions prosecutors are trying to explain.

3. Baste said he did not know about Sara’s GenCorp interest

Mayor Duterte maintained that he did not know his sister had declared an interest in GenCorp. He had already made the same assertion publicly before taking the stand.

According to the research, he told the impeachment court that members of the Duterte family generally kept their finances private. Sara Duterte Trial Day 31

The prosecution then turned to businessman Jaime T. Cruz.

Mayor Duterte acknowledged knowing Cruz and confirmed that they were business partners. A 2026 General Information Sheet for Chinese Gen Bee Foods Corporation listed Cruz as president and Baste Duterte and Paolo Duterte as shareholders, according to documents presented during the hearing. Sara Duterte Trial Day 31

GMA’s coverage of the hearing likewise reported Duterte’s acknowledgment that he knew Cruz, whom he described as a friend of his father.

This does not establish that Mayor Duterte knew about Sara Duterte’s interest in GenCorp. What it does establish is another documented business connection that prosecutors can examine as they try to trace the relationships surrounding the company.

4. “The buck stops” with the mayor, but that does not settle Sara Duterte’s liability

Mayor Duterte testified that he had authorized Davao City Assistant City Administrator Tristan Dwight Domingo to sign procurement documents on his behalf. According to the research, he said he did not personally examine every contract, but acknowledged that responsibility ultimately remained with him as head of the procuring entity. Sara Duterte Trial Day 31

That prompted questions from senator-judges about how much a mayor can reasonably be expected to know about every procurement transaction.

The discussion also brought up the Arias v. Sandiganbayan doctrine, under which heads of offices may, under certain circumstances, rely in good faith on the work of subordinates rather than personally verify every detail of a transaction. Sara Duterte Trial Day 31

But Escudero repeatedly brought the hearing back to a more basic point: Baste Duterte is not the person on trial.

That is an important boundary for Article II. The prosecution can establish how Davao City dealt with GenCorp, who knew whom and who approved what. It must still connect that evidence to the allegations against Vice President Duterte herself.

5. The court put limits on the prosecution’s bank-record strategy

Another important development did not involve Mayor Duterte at all.

Earlier this month, prosecutors filed 104 requests for admission, asking the defense to admit or deny matters including the authenticity of bank records and whether particular accounts belonged to Sara Duterte individually or jointly with others. The existence and purpose of those requests are independently documented.

The Day 31 research says the impeachment court rejected the prosecution’s attempt to use the request to compel admissions concerning private bank accounts and tax records, citing the constitutional right against self-incrimination and the prosecution’s burden to prove its case independently.

The court also declined, for the time being, to issue a subpoena compelling former senator Antonio Trillanes IV to testify about alleged undisclosed accounts. The research says Escudero wanted the prosecution to first establish the documentary foundation through AMLC evidence.

Reporting before the hearing had already confirmed that the court had held off on issuing Trillanes a subpoena and that an AMLC official was among the upcoming witnesses.

Trillanes nevertheless appeared at the Senate and said he was willing to testify voluntarily.

The practical message to prosecutors was clear: allegations about bank accounts have to be supported by admissible records and witnesses who can establish where those records came from.

What netizens were watching

Online discussion did not settle around a single interpretation of the testimony.

In the r/Philippines Day 31 megathread, some commenters questioned Mayor Duterte’s claim that he did not know every contract handled under delegated authority. Others questioned whether the prosecution had actually established enough through his testimony, while several commenters focused on the anticipated testimony of Trillanes.

A separate discussion was more skeptical of the prosecution. One poster described Te’s examination as “underwhelming” and asked what had actually been established by putting Mayor Duterte on the stand. Other commenters similarly said they had expected stronger evidence connecting the testimony to the case against Sara Duterte.

There was also the usual social-media spectacle around the hearing, including discussion of Mayor Duterte’s demeanor, clothing and gestures.

Those reactions are useful as a snapshot of online discussion, but they are not evidence. The trial record and authenticated documents remain the basis on which the impeachment court must decide the case.

The question after Day 31

Day 31 produced several pieces of the GenCorp story: 19 Davao City contracts, Sara Duterte’s SALN declaration, SEC records that do not list her as an incorporator or director, Baste Duterte’s denial that he knew of her interest, and another corporate record linking Baste and Paolo Duterte to Jaime Cruz.

But pieces are not yet proof of the allegation against the Vice President.

For citizens following the trial, the next documents matter more than the day’s viral clips. Watch what the AMLC and other records actually establish. Watch whether the prosecution can trace an ownership or financial interest to Sara Duterte during the period covered by Article II. And watch whether the defense can explain the apparent gap between her SALN declaration and GenCorp’s corporate records.

The impeachment court has now made the evidentiary test fairly concrete: show the records, establish who owns what, and connect them to the person actually on trial.

That is the standard by which the next phase of Article II should be read.

Senator Migz Zubiri used that line as senator-judges questioned why the prosecution was spending court time on Vice President Sara Duterte’s firearms. The comment captured one of the tensions on Day 30 of the impeachment trial: which evidence actually helps establish the allegations under Article II, and which evidence merely attracts attention?

The September 28 proceedings returned to Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth, business interests and Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs). The prosecution presented records involving GenCorp Industries Inc., a company Duterte declared as a business interest in her 2024 and 2025 SALNs, and firearms registered to Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio. A separate dispute over subpoenaed bank records could determine how the court handles some of the financial evidence still to come.

Here are five developments worth following.

1. Eleven Davao City contracts with GenCorp did not go through public bidding

Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) official Rendell Sopeña testified that GenCorp received 15 contracts from the Davao City government worth about P34 million.

Eleven of those contracts, worth a combined P7 million to P8 million, used negotiated Small Value Procurement rather than public bidding. Sopeña said none of the 11 individually exceeded the P2-million threshold, and all involved food and catering services awarded on different dates.

That distinction matters. The absence of public bidding does not by itself establish that the contracts were illegal. Small Value Procurement is an alternative procurement method allowed for qualifying purchases. The prosecution’s argument is different: it is trying to connect the contracts to the constitutional prohibition on the President and Vice President having a direct or indirect financial interest in government contracts.

Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution states that the President and Vice President “shall not, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof.”

Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro argued that Duterte’s declared interest in GenCorp, combined with its government contracts, presented a conflict of interest. The defense has not conceded that conclusion.

There is also an unresolved discrepancy. Duterte listed GenCorp as a business interest in her SALNs, while Securities and Exchange Commission records previously presented in court did not list her as an incorporator, director or stockholder. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said that difference still has to be reconciled.

Luistro tried to summarize the prosecution’s theory with a “tong-its” analogy. The defense objected, and Escudero ordered the remark stricken from the record. The prosecution’s characterization therefore should not be treated as a finding by the court. The research provided for this explainer also distinguishes the prosecution’s argument from the court’s disposition.

2. Duterte and Carpio have 51 registered firearms, but senator-judges questioned their relevance

Police Major Joericson Sangalang of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office testified that Duterte and Carpio have 51 registered firearms between them.

Twenty-two are registered to Duterte: 14 pistols, two revolvers, five rifles and one shotgun. Their estimated current market value is P2,184,550. Three of Duterte’s rifles are classified as Class A light weapons with fully automatic functions. Carpio has another 29 registered firearms. The combined estimated market value of the couple’s firearms is more than P7.2 million.

Sangalang also testified that individuals who legally possessed Class A light weapons before the current firearms law took effect may continue to have them registered. In other words, the classification of the three rifles does not by itself establish illegal possession.

The bigger problem for the prosecution was relevance.

Zubiri, Erwin Tulfo, Tito Sotto and Alan Cayetano questioned how the firearms helped establish unexplained wealth. Escudero noted that even the roughly P7-million combined current value was within Duterte’s declared P88-million net worth. He eventually allowed the testimony to continue but said the witness was less convincing on the question of ill-gotten wealth than other possible evidence.

The defense waived cross-examination.

The distinction is important: the PNP testimony established the existence and registration of the firearms. It did not establish that they were bought with unlawful funds.

3. The prosecution changed course on Duterte’s bank records

The more consequential fight may be over records that were barely discussed in detail on Monday.

Prosecutor Chel Diokno withdrew the prosecution’s earlier request asking Duterte to admit ownership of bank accounts identified in records submitted to the impeachment court.

Instead, Diokno proposed that the defense agree to narrower stipulations: that the accounts exist, that the banks produced the records pursuant to Senate subpoenas, and that the documents are authentic copies of records maintained by those banks. The distinction matters because authentication and ownership are not the same thing. A stipulation that a document is a genuine bank record does not necessarily concede what that record proves about Duterte.

The court had already ruled in July that subpoenaed peso-denominated bank, tax and Anti-Money Laundering Council records met the requirements of relevance and materiality under Article II.

The defense has raised constitutional and procedural objections to the prosecution’s use of requests for admission. The Day 30 research records the defense’s argument that compelling such admissions could implicate Duterte’s right against self-incrimination, while Diokno argued that authenticating records created by third-party institutions is different from compelling incriminating testimony. Sara Duterte Impeachment Day 30

Escudero asked that the proposed stipulation be submitted in writing rather than resolving the issue immediately.

This procedural fight could determine whether prosecutors need to bring individual bank representatives to court to authenticate records or whether some foundational facts can simply be agreed upon.

4. Baste Duterte’s testimony moves to September 29 and 30

Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte was supposed to be available under a subpoena covering September 28 to 30, but he asked the court for additional time to gather, organize, authenticate and reproduce the requested city records.

Escudero granted the request. The mayor is expected to appear on September 29 and 30.

His testimony could help fill a gap in the GenCorp evidence.

The court has asked for Davao City records involving GenCorp and related transactions. Because Duterte’s SALN identifies GenCorp as one of her business interests while the company received Davao City government contracts, the prosecution is seeking evidence about the nature of those transactions and Duterte’s connection, if any, to the company when the contracts were awarded.

The evidence presented so far establishes that the contracts existed. It does not, on its own, establish that Baste Duterte improperly awarded them or that Sara Duterte personally participated in them.

Those are questions the prosecution still has to prove.

5. The court warned Terry Ridon over public comments

The Senate impeachment court also dealt with what participants may say outside the courtroom.

It issued House prosecutor Terry Ridon a “stern warning” over comments concerning the ongoing case. The court accepted Ridon’s explanation that he had acted in good faith and acknowledged that the senator-judges, not prosecutors speaking publicly, ultimately determine what the evidence proves.

The dispute quickly widened.

The prosecution asked for equal application of the sub judice rule after Duterte herself referred to the proceedings as a “sarsuela” when reporters asked whether she would attend the trial. Duterte said, “Anong ibig sabihin? Manood ako doon sa kanilang sarsuela?”

That leaves the court with a question of consistency: how far can either side publicly characterize an ongoing impeachment case without crossing the court’s restrictions?

What netizens were talking about

Online discussion during Day 30 often followed the same fault lines visible inside the Senate chamber.

The firearms testimony drew questions about relevance. A Day 30 Reddit thread also turned quickly toward the bank records, with commenters debating why the defense should or should not agree to authenticate documents submitted by banks. Other comments focused on whether Baste Duterte would appear after receiving the subpoena. These are individual reactions, not a scientific measure of public opinion.

The lighter courtroom moments also drew attention. When Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante appeared to doze off behind the witness, Escudero asked that someone nudge him and suggested that he might want to rest somewhere other than directly behind the witness. Luistro joked that Abante was “praying for the prosecution.” Escudero replied: “I doubt that.”

Those moments made easy social media clips. But the evidence that matters to Article II remains less meme-friendly: procurement documents, SALNs, corporate records, bank transactions and AMLC records.

What to watch next

Day 30 showed why impeachment trials cannot be reduced to the day’s most viral testimony.

The 51 firearms generated attention, but senator-judges openly questioned whether they moved Article II forward. The GenCorp documents raise a more direct constitutional issue, but the prosecution still has to establish Duterte’s actual financial relationship with the company and connect that relationship to the government contracts.

The next hearings may provide more direct evidence. Baste Duterte is scheduled to appear on September 29 and 30, while the court has cleared the use of AMLC records and is expected to require an AMLC official to authenticate and explain them.

For citizens following the trial, the useful test is simple: separate what a witness established from what either side says the evidence means. Watch the documents. Check whether the testimony connects them to the allegations. And pay attention to what survives objections and becomes part of the court’s record.

Day 30 gave us 51 firearms and a “tong-its” line. The coming bank, AMLC and procurement evidence will tell us whether Article II has something more substantial behind it.