2 Carpio properties not listed in Sara Duterte’s SALN

MANILA, Philippines — Two Land Registration Authority officials testified on Thursday that properties acquired by lawyer Manases Carpio, husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, did not match entries in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), as the impeachment court continued examining her alleged unexplained wealth.

The testimony was followed by a clash over the confidentiality of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records, prompting the court to defer the appearance of AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura to Monday and cut short what was supposed to be the first full-day session.

The court adjourned at 3:30 p.m., instead of the scheduled 6:30 p.m., and canceled Friday’s session. The trial will resume on Monday with Buenaventura, followed by witnesses from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, banks and insurance companies.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Trillanes: I asked Luistro to drop me as witness in Duterte trial

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Davao City Register of Deeds IV Kathy Florence Baldonado testified on Day 32 that Carpio bought in 2024 a 379-square-meter property in Matina, Davao City, for P6 million.

The property, she said, was not found in Duterte’s 2025 SALN, which she jointly filed with Carpio. The deed of sale and transfer certificate of title did not match any of the Vice President’s declared properties in price, location and mode of acquisition.

READ: Barbers: SALN disclosure, not value of VP Duterte guns, the issue

“Based on the record I have, there is nothing in 2025 (SALN)—there is no match in the price and the location and the mode of acquisition as stated in 2025 as construction and here in our document it is deed of sale,” Baldonado said.

Article continues after this advertisement

Defense disputes finding

Defense lawyer Lindol Bacquel presented an August 2024 tax declaration identifying the P6-million lot as the same property Duterte declared in Barangay 74-A, Matina. Baldonado later confirmed that the property had the same assessed value.

Bacquel also asked the court to take judicial notice of maps showing that Barangay 74-A is also known as Matina Crossing.

Article continues after this advertisement

Presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero initially said the property was not found in Duterte’s 2025 SALN but later clarified that SALNs have limitations because they do not always provide the exact property area and may use broader descriptions.

“The problem is the SALN does not require the actual area to be stated,” Escudero said, noting that there was no one-to-one correspondence between the information in the title and deed of sale and the SALN entry.

He also said the property was not found because the areas in the SALN are “too generic to identify and find out.”

Baldonado said the Registry of Deeds merely receives documents submitted for registration and does not determine the actual location of a property. She said the Matina property’s supporting documents identified it as Juna Subdivision, Matina Crossing, Talomo, Davao City, while its title carried the broader description “Barrio of Matina, City of Davao, Island of Mindanao.”

Samal lot questioned

The second property examined was a 751-square-meter lot in Barangay Matanos, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte.

Samal Deputy Register of Deeds Marco Pineda testified that Carpio acquired the property in 2018 for P3.45 million. Upon checking Duterte’s SALN, he said, “nothing in this SALN perfectly matches the DOAS,” or deed of absolute sale.

Escudero cited Duterte’s 2019 SALN, which declared two land purchases in Barangay Aundanao, Igacos, one for P2 million and another for P1 million. Pineda, however, said neither declaration matched the deed of sale and that the title covered only one parcel.

The defense presented a tax declaration for Carpio’s property in San Isidro-Kaputian, Samal, bearing the same property identification as the P3-million lot in Barangay Matanos.

Senator-judge Joel Villanueva sought clarification on whether Duterte’s name appearing beside Carpio’s as his spouse established any ownership interest in the properties.

Baldonado said the phrase “married to Sara Z. Duterte-Carpio” merely reflected Carpio’s civil status and did not establish co-ownership. She also confirmed that Duterte did not sign the deed of absolute sale or appear in it as having paid any part of the purchase price.

‘That’s perjurious’

Villanueva said the court would need bank, seller and loan-disbursement records to determine the source and movement of funds and whether the properties fell within the issues covered by Article 2.

In a post-trial press briefing, prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan said the phrase “married to” indicated common ownership of the properties, which she said should have been declared in Duterte’s SALN.

“The fact is, under many decisions of the Supreme Court, married to means that that property is owned by both. And even if it did not specifically show as owned by Sara Duterte, even if the name of Mans is not there, it’s still presumed absolute community,” Kapunan said.

“It has nothing to do with the amount and everything to do with the nondisclosure of that real property in the SALN, which is subscribed and signed, meaning, everything there is truthful and accurate. So that’s perjurious,” she added.

The property testimony set the stage for Buenaventura’s scheduled appearance to testify on financial transaction records. But the defense asked that his testimony be moved to Monday, citing the volume and confidentiality of AMLC documents.

Clash over AMLC rule

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison said the defense received an 11-page AMLC summary only on Thursday morning and that it referred to at least 23 to 24 boxes of documents. She also cited Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which she said provides for the absolute confidentiality of AMLC records.

Sison pointed to an Oct. 1 letter from Buenaventura saying the AMLC was “not waiving the confidentiality of AMLC records.”

She argued that the court’s earlier ruling allowing the subpoena of AMLC records dealt only with its issuance and did not foreclose objections to the use of the records.

House prosecutor Chel Diokno countered that the defense had known about the AMLC records since Sept. 2 and had sufficient time to prepare.

He also cited the impeachment court’s earlier ruling that Section 8-A regulates unauthorized disclosures by AMLC personnel but “does not and constitutionally cannot nullify the lawful subpoena powers of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.”

Diokno questioned why the court would have issued the subpoena if AMLC confidentiality prevented it from examining the records.

Escudero treated the defense’s request as a postponement, rather than a motion for reconsideration. Citing “courtesy and equity,” he gave the defense additional time to prepare for Buenaventura’s direct and cross-examination on Monday.

Financial execs next

The court also approved the prosecution’s request to subpoena representatives of seven banks and seven insurance and financial companies for next week.

The banks are Land Bank of the Philippines, Asia United Bank, Philippine Savings Bank, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Bank of the Philippine Islands, Philippine National Bank, and BDO Unibank.

The insurance and financial companies are Prudential Life, Allianz, Manufacturer’s Life, FWD Life Insurance, BPI AIA Life, BDO Securities and BDO Life.

Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said the prosecution will present a BIR witness on Oct. 5, then the rest on Oct. 6.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The prosecution also announced that it would no longer present former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV as a witness in Article 2. /cb