House prosecutors ready to question Duterte-Carpio on assets, business interests

House prosecutors are challenging Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, to explain under oath the hundreds of millions of pesos in financial transactions and alleged undisclosed assets presented in her impeachment trial if they take the witness stand.

Prosecution spokesperson lawyer Jay Tolosa said Saturday that Duterte should personally account for the alleged gap between the P98 million in wealth declared in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and the financial transactions presented by the prosecution.

“Maganda na ang bise presidente ang magpaliwanag dahil nga siya ang pumirma nitong kanyang SALN at dineclare lang niya P98 million,” Tolosa said in a radio interview.

He cited the testimony of forensic accountant Alexander Cabrera, the prosecution's final witness, who estimated Duterte's alleged unexplained wealth at P817.87 million, potentially reaching P1.5 billion under a broader computation.

Tolosa said Carpio should also explain assets registered under his name that prosecutors claim were not reflected in Duterte's SALNs, as well as his alleged financial interests in companies that secured government contracts.

“Madami ho tayong mga bagay na gustong hingan ng paliwanag kay Attorney Manases Carpio,” Tolosa said.

Among these is GenCorp, which secured more than P30 million in government contracts from Davao City. Tolosa also cited Calle88, where Carpio reportedly holds a 47.5% stake.

Joint bank account

Prosecutors also want Duterte to explain a joint bank account she held with her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, after the defense claimed she could not recall the account.

Tolosa said the vice president should be able to account for the transactions, noting that she would have had to sign the documents when the account was opened.

“Although of course joint account, siyempre meron siyang signature dapat diyan when it was opened at the very least,” he said.

“If that will be their defense to deny knowledge (of) millions and millions of deposits reflected in those bank accounts and financial transactions, under oath, of course, this time, hindi na sa mga press conferences lamang,” Tolosa added.

‘Not a popularity contest’

Asked whether Duterte's continued popularity could affect the prosecution's case, Tolosa said the impeachment trial was not a popularity contest.

“We don't see it that way, quite honestly. Ang maganda naman dito, this is not a popularity contest,” he said.

He maintained that senator-judges should assess the documentary evidence and whether the defense could provide credible explanations for the alleged unexplained wealth.

“At the end of the day, naniniwala kami kung makikita ng mga kababayan natin itong ebidensya natin na nailatag na ay hindi masasagot ng tama ng depensa, hindi makakapagbigay ng maayos na kapaliwanagan kung paano nangyari itong unexplained wealth,” he said.

Court admits most prosecution evidence

Tolosa also welcomed the Senate impeachment court's 5 November ruling admitting most of the prosecution's documentary exhibits, including Duterte's SALNs, bank records and Anti-Money Laundering Council documents.

“The court was just being consistent when it again did not find merit in those arguments and admitted into evidence itong mga documentary exhibits namin,” Tolosa said.

The court rejected the defense's argument that the prosecution's collection of financial records amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition.

It excluded, however, certain exhibits, including Commission on Audit disallowance records involving confidential funds and documents concerning JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corp.

Tolosa said the COA records were submitted only in relation to the unexplained wealth allegations, not to establish liability over confidential funds, which were covered by three articles subsequently withdrawn by the prosecution.

Article II accuses Duterte of amassing wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, failing to fully disclose her assets and maintaining business interests prohibited under the Constitution.###