The House of Representatives prosecution on Friday questioned Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s ability to dispute findings of at least PHP817.87 million in alleged unexplained wealth, saying none of the 24 witnesses listed by her defense appeared prepared to explain the financial discrepancies uncovered during her impeachment trial.
In a press briefing at Batasang Pambansa in Quezon City, private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said the prosecution had reviewed the defense’s witness list but found no expert who could directly challenge the financial analysis presented by forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera.
“Nakita namin sa list of witnesses na wala silang linista na witness na mag-e-explain ng discrepancy. Wala yata silang maitapat sa aming witness na si Atty. Cabrera (We noticed in the witness list that they didn’t list any witness who would explain the discrepancy. It seems they don’t have anyone to match our witness, Atty. Cabrera),” Kapunan said.
Cabrera earlier estimated at least PHP817.87 million in alleged unexplained wealth and undeclared assets involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, from 2022 to 2025.
He said the amount could reach PHP1.5 billion under a broader calculation that includes additional financial discrepancies and assets excluded from his original findings.
His analysis was based on bank records, tax documents, corporate filings and Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).
Kapunan defended Cabrera’s findings, saying his conclusions were supported by financial records presented during the trial.
“So, the expert witness that we presented did not give opinions based on thin air. ‘Yung expert po namin nagbigay ng opinion based on records na pinag-aralan (Our expert provided an opinion based on the records reviewed),” she added.
The prosecution has questioned discrepancies between Duterte’s declared assets, reported income, bank balances and business interests.
The defense has disputed Cabrera’s conclusions and challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of the financial documents.
Although Kapunan questioned the absence of a comparable expert on the defense’s witness list, Duterte may still challenge the prosecution’s findings through cross-examination, documentary evidence and legal arguments.
Admissibility Of Key Evidence
Meanwhile, Kapunan said the Senate impeachment court’s ruling affirming the admissibility of key evidence presented by the House prosecution panel leaves Duterte’s defense team with no reason to avoid addressing the evidence when the trial resumes on Nov. 9.
Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero issued on Thursday a 22-page order resolving the prosecution’s formal offer of documentary evidence under Article II.
The court rejected the defense’s general objection that subpoenaed documents constituted a “fishing expedition” or were inadmissible simply because they were not attached to the original impeachment complaint.
However, it limited the use of financial records dating from 2007 to 2021 to establishing Duterte’s financial position before assuming the vice presidency on June 30, 2022.
“’Yung order on admissibility of our evidence, ang magandang nangyari diyan, in-admit lahat ng evidence ng prosecution ng presiding officer. So yun ang dalawang orders ng presiding officer at wala nang obstacle para magprisinta dapat ang defense (The major positive development here is that the presiding officer admitted all of the prosecution’s evidence, leaving no remaining obstacles for the defense to begin presenting its own case),” Kapunan said.
She explained that the evidence need not be attached to a complaint in legal proceedings, in this case, the Articles of Impeachment.
“Ang isang impeachment complaint, alam natin lahat niyan, hindi naman kailangan lahat ng ebidensya ay i-attach sa complaint (It is a matter of common knowledge that an impeachment complaint does not require all pieces of evidence to be attached in the complaint). Because a complaint must only have what is called ultimate facts. Ultimate facts: who, what, where, when, how,” Kapunan said.
“Yung mga dokumento na prinesenta, ang tawag diyan ay evidentiary facts, evidence. So, sabi ng presiding officer, hindi naman violation yan na hindi in-attach lahat ng documents (The documents presented are called evidentiary facts, evidence. The presiding officer said that it is not a violation that all documents were not attached),” she added.
With regard to the complaint by the defense about the prosecution being engaged in a fishing expedition, Kapunan pointed out that the issuance of subpoenas is part of the process in court proceedings.
“That is the nature of the beast. ‘Yan ang ibig sabihin ng subpoena. Mag-produce kayo ng dokumento para malaman natin kung totoo man or hindi ang alegasyon ng prosecution (That is what a subpoena means. Produce documents so that we can find out whether the prosecution’s allegations are true or not). So, it is not a fishing expedition, it is within the power of the impeachment court to issue subpoenas to produce documents,” Kapunan said.
Even the financial documents and records of Duterte before she assumed the vice president position were also admitted by the impeachment court, which Kapunan explained was to establish a baseline on her income and net worth.
During its presentation of witnesses and evidence, the prosecution produced records of the investments made by Duterte over the years.
“So, all the records have been admitted. All the evidence, testimonial and documentary, has been admitted by the impeachment court through the presiding officer,” Kapunan said.
Article II, involving allegations of unexplained wealth, is the sole remaining impeachment charge against Duterte.
Her defense is scheduled to begin presenting evidence before the Senate impeachment court on Monday. (PNA)