October 5, 2026

AMLC Executive Director Atty. Ronel U. Buenaventura, head of the Anti-Money Laundering Council Secretariat, testified about reports from banks and other covered persons. He identified subpoenaed records and a prosecution-requested tabular summary, prepared by analysts and reviewing officers, which he reviewed and signed. Atty. Mae Sancho Divinagracia conducted direct examination; Atty. Mark C. Vinluan began cross-examination after she concluded.

Buenaventura explained that covered transactions are reported when they exceed the applicable reporting threshold, while suspicious reports depend on circumstances identified by the covered person regardless of amount. He described the general PHP500,000 banking-day threshold and separate casino and real-estate thresholds. Suspicious reports can concern an entire account or client relationship, and may record no transaction amount. He said AMLC uses these reports as starting points for analysis and investigation.

Reading the summary, Buenaventura reported 373 covered transaction reports concerning the Vice President and 363 concerning Carpio, along with 34 and 30 suspicious transaction reports respectively. He read a combined reported-transaction amount of PHP4,400,089,940.70 for the spouses covering 2007 to 2025. Asked why an earlier House submission was about PHP6.7 billion, he identified a different period, banks-only coverage in that submission rather than all covered persons, and corrections requested by a covered person to 13 covered transaction reports. Buenaventura read PHP1,630,351,607.68 in inflows, approximately PHP1.308 billion in outflows and PHP1,461,614,806.24 in transactions whose direction could not be determined. He said the summary used the prosecution letter's inflow/outflow terminology. Direction was inferred from transaction codes; older reports or incomplete sender and beneficiary details could leave it undetermined.

Buenaventura described time deposits, withdrawals, intra-bank transfers and insurance investments. He identified August 6, 2024 withdrawal or encashment entries totaling P41 million from Carpio's account. In the March 28, 2014 transfer discussion, he computed P173,705,615.88 and treated separate references as distinct reported transactions, but could not say whether totaling them was proper. He said hash signs in previously supplied amount columns were a formatting problem and AMLC had resubmitted corrected versions. Peso and dollar values in another entry represented one transaction; he could not say which currency was withdrawn.

For 15 corporations, Buenaventura read aggregate reported transactions of P4,553,052,237.01 for 2022 to 2025 and P5,361,878,144.38 for 2007 to 2025. In the Cali88 Foods Corporation table, he read P319,326,770.41 in inward remittances from China. He explained that the request concerned inward remittances, so the table supplied no outflow total.

Buenaventura read suspicious-report narratives citing graft and corrupt practices, drug-trafficking allegations and alleged misuse of confidential funds. He said covered persons assess suspicion and may consider adverse news and client profiles. In cross-examination, he said he had no personal knowledge that the spouses' reported transactions were related to unlawful activities and based his testimony on the records.

Under cross-examination, Buenaventura said reported transactions included insurance, investments, loans and transfers; reports did not identify income or necessarily show where funds originated. He had no personal knowledge of the spouses' actual wealth. Recent guidelines generally spared repeat reporting of same-account time-deposit renewals, but older practices and implementation differences could produce such entries. Identifying particular rollovers required individual examination. He read a report describing possible monthly rollovers during January to September 2022 and said overlapping entries were excluded to avoid double counting.

Buenaventura relied on AMLC's 2022 information-exchange guidelines as continuing authority to comply with subpoenas. He read intelligence-report instructions advising end users to verify information, protect confidentiality, use it for intelligence purposes, avoid using it as evidence in formal proceedings and refrain from reproduction or distribution without written consent. Asked about investigations or case status beyond the produced records, he declined disclosure outside the subpoena's scope and cited legal limits on revealing bank-inquiry proceedings.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero denied the defense motion to exclude Buenaventura. Citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, he reasoned that its interpretation of the unchanged Section 9C of AMLA remained authoritative despite Republic Act No. 11521's addition of Section 8A. He read the newer confidentiality duty together with AMLC's statutory functions and information-exchange authority, rather than as absolute immunity from lawful compulsory process. He also cited PNB v. Gancayco on the bank-secrecy law's impeachment exception as support for constitutional accountability, while distinguishing that exception from the separate confidentiality of AMLC information. The witness could identify, authenticate and explain subpoenaed reports on relevant matters, with in-camera testimony when necessary and further evidentiary objections available; the ruling did not authorize unrestricted public disclosure.

The chair permitted earlier transactions as a net-worth baseline while urging counsel to reach the vice-presidential period. He clarified that the limitation on pre-June 30, 2022 material concerned establishing another impeachable offense.

The chair overruled Sen. Imee Marcos's foreign-currency objection, distinguishing testimony about reports lawfully held by AMLC from compelling banks to disclose foreign-currency deposits. He read Republic v. Sandiganbayan as making no distinction between peso and foreign-currency transactions and reasoned that confidentiality could not defeat AMLC's statutory investigative and litigation functions. He also cited Salvacion v. Central Bank and China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals as examples of exceptions to foreign-currency secrecy where rigid application would perpetuate injustice. He directed the witness to continue under that ruling.

The chair sustained the defense objection to adding corporate totals to the spouses' amounts without accounting for differing shareholdings. He noted the corporations' separate juridical personalities and said percentages would be needed for a calculation.

The chair allowed presentation of AMLC public documents at that stage while reserving appropriate later objections. Near the end of direct, he treated AMLC and BIR public records as duly authentic absent fraud, palpable mistake or similar grounds.

After consultation and consideration for the witness, the chair directed continued defense cross first at the next sitting, then redirect, recross if any and senator-judge questions. He promised ample time for cross but declined to prescribe equal six-hour periods.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo sought a warning to the court's spokesperson over a reported December 16 verdict prediction, saying it suggested prejudgment and preempted senator-judges. The Chair called the statement inaccurate, explained that any timetable reflected pretrial calendar arithmetic rather than trial developments, and said the spokesperson would be instructed. Later, Tulfo objected that repeated defense questioning about disclosure penalties was intimidating the witness and media despite the earlier confidentiality ruling. He cited the witness's fatigue, the prosecutor's back pain, and said Lito Lapid had become afraid to ask questions. The Chair asked counsel to heed the intervention and move to another point; Vinluan responded that he was already asking factual questions about earlier complaints.

Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero questioned Buenaventura as a senator-judge about the basis and limits of his testimony. The witness relied on subpoenas and 2022 information-exchange guidelines despite the public broadcast, and confirmed participating in and validating the summary. On delegation, he said he notified the council before appearing; it could stop an appearance, but he recalled none being stopped since his appointment. Escudero clarified that peso and dollar entries described one transaction; the witness could not say which currency was withdrawn. For same-day transfers, Buenaventura called separate reference numbers unique transactions but could not say whether totaling them was proper. Escudero also established that the aggregates cover reported covered and suspicious flows; the witness could not reconcile them with other financial records. He agreed inflows meant money entering accounts and outflows meant money leaving. Asked who supplied a suspicious-report narrative about confidential funds, Buenaventura identified BDO Life Assurance and said reporting entities may consider adverse news and client profiles. Escudero expressed concern about news-based suspicion, its frequency and actionable status, and supported later Senate oversight. On time deposits, Buenaventura said initial placement and final withdrawal may be reported, while newer guidelines spare same-account renewals; he recalled a change two or three years earlier, with institutions still adjusting. Some listed transactions might be rollovers, but individual examination was needed. On report-use advice, Buenaventura agreed compliance was the requesting end user's responsibility and confined his answer to the document.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano requested a written confidentiality ruling and time to study it; the Chair directed that she receive a copy checked against delivery and allowed preliminary testimony while she read. She subsequently questioned importing RA 1405's impeachment exception into AMLA, which she said lacked that exception, and suggested presenting bank records first. Citing Section 11's competent-court requirement, she criticized the earlier disclosure to the House and urged proceedings that respected due process. The Chair noted her manifestation. Cayetano later objected to narrative slides that could suggest a malversation case when the underlying bank narrative relied on news reports. She also challenged highlighting combined inflows and outflows in bold while their components appeared in ordinary type, calling that presentation misleading; the Chair noted her objection. In cross-examination, she asked whether same-account rollovers were reported again and requested that Buenaventura consult rules or notes to give a certain answer. He recalled that current rules did not require repeat reporting for a simple rollover, but said transfers from a time deposit to another account generated a separate report. In her example, he specified that a sum exceeding P500,000 was reportable and agreed that subsequent transfers could produce repeated reports of the same funds, subject to what institutions submitted. Asked about the bold figures, he said the submission followed the prosecution's letter and formed part of the court submission.

Sen. Joel Villanueva supported the chair's disclosure ruling in a manifestation. He cited the impeachment exception in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 and recalled subpoenas for bank records during the Corona trial. Bank secrecy protected legitimate privacy, he said, but should not shield against accountability where the law authorized disclosure. The chair noted and entered his statement in the record.

Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson observed that different amendments introduced casino and real-estate reporting thresholds. The prosecution responded that differences between the slide and the testimony refuted suggestions that the witness had been coached. Lacson recalled the treatment of material predating June 30, 2022; the chair clarified that it could not establish another impeachable offense. The prosecution argued that continued possession and alleged concealment of earlier-acquired wealth extended into the vice-presidential term and that earlier records showed pattern and baseline. During cross-examination, Lacson said money laundering must be tied to unlawful activity, or a predicate crime, seeking to abbreviate the repeated discussion. The chair took his input in advisement and returned to counsel's question. Later, Lacson checked whether Buenaventura was well enough to continue; the witness said he was okay, including health-wise.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan supported the disclosure ruling in a manifestation on legislative intent. Recalling his role as an AMLA sponsor, he said confidentiality targeted covered institutions rather than AMLC and argued that the bank-secrecy and anti-money-laundering laws must be harmonized. The chair replied that Buenaventura would testify on covered and suspicious reports and had given his own interpretation of the court's competence. Pangilinan later gave reporting banks the benefit of the doubt, saying they knew the account amounts and supplied their reasons for suspicion. Escudero retained questions about news-based suspicion and whether reports were actionable. After asking whether the witness could continue despite missing lunch, Pangilinan received an affirmative answer and suggested food for energy. In a closing manifestation, he criticized suggestions of criminal liability for disclosure authorized by the court, expressed concern that senator-judges might next be implicated, and suggested the defense take its challenge to the Supreme Court. The chair recorded the manifestation before recognizing Sotto, who invoked parliamentary immunity.

Sen. Imee Marcos stated that she was a primary AMLA author and cautioned that the express impeachment exception appeared in the bank-secrecy statute, rather than AMLA. She urged prudence in following the law's specific wording; the Chair then resumed direct examination. Later, she objected to disclosure concerning foreign-currency accounts, citing the Estrada and Corona impeachment proceedings. The Chair overruled her objection, ruling that foreign-currency confidentiality did not bar testimony about covered- and suspicious-transaction reports lawfully held by AMLC. He distinguished explaining those reports from compelling banks to disclose foreign-currency deposit information and directed the witness to continue under that ruling.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano urged the court to balance transparency and accountability with constitutional rules, confidentiality and fairness. Citing foreign-currency protections and his reading of the limits on transactions preceding the Vice President's term, he proposed focusing on current-term transactions whose admissibility was clearer. He asked whether AMLC personnel had previously disclosed two senators' 20-year banking histories and questioned how Trillanes had obtained records. AMLC Executive Director Atty. Ronel U. Buenaventura said he had accompanied previous directors to budget briefings, denied personally making the disclosure and said he could not answer for his companions. In a later manifestation, Cayetano criticized what he described as a circular process: statements and committee hearings become news, banks attach those accounts to suspicious reports, and AMLC returns them to another committee. Invoking the prohibition on political persecution, he warned that this could enable targeting and sought investigation beyond recycled allegations. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero replied that AMLC was relaying covered institutions' reports and identified their assessment methods as a subject for Senate oversight. Returning to the issue, Cayetano distinguished banks' independent identification of suspicious activity from adding narratives after reading news reports. He argued that the material presented showed no assessment beyond those reports, agreed to pursue legislative oversight, and renewed his appeal for fairness in the impeachment trial.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros said she presumed regularity in government agencies called to testify and would listen calmly to both parties' evidence. She urged waiting for testimony from banks, the BIR and other witnesses before fully weighing AMLC's account or dismissing it as gossip. Later, she opposed even indirect threats against the media, describing coverage as essential to informing the public and enabling citizens to discuss the proceedings and form opinions. She said the court should avoid creating an intentional or unintended chilling effect on the press. The Chair then invited any further manifestations and adjourned the trial until October 6 at 10 a.m.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III, wrapping up the closing discussion, reminded impeachment counsel of parliamentary immunity. The Chair noted his manifestation and recognized the next senator-judge.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether the defense would receive roughly six hours for cross-examination, comparable to the prosecution's direct examination, noting that defense counsel said he was not halfway through. The Chair declined to fix equal hours but promised ample time the next day, without undue curtailment or delay. He explained that examination time also included objections, lawyers' arguments and the court's rulings.

Atty. Mae Sancho Divinagracia offered Buenaventura's testimony to support unexplained-wealth and SALN allegations through reported transactions, withdrawals, checks naming the Vice President as beneficiary, suspicious reports and corporate remittances. She argued that earlier-acquired wealth remained relevant through continued possession and alleged concealment during the vice-presidential term.

Divinagracia argued that objections to the offer were premature because the testimony would supply the evidence. She maintained that AMLA confidentiality complemented bank secrecy and its impeachment exception, that Section 8A could not prohibit every disclosure needed for AMLC's functions, and that the defense was effectively renewing its challenge to the court's earlier ruling. Divinagracia tied earlier transaction records to Article II's allegations of unexplained wealth during public service and incomplete SALNs. In response to a foreign-currency confidentiality objection, she argued that the examination concerned covered-transaction reports and cited AMLA and foreign-exchange reporting exceptions.

Divinagracia invoked the business-records and official-entry exceptions to hearsay when the defense asked whether Buenaventura personally knew that reported sums were income or where they originated. She objected to speculative rollover examples and to describing aggregation as bloating. During cross-examination she offered to stipulate that entering into investments was not inherently illegal.

Divinagracia characterized the defense's request to pause and organize its notes as dilatory, arguing that both sides received the AMLC summaries on the same day and that the prosecution prepared over the weekend. Rep. Terry L. Ridon separately raised a request for stipulations concerning bank, insurance and investment-company witnesses.

Atty. Mark C. Vinluan moved to exclude Buenaventura under Section 8A confidentiality, cited intelligence-report handling restrictions and disclosure liability, and reserved legal remedies. He questioned the witness's authority to disclose records to the House, SALN and underlying-transaction knowledge, and descriptions of reports as flags or dirty money.

Vinluan urged that confidential documents be shown to the witness in hard copy rather than broadcast on screen. He challenged slides that anticipated testimony, omitted a confidentiality heading, or summarized suspicious-report narratives in a way that he argued associated the Vice President with malversation without showing their news-report basis.

Vinluan repeatedly objected to the relevance of transactions before the Vice President's current term, transactions involving her husband, and corporate transactions. For the corporate aggregate he argued that separate juridical personalities and unquantified ownership interests prevented relating the full total to the Vice President. Vinluan challenged treating aggregate transaction values as income or actual wealth. He elicited that the records included insurance, investments, loans and transfers, and used rollover examples to question whether repeated movement of the same funds could increase reported totals. He also questioned counting a manager's-check beneficiary regardless of encashment or deposit and emphasized that covered or suspicious reporting did not necessarily make a transaction illegal.

Vinluan said he was about halfway through cross-examination and requested time to organize his notes on the figures. Atty. Sheila C. Sison rejected the suggestion of delay and argued for a fair, meaningful opportunity to examine the witness after the prosecution's day-long direct examination. At adjournment she rejected the prosecution's proposed stipulations for the next witnesses. Sison placed on record that notice of the proposed presentation of Atty. Alexander Cabrera fell short of five days and that the defense had difficulty accessing the attachment; she later said it had opened the file the previous evening.

The chair opened with a civility reminder, outlined AMLC, bank/insurance/investment and BIR witnesses, and directed hard copies of proposed Cabrera materials to the defense. Buenaventura was sworn before preliminary questions and the exclusion dispute.

After exclusion was denied, direct examination covered reporting rules, subpoena responses, summaries and selected transactions. After lunch, senator-judge manifestations preceded continued examination of the figures and narratives.

Direct examination ended and Vinluan began cross on authority, confidentiality, aggregation and personal knowledge. A dispute over time to prepare notes led to a recess and consultation, then adjournment for the next morning.

Buenaventura's cross-examination remained unfinished. The next sitting was set for October 6 at 10 a.m., beginning with continued cross, then redirect, recross if any and senator-judge questions. He had confirmed a subpoena for October 5 and 6 and continuation under the same oath after lunch.

The defense rejected the prosecution's requested stipulations for bank, insurance and investment-company witnesses. Sison said it would comment on their offers when presented; the chair agreed that was the appropriate time. Subsequent witnesses depended on completing Buenaventura's examination.

Cabrera was proposed after the BIR witnesses. The defense's short-notice objection was noted and hard copies ordered; the chair described timing as dependent on the examinations rather than fixing a day.