Highlights: Day 34 of Sara Duterte impeachment trial | Oct. 6, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – On the 34th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, the prosecution presented Land Bank of the Philippines R. Magsaysay Branch Manager Raquel dela Cerna, who testified about the year-end balances of Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, in an account ending in 2730, covering 2022 to 2025. 

A second LBP witness, San Pedro branch head Eunice Sumatra, was also called to the stand on Tuesday as the prosecution continued building its case on financial records tied to the couple.

The proceedings drew renewed attention to the P4.4-billion financial trail involving Duterte and Carpio, comprising 666 covered transaction reports and 55 suspicious transaction reports filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council from 2007 to 2025.  

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Highlights: Day 33 of Sara Duterte impeachment trial | Oct. 5, 2026

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, returning for cross-examination, maintained that his testimony was limited to transactions reported to the agency and that he had no personal knowledge of whether Duterte had amassed unexplained wealth. He also clarified that suspicious transaction reports do not by themselves prove illegal activity, as they require further analysis and investigation. 

Senator-Judge Bam Aquino raised the question of whether prosecutors would move to obtain financial records of Tapang at Malasakit Alliance for the Philippines, a group previously led by Duterte as Davao City mayor, after the prosecution stated the group received a P150-million donation from the Chinese government in 2018 for the construction of 13 school buildings in Davao City. Prosecution counsel Mae Divinagracia said the team was considering the move. 

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian had earlier noted what he called an unusual trend in Duterte’s financial data, observing that transactions from 2009 to 2013 alone amounted to about P2.7 billion, or roughly 70 to 80 percent of the total P3.3 billion flagged for that period. ^[4]

Off the stand, the defense team’s warnings during cross-examination about potential criminal liability for those who disclose AMLC information drew sharp reactions from press freedom advocates and the prosecution. Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro maintained that no law was violated when the House obtained and discussed AMLC records as part of the constitutionally mandated impeachment process. 

Article continues after this advertisement

Defense spokesperson lawyer Michael Poa said it was not the team’s intent to threaten anyone. 

Rights advocate Carlos Conde, a former Human Rights Watch researcher, branded the defense warnings an absurd, desperate move and an assault on press freedom. ^[8] The International Association of Women in Radio and Television–Philippines similarly criticized defense lawyer Mark Vinluan for enumerating AMLC penalties while cross-examining Buenaventura.

Article continues after this advertisement

Malacañang, meanwhile, denied Duterte’s suggestion that the administration was behind allegations against her. Palace press officer Claire Castro said Duterte appeared to be blaming President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. because she could no longer find a defense against the accusations. 

Sources

1. Prosecution eyes records of VP-linked group over China donations
2. Mans Carpio’s Landbank account balances from 2022-2025 unveiled at trial
3. Group hits ‘veiled threats’ to journalists in Sara Duterte’s trial
4. Gatchalian notes ‘unusual trend’ in Sara Duterte’s financial trail
5. Malacañang denies Sara Duterte’s claim of Palace smear drive
6. AMLC witness cites records when pressed on Sara Duterte’s wealth
7. AMLC: Suspicious transaction reports do not prove illegal activity
8. Rights advocate slams defense warning in Sara Duterte trial
9. No law violated in AMLC disclosures, says lead prosecutor
10. Impeach court opens VP’s P4.4-B transaction docs
11. Defense team did not intend to threaten anyone – Poa