Impeachment court to prosecution: Present Sara Duterte bank records before Trillanes

Former senator Antonio Trillanes sits among House prosecutors during Day 31 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on September 29, 2026.

Senate Social Media Unit

Former senator Sonny Trillanes is among the prosecution's key witnesses in the Vice President's alleged unexplained wealth

MANILA, Philippines – Former Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV may testify in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday, September 30, as one of the prosecution’s witnesses on the allegations of unexplained wealth.

On Day 31 of the impeachment trial, House prosecutor Terry Ridon sought to present Trillanes as one of the prosecution’s next witnesses, along with Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, Kathy Florence Baldonado of the Register of Deeds in Davao City, and Marco Pineda of the Register of Deeds in Samal.

Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison questioned the move, saying it was the second time the House prosecution had suddenly changed the order of its witnesses.

“This means now that this would be the second time that the prosecution is changing the order of its presentation of the witnesses, just for this week,” Sison said.

“In fact, in the list of three witnesses disclosed yesterday, it does not include the name of former Senator Trillanes,” she added.

The prosecution’s move to present Trillanes drew reactions from some senator-judges, prompting presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero to call for a recess.

During the five-minute break, Escudero was seen discussing the matter with some senator-judges, who raised concerns about Trillanes testifying before the prosecution presents Duterte’s bank records. Escudero was also heard saying he could not prevent the prosecution from calling its witness.

After the recess, Escudero ruled that the impeachment court would not issue a subpoena to Trillanes but stressed that it “cannot prevent the prosecution from calling him as a witness voluntarily.”

“The court would like to remind the panel of prosecution to take in advisement the court will say: The cart cannot be put ahead of the horse,” Escudero said.

“It would be best as originally planned by the prosecutors, in their motion itself, to present at the very least the AMLC officer, and/or the bank officials or records given that the testimony of former Sen. Trillanes pertains to that,” he added.

Ridon, in response, said the prosecution wanted to present Duterte’s bank records “at the soonest possible time” but noted that their request for the admission of the evidence had only been recently resolved.

Sison then reiterated that the defense was withdrawing its objection to Trillanes’ appearance.

“We had withdrawn our objection and if they want to present former senator Trillanes tomorrow, then I think they should just do that,” she said.

In July, the Senate impeachment court granted the House prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank and financial records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.

Court cannot compel Duterte to admit evidence

The impeachment court also rejected the prosecution’s request for Duterte to admit to certain pieces of evidence in an effort to expedite the proceedings.

In his ruling, Escudero denied the prosecution’s request for Duterte to admit to “104 matters concerning respondent’s personal circumstances and former public offices, her spouse Manases Carpio’s business interests, and various Bureau of Internal Revenue and bank records.”

Escudero sustained the defense’s objection, citing Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, or “Admission by Adverse Party” that could not prevail over Duterte’s constitutional right against self-incrimination. He also ruled that Duterte was not required to answer the request and that her failure to respond could not be treated as an admission.

“The prosecution cannot shift its burden of proof to Respondent through the simple expedient of a Request for Admission,” Escudero said.

The court, however, rejected the defense’s request to expunge the request from the record. It said the unanswered matters would have “no evidentiary, factual or prejudicial effect against the Vice President.” – Rappler.com