06/10/2026
🚨 : THE ₱4.4-BILLION MONEY TRAIL
Day 33 was not about political noise. It was about following the money.
For roughly nine hours, the Senate impeachment court heard from Atty. Ronel Buenaventura, Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council Secretariat, who testified on financial records involving Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio.
At ang inilatag niya sa impeachment court:
₱4.4 billion in aggregate covered and suspicious transactions from 2007 to 2025.
The records cover 666 covered transaction reports and 55 suspicious transaction reports involving the couple. Sara Duterte accounted for ₱3.732 billion, while Carpio accounted for approximately ₱749.9 million.
Pero dito kailangang maging precise:
Ang ₱4.4 billion ay transaction activity, hindi ₱4.4 billion na napatunayang unexplained wealth.
At iyon ang dahilan kung bakit mahalaga ang susunod na hakbang ng prosecution - i-reconcile ang financial records sa SALNs, declared assets, lawful income at business interests.
💰 BUENAVENTURA: “ANYTHING THAT WENT INSIDE…”
Nang tanungin ni prosecutor Mae Divinagracia kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng inflows, simple pero mahalaga ang sagot ni Buenaventura:
“Anything that went inside the bank accounts of the individuals that were mentioned here.”
At para naman sa outflows:
“Anything that went out of the bank account.”
Sa records na ipinakita:
₱1.63B - inflows
₱1.31B - outflows
₱1.46B - transactions na hindi matukoy bilang inflow o outflow.
Hindi kailangang gawing sensational ang mga numerong ito. The point is simpler and stronger:
May financial activity na kailangang ma-account at maipaliwanag.
🇨🇳 ₱319.3M FROM CHINA AND HONG KONG
Isa sa pinakamabigat na bahagi ng testimony ang Cale88 Foods Corporation, isang company linked to Carpio.
Ayon kay Buenaventura, nakatanggap ang Cale88 ng ₱319,326,770.41 in inward remittances from Mainland China and Hong Kong.
At nang tanungin siya ni Divinagracia tungkol sa aggregate amount, direkta ang sagot:
“Ang kabuuang halaga po, Your Honor, ’yung aggregate amount… ang naka-indicate sa aming tabular summary ay P319,326,770.41 po, Your Honor. Based on our tabular summary record.”
The breakdown was approximately ₱315.93 million from Mainland China and ₱3.39 million from Hong Kong.
Pero may mahalagang limitasyon mismo sa testimony ni Buenaventura.
Nang tanungin kung makikita ba sa records na may intent na itago ang source ng remittances, sinabi niya:
“I am unable to answer, Your Honor. I was only given the portion, and even then, it’s difficult to ascertain at this point because it’s just numbers…”
At nang tanungin kung may basis para sabihing money laundering ang transactions:
“I am unable to provide a comment or answer because I am only testifying based on the records…”
The AMLC established the remittances.
Hindi niya sinabi na Chinese government money iyon. Hindi rin niya sinabi na napatunayang money laundering iyon.
That leaves the prosecution with the proper question:
Ano ang legitimate business purpose, source and documentation ng pera?
🏦 ₱173.7M IN SEVEN INTER-ACCOUNT TRANSFERS
Another major record involved seven transactions on March 28, 2014 totaling ₱173.7 million.
Included were:
₱55.13M
₱41.72M
four separate ₱20M transactions
Two of the entries involved joint accounts bearing the names of Rodrigo Duterte and Sara Duterte, according to Buenaventura.
When asked about the code “CTRIA,” he explained:
“CTRIA means inter-account transfer. So this is a movement of funds from one account to another client’s account within the same bank, Your Honor.”
This is where the testimony needs to be read carefully.
An inter-account transfer is not automatically new wealth.
Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero himself questioned whether the same funds could effectively be counted twice as they moved between accounts.
Buenaventura said the transactions carried separate reference numbers, but when asked whether aggregating them was proper, he answered:
“I cannot say, Your Honor. I cannot say if it is proper or not, Your Honor.”
That is precisely why the prosecution’s strongest case is not simply the aggregate.
It is the transaction-by-transaction reconciliation with the SALNs.
💵 THE ₱41M WITHDRAWAL
The prosecution also presented a specific transaction involving Manases Carpio.
On August 6, 2024, records showed withdrawals totaling ₱41 million:
₱23M from BDO
₱18M from PNB
The prosecution placed this alongside the couple’s 2024 joint SALN, which declared zero cash on hand and in bank.
The issue is not that withdrawing ₱41 million is inherently illegal.
The question is:
How does that transaction reconcile with the sworn financial disclosure?
That is the kind of question Article II puts directly before the impeachment court.
🧾 THE ₱6.7B TO ₱4.4B CORRECTION
The defense has every reason to highlight that the earlier ₱6.7-billion figure was revised.
But Buenaventura explained why:
“The scope was different, the years were different, and corrections were made to 13 CTRs.”
The earlier House submission covered a different period and scope. The impeachment court subpoena covered 2007 to 2025 and all covered personalities, and one reporting institution corrected 13 reports.
So yes, the figure changed.
The prosecution should use the corrected ₱4.4 billion figure and stand by it.
That is stronger than pretending the correction never happened.
⚖️ THE DEFENSE TRIED TO KEEP THE AMLC RECORDS OUT
The defense objected to Buenaventura’s testimony on confidentiality grounds.
But Escudero allowed the witness to proceed, explaining that the AMLC was not designed to be a passive repository of information.
His ruling:
“The AMLC is not a passive repository, and confidentiality cannot be invoked in a manner that defeats its statutory mandate.”
That ruling was significant for the prosecution because the financial records remained available for examination before the impeachment court.
🗣️ CAYETANO VS. HONTIVEROS: “TSISMIS” OR EVIDENCE?
Some of the suspicious transaction reports cited circumstances drawn from media reports, including allegations involving flood control, drug trafficking and alleged misuse of confidential funds.
Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioned the reliance on news reports:
“Turo ng nanay at tatay ko, ’pag nakarinig ako ng tsismis at tinanong ako, huwag kong ikakalat ’yung tsismis. Kasi pagka ang tsismis ay ikinalat ko, credibility ko kasama rin.”
Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros countered:
“ Hindi ko muna ipe-presume na ang anumang bagay o ano man ay tsismis, hanggang marinig ko po lahat.”
And this is where the prosecution has to stay disciplined.
An STR is not a conviction.
It is not proof that every transaction was criminal.
But neither should the court dismiss the underlying financial records simply because one report referenced media information.
The records themselves can still be examined.
🎯 WHAT THE PROSECUTION ACTUALLY HAS TO PROVE
This is where the case should stay focused.
The prosecution does not need to argue:
“₱4.4 billion = illegal money.”
That overstates what the evidence currently establishes.
The stronger argument is:
Here are the financial records. Now compare the relevant transactions against the sworn disclosures.
House prosecution spokesperson Ace Barbers captured that argument:
“Ito po ay hindi haka-haka. Ito ay hindi gawa-gawang kuwento. Ito po ay may resibo. Ito ho ay galing mismo sa reports mula sa mga covered institutions.”
That is the prosecution’s strongest lane.
Not every transaction has to be suspicious.
Not every peso has to be unexplained.
But if the prosecution can identify material transactions or assets that cannot be reconciled with the SALNs and lawful income, then the Article II allegations become substantially harder to dismiss.
🔥 THE REAL QUESTION AFTER
did not prove that every peso in the ₱4.4 billion was illicit.
It did something more useful for the prosecution:
It put the financial records under oath and inside the impeachment court.
Now the argument moves from:
“May financial irregularities ba?”
to:
“Ano ang source, purpose, destination at disclosure ng specific transactions - at tugma ba ang mga ito sa SALN?”
That’s a question the defense cannot answer with political rhetoric.
It needs documents, explanations and reconciliation.
And if those explanations hold up, Article II weakens.
But if significant transactions cannot be reconciled with the sworn disclosures, the prosecution has a much more concrete evidentiary foundation for its case.
was therefore not about proving everything in one hearing.
It was about putting the money trail on the record.
And this time, the money trail came with a witness who could explain where the records came from:
Atty. Ronel Buenaventura of the AMLC.
The prosecution’s task from here is straightforward:
Follow the money. Match it against the declarations. Then let the evidence speak.
