Formal offer of evidence vs VP submitted early

In this photo uploaded on Facebook on July 10, 2026 shows Vice President Sara Duterte during her visit to Miarayon Central Elementary School for the Balik Eskwela program in Miarayon, Talakag, Bukidnon.

Vice President Sara Duterte via Facebook

MANILA, Philippines — Prosecutors from the House of Representative have submitted their formal offer of evidence against Vice President Sara Duterte to the Senate impeachment court ahead of the deadline last Friday, giving the defense 10 days to respond before hearings resume on Nov. 9.

“We already filed our formal offer of evidence, which, I believe if I’m not mistaken, was filed last Oct. 21. And this is days before the deadline,” House impeachment adviser and trial spokesman Robert Ace Barbers said at the Saturday News Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City.

“Hopefully, before we resume our impeachment hearings they can already file their comment to our formal offer of evidence,” he added.

The formal offer followed the prosecution’s decision to rest its case on Article II, covering Duterte’s unexplained wealth as reflected in her bank records and statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said the Senate impeachment court must rule on the admissibility of the evidence before the defense presents its case.

“The impeachment court is bound to rule on the admissibility given the formal offer and the comment filed by the defense. And then after that, we proceed to the defense’s presentation of evidence,” the Batangas second district congresswoman said.

“What will be contested upon the formal offer of evidence is the admissibility of evidence. And that is how the prosecution will conclude its presentation of evidence, by filing its formal offer of evidence,” she added.

Luistro said the prosecution presented what it considered strong evidence against Duterte, including documentary and testimonial evidence.

She said it’s the prerogative of the defense to file a demurrer to evidence to challenge the prosecution’s evidence without presenting its own.

“But the Filipino people were able to witness the evidence presented by the prosecution panel,” Luistro said.

“On the contrary, they (prosecution evidence) are strong, clear, convincing. I do not see the ground for filing a demurrer to evidence,” she added.

Luistro also questioned the contrast between Duterte’s public image and the businesses she and her husband Mans Carpio own, citing financial analyst Alexander Cabrera’s findings that GenCorp Foods Corp., a declared asset operated by the Duterte-Carpio couple, runs at least five Jollibee branches.

“The image always being projected is that the respondent, the Vice President, goes to those fish ball stalls, right? She eats at Jollibee. It turns out they own Jollibee,” Luistro said. They have denied the accusation.