Duterte impeachment trial Day 38
[ANALYSIS] Expert admits some conjectures on VP Sara's wealth, but hearing sounds like the eve of a conviction
The prosecution's final witness, financial forensic analyst Atty. Alex Cabrera, had neatly concluded on Day 37 that Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Atty. Mans Carpio, had allegedly acquired a total of P817.87 million in unexplained wealth between 2022 and 2025.
But on Day 38 of the impeachment trial, Cabrera declared that he had either no personal knowledge of some of the crucial transactions the couple had undertaken in the last five years, or that his data provided by the prosecution in September 2026 were wanting, and that he wished he had more.
Both sides claim victory
Curiously, both Duterte and the prosecution spokesmen claimed victory during and after the Day 38 hearing.
In a brief interview outside the trial, Duterte said the prosecution's allegations against her have collapsed. All the pieces of evidence against her were fabricated, she said. But the interview was so brief that she failed to pinpoint the specific weakness of the prosecution as detailed in the hearing.
During a recess, the prosecution spokesmen said Cabrera was their last witness for the trial, predicting that they were foreseeing Duterte’s conviction, especially with his testimony covering Article II on the VP's alleged unexplained wealth.
The prosecution had dropped Article III, which covered allegations of bribery. It tackled first Article IV covering the alleged grave threats against the Marcoses, followed by Article I, the alleged mishandling of confidential funds.
The lengthy question-hour by the senator-judges on the afternoon of Day 38 extracted the same line of answers as on Day 37, but this time with more details, more analysis, more personal but expert opinion from the witness. “More assumptions,” as summarized by the defense, even by some senator-judges.
For several hours, amid interjections of several senator-judges, particularly Risa Hontiveros, Raffy Tulfo, Kiko Pangilinan, and Joel Villanueva, the trial looked and sounded like the eve of the day they would cast their vote, leaning apparently toward a conviction.
Shortly after Ping Lacson raised his own questions about how he would cast his vote, presiding officer Chiz Escudero said the senator-judges may base their decisions on the testimony of the witnesses and the pieces of evidence the prosecution would offer when it finally wraps up or rests its case.
Expert witness stands by findings
On Villanueva’s interjections, Cabrera declared that the couple “had wealth that was manifestly disproportionate” to their income and assets, as stated in Duterte’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth from 2022 to 2025.
“The SALN is the simplest balance sheet,” Cabrera said, replying to Villanueva’s questions. He didn’t have to join the government to learn about filing SALN, he said.
If the documents were not enough, said Villanueva, and he would be given the chance to ask for one lone document from Duterte, what would it be “to put icing on the cake?” Cabrera said: None.
“Halata na po ang concealment,” Cabrera told Villanueva. “Sadyang itinago ang P817 million. 'Yung senyales, andun naman po. ‘Yung mga company, maliit ang kapital, malaki ang pumapasok na pera, pero laging lugi.”
Cabrera was passionate about his analysis of the couple's wealth such that he could have resigned had the prosecution forced him to change it.
“Pro bono po ito,” he said, meaning he did it for free. “Ang condition, we would follow our own findings; we would not swing left or right.”
“Ang dali pong mag-resign.”
And if at all he had made some errors, Cabrera said: “Kung may mali po, aaminin ko po, pero solid po ang report ko.”
Replied Villanueva: “Bottom line, you don’t need anything.” Nothing more, said Cabrera. The documents he had analyzed were enough to support his conclusion, he said.
Replying to Hontiveros’ questions, Cabrera said he made his conclusion after looking at and comparing Duterte’s SALN, business interest in GenCorp amounting to at least 20%, the Carpios’ financial statements and their businesses, AMLC documents, remittances from China, GenCorp, and the cost of franchise of other businesses such as the Jollibee branches, which he said had a minimum investment of P35 million, insurance investments, and their income tax returns.
Based on his study, Cabrera said he presumed that GenCorp's Jaime T. Cruz was simply Duterte’s frontman or nominee in the company. “That makes sense,” he said, quoting their association. “Naglagay na po kami ng motibo kasi po kumukuha ng kontrata sa Davao City Hall.” Still, no paper linking Duterte with Cruz, he said in response to Camille Villar’s question.
How did he know about the P35-million investment on a Jollibee branch? “Conservative estimate lang po,” he told Camille.
It won’t go any lower, he said. Are you sure? Camille said there was no certainty, noting there was no document showing any ownership transaction between GenCorp and Jollibee. “’Yan po ang aking opinion. Kung mali po ako, mali po ako. That’s a conservative analysis. Wala na po kaming oras. Wala pong malinaw na document na nagsasabi,” he said.
While Duterte declared she had business interest in GenCorp, not in MetroFood, Cabrera said Duterte had “significant influence” in MetroFood, because she owned part of GenCorp and because Duterte was an influential figure in Davao City.
How did he draw that conclusion? “Based on sensitivity analysis,” he told Pia Cayetano.
The financial transactions and bank records were too difficult to understand, but if anything, Cabrera served the purpose of simplifying all these and connecting the dots, so to speak.
In more ways than one, some of his presumptions made sense. Why, for instance, Calle88, a company listed under Carpio as a banana chips exporter, had received millions from a Chinese company, but found itself in the red at the end of so many fiscal years.
“No payroll,” Cabrera said, replying to Raffy Tulfo’s questions about the company. “No inventory of raw materials, or work in process. Maski ano ang laki ng perang pumapasok, laging lugi.”
Where did the money come from? “Wala po akong alam,” Cabrera said. “Manghuhula po ako, pero hindi po galing sa operation. Baka galing po sa shareholders.
He did not say if Calle88 was a manufacturer or trading company.
Cabrera said he applied the “doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction,” a legal exception where courts ignore the separate legal personality of a corporation and hold its shareholders, directors, or officers personally liable for its actions, debts, or liabilities.
Pressed further by Raffy Tulfo, Cabrera said the wealth of Carpio’s Calle88 was just as questionable.
“Marami po sa kanilang financial transactions ay wala sa tamang hulog,” he said.
He didn’t know if Calle88’s export and import transactions had any record at the Bureau of Customs. “Tinanong ko rin po ito sa prosecution; hindi ko na nasundan kung meron.”
Lito Lapid stood up to show appreciation for Cabrera. He asked prosecution lawyer Chel Diokno if he had anything that he wanted the public at large to remember out of Cabrera’s testimony.
“Nakakalula po ang mga numero sa Article II,” Diokno said. “Kung titingnan po natin ang pinaka-punto po nito: Ang malinis na opisyal ay walang itinatago.”
Diokno said the impeachment trial was not about Duterte, nothing personal. “It was about the trust the people gave her—the leadership, the accountability.”
By the nature of the question-hour, nobody assailed the senator-judges for their points of view.
Defense challenges witness' findings
On the morning of Day 38, it was a different matter altogether.
Ferrer spent the whole morning challenging all of Cabrera’s conceivable assumptions, raising questions ranging from his professional preparations, including gaps in his forensic experience as against his tax experience, his bias considering that he belonged to business groups that called for Duterte’s impeachment, and the lack of personal knowledge surrounding the wealth of the Carpio couple outside pieces of documentary evidence.
Cabrera explicitly admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding whether Duterte was aware of all the bank accounts registered under her spouse and her father, and that he was not aware of the circumstances under which Duterte had found herself left out of all these transactions.
By securing these admissions, the defense panel sought to underscore that Cabrera's forensic audit relied strictly on pattern analysis of external prosecution documents rather than direct familiarity with the couple's personal dealings.
Cabrera confirmed to Ferrer that his report on the P817.87 million in wealth/income relied on documents provided by the prosecution and did not include financial records coming from Duterte or her husband, and the former president.
So did Cabrera tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Pia Cayetano wanted to know. Cabrera admitted that he was not given more time to study the documents and to obtain more documents, but the lack of time didn’t affect his report, he told Robin Padilla.
Ferrer said Cabrera might have violated AMLA laws for having received AMLC documents from the House of Representatives, not from the impeachment court, but he presumed that because it was being talked about in the House, it didn’t matter anymore.
It didn’t matter that he was not a member of an accounting group. It didn’t matter that his company was once accused of an erroneous assessment report a long time ago.
For all the presumptions, for all the limitations in the three-week-long forensic financial study, for all the possible breach of confidentiality, Cabrera said he was standing by his report.
He maintained he was qualified to do the forensic study and that he was not intimidated by anything at all despite the possible flaws and limitations of the report. “I'm not scared naman po,” he said.
Whether or not the prosecution had actually convinced the senator-judges and the public at large remains to be seen. About time the judges and the public evaluated the contrary evidence.
The judges and the public would be well-advised to suspend judgment.
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: Pixar Summer Fest adventure at Hong Kong Disneyland
August 10, 2026
WATCH: LGBTQIA+ people with unlikely professions
June 28, 2026