October 6, 2026

AMLC Executive Director Atty. Ronel U. Buenaventura completed his testimony on the covered and suspicious transaction reports submitted under subpoena. He confirmed billions in reported inflows and outflows, including the P4.4-billion aggregate, while explaining that transaction totals did not give account balances. He said AMLC had not witnessed the underlying transactions and would need analysis and investigation to determine their legality.

Buenaventura read a BPI letter requesting deletion of 13 covered-transaction reports affected by a system bug. The confidential information-sharing report said that, assuming the requested correction was accurate, manager's checks procured by NAI for Carpio would total P2,110,714.29 rather than P2,334,617,151.92. He confirmed that the erroneous P2-billion amount was excluded from the tabulation. He also explained that duplicate reports for jointly held accounts were deducted, with P81 million identified in Annex A.

For Cale88 Foods Corporation, Buenaventura confirmed P1,254,736,297.08 in aggregate reported transactions and P776,643,950.36 in inflows. He read three STR entries citing no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification. He said the inward-remittance entries were unique transactions rather than time-deposit rollovers, and that their country classifications used the remitters' reported addresses rather than correspondent-bank locations.

Buenaventura said the Cale88 remittances were recorded for the corporation and that the records supplied no amount of benefit to Duterte or Carpio. He described the submitted financial-intelligence, financial-investigation and information-sharing reports, but declined to disclose other actions beyond the subpoenaed material, citing Court of Appeals bank-inquiry confidentiality rules.

Eunice C. Sumatra, branch head of Land Bank's San Pedro Davao branch, identified Duterte's single payroll account at that branch, its movement records for 2017 to 2025 and her signatures on the 21-page record. She also identified withdrawal and on-us check-deposit documents, explaining that transactions at other branches had certifications from those branches. On cross-examination, she confirmed government payroll was credited to the account.

Sumatra identified a certificate stating that 20 corporations had no accounts at San Pedro branch. The outstanding-balance certificate she initially mentioned could not be located among the documents shown; prosecution counsel ended that line after saying it had not been submitted by the bank.

Raquel U. Dela Cerna, branch manager of Land Bank's Davao R. Magsaysay branch, said Duterte's two accounts there were closed and Carpio's account ending 2730 remained active. She gave its year-end balances as P505,517.35 in 2022, P953,681.42 in 2023, P115,824.20 in 2024 and P1,358,373.07 in 2025.

On defense cross-examination, Dela Cerna said the bank did not automatically send account notices or balances to a spouse. It required a special power of attorney for release of account information, and marriage alone did not confer signatory authority, online access or entitlement to the other spouse's balance.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero initially required ordinary document identification for Sumatra and recognized the defense's foundation objections. After consulting both sides during recess, he distinguished Republic v. Marcos, where collection and custody alone did not authenticate private documents, and adopted an abbreviated procedure for Dela Cerna: direct bank production under subpoena, documented custody, inspection and court-supervised reproduction established provenance, identity, integrity and fidelity of copies. Specific substantial challenges could still support exclusion, limits on disputed entries or testimony from an appropriate custodian during cross-examination or formal offer.

The court registered the defense's continuing objection to Carpio's bank records, as counsel requested, and carried the same offer, objections and reservations forward for Dela Cerna. Escudero allowed abbreviated repetition of witness offers but said the prosecution's rhetorical sixth offer would remain in the record once and would not be allowed again.

Escudero directed the clerk to furnish all senator-judges a company-by-company list from the AMLC foreign-remittance evidence. He also directed delivery of the October 6 BIR summary to the defense after an incorrect email address caused a delay; Atty. Sheila C. Sison confirmed receiving a hard copy.

The chair directed court supervision of the parties' conference with bank and insurance witnesses while AMLC questioning continued. He allowed redirect on remittance records and corresponding latitude on recross, and overruled an objection to Dela Cerna answering a question about verification before releasing confidential account information if she knew the answer.

Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero asked how banks decide whether a transaction is suspicious. Buenaventura said the assessment is subjective but constrained by legal criteria, client profiles, transaction patterns and regulatory red flags, with documented processes subject to audit. Asked whether the STRs read the previous day cited newspaper reports, he could not recall without seeing the documents. Escudero initially suggested Tapang at Malasakit lacked juridical personality and asked whether it appeared in the defense's displayed article; Vinluan said it did not. Escudero later expressly corrected himself: Tapang at Malasakit Alliance for the Philippines Incorporated was an SEC-registered foundation whose accounts or investments could potentially fall within AMLC coverage. In his final questioning, Escudero separated the approximately ₱529.8 million in reported time-deposit transactions from the ₱4.4 billion aggregate. Buenaventura confirmed that the time-deposit amount was included in the larger total and clarified that its 2007–2025 total was not wholly included in the shorter 2022–2025 period. He agreed this was the subset relevant to the parties' rollover discussion, while expressly declining to say the transactions actually were rollovers. Escudero also asked whether Gencorp's larger reported outflows than inflows could indicate incoming transactions absent from the CTR/STR records. Buenaventura accepted that only as a possibility from his initial personal reading, rather than an official AMLC analysis. Escudero then tested hypothetical comparisons between reported transaction totals and sums of successive SALNs: approximately ₱424 million in transactions for 2022–2025 against his ₱336 million sum, and ₱4.4 billion for 2007–2025 against his ₱840 million sum. He acknowledged that adding annual SALN declarations was not the proper comparison, and also posed a salary-only scenario using ₱350,000 a month. Buenaventura explained that SALNs concern year-end assets while the reports describe transactions across the years; he had not seen the SALNs and could not explain the totals on Escudero's premises.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked whether AMLC had investigated the Chinese companies remitting funds to Cale88. Citing her office's research, she described alleged state ownership, Communist Party structures and foreign-influence links involving China National Township Enterprises, Beijing Zhenwei Fang and Xinjiang Fruit Industry Group. Buenaventura limited his testimony to subpoenaed records, could not answer whether AMLC examined those links, and said he would review and take note of her concerns. In the afternoon, she asked whether the roughly PHP 319 million in reported China-linked remittances might exclude other funds. Buenaventura could not establish a larger amount: AMLC could see only reported transactions. He said the inward-remittance entries were unique transactions, distinct from time-deposit rollovers. He could not recall the alleged Samuel Uy transfers or identify the people and amounts in drug-related or graft-related STRs without the documents. Hontiveros requested that the drug-related records be shown again before the day ended; the exchange did not supply those details. Asked about AMLC action, he referred to submitted intelligence/investigation reports and declined to disclose further matters. Hontiveros also established that CTRs/STRs do not describe the entirety of a person's financial activity. Buenaventura explained that transactions below the PHP 500,000 covered-reporting threshold can still generate STRs when circumstances suggest structuring to evade reporting, subject to the covered institution's assessment.

Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino asked how AMLC transaction flows would connect to bank balances and BIR disclosures. Buenaventura confirmed billions in reported inflows and outflows; Atty. Mae Sancho Divinagracia said the prosecution would connect the witnesses to show disproportionate disclosures and financial figures. Asked about investigation and referrals, Buenaventura described prioritization given limited resources, bank-inquiry and freeze-order applications, and possible complaints to DOJ or the Ombudsman. He confirmed cases had been filed that year but gave no definite count, offering an annual report instead. Aquino also asked whether Tapang at Malasakit Alliance records had been subpoenaed and whether the prosecution would seek them. Buenaventura said they were outside the subpoena; Divinagracia said the prosecution was considering obtaining them. Atty. Mark C. Vinluan disputed that the Alliance had appeared in his questions or displayed article, and Aquino acknowledged he lacked personal knowledge. The chair initially questioned whether it was a juridical entity, then corrected himself: Tapang at Malasakit Alliance for the Philippines Incorporated was an SEC-registered foundation with juridical personality potentially covered through deposits, insurance or investments.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo pressed AMLC on action over Cale88's reported transactions. When Buenaventura initially said he could not disclose whether a freeze order had been sought, Tulfo inferred that none had been sought. Buenaventura distinguished automatic covered-transaction reporting from banks' reasons for suspicious reports, identified three Cale88 STRs, and again declined to disclose further action. He could not assess Tulfo's assertions about foreign countries' money-laundering reputations. Records identified remitters but did not require their state-owned or private status; the reported China-linked total was about PHP 319.33 million. Tulfo suggested Carpio's departure from the shareholder/officer list in 2025 could mean he had not benefited from all the transactions. Prosecution counsel Divinagracia disagreed, citing an alleged absence of capital-gains-tax records for a valid share transfer and the Vice President's 2025 disclosure of Cale88 as her husband's business interest. Returning in the afternoon, Tulfo demanded an account of investigation, enforcement and apparent inaction. Buenaventura described risk-based prioritization constrained by resources, initial analysis followed by an internal investigation unit gathering corporate/property information and coordinating with law enforcement. Buenaventura described criminal proceedings where the evidence supported proof beyond reasonable doubt, or civil forfeiture under a preponderance-of-evidence standard; freeze orders were part of investigation. He expressly said Court of Appeals bank-inquiry rules prevented him from revealing whether proceedings had been filed. He also explained that banks cannot tip clients off about CTRs/STRs and that any subsequent notice would come through court proceedings. Tulfo contrasted Cale88's approximately PHP 1.255 billion aggregate transactions and PHP 776.64 million inflows with the financial-statement losses and small 2025 profit he cited. Buenaventura confirmed the reported transaction figures but had no personal knowledge of those financial statements. He said AMLC considers financial statements when it can obtain them.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III questioned the BPI correction described as reducing a PHP 2 billion entry to PHP 2 million and deleting 13 erroneous CTRs. Buenaventura said AMLC had validated and audited BPI's request and granted the correction. He recalled 13 affected reports and receipt of the request on April 8, 2026, before he became executive director on April 14. He could not explain BPI's system glitch or manager's-check mechanics, or give nationwide affected-account figures. He said smaller reporting corrections occur regularly, but recalled no comparable case during his tenure. Sotto later declined a second round because colleagues had asked his remaining questions.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked for the 2022-to-2025 total, eliciting P424,179,536.10 from 171 CTRs and 49 STRs. He contrasted GenCorp's approximately P3 billion without STRs against Bistro's approximately P43 million and 1,197 STRs. Buenaventura explained that CTRs follow the monetary threshold while STRs depend on suspicious circumstances, and agreed amounts or counts alone did not establish wrongdoing. He described probable cause for investigative applications, preponderance for civil forfeiture and the criminal proof threshold. Relaying a question from Sen. Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid, Villanueva asked whether a reported transaction could be traced to a specific retained asset omitted from Duterte's SALN; Buenaventura could not identify one and said unexplained wealth was for the impeachment court, while AMLC examined money laundering. In his later round, Villanueva confirmed the erroneous BPI P2-billion amount was excluded from the P4.4-billion aggregate and asked about approximately P178 million classified as undetermined in the P424-million total. Buenaventura said detailed transaction codes sometimes could not be categorized as inflow or outflow for the requested summary. On Cale88's approximately P319-million remittances associated with China, he clarified that the table used reporting institutions' remitter addresses, rather than correspondent-bank locations. Identifying senders' relationships to Cale88 and whether the transfers paid for goods, loans or investments required further investigation. He confirmed three STRs for Cale88 inward remittances, compared with Bistro's 1,197.

Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson asked about AMLC's workload and resources, recalling a PHP 162.941 million budget augmentation; Buenaventura estimated about 10 million reports monthly and said infrastructure and technology upgrades were still being procured and implemented. Lacson questioned whether AMLC's role was financial investigation in collaboration with law-enforcement agencies. Buenaventura said it could investigate independently, jointly or in parallel, and agreed its participation concerned financial investigation. Recalling the enactment of AMLA, Lacson said Section 16's political-harassment protection was intended for candidates during election periods and asked that the legislative record be reviewed. In his afternoon round, he asked whether adverse news alone led AMLC to label transactions suspicious; Buenaventura said covered persons filed STRs after considering account information and other factors. Lacson challenged the probable-cause explanation for freeze orders against his recollection that docketing a predicate complaint triggered an ex parte petition. Buenaventura maintained that probable cause was required for bank inquiries and freeze orders and that investigations into unlawful activity and money laundering could proceed in parallel. Lacson also characterized the witness's authority to testify as implied, while Buenaventura called it express. During the first LANDBANK presentation, Lacson calculated that the four-year balances under discussion averaged about PHP 102,000 per month, compared them with the Vice President's salary, and urged faster proceedings for what he considered a payroll account. Alih replied that a later financial analyst would connect the records and that Sumatra had been called to authenticate them.

Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian compared Cale88's reported PHP 776 million inflow and PHP 154 million outflow with figures he cited from its financial statements: PHP 125,000 paid-up capital, PHP 23 million cumulative sales, PHP 18 million assets and PHP 20 million liabilities. He asked where the inflow went and whether missing invoices or receipts, or amounts disproportionate to financial capacity, made it a money-laundering candidate. Buenaventura declined to trace the funds from the records alone and said such circumstances could be a starting point, subject to other factors, further investigation and identifying an unlawful source or predicate activity. In his afternoon round, Gatchalian highlighted roughly PHP 2.7 billion in transactions during 2009 to 2013 and asked why 30 of the Vice President's 34 STRs fell in 2022 to 2025. Buenaventura said historical transactions were considered but could not recall the grounds for those 30 reports. Gatchalian cited malversation and graft allegations and news articles in some STRs, then asked what action followed. Buenaventura described examining the reporting entity's narrative, coordinating with the relevant law-enforcement agency, and investigating the financial aspect; news reports could contribute to a trigger alongside CTRs, STRs and other information.

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan asked about Atty. Carpio's replacement by Pikimong in Cale88's 2025 ownership filing and its missing audited financial statements. He proposed looking into Pikimong, leaving that decision to the court. Atty. Mae Sancho Divinagracia said Carpio held 47.5% from 2021 through 2024, that 2024 and 2025 statements were absent from SEC filings but statements accompanied BIR annual returns, and argued that the transfer lacked an e-CAR while Duterte still listed Cale88 in her 2025 SALN. Asked about failure to file audited financial statements, Divinagracia said non-filing was irregular and subject to a penalty. Asked for annual remittance figures, Buenaventura said no country-by-year breakdown had been prepared, that the remittance table did not specify years, and confirmed P1.254 billion in Cale88 transactions for 2022 to 2025. In his next round, Pangilinan asked how duplicate reports and possible time-deposit rollovers affected the totals. Buenaventura said P81 million in jointly reported entries was identified and duplicate reports removed; separate transaction reference numbers did not tell him whether deposits were rolled over. Pangilinan also examined 129 time-deposit reports totaling about P529 million over 2007 to 2025, securities and bonds of about P94.26 million, 50 insurance-policy reports totaling about P65.32 million, and trust and agency investments of about P60.49 million. Buenaventura gave a general securities explanation but could not specify the underlying investments or explain the trust-and-agency code. Asked why Bistro had 1,197 STRs aggregating about P43 million, he said the individual reporting reasons were absent from the summary and required consulting the records. In a later round, Pangilinan challenged absolute confidentiality of AMLC records, eliciting that the Court of Appeals uses them in freeze-order applications and that authorized disclosure remains possible within the law, rules and guidelines.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked about AMLC's mandate, the difficulty of tracing illicit proceeds and its investigative resources. Buenaventura explained that tracing required identifying the unlawful activity and financial trail, and personally considered the agency's confidential funds small relative to its mandate. Asked how STRs were handled, he described prioritization, analysis, field investigation and coordination, followed where needed by bank inquiries, freeze-order applications and case filing. Tulfo pressed for discrepancies in the spouses' transactions, possible conflicts involving foreign state-owned companies and the legitimacy of Cale88 remittances associated with China and Hong Kong. Buenaventura confined his answers to subpoenaed records and said further examination would be needed; he identified submitted intelligence and investigation reports but declined to disclose further case-specific action. In his later round, Tulfo asked whether AMLC would investigate further; Buenaventura said that required internal discussion. The witness clarified that the reports showed transactions rather than account balances. Tulfo observed a contrast with SALNs he said reported zero cash on hand and in bank during 2019 to 2025, expressly asking for no response. Asked about lawful or unlawful sources and specific unexplained amounts, Buenaventura left their assessment to the court. In a general question about officials transacting with foreign state-owned companies, the witness said his government service was short and supplied no example.

Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla pressed whether AMLA required absolute confidentiality and whether disclosure followed lawful process. Buenaventura said confidentiality was not absolute because necessary information could be submitted to courts under authorized procedures. Asked whether appearing had placed him in a difficult position, he denied being trapped and began explaining that he had complied. Padilla suggested confidentiality amendments; Buenaventura pointed to pending AMLA bills, and began describing a provision extending confidentiality to other people. Using an inquiry, investigation, evaluation and conclusion framework, Padilla repeatedly asked what stage AMLC had reached. Buenaventura would not disclose additional actions beyond the subpoenaed material, citing legal restrictions including Court of Appeals bank-inquiry confidentiality. He identified the submitted CTRs/STRs, summary, financial-intelligence and financial-investigation reports, and confidential information sharing. He said AMLC's process might resemble Padilla's framework, without confirming the senator's inference that it had not reached evaluation or conclusion. Padilla ended with a manifestation asking colleagues not to generalize about Tapang at Malasakit members, saying he was among them and had received no money. That manifestation received no substantive response.

Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito asked whether corporate CTRs and STRs identified who actually conducted transactions, particularly whether the Vice President or Carpio performed those listed in Table 4. Buenaventura said reports contained account names and, depending on the transaction, remitter names and addresses. Table 4 concerned corporations; he could not say whether individual reports named Carpio without examining them one by one. Asked what further information was needed, he described bank inquiries for transaction details and requesting SEC records to identify the people behind the corporations.

Sen. Juan Miguel “Migz” F. Zubiri asked for a breakdown of Cale88's overseas remittances identifying each company and the amount sent from China, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine and Tajikistan. Buenaventura said AMLC's aggregate figures appeared in Table 5 and the underlying transaction reports had already been submitted to the court. Zubiri asked whether AMLC should furnish the company details or the court could extract them itself. Escudero directed the clerk to compile the list from the existing evidence and furnish all senator-judges after Villanueva also requested it.

Atty. Mae Sancho Divinagracia said the prosecution would connect AMLC, bank and BIR evidence to show disproportion between disclosures and financial figures. She challenged the validity of Carpio's reported Cale88 share transfer, arguing that BIR records would show no capital-gains-tax payment or e-CAR and that Duterte still listed Cale88 among her business interests in her 2025 SALN.

Atty. James Bryan Ibrahim A. Alih offered the bank witnesses collectively to show at least 30 active accounts across eight banks during 2022 to 2025. He cited combined year-end balances exceeding P59 million, P71 million, P22 million and P35 million respectively, and described their cumulative total of more than P190 million as undeclared across those years' SALNs.

Alih sought to abbreviate authentication because certified records had come directly to the court under subpoena and were commonly marked by the parties. He argued that the Rules of Court applied suppletorily and should expedite the trial, and said a later financial analyst would connect the records.

Atty. Mark C. Vinluan tested the reliability of AMLC records through the BPI reporting error and questions distinguishing accumulated transaction values from cash balances and unexplained wealth. He asked whether corporate remittances benefited the spouses or showed Chinese-government involvement, and whether STRs alone could connect Duterte's transactions to flood-control allegations, shabu importation or malversation.

Atty. Carlo Joaquin T. Narvasa objected that Sumatra's knowledge could not establish totals across eight banks. He registered a continuing objection under Republic Act No. 1405 to presenting Carpio's bank records because Carpio was not the impeachment respondent, expressly seeking registration rather than a ruling.

Narvasa argued that certification and common exhibit marking did not amount to agreement on authenticity, truth or admissibility. He insisted on proper identification and foundation as protections for the respondent's due-process rights. His bank cross-examinations focused on Duterte's payroll account and on a spouse's authority to access an individual account.

The court resumed Buenaventura's testimony under his previous oath, proceeding through defense cross-examination, prosecution redirect, defense recross and senator-judge questions before excusing him. The prosecution reported that its bank-witness list had been reduced to 13 witnesses across eight banks.

The court then heard Sumatra and Dela Cerna. Both completed direct and cross-examination without redirect and were excused; after a recess between them, the chair introduced the abbreviated bank-record procedure.

The remaining bank and insurance-company witnesses were carried to October 7 at 10 a.m. The court planned to continue the abbreviated method with bank officials and consider the insurance-company procedure when that stage was reached.

BIR testimony was to follow the banks and insurance companies; the prosecution also anticipated a financial analyst to connect the financial records and disclosures.

The defense's continuing objection to Carpio's bank records remained registered, and specific challenges to records could be raised during cross-examination or formal offer under the abbreviated procedure.