Sara Duterte defense challenges prosecution evidence in impeachment trial

Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense panel has questioned the admissibility of evidence presented by the prosecution in her impeachment trial, arguing that the documents were neither cited in the Articles of Impeachment nor attached to the original complaints.

In a comment signed by lawyer Karol Grace Oroceo, the defense said the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) obtained from the Office of the Ombudsman were inadmissible because they were not part of or attached to the impeachment complaints filed before the House of Representatives.

“The 2007-2021 SALNs are inadmissible for lack of relevance to the charges stated in the Articles of Impeachment, as they pertain to a period prior to Respondent’s term as an impeachable officer, without any established connection to the alleged impeachment acts,” the comment stated.

The comment was submitted and received on Oct. 20.

The defense is challenging the admissibility of evidence presented in connection with Article II, the sole remaining charge in the impeachment trial, which accuses Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth disproportionate to her lawful income.

It also accuses her of failing to fully and truthfully disclose her and her husband's assets in their SALNs and of failing to divest from business interests while serving as vice president.

Based on her SALNs, Duterte's declared net worth rose from P7.25 million in 2007, when she entered public office, to P98.656 million in 2025. She was elected as vice president in 2022.

The defense also challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records, which the prosecution used to show Duterte's alleged financial interests in various companies.

The vice president's defense team argued that the SEC documents covered periods before Duterte became vice president, contained information about corporations unrelated to her, and were supposedly being used to draw mere legal conclusions.

The panel likewise questioned the certification from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and the Certificate of Marriage of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, saying the documents were not authenticated by a witness and were not attached to the impeachment complaints.

The defense also challenged records from the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS), which the prosecution had presented to establish business transactions involving companies allegedly linked to Duterte. It described the claims drawn from these records as based on “conjectures and assumptions.”

Duterte's lawyers also disputed the “total value” of firearms allegedly owned by the couple, as reflected in Philippine National Police-Firearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) records, which the prosecution cited as personal properties not declared in Duterte's SALNs. The defense said the valuation was unsupported by evidence or testimony from a competent witness.

The defense further questioned the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records and reports concerning alleged substantial transfers and remittances from China, drug trafficking and related offenses, saying these lacked evidentiary support or testimony from a competent witness.

It also argued that the bank records were inadmissible because they had been obtained through a “fishing expedition” and had no clear, direct and substantial connection to Article II.

The defense also challenged the Insurance and Investment Company records, which the prosecution presented to show Duterte's alleged investments, as well as the forensic examination report and related electronic documents, arguing that these were based on mere “assumptions or conjectures” without evidentiary support.

It also questioned the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records, claiming that the Articles of Impeachment contained no specific allegations related to the documents.

In its comment, the defense said the prosecution had also failed to individually identify and authenticate the companies allegedly linked to Duterte.

In disputing the allegations of conflict of interest, the defense pointed out that Duterte had no business interests in Gencorp Industries Inc. during her tenure as vice president and had no affiliation with the Davao City local government unit, PhilHealth Region X or the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration Region IX.

The defense also assailed the forensic report and related electronic documents, describing them as “nothing more than legal conclusions premised on false, erroneous assumptions,” and saying no witness had confirmed the claims.

“The so-called forensic report itself and alleged related electronic documents are further inadmissible, as they violate the absolute confidentiality provision under the Anti-Money Laundering Act,” the comment said.

Under the impeachment rules, the prosecution has 10 days to respond to the defense's comment.

Trial suspension

The impeachment trial is currently suspended to give way to Senate committee deliberations on the proposed 2027 national budget.

The Senate impeachment court is scheduled to reconvene on Nov. 9 at 10 a.m.

Following the decision to drop three Articles of Impeachment, the prosecution will pursue only Article II, which accuses Duterte of failing to fully declare her assets and divest from business interests, raising questions about her unexplained wealth.

Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison earlier said the move would not affect the defense panel's presentation of evidence, stressing that Duterte should still be allowed to address allegations already presented before the impeachment court.— MCG, GMA News

Follow GMA News Online on Facebook for real-time news and developments in the Philippines and around the world.