House prosecutors are staking their impeachment case against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte on allegations of P817.87 million to P1.5 billion in unexplained wealth, saying financial records provide sufficient evidence to secure her conviction on the sole remaining charge.
Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said Wednesday that the prosecution had decided to focus on Article II after forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera presented findings on the alleged unexplained wealth involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, from 2022 to 2025.
“We will rise or fall on the basis of unexplained wealth, and we are convinced na ito po ’yung talaga pong magiging batayan doon po sa pagpapasya ng ating mga senator-judges sa pinakadulo,” Ridon said at a press briefing.
Cabrera’s findings placed the allegedly unexplained wealth at P817.87 million, with a broader calculation potentially bringing the amount to P1.5 billion, according to Ridon.
“So nung pinag-usapan ng prosecutors ito pong numero po na ito, ang sabi namin, dito na tayo tumutok. Ito po ang ebidensya na kailangan para patunayan ’yung Article of Impeachment on unexplained wealth,” he said.
House impeachment team adviser and spokesperson Ace Barbers acknowledged the risks of dropping three other impeachment articles but said the prosecution was confident in the remaining charge.
“In spite of that too big of a risk, we took the risk. Bakit? Kasi ganoon ka-kumpyansa kami dito sa article na naiwan,” Barbers said.
“Nailatag nang maayos, klarong-klaro ang ebidensya, at sa aming paniwala, these are uncontrovertible evidence,” he added.
The prosecution presented year-end balances totaling P59.03 million in 2022, P71.38 million in 2023, P22.25 million in 2024 and P39.09 million in 2025 across 26 bank accounts linked to Duterte and Carpio.
Prosecutors compared the balances with Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), which declared no cash on hand or in banks during those years.
Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua said the evidence was easier for the public to assess because it relied largely on Duterte’s own asset declarations and official financial records.
“Dahil dito sa unexplained wealth, eh mismong mga dokumento na galing sa kanila ang aming ginawang ebidensya,” Chua said.
“Hindi ito pwedeng sabihin at itanggi na ’yung SALN ay ginawa lamang namin, dahil may pirma niya at siya mismo ang nagsumite,” he added.
House prosecution legal spokesperson and counsel Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said the impeachment proceedings allowed prosecutors to obtain records from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Anti-Money Laundering Council and banks, which are ordinarily subject to confidentiality restrictions.
“Then let’s remember, kaya nailabas dito ’yung mga BIR records, AMLC records, especially the bank records, dahil impeachment is an exception to the confidentiality rules, to the bank secrecy rules,” Tolosa said.
Ridon said the prosecution decided to concentrate on the financial allegations only after assessing the full extent of the evidence.
“It was something that we did not anticipate from the beginning of presentation of evidence for the previous articles,” he said.
He also rejected claims that Duterte’s defense team had been denied the opportunity to respond, saying her lawyers had earlier rejected a proposal to alternate the presentation of evidence after each impeachment article.
“So it is not our fault that they had not foreseen this particular moment to actually come to pass,” Ridon said.
The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday approved the withdrawal of Article I, which concerned the alleged misuse of confidential funds; Article III, which involved bribery; and Article IV, which covered grave threats and related allegations.
Article II, involving alleged unexplained wealth, inaccurate asset declarations and prohibited business interests, is the only charge left for the Senate to decide.
Ridon and Tolosa said withdrawing the three articles would not prevent separate criminal proceedings over the allegations they covered.
Barbers said the prosecution was prepared for Duterte’s defense to present its own expert witness to challenge Cabrera’s findings.
“At the end of the day, lahat po nitong mga ebidensyang naiprisenta ng prosecution at ipipresenta ng defense ay titimbangin pa rin ng ating senator-judges before they render a verdict on this article,” Barbers said.
Comments