MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutors have raised doubts over Vice President Sara Duterte’s ability to counter findings of alleged unexplained wealth amounting to Php 817.87 million, pointing to the apparent absence of a financial expert among the 24 witnesses listed by her defense team.
As the defense began presenting its case before the Senate impeachment court on Monday, November 9, prosecutors questioned whether its witnesses could adequately address the financial discrepancies identified by the prosecution’s forensic accounting expert.
The disputed amount reportedly involves financial transactions and assets linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, covering the period from 2022 to 2025.
According to the prosecution, none of the 24 defense witnesses identified so far appears to possess the specialized expertise necessary to directly challenge the forensic accounting findings presented during the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution maintained that the financial discrepancies require detailed explanations supported by accounting records, banking documents, and other relevant evidence.
Its forensic accounting expert previously examined financial transactions, corporate records, and other documents in an effort to determine whether the couple’s reported income and declared assets could account for the financial activity under scrutiny.
The prosecution cited approximately Php 817.87 million as the amount involved in its broader financial analysis, which it has linked to allegations of unexplained wealth.
However, the figure remains a prosecution allegation and has not been established by a final ruling of the impeachment court.
The House panel’s latest position places renewed attention on the defense’s planned presentation of witnesses and whether their testimony will directly address the financial findings or focus primarily on individual transactions and supporting documents.
The defense opened its presentation on Monday with Davao City Assessor Engr. Jaime Adalin, whose testimony concerns property-related records.
While such testimony may address specific documentary issues, prosecutors have questioned whether the defense’s overall witness lineup can sufficiently challenge the financial analysis underlying the remaining impeachment charge.
The prosecution’s assertions do not necessarily establish that the defense lacks other means of disputing the findings, including documentary evidence, cross-examination, and legal arguments.
Duterte’s defense retains the opportunity to contest the prosecution’s calculations, challenge the interpretation of financial records, and present evidence supporting its position.
The Senate impeachment court will ultimately assess the credibility and weight of the evidence presented by both sides in determining the remaining charge involving alleged unexplained wealth.
