[ANALYSIS] Sara’s SALN, husband’s millions: Lost in translation?
Despite the initial confusion, the prosecution managed to present on Day 36 an official of the Bureau of Internal Revenue who testified that there were discrepancies between the joint income of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, lawyer Mans Carpio, and her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth.
Lawyer Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez, chief of staff of the BIR commissioner, told the court that Duterte and her husband had a combined income of P85.34 million, or P13.31 million lower than her declared net worth of P98.66 million in her 2025 SALN.
During prosecution lawyer Erwin Matib's direct examination, Marquez said that Duterte had likewise received some kind of income listed as sales and fees between 2007 and 2025, beyond her compensation received as Davao City mayor and later as vice president.
Because Duterte described herself as a lawyer in BIR documents, Marquez theorized that the added income came from professional fees, but defense counsel Kristine Ferrer opposed the classification and called for the witness to stick to the written entry: The income came from sales and fees. Nothing more.
With Marquez’s disclosures, Matib told the court Duterte had supposedly violated some constitutional provisions prohibiting Duterte from engaging in other jobs outside her official duties as vice president and mayor, respectively.
While the provisions circumscribed Duterte, Carpio, not being a public official, was free to make money. Both are lawyers. Either way, Duterte was duty-bound to declare in her SALN, except that on Day 35, Duterte’s counsels raised doubts, or the possibility that Duterte had no knowledge of wealth attributed to her through her supposed joint account with her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, and probably her husband. But then again, that is for the impeachment court to decide.
On cross-examination, Ferrer managed to get Marquez to say that the income reports of Duterte and her husband and his companies came from Davao and that Marquez had no personal role in the preparation of the financial documents.
The defense lawyer likewise managed to distract Marquez’s testimony when she got a confession from her, which the prosecution failed to acknowledge during direct examination, that the BIR had submitted two different reports to the court.
The twin reports confused Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero and the viewing public momentarily.
For lack of time, Ferrer failed to make more substantial questions during cross-examination. The discrepancies between income and SALN were not reconciled. Neither the discrepancies between the two BIR reports was settled. Several things were lost in the translation.
The senator-judges and the public will have to wait until Day 37, when the court settles the issues.
Delayed proceedings
Mati’s direct examination came after lunch because he failed to show up on the morning of the trial. That absence squeezed the day’s timetable.
Marquez was all set to appear on the morning of Day 36; the prosecution was supposed to present Marquez to wrap, if not seal, the team’s gains during the previous day in the impeachment trial.
Through various witnesses representing several banks and insurance companies, prosecution lawyer James Bryan Ibrahim Alih on Day 35 managed to show that Duterte, her father, and her husband had allegedly maintained accounts containing a total ending balance of over P190 million that went undeclared in her SALN between 2022 and 2025.
But Matib called in sick at the last minute, prompting House prosecutor Terry Ridon to offer another witness, one Alex Cabrera, a financial analyst and a forensic expert.
Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison opposed the move, calling it unfair, citing previous agreements on the schedule of witnesses, which Escudero and two parties usually tackle before calling it a day.
The change of witness is an “ultra-belated notice,” Sison said, noting that preparing for the scheduled BIR witness required exhaustive effort, especially given the defense’s limited manpower.
“This is unfair,” said Sison, pointing to the presence of 13 public and private prosecutors in the trial who could possibly take Atib’s place. “Bakit kami ang mag-a-adjust?”
Seated in the prosecution panel were lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro, Leila de Lima, Chel Diokno, Lorna Kapunan, and Ridon, among others. “They were all capable,” Sison said.
Except for Diokno, who had visibly exercised restraint during news conferences, most of the prosecution lawyers have been very performative, if not loquacious, in litigating their case outside the court. The court had once reprimanded Ridon and lawyers Jay Tolosa and Virgil Ligutan for talking too much outside the court. Luistro, De Lima, and Kapunan were once told to stop editorializing when they offered a witness in the trial.
Escudero suspended the session and later ruled to proceed with Cabrera’s testimony. He said he was willing to hear Cabrera until after the prosecution could produce Atib, even later in the afternoon. Anyway, Cabrera’s documents had been furnished to the defense last Oct. 2, he said.
Sison stood up anew to make an appeal. Escudero asked if any one of the prosecution lawyers present in the court was willing to take Atib’s place. No one volunteered. The silence felt heavy and awkward.
Senator-judge Tito Sotto stood up to heed her appeal. He initially thought it was the BIR witness who got sick, he said. Marquez was all along in the holding room, waiting for her turn.
Senator-judges Migz Zubiri and Erwin Tulfo seconded Sotto. Erwin was even pointed. He questioned why the proceedings had to stop. "Kapag absent 'yung abogado, eh magsususpinde tayo? Kailan tayo matatapos?”
Escudero ultimately called for an early lunch recess. The trial would resume after lunch.
It wasn’t the first time some senators found the prosecution wanting. A week after it got what it wanted to lower the threshold of conviction of the respondent, the prosecution presented a police major, the chief of firearms unit, and Rep. Bel Zamora to talk about Duterte’s firearms. Raffy Tulfo called their presence “palpak” and a waste of time.
Perhaps their presence was not a waste of time, but it was deemed anticlimactic, given the gains of the previous hearing day.
The suspension of the hearing triggered a discussion among the senators. To the viewing public, it was a trial pooper.
“Ang dami nilang kuda,” said a social media commentator. “Lahat sila may opinion sa trial 'pag media ang kausap. Ngayon, nganga?”
After the trial, some prosecution lawyers once again had a field day litigating outside the court, declaring as facts even the things that the court had failed to settle.
The prosecution was probably getting closer to the main event. Were it not for the lack of time, the hearing could have settled all that at once.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.