October 6, 2026

The sergeant at arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the impeachment court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo.

Let's bow our heads down.

I

pray today is from 1 Corinthians chapter 13 verses 1 to 7. If I could speak all the languages of the earth and of the angels but did not love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy and if I understood all God's secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains but did not love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it. But if I don't love others, I would have gained nothing. Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable. And it keeps on no record of being wrong. It does not rejoice about injustice, but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith. It's always hopeful and endures through every circumstance. This we ask of you, Almighty God. Amen.

Sen. Judge De La Rosa Sen. Judge Ejercito Sen. Judge Estrada Sen. Judge Goh Sen. Judge Ontiveros Sen. Judge Lacson Sen. Judge Lapid Sen. Judge Legarda Sen. Judge Marcoleta Sen. Judge Marcos Sen. Judge Padilla Sen. Judge Pangilina Sen. Judge Soto III Sen. Judge Tulfo Erwin Sen. Judge Tulfo Rafi Sen. Judge Villanueva Sen. Judge Villar Camil Senator Judge Villar, Mark, Senator Judge Zubiri, the Presiding Officer, Senator Judge Escudero, the Senate President, Senator Judge Gatchalian.

With 16 Senator Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a Court.

In

accordance with the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, the Chair now recognizes the duly elected Presiding Officer to preside over the proceedings of the Impeachment Court.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. The Clerk of Court will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

Case number 004-2026 is the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

For the information of the senator, judges, and the parties, we shall approve the journal of yesterday's proceedings at a later time, given that it is not yet ready due to the long trial yesterday. But hopefully within the day before we adjourn, we shall be able to approve the journal for yesterday's proceedings. Appearances of the parties.

Good morning, Your Honor. Same appearances for the prosecution.

For the respondent.

Good morning, Your Honor. Same appearance for the respondent.

I

presume, Honorable Ridon, Attorney May will again be handling the cross-examination?

Yes, Your Honor. She will.

Attorney Ronel, I see you in the first gallery. The clerk is directed through the OSAA to kindly situate Attorney Ronel of the MLC to the witness stand.

Your Honor.

Yes, Honorable Redon. What is your pleasure, sir?

But before proceeding to the continuation of cross, we have several administrative matters relating to the bank representatives.

You may proceed, sir.

We would want to know from the court if the subpoenaed banks and their representatives are in fact in attendance today.

I

was informed, I am being informed rather by the clerk now, that all

Sabinad officials from banks and insurance companies are here. All 16 of them.

Sorry, only 15.

Excuse me.

Ah,

okay. All 15 banking and insurance companies are here with us. The 16th would be the BAR commissioner. Rather, the BAR official included in the list.

Thank you for the information, Your Honor. If they are in attendance, it is the prosecution's request for a conference of the parties to be undertaken with them so that we can be able to obtain preliminary information relating to their identities, their type of work, and among related matters, Your Honor.

What does the respondent say? Attorney Sheila or Attorney Mark? Attorney Sheila, yes.

That's fine with us, Your Honor.

Can that be done while we're proceeding with the cross and redirect and recross, if any, of Attorney Ranel?

Yes, Your Honor. It is something we can do.

Attorney

Sheila?

Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, just one request in relation to the request for a conference with the prosecution together with the witnesses. We will just ask that this be done under... or with the supervision of the court, Your Honor.

Yes, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the representative of the court to oversee the party's conference with the witnesses from the banks and insurance companies. You can proceed to do that while we are doing the cross-redirect and recross, if any, of the witness.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Anything else, Honorable Ridon?

We are done, Your Honor. I will yield to Atty. Divina Grash.

Good

morning, Your Honors.

Good morning.

Atty. Ronel, naunawaan niyo po ba na kayo'y magpapatuloy sa inyong pagbigay ng inyong testimonya sa hukumang ito base sa inyong pinanumpaan kahapon po sa harap ng hukumang ito at sa pamamagitan ng Clerk of Court?

Opo, naintindihan po.

Atty.

Mark, are you ready for your cross?

Yes, Your Honor, but just a short manifestation in order.

You may proceed. What is your manifestation?

Your Honor, I'll just read my manifestation so I don't deviate, but I hope it doesn't take away from the sincerity. In all humility, Your Honor, our intention in cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness, among others. And part of testing that credibility is to confront him not just with documents but with salient provisions of the law so that we can demonstrate whether or not his interpretation and application of the law is correct. So when we read portions of the law during our cross-examination, it is never our intention to cause intimidation. Especially to the members of this honorable impeachment court, lalong-lalo na po kay Sen. Judge Lapid, who, if I may say, has been very gracious to us. Maraming salamat po sa mahablang ka, sir. But if in any way a different message was indirectly conveyed, I personally apologize and commit to be more circumspect moving forward. Thank you, Your Honor.

The

manifestation of Atty. Mark is well taken and duly noted. Thank you, Atty. Mark.

Thank you, Your Honor.

If you are ready, you may proceed

with your crosser.

Good morning, Atty.

Buenaventura.

Good

morning, Your Honor.

Alright, just to provide the starting point, the MLC cannot conclude through a mere reading of the covered transaction reports or CTRs and suspicious transaction reports or STRs that funds were sourced from any unlawful activity, correct?

Conclude? Yes, Your Honor. Only based on what's provided in the records, Your Honor.

Now, you submitted a report of CTRs and STRs for corporations, correct?

That is correct, Your Honor.

To name a few, GenCorp Industries Inc., Metro City Chow Foods Corporation, and Cale88 Foods Corporation, correct?

Your Honor, may I be allowed to check

with my record?

May continuing authority is granted to Attorney Ronel to refer to his documents during his testimony. Likewise, continuing authority to assisting counsels from both sides, both parties is given to approach the witness at any point in time.

Your Honor, can you repeat po yung corporations mentioned? I just

mentioned the several GenCorp industries. Kasama po dyan. Metro City Chow.

Yes, Your Honor.

And then Cali88 Foods Corporation.

Yes, Your Honor.

In fact, lahat naman po yung corporation. Wala naman po ibang entities na partnerships. Tama po?

Tama po.

Alright.

Hindi ko po ma-determine, Your Honor, if they are partnerships or corporations. I can't recall if it's indicated in the records, Your Honor.

Alright. Okay. Now, the AMLC merely received the CTRs and STRs from the banks and other covered corporations, correct?

Tama po, covered persons po.

And then after you received them, you summarized them in your reports, tama?

In the, in what we submit, we didn't summarize po at least for the juridical persons except yun pong in relation to the request of the prosecution. Prosecution po, Your Honor.

Alright, but let me be more specific. What were submitted to the House Committee on Justice on April 22, 2026 were only summary reports of the CTRs and STRs, correct?

We did not submit

to the House Committee on Justice those with pertaining to juridical persons, Your Honor, because they were not included in their subpoena by

back then, Your Honor.

To be clarified, sinabit niyo ba sa House of Representatives yung mga mismong CTRs and STRs?

Yes, Your Honor.

Sa House of Committee on Justice?

Yes, Your Honor. It was

part of their subpoena,

Your Honor.

Alright. Now, in other words, in preparing your reports, let me ask you this question. Do you rely on the actual CTRs? and STRs, meaning the data contained therein. May

I ask po what reports are you

referring

to, Your Honor?

The reports that you submitted before this court, for example, the financial intelligence report and the several other marked documents, the confidential information sharing report and all those.

It is as what was stated, Poa, Your Honor, in those documents. If they made reference to the...

Sige. In terms of the tabular summaries, you only base the information that you indicated there on the CTRs and STRs, correct?

Yes, Your Honor. That's correct.

Now, there was no further verification on the part of the AMLC Whether there were clerical errors in these CTRs or STRs, correct?

Yes,

Your Honor. It is what appears in the request, Your Honor.

So

no further verification also whether there were inaccuracies or incomplete information in these CTRs or STRs, correct?

As of the time of the subpoena and

the documents we submitted, yes, Your Honor. We submitted what appeared in the... In our records, Your Honor.

In fact, in one of your reports submitted to the House Committee on Justice, and you testified on this yesterday, you stated that there was a BPI system bug that caused a discrepancy of over 2 billion pesos in the records of attorney months.

Is leading, Your Honor. The witness never mentioned BPI as the one who requested the correction of the report.

If you know if it's from BPI.

I'll allow it if the witness knows because it also came from the direct that BPI made a correction.

Your Honor, I never mentioned yesterday any covert person. In fact, if I recall, I mentioned a covert person made a request for correction. If possible, may I be confronted with the document being referred to so I can... Make the necessary answer your honor.

No, I'm not talking, I've moved on from the corporations. I'm talking now about the CTRs and STRs of attorney months. Do you

recall that there was a rectification made?

I did mention your honor. I mentioned there was a cover person who made the request your honor.

But I didn't mention any entity your honor.

Any entity, okay. Para lang maliwanag, may nireport po ang bangko na 2 billion mahigit for attorney months. Pero ang tamang amount po ay 2 million lamang. Tama?

Wala po akong na-mention na ganun, Your Honor. I can't recall anything on that, Your Honor.

But can't you

testify on that now? Whether you can confirm based on the reports that you made kung meron ganung incident?

Can I show po the records po, Your Honor? So I can answer based on the records, Your Honor.

May the witness be confronted with the relevant documents, Your Honor, being referred to by the Defense Council.

We will do that, your honor.

Move

on, counsel.

I'll move on for now as I give time to my assisting counsels. Now, my question is this. You mentioned about that error in the amount of 2 billion pesos. Regardless of whether you said you mentioned or did not mention the name of the entity.

Misleading, your honor.

I'm not yet

done with

my question.

Kindly wait for him to finish his questioning, his question rather, Atty. May. Now, this

amount was nevertheless included in your reports that were submitted before the House Committee on Justice, correct?

Misleading, Your Honor, because the witness already testified earlier that he never mentioned the amount.

He was about to answer,

Your Honor. That's precisely the reason why I...

He was asking

to be confronted

by the document, Atty. Mark.

I can just ask him now, Your Honor, are you familiar or do you have personal knowledge of the amount based on the reports?

Already asked and answered, Your Honor. That's why the witness requested that he be confronted with the necessary document.

Attorney Ronel, would

you know?

I have a figure in my journal but I know it's not accurate because I know it's not what appears on the record. So if there is a document that I can be confronted with, it would be better po your honor so I can accurately answer that.

You

can in the meantime move on to another topic while you're getting the document.

We're ready with the document your honor. Can I ask my assisting counsel to confront him with the document?

This is actually on page 11. Paragraph 25 of the Confidential Information Sharing Report that the same witness submitted to this honorable court.

Are you in that portion already?

Yes, Your Honor.

This is paragraph 25?

Tama po. Oo.

Can we ask you

to read the salient portions where an amount was indicated there pertaining to how much?

Ito po ba? So,

can I just read the paragraph 25?

Go ahead, sir.

Okay. Further clarification with BPI, disclosed that the 13 open parenthesis 1, 3, closed parenthesis MCs aggregating PHP 2.339 billion and payable to attorney Carpio were procured by Nutri Asia, 8 billion.

That's okay.

Can you move on to paragraph 27? Wherein it says... It's the BPI system bug. Can you read the entire paragraph for the record?

However, in a letter dated 6 April 2026 signed by the Senior Vice President and Head of BPI's Transaction Banking Division, Institutional Banking Segment, the bank requested for the deletion of 13, open parenthesis, 1, 3, close parenthesis, cover transaction report, open parenthesis. records pertaining to attorney Carpio. According to BPI, a system bug from a source application system resulted in inaccurate amounts on the said records. That based on their verification, the actual amounts of MCs procured for attorney Carpio from the reports affected by the system bug are below PHP 500,000. Open parenthesis ranging from PHP 100,000 to PHP 455,357.14 Close

parenthesis.

May

total amount ba dyan? Yun sa correct amount?

Wala.

Wala.

I cannot see. It wasn't specified there. At any rate, the incorrect or the rectified

Go ahead.

Is it the

Ang what I read earlier po sa paragraph 25, further clarification with BPI disclosed that the 1313 MCs aggregating PHP 2.33 billion and payable to,

ilan po yung may amount na malaking nakalagay?

So that's the aggregate amount. At any rate, it's indicated there na it had to be rectified. Yan 2.339 billion, correct?

Objection, Your Honor. I request that the statement made that the aggregate amount is 2. point three because that the witness never made that conclusion requested to be corrected he just read what was in the document but he never made that conclusion it was uh the defense council who made who supplied that conclusion for the witness that's

why we're clarifying your honor because he's the author of this uh or at least one of the

He

was one of those who wrote that report.

No, your

honor. Let me clarify. This document existed when I joined. So, when it

was a

subpoena, I just requested the...

Ah, that's not the table you're referring to. That's the report.

How about paragraph 28? Can you read that paragraph for us, please? Just to put clarity.

Paragraph 28, number 28. With this request and granting that it is already correct this time, it would appear that the total amount of... MCs procured by NAI in favor of a 30-car appeal would only be PHP 2,110,714.29 and not PHP 2,334,617,151.92.

So

it's clear then that it was first reported as 2 billion plus, the transaction, based on paragraph 28 on your reading of that. But the correct amount should have been only 2 million plus, correct?

No, Your Honor. It only stated here that with this request and granting if it is already correct this time, it would appear that the total amount, I'm just reading because I cannot make that conclusion. Your Honor, because I'm just basing it on what is stated in the record. It would appear that the total amount MCs procured by NIA in favor of Attorney Carpio would only be PHP 2,110,714.21 and not PHP 2,334,6171,51.92, Your Honor.

Okay, so isn't it your position that you rectified this amount or no? In your reports, just to make the issue simple.

in our uh in

this report your honor no

no no in uh the in your submissions with uh uh

in our submissions to this honorable

correct correct

yes uh it was correct uh there were rectifications here on

oh you know uh that's just my point that that you had to rectify no no

your honor again that's misleading because as testified on yesterday by this witness there were several reasons for the rectification and not just the request from the supposed So we cannot attribute the correction solely from the correction requested by that covered institution.

I would have

to sustain, Atty. Mark, because I remember the witness yesterday citing three or four reasons for rectification. Would that be correct, Atty. Ranel?

That is correct, Your Honor.

So not only because of the submission of BPI.

That is correct, your honor.

Okay, let me paraphrase my question, your honor. So the submission of NBI was one of the reasons among others that you rectified that amount from 2 billion to 2 million, correct? 2 billion plus 2 million, correct?

BPI, your honor. You said NBI.

BPI, BPI.

We... Sorry, can you...

So that request from BPI was one of the reasons for the rectification, correct?

Among others, among other

reasons.

Now, there was a request. We validated that. Of course, the request is simply a request. It can be denied if there's no basis. It can be granted if there's basis. In the same way that we are doing it whenever there are requests from other covered persons. If they want to have it corrected, we have to validate first. But not all the times that we grant them. So, as of the time that they made the request, that was indicated in what I've read. We have to validate that. So at that time, the record stood as it was because we have not yet validated it. They simply sent a letter. When we submitted to this honorable court for transparency or honor, it is already what is already as corrected based on the request because we have validated that. So we never rectified anything because there was no error in the first place when we submitted before the house. at this point because it's it's the bank the covered sorry it's a covered person which made that request and as of the time we haven't yet validated that your honor for clarification and transparency to this honorable court your honor all

right but at any rate you validated it and you made the necessary changes

yes your honor that's correct

okay so uh my question is this if further verification is necessary is it the banks or the covered institutions or the depositor himself that can provide it?

Since the reports are submitted by covered persons, it would be the covered persons who can, who at least in so far as I recall with our guidelines, it's the covered persons because The customer or the account holder are in the first place prohibited from being informed that there is a CTR or STR file. It's actually, as you mentioned, I think one of the provisions cited yesterday, it's confidential. Covered persons cannot inform their clients that CTRs or STRs are reported. So it's actually the covered person who should, in response to your question, Your Honor, who should file that, Your Honor.

Alright. So,

in terms of the investigation, you do this in coordination with your legal evaluation department, correct?

LES?

I'm unable to disclose internal operations, your honor.

You're also not able to disclose that it's done in coordination with the compliance and investigation department?

I'm unable to make the disclosure.

That's okay. But at any rate, as executive director, you can initiate any investigation, correct?

Yes, Your Honor.

Proactively.

Yes, Your Honor.

So, and in line with an investigation, you prepare reports, of course.

Of your

investigation.

Report on investigation for money laundering, Your Honor.

Yes.

Yes, Your Honor.

And then, of course, your report is still subject to review by the AMLC, correct? AMLC...

Council.

Yes, Your

Honor.

Because...

As you testified earlier, this is because you act under the control and supervision of the AMLC, correct?

Yes, Your Honor. I never mentioned control and supervision. If I recall, that was your words, Your Honor.

But you agreed to it. Are you under control and supervision of the AMLC?

I don't recall if that's the exact wording.

Or are you independent from

them?

No, I can't recall that it's what I stated in the law, Your Honor.

So, I recall your honor based on what you flash your order is we are there to assist the council in the performance of their mandate, your honor.

Okay.

Now, with regard to your investigation report, the council or the AMLC members can use your report as basis or they can altogether disregard it, correct?

Yes, your honor.

Yesterday, you identified certain transactions relating to Kale88 Foods Corporation. Do you recall that?

Yes, Your Honor.

Now, my question to you is this. Do you confirm that Kale88 Foods Corporation has a separate and distinct personality from VP Sara?

I am unable to

confirm that. I don't. We have no visibility on who owns or the ownership or what are the interests of VP Saray or

who owns Cale88.

Yeah,

but

based on your knowledge of the law, corporation has a distinct and separate and distinct juridical personality with an individual.

Objection, Your Honor. This witness will be incompetent to testify, Your Honor, because as he has already... Manifested, he has no visibility, is not in possession of any filings with the SEC by this corporation.

As

a

lawyer,

as a lawyer, you can answer that indeed a corporation is a separate juridical personality from that of a natural person who may or may not be a stockholder of that corporation.

Yes, Your Honor, in my limited knowledge of the commercial lawyer, corporate law.

Oh, you're being very modest, attorney. But do you confirm also that Cale88 Foods Corporation has a separate and distinct personality from attorney Manz?

In the first place, Your Honor, this witness has never testified that he is aware that this entity is indeed the corporation.

What's the objection,

Your Honor?

The objection is misleading, Your Honor. It assumes a fact not yet on record, at least based on the testimony of this witness.

Just

trying to elicit, Your Honor, and information from what he knows as a lawyer.

Then you

should, Your Honor, lay down the predicate.

You can rephrase it. You can reform counsel and simply state that the corporation is a separate, distinct personality from natural persons such as, because again, the witness would be incompetent with respect to knowledge as to whether or not attorney mans or the vice president is a stockholder of the corporation.

I'll just adopt that phrasing from the presiding officer. Do you confirm that Cale88 Foods Corporation has a separate and distinct personalities from natural persons?

From natural

persons? From my limited knowledge of corporation law, yes, Your Honor.

And those natural persons include attorney man, Scorpio, correct?

I'm not sure, Your Honor, if attorney man is a stockholder.

If

a stockholder, Your Honor. Alright, now to be more precise. AMLC records show that remittances were made to Kale88 Foods Corporation and not to VP Sara and Attorney Mance, correct?

That is correct, based on records, Your Honor.

Now, my question to you is this. Does the AMLC have any record of how much of these transactions by Kale88 Foods Corporation redounded to the benefit of VP Sara and Attorney Mance?

Redounded to the benefit, Your Honor? There is none. It's only based on what we have on the record, sir.

Alright, done.

Now, let me direct your attention to this news article that came out yesterday from GMA News Online. Can you see what's flashed on the screen, sir? We have a hard copy.

It says here, I'll just read the title and the first sentence for the sake of time.

China denies giving money to Philippine political group in wake of Trillanes' claims. The first sentence reads, The Chinese embassy in Manila has branded as a quote-unquote false narrative the allegations that China has funneled funds to a political faction in the Philippines, calling them malicious rhetoric and actions. Now, do you recall that yesterday you testified on several China-based entities that had transactions with Cale88? Do you recall that?

No, Your

Honor. I only read what's indicated in the records, Your Honor. Although, if I recall, there were names pointed that it sounds in Chinese, Your Honor.

Ah, okay. So my question to you is this. Do the records of AMLA show that those entities that you mentioned are not legitimate business entities? May nakalagay ba sa records?

No, Your Honor. There's nothing in the

records.

Your Honor, before the cross-examination continues, may we request that what is being flashed on the screen be taken down because the relevance of this document has not yet been shown and it's objectionable on so many levels, Your Honor. The witness is incompetent to testify on that. It's hearsay. The truth of the allegations therein has not yet been established. And it's completely irrelevant, Your Honor.

And I believe Attorney Mark is already done with that too. Correct me if I'm wrong, Attorney Mark. We can take

it down

at this point,

Your Honor.

Yes, you're already done with it.

I already confronted the witness with it anyway.

Now, more importantly, do the records of AMLC show that China-based entities that you mentioned yesterday represent China itself or the Chinese government? Meron ba ganun sa records niyo?

As far as I recall, yesterday, there is no mention about it, Your Honor.

No mention. In other words, in line with your testimony now, and from what we read from the article a while ago, no records of AMLC show that China as a country funneled funds to Cale88, correct?

As far as I recall, and based on the record, there is no showing, Your Honor.

Thank you for that answer. Now, I mentioned that News article about China. You have a department in AMLC called the Investigation and Enforcement Department-Financial Crimes Investigation Group or IED-FCIG, correct?

Yeah, that is correct, Your Honor.

Now, my only question relating to that news article, can the IED-FCIG take notice of articles like this? In relation to its investigation, if any?

That I am unable to confirm your honor.

What do you mean? You cannot answer

based

on

confidentiality?

I mean, that article,

because I, well, number one, it's the first time I'm seeing the article. Of course, I'm not sure if it's that something that... Our investigation unit would indeed take cognizance, Your Honor.

But

can that particular department take cognizance of news articles in general in relation to the investigations that you make?

Take cognizance, Your Honor, in the sense that it's being seen. I mean, if it is published in the internet, it can be seen, Your Honor.

When they see it, do they consider it in their investigation?

It

could be... As one of the things that they may look but I'm not sure if I don't know the article your honor so I cannot say if it is indeed something to look at

in the first place.

We're okay with that answer. One last point on this. Based on your records, may money laundering case ba that is pending against Cale88 or any of its officers?

I am unable to disclose any investigation not

covered in the subpoena your honor.

Based on the records, meron na bang na-convict? For any money laundering case, ang kahit sinong officer ng Cale88?

I have no personal knowledge who are the officers of Cale88.

That's okay. Let's move on to the CTRs and STRs. When banks and covered persons submit CTRs and STRs, do they submit or attach supporting documents like bank ledgers for example?

As far as I know, There are times that they do, but I apologize your honor, I'm not certain it would be subject to our AMLC registration reporting guidelines and our other reporting guidelines.

Yeah, that's okay. But do you know if they submit deposit slips, for example, as supporting documents?

I am

unable to know

or

recall your

honor on that.

Unable.

How about transaction history records?

No, your honor.

No? How about internal credit and debit memos of the bank accounts as supporting documents to these CTRs and STRs?

Your Honor,

if I recall, and of course subject to, because there are a lot of guidelines issued in relation to the reporting, if I recall, there are reports, at least STRs, wherein AMLC may be able, can require

records to be filed together with STRs, Your Honor, but subject to what is provided in our guidelines, Your Honor.

Alright.

Here's a

more pointed question. Does the AMLC witness the actual conduct of each transaction?

No, Your Honor. We only base on the records, Your Honor.

Alright. Does the AMLC personnel know the personal circumstances of the parties involved in the transaction?

If

only basing on the CTRs and STRs, no, your honor. Only the details as indicated there when the date of transaction, etc.

No, does the AMLC personnel gain personal knowledge on the party's business interests, for example?

Not unless they,

based on the records, no, on the CTRs, STRs alone, your honor, no. Unless further investigation

is conducted, your honor.

In other words, based on the CTRs and STRs alone, The AMLC has no personal knowledge of the underlying transactions of each items in the CTRs and STRs, correct?

That is correct.

It is only what appears on our records.

Hence,

the AMLC cannot determine the legality or illegality of the transactions based solely on the CTRs and STRs, correct?

No, Your Honor. Let me clarify. We're not... Based on the CTRs or STRs, if you look at it, we're not determining, there's no entry there which states whether it's illegal or not.

Kaya hindi niyo po malalaman.

We're not determining, I mean, in the first place, we're not determining on the basis alone of reported CTRs or STRs whether the underlying transaction is immediately illegal or not. As part of our duties or others, as mentioned yesterday, we analyze this and then, of course, if needed, conduct investigation, file with the court, and only then we're able to establish. And even then, on our end, it's for the courts to determine if

there's illegality or not.

Alright, for the courts to determine. Thank you for that answer. Now let's talk about suspicious transaction reports in particular. The AMLC only records STRs as reported by banks and other covered...

Without making any independent verification as to the basis used by the banks, correct?

Sorry, the AMLC

does what, Your Honor?

They only record or receives STRs.

Ah, receives. Yes, Your Honor.

And without making any independent verification on how the banks classified.

That is not required under the law and the rules your honor.

In other words, para maintindihan po na nating lahat, malayang hinahayaan ng AMLC ang mga bangko at iba pang covered persons na mag-classify ng transactions as suspicious. Tama?

Sa pag-classify, tama po. Pero sila po ay subject, I think nabanggit ko po. To the guidelines. guidelines at kasama rin po yung supervision and audit po sa kanila. So kasama na rin po yung BSP nag-audit, other regulators po, SEC, Insurance Commission po, and then kami rin po nag-audit. So yung sinasabit po nila, maaaring po sabit po nila, pero yun po ay subject to audit, kami rin po subject to our checking din as well, Your Honor. Of

course. Now, for the record, the AMLC operates under a low threshold. reporting of suspicious activity, correct?

Vague, Your Honor. What does low threshold of report, what does that even mean, Your Honor?

It's in the law, Your Honor, and the witness is intelligent enough to answer.

If he knows, if he knows, Atty. May, if you know, Atty. Rodel,

Sorry,

can

you

repeat po?

Low threshold po ba o high threshold ang ginagamit nyo in terms of reporting of suspicious activity?

The law did not mention any threshold, Your Honor. The law says, regardless of the amount, So it could be a suspicious transaction could be higher than the threshold or it could be lower than the threshold as long as the presence of suspicious circumstances are there,

Your Honor.

Yeah, we're okay with that answer. It means that banks and other covered transactions are encouraged to report transactions as suspicious even if not yet conclusive. Tama?

Your

Honor, the term encouraged is

Wrong, Your Honor. So the ground for objection is misleading, Your Honor. Covert institutions are required to report suspicious transactions. They are not just encouraged to report suspicious transactions.

He can just admit or deny, Your Honor. Anyway, that's the word that I used. If the witness can answer.

Witness is intelligent enough and you have made him aware already of the word encouraged so let him answer accordingly.

The law is... I guess you're on policy,

po. So, the law use the word required, Your Honor. So, they're required to report suspicious

transactions, Your Honor.

Alright, that's even. But even if not yet conclusive, that's my only point. Ah, sorry.

Your Honor, the threshold is suspicious or suspicion or suspicious circumstances, Your Honor.

So that I cannot say whether it's conclusive or not but on the end of the covered person it's for them to determine based on the profile of their client based on the nature of the transaction whether this transaction is or activity is suspicious or not whether if on their end it is conclusive or not it's for them the threshold at least insofar as the law requires is suspicion or suspicious but if they are It could be that on their end, they have conclusively determined, but we have no personal knowledge on that, Your Honor.

With your indulgence, Atty. Mark, what do the guidelines or the law say when it made mention of the word require? When in doubt, should banks report? Or when in doubt, banks will not?

We're

pertaining to suspicious transactions only.

Your Honor, in our guidelines, as far as I recall, Your Honor, and subject to what the actual guidelines provide, we have a definition there of what suspicion is. And this is also based on the law, which enumerates the suspicious circumstances. Essentially, suspicion po is one based on the knowledge of the covered person or reporting entity based on the profile of the client and taking account all other circumstances. to determine whether or not there is a suspicious circumstance.

So, a lot of basis is placed on the bank's KYC?

That is correct.

KYC, your owner, transaction of the account owner as well, your owner. So, yung KYC po kasi pang simula lang po yun eh. So, ma-determine yung profile. So,

KYC for the information of the public, your client,

and

or if the client is a PEP. or a politically exposed person.

Kasama rin po

yan sa kinoconsider po nila. So

the determination of whether or not a transaction is suspicious regardless of amount is subjective based on the appreciation of the covered person.

Subjective, Your Honor, yes, pero based po dun sa mga parameters po under the law. So kasama po dun yung, yun nga po, i-evaluate yung profile ng client, ano ba yung mga nature ng transactions po niya na papasok labas, gaano karami, gaano kadalas, and then yung pong, of course, may mga... In-issue po ang AMLC as well as other regulators po ng mga potential red flags based din po sa mga studies at saka mga guidelines po namin. So, they have to consider all of this together, Your Honor.

Without belaboring the point, as you said, subject to the audit of AMLC, of SEC, of IC, of BSP, there is a wide discretion on the part of a covered institution whether or not to declare a transaction suspicious or not.

I would answer that yes your honor because and let me clarify po so as not to mislead this honorable court po. Different covered persons have different profile of their clients because of the nature of the services that they render your honor. So yung bangko po Halimbawa po malaking bank o universal bank or commercial bank, more likely po ang mga clients po niya medyo affluent, yung po medyo mayaman or malaking business po. So yung profile po ng clients niya, siyempre ibabase po niya dun sa, yung pag-report po niya kung suspicious or hindi, base po dun sa client niya. Kung meron po tayong isang e-wallet, halimbawa po e-wallet or maliit na pawn shop, Siyempre po, yung profile po ng mga customer niya, iba po dun sa isa. So, they have to tailor po yung pag-profile, pag-analyze po. At lahat po yung documented po kasi required po yun sa tinatawag natin na money laundering and terrorism financing prevention program. Ang dami po mga reports na sinasubmit sa, or required po under the law, regulations po namin, pati ng BSP, SEC, IC po. So, totoo po na subjective, pero... Hindi po siya subjective na parang one tone or parang random na o sige parang okay ito ganyan i-file natin. Hindi po. Kasi po ang dami pong depende po sa profile, customer, sa service, sa risk po ng client po, nung service, kasama din po yun. So, ayun po your honor. So, and of course subject to the audit pa rin po yun ng mga institutions po, financial regulators po.

Thank you for that clarification.

Your witness, Attorney Martin.

Just a few more points on this. At any rate, the filing of STRs is a compliance measure and not a legal conclusion of illegal activity, correct?

It's a requirement under the law, Your Honor.

Not a conclusion of illegal activity, correct?

Of legal...

Illegal activity.

Illegal activity. Yes, sir. We cannot determine illegality on the premise of just a report, Your Honor.

In other words, an STR is therefore not a legal conclusion that there is money laundering, correct?

A legal conclusion that there

is money laundering? Yes, Your Honor. It's actually even for the courts to decide whether there

is

money

laundering.

And similarly, it is not a legal conclusion that the transaction is illegal, correct?

Again, Your Honor, it's also for the courts if eventually a case is filed, Your Honor.

Yesterday, you were confronted with several STRs and you even read several explanations from banks why they categorize those transactions as suspicious. Nalala niyo po?

Yes, Your Honor.

In fact, may three slides. Nakikita niyo po ba yung slides kahapon nung binabasa niyo yung STR?

Doon po ba?

Oo. Hindi niyo nakikita yung slides kahapon?

Near

-sighted po

eh.

By the way, for the record, did you personally consent to the flashing of those slides yesterday?

I'll

confront you with the specific slides yesterday. Yesterday kasi may pinalabas na slide, may nakalagay DPWH flood control issue. Nakita niyo po yan?

Hindi po nakita

yan.

Nakita niyo yung Shabu importation?

Sa slide, yung tanong niyo po is yung sa slide po. Hindi ko po nakita, you're on.

Nabasa niyo lang doon sa records.

Yung pinapoint lang po, you're on.

Nakita niyo ba doon yung malversation of public funds and property? Do you recall that or hindi na?

Parang, parang po

may naririnig po.

Meron.

Alright. Now, at any rate, hango ang mga ito sa STRs na ipinasa ng mga bangko, correct?

Tama po.

Alright. And then inisa-isa doon kahapon yung mga reference numbers, yung mga dates. Now, dun sa tatlong binanggit ko na subject matters, DPWH flood control issue, Shabu importation, tsaka yung malversation of public funds and property, nagbase ang mga banks sa news articles na available to the public. Tama?

Your

Honor, this witness will be incompetent and testify

based on what

he read yesterday. He read that yesterday. Pero

hindi ko na po maalala sa dami po nung... Mga naging tanong kung pwede po makita ko ulit. So I can confirm po, Your Honor.

Your Honor, our predicament is what was presented yesterday was the court's copy and we don't have our individual copies because we marked No, no, no, Your Honor. We marked actually the prosecution's exhibit as well. So the court's copy has the signature of the prosecution and defense.

Allow me to bridge the gap. Attorney Ronel, you remember reading from the actual reports yesterday, what was flashed on the screen that you could not see? You remember reading the reason why it was considered suspicious, why it was reported?

Marami po pinabasa, Your Honor.

Tatlo, apat

lang po yung kahapon ko, naalala ko.

May meron po yung mahaba po, Your Honor. So I can't recall that I was asked to read, Your Honor.

About three or four times, right? And that reference to newspaper articles were mentioned in all of those references. Would you recall that?

I am unable to recall, Your Honor, if I may be confronted with the documents.

Your Honor, we can just move on to a new point.

Anyway, he said... Try to get the TSN counsel, but in the meantime, kindly move on and we can confront the witness with what he read yesterday.

Alright. Based

lang dun sa vague memory niyo, no? Based on the STRs alone, masisiguro ba ng AMLC na involved yung transactions ni VP Sara sa DPWH flood control issue?

Based on STR, masisiguro. We have to conduct pa po analysis, investigation if

warranted po.

So the short answer is no. Based on the STRs alone.

Yes, Your Honor.

Based on the STRs alone, masisiguro ba ng AMLC na involved yung transactions ni VP Sara sa Shabu importation?

Your

Honor, at this point, to borrow the words of the defense, I've already given them so much leeway in asking these questions. The witness has already testified. that whether or not an illegal activity has been committed is not for them to rule on or to decide. It's for the courts. So, this line of questioning, Your Honor, would be relevant.

Your Honor, I'm confronting the witness with specific STRs that he recalled from yesterday. I

believe it's only fair, counsel, to confront the witness with what he read yesterday. If indeed... If indeed they have personal knowledge or can say that these are valid and true. So, witness has been confronted with respect to the flood control. Where are you now at?

Shabu Importation, Your Honor. I

guess it's the same answer. Kindly answer, Attorney Ronel.

Based on the STRs alone, ba masisiguro niyo ba na-involve yung transactions ni VP Sara sa Shabu Importation?

Alone, Your Honor.

We

have to

conduct further investigation if needed or warranted, Your Honor.

Huli na po. Base po dun sa STRs, masisiguro niyo po ba ng AMLC na involved yung transactions ni VP Sara sa malversation of public funds or property?

On that alone, no, Your Honor. We have to verify and conduct investigation if

necessary.

We're okay with that. Thank you, Mr. Attorney Beneventura. Now, the CTRs and STRs for corporations

Do you recall submitting those as well? For corporations, yung nakalista kanina.

I'm

just laying the basis. Now, they also do not prove that VP Sara, through any of these corporations, committed money laundering, correct?

On

the basis of the CTRs, STRs alone, Your Honor. Not at that point, Your Honor.

Okay.

And may mga transactions na attributed to these corporations. Hindi naman lahat ng income ng corporations ay income din ni VP Sara at attorney months, correct?

I have no

personal knowledge on the income of the persons or entities you've mentioned, Your Honor.

Alright. And unless there is a showing that these corporations are wholly owned by VP Sara and attorney months, Their actual interests therein must be specifically defined before the CTRs and STRs can be attributed to them.

Yung mga interest nila doon sa corporation na yun must be specifically defined. Kailangan malaman natin. Before yung CTRs or STRs can be attributed to the couple. Tama po?

Your

Honor, yung CTRs and STRs po kasi namin hindi naman po namin nire-require na at least at that point to identify who owns or what owns po eh. So we are unable to confirm that or to answer that it's not. Based on the records you're on.

At any rate, iba yung pang corporation. Iba yung para sa mag-asawa.

Tama po.

In terms of the CPRs.

In the way, yes, sir.

Reported separately you're on.

Alright, to mention sa news article kanina si former Senator Terlianes, let me direct your attention to exhibits D-2-2 and D-2-1. May I be shown with that? I'll just read the title.

This is an issue once from the AMLC. I understand that

BSP-AMLC, deny releasing alleged Duterte bank account documents. And then there's a highlighted portion there says, Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas, BSP, and the AMLC, Anti-Money Laundering Council, are not the source of the documents and information being cited by a vice presidential candidate.

This was sourced from the website of AMLC.

Hindi niyo ba nakikita yung naka-highlight po?

Hindi, yung masyado po maliit. Ano po yung naka-highlight?

Kindly point it out as listening counsel is directed.

My question is this, based on the records of the AMLC, maybe we're not yet around, but based on the records, do you know If former Senator Trillanes requested files from AMLC in the past?

I am unable, since this matter is not included in this opinion, Your Honor, I was not able to...

Review?

Yes,

Your Honor.

Okay lang po. But let me ask you this general, more general question. Is it even legal for a third party like former Senator Trillanes to request access... to files from the AMLC database such as CTRs and STRs.

Misleading, Your Honor, because there has been no prior testimony that Senator Trillanes in fact requested documents from AMLC. Okay.

No, I said

third party

like former Senator Trillanes. Just

the same, Your Honor. There has been no testimony. On record yet that a third party has in fact requested documents.

Then

I'll remove the name. I'll paraphrase the question. Is it even legal for a third party to request access to files from the AMLC database such as CTRs or STRs? Legal po ba yun?

Your Honor, they can request but we'll have to evaluate and if more likely deny based on our rules and guidelines.

More likely deny. Okay. Paano po kung isang forensic expert, for example, gusto mag-aral ng financial history po? Ni VP Sara at Atty. Mans. Mari po bang lumapit sa AMLC at humingi ng access sa mga CTRs at STRs?

I would say no, Your Honor.

No. Okay.

Alright. Atty. Bonaventura, malaki po yung mga aggregate amounts contained in your tabular summaries. Pero para lang po maliwanag, yung tabular summaries and reports po ba na yun ay conclusive proof of VP Saras and Atty. Mans Cash on hand or cash in bank?

No, Your Honor. What the records would only show are the transactions, not the cash in hand or cash on

hand.

Alright. Yung tabular summaries and reports po ba nayon ay conclusive proof of unexplained wealth on the part of VP Sara?

Your Honor, all I can say is the tabulation is based on the reported transactions, Your Honor.

So, you cannot...

Are they conclusive proof of ill-gotten wealth on the part of VP Sara?

For the same answer,

Your Honor, I can only rely on what's provided in the record, Your Honor.

Just as they are not conclusive proof of the true wealth of VP Sara in attorney months as declared in their SALNs, correct?

I have no knowledge on their SALN, Your Honor, but again, this is only based on the reported transactions, Your Honor.

Alright, so in other words, Atty. Buenaventura, as AMLC Director, you simply do not have personal knowledge that will clearly establish that VP Sara amassed hundreds of millions or billions, tama?

I have no personal knowledge, Your Honor, but what I'm testifying only is What are indicated in the records regarding transactions reported to us, Your Honor?

Thank you for that answer. That would be all, Your Honor.

Attorney May, any redirect?

Yes, Your Honor. We'll be conducting a few redirects, Your Honor. But may I just, Your Honor, be given time to organize the questions? Given the number of questions that were propounded throughout the cross-examination.

We'll give you a few minutes, Attorney May. Probably one or two senator-judges to intervene with the permission of Attorney Mark as well because you will be having a Yuri Cross still. They do depend. So the chair will allow senator-judges to make their interjections in the meantime. The first one on my list based on yesterday's...

On Annika's list yesterday is the Honorable Ontiveros. Senator Judge Ontiveros is recognized.

You may proceed ma'am when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Salamat po Mr. Presiding Officer. Magandang umaga po Atty. Buenaventura.

Magandang umaga po Honorable Senator Judge.

So nabanggit po na may mga covered at saka suspicious transaction reports sa 319 million pesos na pumasok sa Cale88 mula sa China. Kasama po sa red flag ay dahil walang lehitimong transaksyon sa likod ng perang pinadala.

Inimbestigahan na po ba ng AMLOC ang mga Chinese companies na katransaksyon ng Cale88?

Your Honor, I'm unable to answer po with that. The only documents related to what we were subpoenaed po, yung pong mga nasubmit po namin na summary report po, financial investigation report, financial investigation report, Antony Carpio, confidential information sharing, Your Honor.

So, hindi po ito mga bunga pa ng investigasyon ng AMLAC dun sa mga Chinong katransaksyon na kumpanya ng Cale88?

I am unable to answer, Your Honor.

Alright po. Kaya ako po ito tinanong dahil tinignan ko ng opisina ko yung mga ito, yung mga binanggit na mga kumpanya kahapon at lumalabas na ilan? Sa nagpadala ng pera sa Cale88 ay mga Chinese state-owned enterprises. Isa na po doon yung pinakitang China National Township Enterprises. Base po sa research ng opisina ko, dating quote directly under the Ministry of Agriculture.

At naging isang, quote, large state-owned agricultural enterprise under the supervision of the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, close quote.

At sa public profiles po ng China National Township Enterprises na yon, binibida nung kumpanya na sila daw ay, quote, committed to serving the implementation of the country's Belt and Road Initiative and foreign policy. Yun namang isa pa po na pinakita kahapon, Beijing Zhen Weifang Food Company. Ayon sa open source research, pagmamayari po yan, Beijing Zhen Weifang Food Company pagmamayari siya ng Xinjiang Fruit Industry Group na nabanggit mismo sa company materials. I'll just finish, wrap up with this first question, Mr. Presiding Officer. Nabanggit mismo sa company materials ng Xinjiang Fruit Industry Group. ngayong 2026. Kumpirmado din po itong Xinjiang Fruit ay series A investor sa Beijing Zhenwei Fang. Mayroon ding strategic cooperation agreement itong dalawang kumpanya, yung Beijing at saka yung Xinjiang mula pa 2019. Bakit po ito mahalaga ah, Atty. Buenaventura? Dahil itong Xinjiang Fruit Industry Group ay hindi ordinaryong kumpanya. It's a Chinese state-owned enterprise. It advances the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. Sa mismong corporate governance structure ng Xinjiang Fruit, may institutional Chinese Communist Party organization na naka-embed. It has its own Chinese Communist Party Committee, Party Committee Organization Department, at 11 subordinate subcommittees o party branches. Lumalabas rin po na yung chairman ng Beijing Zhenwei Fang ay miyembro ng District Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference o CPPCC. Ayon sa isang US Economic and Security Report, delegates to the CPPCC serve as proxies for Chinese Communist Party interests and they frequently act as interlocutors with foreign government officials, businesses, and academic institutions. Sa Canada naman, sinabi na the premier overt United Front organization is the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. At sa isang report naman sa Australia, parte ng Key united front groups and events linked to foreign interference ang CPPCC at nilarawan nito bilang peak united front forum. So ang tanong ko po, Atty. Buenaventura, yung mga ganitong linkages ba ay tinitignan ng AMLANC?

Your Honor, apologies po.

At this point po yung na-cover po nung subpoena is only on the records. Apology po hindi po kung makatulong sa talong po ninyo but I'm able to answer that po at this point, Your Honor.

No apologies necessary. But as head of the AMLAC Secretariat, would you say na cause for concern yung ganyang mga transaksyon under these circumstances?

Your Honor, I note po the... I have to... Review po yung binanggit niyo po. Hindi ko po napuha lahat po, Your Honor. But we'll take note naman po yung nabanggit po ninyo.

Salamat, Atty. Buedavan Tuda.

It's alright po.

Salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you,

Honorable Tiveras. Senator Judge Bam Aquino, thereafter, Atty. Mayor Ropp, after Senator Judge Bam.

Yes, Senator Judge Bam.

Sorry, Your Honor. May I be given more time, Your Honor?

Let's see after Senator Judge Ban.

Actually, my first question is for Attorney May. Just a quick

question.

Then in that case...

Sorry.

Okay, so let me... First of all, thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Attorney May, nais ko lang malaman rin kung ano talaga yung nais nating maipakita dito sa witness na ito. So, after this witness, ang susunod yung mga bangko. Is that correct? And possibly today, right?

Yes, Your Honor.

And yung tanong na magkano ba talaga yung nasa bank account ni Vice President Sara at ni Atty. Carpio, yan ba ay masasagot ng next witness natin? Yan ang kanilang testimonya.

I am unaware, Your Honor, as to the substance of the testimony of the subsequent witness.

Pero yan ang tatanungin ninyo.

Yes, Your Honor. And we will try to bridge and to tatahiin po yung mga testimonies ng mga witnesses.

Okay, exactly. So, kumbaga, meron tayong pieces of the puzzle ngayon. May magsasabi kung ano yung laman ng account. Itong si witness, si Atty. Buenaventura, tama ba, Atty. Buenaventura, what you can testify is that billion piso ang dumaan sa mga account nila. Yun ang, can you say that with certainty na bilyong piso ang dumaan sa mga account na sinopina sa araw na ito?

based on our tabulation your honor there are billions at least as indicated po there are transactions that are billions po yung 4.4 po tsaka yung millions po dun sa other entities na indicated po so at least in so far transaction po yes

okay labas-pasok yan diba labas-pasok

As reported po, Your Honor.

Sinagot mo kanina, sabi mo, hindi mo masasabi kung magkano yung nasa laman ng account at anytime pero alam mo na may perang labas-pasok at yung total niyan, billion. Tama ba?

Tama po, nagka-transaction po.

You're

certain about that?

Yes,

Your Honor.

That is

your report?

Based on our report, Your Honor.

Thank you. Sige, so itong labas-pasok yung billion, magkano yung laman, tapos eventually, I think BIR rin yung dadating dito, ano yung dineklara? Ano yung nasasalihan? Yan yung mga binubuo natin dito sa article na ito.

Long and short of it, Your Honor, among others, Your Honor, ipapakita namin na merong disproportion sa mga disclosures and with the figures appearing from the AMLC records, from the banks, also, Your Honor, ipapakita rin po namin na sa

AMLC records, Your Honor, it's not even the entirety. of the supposed transactions.

Question.

Yung AMLC report refers to covered persons. Pag sinasabi mong covered person, yan yung mga bangko. Tama ba?

Tama po.

Yung mga bangko kasama sa report na yan, yan rin ba yung mga pinatawag natin sa araw na ito ng mga bangko?

Yes po.

Yes. So, konektado lahat ng mga testimonyang ito. Tama

ba, Atty. May?

Yes po.

Sige. Question for Atty. Ronald. Thank you, Atty. May. Salamat.

Thank you, Ronnie.

So yung mga banko magbibigay ng STR sa inyo and then kayo, based on those reports, na to be fair, sometimes galing nga sa dyaryo, itutuloy nyo yung investigation dyan. Tama ba?

Yes, Your Honor. Subject to prioritization po because we receive po millions po of STRs din. So, and limited din po yung capacity namin and yung resources po. So, we have to prioritize po yung mga pag-investiga po. And

eventually, pwede kayo magrekomenda ng kaso?

Yes, Your Honor.

Kanino kayo magrekomenda ng kaso?

So, depende po doon sa kaso kung ang

Kung part pa po ng investigation at kailangan po namin ng additional information po, kadalasan po nagpa-file po kami ng bank inquiry, petition po sa court po, court of appeals, and then para ma-insure po na ma-preserve din yung pera, nagpa-file din po kami ng freeze order. Pero pag nabuo na po namin yung kaso po, case build up na po, nabuo na. Depende po kung ano yung level ng evidence namin kung kaya na po yung reasonable doubt, may file po money laundering criminal case complaint po.

With DOJ?

DOJ po or ombudsman kung pasok po sa jurisdiction po ng Sandiganbayan.

Okay,

so just for my understanding, for this year, have you filed any cases against anybody this year?

Yes, Your Honor.

You have?

Yes, Your Honor.

So, tuloy-tuloy. So, even without the impeachment case, tuloy-tuloy ang trabaho ng MLC?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay. Could you give us a number? Mga ilan ng kasong na-file-an ninyo sa Ombudsman or sa DOJ?

Maybe last year or

this year?

May binilalabas po kaming mga annual report po, Your Honor. I think na-furnish po yung Senate but I can give you na lang po after if you need po.

More than 10? More than 20?

Baka more or less po. More than.

Okay. Sige.

Final question. Nabanggit kanina ni Atty. Vin Luan yung Tapang at Malasakit Alliance. Kasama ba yun sa mga records natin na hiningi? Was that part of the records?

Wala po. Wala po yun yun.

But I never mentioned Tapang at Malasakit Alliance.

I don't think he

mentioned that too. Well, somebody mentioned earlier na may perang pumasok. Wala ba?

Wala po.

I'm sorry

Atty. Vin Luan.

ED? Tapang at Malasakit Alliance, pinag-uusapan din. No, that was in your article in GMA News. It was referring to Tapang at Malasakit Alliance. Yung China denies giving money. That was Tapang at Malasakit Alliance.

That was from your slide. So the slide that was shown earlier, if I may finish, Presiding Officer, nakalagay China denies providing money and I think that is the donation to the Tapang at Malasakit. Tapang at Malasakit Alliance,

if I'm not mistaken. Or anyway, nasa dyaryo na naman to. Kasama ba yung Tapang at Malasakit Alliance sa mga records na binigay niyo sa prosecution or sa korte?

No, Your Honor. Those are not included in the subpoena, Your Honor.

May I

ask the prosecution, is there any move to have these records also subpoenaed?

If I may, Senator Judge Van, Tapang at Malasakit is not A juridical entity, I believe, that may have an account or a policy covered by the MLC. Attorney Mark, you confirm it appeared in the article?

Just to clarify also, sorry, with all due respect, hindi rin po kasama dun sa Flinash namin article. Wala rin po.

Okay,

maybe yung China denies providing money in another article, it referred to the tapang at malasakit. I have no

personal knowledge. Thank you. So, ito na pag-uusapan na rin ito, Atty. May, na bring up na rin yung possible donations from China. Will there be any move to get the records of Tapang at Malasakit Alliance?

We are considering it, Your Honor.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding

Officer.

Maraming salamat. Thank you, Sen. Judge Bah Makino. Next would be, we won't count that against the time of Atty. May because she was asked the questions. Sen. Judge Rafi Tulfo, misrecognized. I see your hand, Senator Judge Pangilinan, but Senator Judge Raffi is recognized. You may proceed when you're ready, sir. You have two minutes.

Mr. Witness, throughout the direct examination kahapon sa iyo, ang daming covert and suspicious transactions nabanggit. So, as Executive Director of AMLOC, would you know if your agency went to the Court of Appeals or CA ex parte? para humingi ng freeze order to investigate these possible acts of money laundering?

Your Honor, I'm unable to disclose po. If any, Your Honor.

You did

not.

Okay.

Okay. Sa mga na-flag nyo ng mga suspicious transactions, ano mga binigay ng Cale88 na justification? At hininga nyo ba sila ng kontrata or documents to give economic reasons for the deposits?

Your Honor, yung sa amin po, pag nagre-report po yung covered person, it's just a report, so nagbabase lang po kami dun sa narrative nila. So tulad po nun, yung karamihan po, if I recall, let me check lang po yung records ko po, Your Honor.

Yung Cale88 po, Your Honor, halimbawa po yung covered transaction reports po na 178 po. Wala pong explanation po na hinihingi ang AMLC or ang AMLA po kasi po basta po pumasok po dun sa higit 500,000, required po silang report. So wala na pong explanation po yun. Yung pong may STR po na nabanggit dito, ang initial po na ginagawa po nila, in-identify po nila yung reason bakit po sila nagpa-file ng STR po.

Hindi, kaya nga babalik ka po

dun sa unang katanungan. Well, dami na mga suspicious transactions. Paulit-ulit na lang. So wala kang ginawang aksyon para pumunta nga sa CA at i-investigahan to para i-tingnan kung mayroong money laundering activities to.

Your Honor, for Cale88, tatlo po yung STRs. As present po, hindi ko po masabi, I'm able to disclose po if on the action further taken po on this, Your Honor.

Okay. Hindi pa ka-duda-duda na karamihan sa mga milyones na pondo na pumasok sa Cale88 ay galing sa mga bansang may critical na reputasyon sa money laundering, gaya halimbawa ng Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, South Africa? Hindi pa ka nag-duda doon?

Your Honor, apologies po, I cannot make a conclusion. I have no personal knowledge on the current. status po of the other of the countries mentioned on the of their financial standing or money laundering standing in the international community po.

Siguro si Atty. May, meron po akong question.

Atty. May,

kasi natanggal yung pangalan ni Atty. Man Scarpio sa list of shareholders, corporate officers back in 2025.

It

seems to me that he couldn't have benefited from all the alleged transactions.

We respectfully beg to disagree, Your Honor. First, as will be testified on by the BIR representative, Your Honor, there is nothing on record that will show, Your Honor, that there was a valid transfer because no capital gains tax, no payment of capital gains tax is reflected in the BIR records. That's one, Your Honor. And we find this, Your Honor, the supposed transfer of shares highly suspect, Your Honor, because again, aside from the fact that there's no record that capital gains tax was paid, even in the very own disclosure of the Vice President in 2025, she disclosed that Cale88 remains a business interest of her husband.

Okay. Hmm. Okay. Balik tayo dito kay Mr. Witness. Ang Cale88 na nakatanggap ng foreign currency deposit from China, according to records ito ah. Wala kang personal knowledge dito, records. Pinag-usapan natin. Dalama ba ng AMLC kung sino, anong korporasyon ang nagpadala dito?

Nakatagap po, Your Honor, ng remittance po, Your Honor. Yes po, alam po namin, based po dun sa records po. Yung iba po dun ay... As I recall po, pinabasa po sa akin yung nagpadala po, Your Honor.

Okay. Malalaman ba kung ito ay government company or government-owned companies or private people yung mga nagpadala ng pera?

Your Honor, hindi po namin malalaman. Wala po. Hindi po namin, hindi po required sa report na indicate kung ano po yung nature or specific nature po ng company po, Your Honor.

Okay. Last na naman, Mr. Witness. Okay, last na naman po.

You may proceed. You may proceed, Senator Judge Raffi.

Thank

you very much. Kasi pag nalik yung bell, medyo nalulundag ako eh.

Balikan po natin, Mr. Witness, ang mga foreign remittances na natanggap ng Cale88 galing sa China. Base sa mga CTRs at STRs na isinumiti sa hukumang ito, magkano pong natukoy po natin na nanggaling sa China o sa mga Chinese entities lahat?

As based on the records po, Your Honor, let me refer lang po to my notes po. The amount indicated po in our tabular summary is P319,326,770.41 sa tapos po, Your Honor.

Yan yung from China?

Yes,

Your Honor.

Okay, sige. Yan muna po, Mr. President. Salamat po.

Thank

you, Senator Judge Raffi.

One more perhaps before we go to the redirect rather of Atty. May. Sen. Judge Sotto is recognized.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Presiding Officer.

Atty. Ronel, minabanggit kanina eh and then this was mentioned in media about a so-called system glitch. Hindi ba ba? Connection to the BPI submitted list of 630 covered and 33 suspicious transactions in the account of Tony Carpio, total amount of 6.7 billion. And then sabi nila dito sa part of 6.7 billion, yung alleged 2 billion ay error or glitch. Diba? Ayaw nyo nang pag-usapan? Tama po ba yan?

Hindi ko po ma-verify po, Your Honor, yung ibang figures po. Pero based po doon sa nabanggit lang po kanina, Your Honor, na nagkaroon po ng request si BPI po, Your Honor, based on the records, ng correction po, Your Honor.

Ng correction. Yung 2 billion, naging 2 million. Hindi po ba? Ganun na lang nangyayari.

Yung

pagkakaalala ko po, Your Honor, subject po doon sa mismong nakasulat sa records, Your Honor.

So, sa inyo galing yung confirmation eh, di ba, BPI?

Nag-delete ng 13 erroneous covered transaction reports in this regard.

Your Honor, as explained earlier po, to clarify din po, the BPI made the request po and then we acted on the request by validating and conducting the necessary audit po to... To confirm whether nagkaroon ba talaga ng error in the reporting po. And we found po that there is and we granted the request po, Your Honor.

So you granted the request?

Yes, Your Honor. Yes,

Your Honor.

Kasi sa tagal na panahon na meron akong account sa banko, iba-ibang banko, ni minsan di ko nakaranas na may kakilala man lang ako na naging bilyonis eh. Dahil sa back system glitch, 2 billion, tapos nangyayari ba talaga ito?

Hindi ko po masabi, Your Honor, but we did receive a request on that regard from BPI, Your Honor.

Minsan lang yan.

At least from my time po as Executive Director, as far as I recall, Your Honor, this is first. But we receive po on a regular po yung mga sometimes may nagkakamali lang po talaga ng report na, or isa dalawa po, and then they submit the request. We validate po. Sometimes we grant, sometimes po hindi po. Yes.

Would you know kung mga ilang accounts na nationwide ang nangyayaring ganito?

At

kung ano-ano mga bangko na naapektuhan ng ganito mga glitch?

Ay hindi ko po maisip or masabi po ngayon po, Your Honor.

For this alleged glitch na lang, ilang covered transaction reports ang sinasabing erroneous para makabuo na from 2 billion naging 2 million?

Yung tanda ko po, Your Honor, based subject po sa records na nabasa ko po kanina, 13, 13 po, Your Honor.

13, tama. Hindi niyong nakarating sa amin eh.

Ngayon

ito, glitches na ito, nangyari sa total account balance, issuance ng manager's check.

So

paano nangyayari ang glitch sa issuance ng marriages check?

Yung glitch, Your Honor, hindi ko po masagot specifically but yung sa amin po is yung nai-report sa amin ay sabi po nila iba yung amount and then check po namin, validate po namin so makaiba po yung nakalagay so we corrected po accordingly po.

Tama ba na itong glitches na ito or glitch na ito nai-report lamang dito sa inyo sa AMLOC AMLC during the impeachment proceedings? Hindi ron ni-report ito dati nung araw?

Yung basic po sa binasa ko po kanina, if I recall po, we received the request po April 8, 2026 po, Your Honor. So I'm not sure po kung may impeachment proceedings na po at that time. Also for the record po, I assume po kasi April 14, 2026, Your Honor, as Executive Director.

Alright.

Just in case there's a second round, Mr. Presiding Officer, I'll ask the rest of my questions later.

We will

do so, Senator Judge Sotto. For the record, the Chair would like to correct itself. Tapang at Malasakit Alliance for the Philippines Incorporated is a registered foundation. It is registered with the SEC. and has a juridical personality that may be covered, if at all, either via bank deposits or insurance premiums or investments and the like. So the chair stands corrected in relation to that.

Yes, Senator Judge Villanueva is recognized.

For his interjections. You have two minutes, sir. You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Sir Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, kabayan.

Good morning po, Senator, Honorable Judge.

Just

to be more precise, without totally ignoring the reports given to us, meron po bang separate report from 2022 onwards when the time na si VP Sarah assume office ang AMLAC?

Yes, Your Honor, that is Table 3 of the report, yung tabular summary, Your Honor.

Yes,

so

nakaseparate siya, no?

Apo, all CTRs and STRs involving VP and Attorney Manassas Carpio, 2022 to 2025, Your Honor.

Thank

you for that. Making that separation, Mr. Witness, what would be the aggregate inflows, outflows, and undetermined transactions? attributable to the period beginning 2022.

Based on our tabular summary, Your Honor, it is 424,179,536 pesos, 0.10 centavos po, Your Honor.

At dito sa table 3, yung entire calendar years, nakalagay o, 171 CTRs, 49 STRs, and approximately 424 0.18 million combined reported transactions. Is that correct?

Yes, Your Honor. 424, 179, 536.10, Your Honor.

Yes. And, Atty. Buenaventura, if you look at Table 2 and you talk about suspicious transactions, there is an interesting contrast in your summary. Yung GenCorp, nakalagay po dito, it reflects approximately 3 billion pesos in reported transactions. Pero, no STR. indicated in the table. Pero yung 888 bistro reflects a much smaller aggregate amounting to 43 million pesos pero merong 1,197 STRs. How should the court bilang isang husgado na itong nga exercises na ginagawa natin can properly understand that contrast?

So, Your Honor,

Para po, honorable senator, just ipalawanag ko po.

Yung, based lang po dun sa lo po, yung kung mas marami man po na CTR ang isang entity po, ibig sabihin lang po nun, marami po siyang transaction na mahigit po dun sa threshold na 500,000. So, ibig sabihin din po, Kung wala pong na-file na STR, kahit po sobrang dami ng transaction, ang tingin po ng covered person ay regular or wala pong presence ng any of the suspicious circumstances po. So, kaya po ganun. So, ganun din po doon sa isa pong nabanggit po ninyo na meron pong 1,197 na STRs, hindi po porket maliit yung amount, ay hindi na po may STR kasi ang hinahanap po ay Hindi po yung amount kundi yung kung meron pong suspicion or suspicious circumstances. So maaari pong maliit na maliit po yung amount pero marami po silang nakikita na suspicious circumstances sa mga transactions. So ire-report po nila ng ire-report po paulit-ulit po yan.

I was listening attentively dun sa cross-examination and you made mention that neither the amount nor the number of STR standing alone. would be enough or a reliable measure for illegality, unexplained guilt, or wrongdoing. Is that correct?

Tama po yan.

And you also mentioned that it's not just the threshold. Pagka ito'y suspicious, it would fall under STRs. Kaya merong 1,197 STR. So kung ito ay you being a legal, I would say, bar top notcher, no? What would the court need to examine before attaching substantive significance to those 1,197 SDRs? The underlying transactions, the reporting reason or red flag the parties involved, and the eventual AMLC analysis?

Your Honor, hindi ko po masagot. It's for the impeachment court to decide kung ano po yung Direction po na gusto nilang...

Ulitin ko

lang po, Mr. Presiding Officer, kasi binanggit niyo po, it would not stand alone and you need further verification, investigation, so that it would fall under this wrongdoing, etc. Ganon din po kasi kami dito, itong korte, ang talagang tinitignan po namin, yung Article 2, yung unexplained wealth. So, ano po yung kailangan makita para mag-fall po doon?

I'm just relying lang po, Your Honor, dun po sa nabanggit nyo. Kung katulad po namin na we have to still conduct further investigation, then kung ganun po yung procedure po ninyo sa honorable court po na to, then I think that would also be kung ano po yung dapat nyo po gawin, Your Honor.

I would

just rephrase, no? Para lang makuha ko yung... Para nagkakaintindihan po tayo, when would be the time na you would recommend the filing of cases? Kasi sabi niyo nga po kanina, hindi mag-stand alone yung STR.

Kami po, at least sa side po ng AMLC po, we file cases po if we think meron na po sufficient evidence to satisfy po or to overcome po yung... Yung requirement po sa court na quantum of proof po.

And what is

that evidence you're looking for?

Kung forfeit lang po civilly po, that is preponderance of evidence po. And then kung criminal case po, proof na yan, reasonable doubt. Pero kung as part of investigation po, probable cause lang po.

Give me a leeway, Mr. Presiding Officer. Patanong po kasi ni Sen. Lito Lapid dito. Yung pong Atty. Buenaventura, yung issue po dito kasi nga again is unexplained well. Hindi lang po basta malalaking

Meron po ba kayong maituturo na kahit isang transaction sa AMLC record na pwede po natin matrace hanggang sa isang specific asset na nakuha o na-retain ng respondent at makikita or allegedly hindi makikita sa kanya pong SALN? Meron po ba?

Your Honor, I apologize po. I cannot answer po. Ang masabi ko lang po kung ano po yung nasa records po.

At kung hindi po ito kayang gawin ng AMLC records alone, ang direct tracing na yun, ano po kayang ebidensya ang kailangan bago masabing meron pong unexplained wealth?

Your Honor, with all due respect po, yung sa EMLC po kasi hindi po namin tinitignan kung may unexplained wealth or hindi. Ang tinitignan po namin kung may money laundering po or wala po or kung dapat po i-forfeit po or may probable cause po kung may money laundering. Yung apologies po, yung unexplained wealth po ay ito po yata is for the impeachment court to decide. So I don't want to put... Direction po sa court na not within my authority po, Your Honor.

Thank you for clarifying that it means we really need to push harder and look for the evidence. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Judge Villanueva. Attorney May, are you ready?

Yes, Your Honor.

Yes, you may proceed with your redirect. Attorney Mark is likewise recognized for the redirect of Attorney May. You may proceed when you're ready, ma'am.

Okay.

Kanina po, on cross-examination, tinanong kayo ng pinanggalingan ng inward remittances to Cale88. Naalala niyo po ba yun?

Tama po yun, Your Honor.

Let me show you again several CTRs pertaining to those inward remittances that were reported to the MLC. Kindly refer to Exhibit P, Roman numeral number 2-7-23, pages 12a and 12b, 14th line.

Your

Honor, objection. We never confronted the witness during cross-examination of these documents, so it is not the proper subject of redirect examination.

Yes, but you made mention of them. counsel. Only that the actual copies were not available yet to you at that time. In fact, the chair already got the TSN and I can furnish you in a bit for your recross if any. The chair will allow it. Witness will please answer.

Pages 12A and 12B, 14th line.

Are

these the same slides you showed, Attorney May?

Yes, Your Honor.

During direct? Then it gives you an opportunity, Attorney Mark, to look at it as well for your recross because the documents were not available to you at that time.

Maaari niyo po bang basahin yung address ng transaksyon na nakareflect dyan sa CTR na yan?

Your Honor, mayroon pong several addresses po na nakalagay.

Can you kindly read them for the record?

I-clarify ko lang po. Yung entry po dito is may address po. I think address po ng Cale88 may address po ng beneficiary pero blanco. May address po ng counterparty.

Yung counterparty po.

Ang nakalagay po dito ay counterparty address add.nanhanji, Innovation Industrial China.

Okay, punta naman po tayo sa pages 12a and 12b, 15th line. Maaari niyo po ba rin basahin yung address ng counterparty na nakareflect dyan sa report na yan?

LTDRM8621NO599, Huignag, RD, Chengxi, China.

Punta naman po tayo sa pages 22a to 22b, last line. Ano po ba ang...

Address ng counterparty na naka-reflect dyan.

Nakalagay po ay enterprisesco.ltd8f5, Nong, Giannan, Lucy, and Beijing, Chaoyang

Punta naman po tayo sa pages 23a to 23b, first line. Maaari niyo po bang basahin yung address ng counterparty na naka-reflect dyan.

enterprisesco.ltd8 5, 5, Nong, Jan, Nanlu, CN, Beijing, Chaoyang.

And last, pages 17a to 17b, 13th line. Pakibasa rin po yung counterparty na nakasaad.

Anong

line po?

13th line po.

13th line, yes.

Wanda, Road, Bayuan, Street, Yiwo, Zhejiang, CHN.

Punta naman po tayo sa, kanina po, natanong din po kayo tungkol sa mga STRs relating to Cale88.

Ngayon

punta naman po tayo sa Exhibit P-Roman numeral number 2-7-24B, page 2B. Maaari niyo po bang sabihin yung dahilan kung bakit nai-report as kahina-hinala yung transaksyon?

I believe that was asked and answered already, Your Honor.

Not yet, Your Honor. This is, I'm on redirect, Your Honor.

Yeah, but during direct, it was as an answer to review.