Duterte impeachment trial Day 35
[ANALYSIS] The Dutertes' bank accounts: 'Always yours, never mine?'
The prosecution on Day 35 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial managed to establish that she and her family have owned and held accounts—either individually or collectively—at various banks, running into millions, presumably way past her declared net worth.
The family-held accounts at BPI contained probably the largest amount, but they faced the most contentious issues that left some loose ends hanging untied.
In January 2010, according to BPI Central Metro Manila Branches Division head Marwin Galvez, the bank had records of two accounts, both time deposits, opened weeks apart worth P40.65 million and P55 million, respectively, under the name of “Rodrigo Duterte or Rodrigo Duterte and Sara Duterte” at the BPI Julia Vargas branch.
Such arrangements (the use of “or” and “and”), Galvez said on the witness stand, showed that the former president could withdraw or transfer the account, or use it anywhere without the consent of his daughter. Until then, the father was still the mayor of Davao City.
The P40.65 million principal was renewed or rolled over 12 times, earned some interest, and was last renewed around Feb. 11, 2011, until the amount was finally credited and transferred to what was called a settlement account.
At some points, the principal was withdrawn, transferred to the settlement account, and was used to buy manager’s checks. The payee for the checks was “Rodrigo Duterte.”
For some time, the checks stayed afloat, like in limbo, unused, unspent, and upon maturity, the principal was returned to the settlement account.
So did the P55-million time deposit take the same route over time. By 2015, the two accounts had taken different forms, their balances greatly reduced, but the settlement account remained. The name of Davao-based businessman Samuel Uy likewise appeared as a payee.
The “checks in limbo” caught the attention of some senator-judges asking Galvez if it has become an industry practice—sort of hiding the money—so that this would need not be reflected in the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth of father or daughter.
On cross-examination, Galvez said when accounts were opened, the bank required identification and signatures of the two account holders, and the Dutertes presumably complied. Presumably, because the defense challenged whether Sara Duterte had signed her name on the accounts.
In 2015, when BPI requested an updated copy of their signatures, Duterte’s signature did not appear, as shown in the documents presented in court. Only that of her father appeared, and it did twice.
Neither did Sara Duterte's signature appear in the application for manager's checks.
Defense counsel Michael Poa presented in court a Duterte letter on Feb. 23, 2026, addressed to BPI Senior Vice President and Legal Counsel Paul Roderick Ysmael inquiring about the accounts.
The court did not allow Poa to show Ysmael’s reply, as Ysmael had to be present in court to authenticate the letter. Ysmael would be asked to appear in court at the defense’s time to present its own pieces of evidence.
Poa said Duterte wrote Ysmael the letter because “she had no knowledge, participation, or recollection of maintaining or having a beneficial interest in the joint accounts linked to her and her father, and that she only learned about the accounts during House committee hearings.”
Why Duterte would not have any knowledge of the accounts under her name ran contrary to banking rules, especially under the KYC policy—Know Your Client was puzzling, according to some senator-judges.
Why did it happen? Until the former president was shipped out to The Hague, the father and daughter had some domestic issues.
But could it really happen?
In the 2000 impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada, a witness named Clarissa Ocampo, an official of Equitable PCI Bank, testified that Estrada opened an account and signed bank documents under the fictitious name "Jose Velarde.” She said she was sitting just "one foot away" from Estrada in Malacañang when she saw him sign the banking documents.
Quoting the documents the court had received, presiding officer Chiz Escudero confirmed that an “inventory list” of pre-marked BPI exhibits showed Sara Duterte's signature did not appear on any transaction documents related to the opening, closing, or management of the time deposit accounts in question.
The court will have to wait for more documents, including Ysmael’s letter to Duterte.
Through various witnesses, the prosecution showed that Duterte and her husband and his company Calle88 opened accounts in other banks and insurance companies.
Aside from Galvez, there were other witnesses from different banks and insurance companies such as Asia United Bank, BDO, Philippine Savings Bank, Metrobank, Security Bank, PNB, FWD Life Insurance Corporation, Manulife, among others, supposedly showing the breadth of Sara Duterte and her family's wealth.
The core common findings and discrepancies highlighted during the hearings centered around unexplained wealth, undeclared bank accounts, and corporate closures, as pointed out by Risa Hontiveros.
Hontiveros noted that in Duterte's 2022 SALN alone, she declared personal properties amounting to P13.325 million, way below her supposed end-2022 bank balance.
PNB accounts held under Carpio and their minor children totalled more than P20.2 million for that same year. A similar discrepancy was flagged for 2023, where her declared personal properties (P14.725 million) were less than the P21.593 million found in those PNB accounts.
Records from PNB confirmed four cash withdrawals totalling P18 million made from one of Carpio's accounts on a single day on Aug. 6, 2024.
The testimony of the PSB official revealed that while Duterte and Carpio hold 10 bank accounts with the institution, only four remain active.
There were reported sudden bank account closures. Security Bank’s Leslie Cham testified that two checking accounts belonging to Calle88 were abruptly closed in July 2026.
Some senator-judges highlighted that this closure occurred during the exact same month the VP’s impeachment trial officially began.
Next to BPI accounts controlled by Duterte’s father, most of the bank accounts and insurance policies reported were held by Duterte’s husband.
Testimonies from insurance company representatives identified several policies and investments tied to her husband.
The witness from Pru Life Insurance Corp. of UK testified that Carpio owned three insurance policies, while Duterte owned only two.
The witness from BPI AIA Philippines said that Carpio owned a single-payment dollar-denominated insurance investment of $30,000 purchased on Feb. 13, 2013.
The witness from Allianz PNB Life Insurance said that Carpio held two dollar-denominated VUL insurance policies valued at $11,700 and $100,000, both of which were later surrendered.
The witness from FWD Life Insurance Corp testified that Carpio purchased a lump-sum insurance investment worth P10.6 million (with a P13.2 million sum assured) in May 2024, naming their children, not Duterte, as beneficiaries.
Bank records and testimonies presented across various institutions during the hearings noted multiple accounts tied individually or jointly to Carpio.
In the Land Bank (Davao R. Magsaysay Branch), Carpio had a lone active account with a balance of P1.358 million as of 2025.
At the Asia United Bank (Davao-Toril Branch), Carpio maintained two active accounts with a combined ending balance of P871,998 in 2025, not shared with the VP.
At the Philippine National Bank (Davao San Pedro-CM Recto Branch), Carpio maintained five accounts: four savings accounts and one time deposit account.
In Security Bank, he held one active peso account under Mans Carpio. Duterte had no account with them.
In BDO, Carpio had three active checking and savings accounts plus one active time deposit.
In all, the prosecution said that the bank accounts of the Vice President and her husband contained a total ending balance of over P190 million that went undeclared in her SALN between 2022 and 2025.
It would be interesting how the defense would dispute these accounts in its time.
On cross-examination on Day 35, the defense repeatedly argued that the witnesses had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of how the accounts were opened, transferred, and some even closed.
Carpio opened and closed so many accounts without her knowledge, and Duterte didn’t have to know anything about these accounts. It is probably one good point, but the law on SALN required declaration, a point the prosecution has been pointing out.
How would the defense turn it around? Didn’t Sara really know? Was Carpio hiding the accounts from her? Are there some domestic dynamics too between them? Possibly. Well, just like in the movies?
Until Day 35, all these were allegations, in the words of lead defense counsel Sheila Sison. Her team will have to work harder, peruse the banking documents more than ever.
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.
WATCH: Is OPM still as good as it used to be? (Generations Ep. 20)
September 9, 2026