October 6, 2026

Introduction

This is Working Draft's audio overview of the Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Duterte for October 6, 2026. This is a working reference, not an official Senate record.

From transaction reports to bank records

The court completed the testimony of AMLC Executive Director Attorney Ronel U. Buenaventura, then began hearing bank representatives. Defense cross-examination, prosecution redirect, defense recross and questions from senator-judges occupied the AMLC portion. The two bank witnesses who followed were Eunice C. Sumatra and Raquel U. Dela Cerna, both branch officials from Land Bank. They completed their direct and cross-examinations and were excused. The main questions ran through both stages: what the transaction reports counted, how those figures related to balances and disclosures, and how the bank records would be identified.

What the AMLC totals described

Buenaventura confirmed billions of pesos in reported transactions, including an aggregate of about four point four billion pesos. He distinguished the money moving into and out of accounts from the amount left in those accounts. AMLC had received covered and suspicious transaction reports from reporting institutions; its personnel had not witnessed each underlying transaction. Asked about legality, he described analysis and investigation beyond reading those reports. Senator Paolo Benigno Bam Aquino asked how the transaction flows would connect to bank balances and Bureau of Internal Revenue disclosures. Prosecution counsel Attorney Mae Sancho Divinagracia said the witnesses would be connected to show disproportion between disclosures and the financial figures.

The correction and duplicate reports

One prominent exchange concerned a BPI system bug. Buenaventura read a letter seeking deletion of thirteen erroneous covered-transaction reports. The information-sharing report said that, assuming the correction request was accurate, manager's checks procured for Attorney Carpio would total about two point one million pesos, rather than about two point three billion. Buenaventura confirmed that the erroneous two-billion-peso amount was excluded from the tabulation. Senator Vicente C. Sotto the Third asked about validation of the correction. The witness said AMLC had validated and audited BPI's request and granted it, but he could not explain the bank's system glitch. Senator Francis Kiko Pangilinan separately asked about duplicate reports. Buenaventura explained that entries reported under both spouses for jointly held accounts were deducted; eighty-one million pesos was identified in that process.

Corporate reporting and the China-linked remittances

For Cale88 Foods Corporation, Buenaventura confirmed aggregate reported transactions of about one point two five five billion pesos and inflows of about seven hundred seventy-six point six million. He read three suspicious-report entries citing the absence of an underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification. He said the inward-remittance entries were unique transactions, distinct from time-deposit rollovers. Senator Joel Villanueva asked what the roughly three hundred nineteen million pesos associated with China actually represented. Buenaventura said the countries in the table came from the remitters' addresses as supplied by reporting institutions, rather than correspondent-bank locations. Identifying the senders' relationship to Cale88 and the purpose of their transfers required further investigation. The witness also said the Cale88 remittances were recorded for the corporation; the records supplied no amount of benefit to Duterte or Carpio.

Questions about foreign companies and financial capacity

Senator Risa Hontiveros asked whether AMLC had examined the Chinese companies behind the remittances. Citing her office's research, she described alleged state ownership, Communist Party structures and foreign-influence links. Buenaventura said his testimony concerned the subpoenaed records; he could not answer whether AMLC had examined those links and said he would review her concerns. In the afternoon, Hontiveros asked about other possible remittances and drug-related or graft-related reports. He said AMLC could see reported transactions and needed the documents to identify those people and amounts. Senator Sherwin T. Gatchalian compared Cale88's reported inflows with the much smaller capital, sales and asset figures he cited from financial statements. Buenaventura said assessing such circumstances required other factors, further investigation and identification of an unlawful source. Asked about historical transactions and recent suspicious reports, he described reviewing narratives and coordinating with law enforcement.

Which transactions and which people

Villanueva contrasted GenCorp's roughly three billion pesos in reported transactions without suspicious reports against Bistro's roughly forty-three million and one thousand one hundred ninety-seven suspicious reports. Buenaventura explained that covered reports followed the monetary threshold, while suspicious reports depended on circumstances. Relaying a question from Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid, Villanueva asked whether a transaction could be traced to a retained asset omitted from Duterte's statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, or SALN. The witness could not identify one and said AMLC examined money laundering, while unexplained wealth was for the impeachment court. Senator Joseph Victor JV G. Ejercito asked whether corporate reports identified Duterte or Carpio as the people conducting transactions. Buenaventura said he would need to examine the reports individually and described bank inquiries and SEC records as sources for further detail.

Ownership, investments and the rollover question

Pangilinan asked about Carpio's replacement by Pikimong in Cale88's twenty twenty-five ownership filing and proposed looking into that company. Divinagracia challenged the share transfer, citing the alleged absence of an e-CAR and Duterte's continuing disclosure of Cale88 in her SALN. She said financial statements missing from SEC filings accompanied BIR annual returns. Pangilinan also examined the investment categories: about five hundred twenty-nine million pesos in time-deposit reports over two thousand seven to twenty twenty-five, about ninety-four million in securities and bonds, sixty-five million in insurance-policy reports, and sixty million in trust and agency investments. Buenaventura could not specify the underlying investments or tell whether time deposits were rolled over. Presiding Officer Senator Francis Chiz G. Escudero clarified that the time-deposit transactions were included in the larger aggregate. He tested hypothetical SALN and salary comparisons, while acknowledging that adding successive annual SALNs was not the proper comparison. The witness distinguished year-end assets from transactions across the years. Earlier, Escudero asked how banks classify suspicion; Buenaventura described legal criteria, client profiles and transaction patterns guiding their assessments.

AMLC action, resources and confidentiality

Senators Raffy T. Tulfo and Erwin Tulfo pressed Buenaventura about investigation and enforcement. He described prioritization given limited resources, initial analysis, an internal investigation unit, coordination with law enforcement, and possible bank-inquiry applications, freeze orders and case filings. Raffy Tulfo questioned apparent inaction over Cale88; Buenaventura said Court of Appeals bank-inquiry rules prevented disclosure of whether such proceedings had been filed. He also explained that banks cannot tip clients off about covered or suspicious reports. Erwin Tulfo asked whether AMLC would investigate further; the witness said that required internal discussion. Senator Panfilo Ping M. Lacson questioned the probable-cause requirement and recalled a different explanation from a predecessor. Buenaventura maintained that probable cause was required for bank inquiries and freeze orders, and that investigation of unlawful activity and money laundering could proceed in parallel. Lacson also asked about resources and recalled a budget augmentation; Buenaventura said technology upgrades were being implemented. They disagreed over the witness's authority to testify: Lacson called it implied, while Buenaventura called it express.

Disclosure rules and requests for more detail

Lacson also recalled that AMLA's political-harassment protection concerned election-period candidates and asked that the legislative record be reviewed. Senator Robinhood Robin Padilla pressed confidentiality and the stage AMLC had reached, suggesting amendments. Buenaventura said information could be submitted to courts through authorized procedures, while additional case-specific actions remained subject to disclosure restrictions. Pangilinan similarly elicited that authorized disclosure was possible within the law, rules and guidelines. Aquino asked about Tapang at Malasakit Alliance records. They were outside the subpoena, and Divinagracia said the prosecution was considering obtaining them. Escudero corrected his initial statement about the group: it was an SEC-registered foundation. Padilla asked colleagues not to generalize about its members, saying he had received no money. Senator Juan Miguel Migz F. Zubiri sought company-by-company remittance details; Escudero directed the clerk to extract the list from submitted evidence and furnish all senator-judges.

The two Land Bank witnesses

Sumatra identified Duterte's single payroll account at Land Bank's San Pedro Davao branch, movement records for twenty seventeen to twenty twenty-five, and her signatures on the twenty-one-page record. She also identified withdrawal and on-us check-deposit documents, explaining that some transactions were certified by other branches. On cross-examination, she confirmed government payroll was credited to the account. She identified a certificate stating that twenty corporations had no accounts at her branch. An outstanding-balance certificate she initially mentioned could not be found among the documents shown; prosecution counsel ended that line after saying it had not been submitted. Lacson compared the balances under discussion with the Vice President's salary and urged faster proceedings. Alih said a later financial analyst would connect the records.

Carpio's balances and spousal access

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 two seven three zero remained active. She read year-end balances of roughly five hundred five thousand pesos in twenty twenty-two, nine hundred fifty-four thousand in twenty twenty-three, one hundred sixteen thousand in twenty twenty-four, and one point three five eight million in twenty twenty-five. Defense counsel Attorney Carlo Joaquin T. Narvasa asked about a spouse's access. Dela Cerna said the bank did not automatically send notices or balances to a spouse. It required a special power of attorney to release account information, and marriage alone did not confer signatory authority, online access or entitlement to the other spouse's balance.

The collective offer and the authentication dispute

Prosecution counsel Attorney James Bryan Ibrahim A. Alih offered the bank witnesses collectively to show at least thirty active accounts across eight banks. He cited combined year-end balances exceeding fifty-nine million, seventy-one million, twenty-two million and thirty-five million pesos for twenty twenty-two through twenty twenty-five. He characterized their cumulative total of more than one hundred ninety million as undeclared across those years' SALNs. Narvasa objected that Sumatra's knowledge could not establish totals across eight banks and maintained the bank-secrecy objection to Carpio's records because Carpio was not the impeachment respondent. He requested registration of that objection. Alih sought shorter authentication of certified, commonly marked documents. Narvasa insisted that proper identification and foundation protected the respondent's due-process rights.

What the court changed and what follows

Escudero initially required ordinary document identification for Sumatra. After consulting both sides during recess, he adopted an abbreviated process for Dela Cerna. He distinguished Republic versus Marcos, where custody alone had not authenticated private documents, and relied here on direct bank production under subpoena, documented custody, inspection and court-supervised reproduction to establish provenance, identity, integrity and fidelity of copies. Specific substantial challenges could still support exclusion, limits on entries or testimony from an appropriate custodian during cross-examination or formal offer. The continuing objections were carried forward. The court also supplied the defense with the October sixth BIR summary after an incorrect email address delayed delivery. The remaining bank and insurance witnesses were directed to return on October seventh at ten in the morning. BIR testimony was to follow those witnesses, and the prosecution anticipated a financial analyst to connect the records and disclosures.

Closing

Each substantive point in this overview links to the reviewed transcript and the official Senate video. This has been the October 6, 2026 audio overview.