October 8, 2026

Atty. Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez, chief of staff to BIR Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza and a certified public accountant and lawyer, testified under oath about tax records submitted for Vice President Sara Duterte, her husband Atty. Manases R. Carpio, and identified business entities. Her office reviews documents and correspondence for the commissioner and submitted the records required by the court’s subpoena.

Garcia-Marquez said the October 6 summaries answered the prosecution panel’s request for information in filed annual income tax returns. Revenue district staff encoded figures; technical assistants in the commissioner’s office, including her, reviewed them through two levels of review, and she finalized the summaries.

Reading Annex A, Garcia-Marquez put the spouses’ combined income net of expenses and tax for 2007–2025 at ₱85,343,803.23. She said the non-taxable-income and income-subject-to-final-tax lines contained no reported amounts in the filed returns.

From the spouses’ joint audited financial statements, Garcia-Marquez read cash on hand and in banks of ₱21,234,980 at December 31, 2022; ₱28,971,725 at December 31, 2023; ₱15,525,209 at December 31, 2024; and ₱13,804,540 at December 31, 2025. She explained that cash has its own line item in financial statements.

During Atty. Erwin G. Matib’s questions about Duterte’s other income, Garcia-Marquez read ₱1,082,800 for 2025 and ₱1,058,021 for 2024 from the joint financial statements, apart from compensation income. She said the statements did not identify that income’s source; she associated it with legal practice because Duterte’s BIR registration listed her as a professional engaged in legal activities. Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer challenged that inference, and the chair noted that Garcia-Marquez had not been qualified as an expert.

Garcia-Marquez identified a signed BIR Form 2316 attached to Duterte’s 2023 return naming the City Government of Davao as employer. She identified City Accountant Vingeline A. Bahan and Duterte as signatories and said the form recorded Duterte’s receipt of compensation income from the city government in taxable year 2023.

For 2021, Garcia-Marquez read gross compensation income of ₱2,361,252 and sales, revenues, receipts or fees of ₱4,650,000. She also read ₱3,188,776 in net sales, revenues, receipts or fees for 2017, ₱1,876,417 for 2018, and ₱4,051,000 for 2019, in addition to compensation income. She confirmed that the returns used those revenue labels and that her association with legal practice came from the registration documents. The court limited pre-vice-presidency records to baseline or pattern evidence.

Garcia-Marquez read a BIR certification reporting no database record of a transfer, sale or disposition of Manases Carpio’s Cale88 Foods Corporation shares, or related tax payments, assessments or settlements. She said the BIR had issued no eCAR and had no pending application. She explained that BIR rules require the tax-payment record before registering a share transfer in the corporation’s books. Asked about validity, she said a transfer may be valid between the parties and referred the contractual question to the law on contracts.

Garcia-Marquez said the 2025 statements of management responsibility were signed by Duterte and Carpio as proprietors and acknowledged their responsibility for information in their returns and attachments. She confirmed that the statements were signed but were not under oath.

On Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer’s cross-examination, Garcia-Marquez said she instructed regional offices to retrieve documents with the commissioner’s permission, but did not personally perform the retrieval. She confirmed that RDO 113A staff encoded the spouses’ original figures, while the commissioner’s office reviewed and finalized the tables.

Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer questioned differences between the July 30 compliance tables and the October 6 summaries. Garcia-Marquez said some information in the later summaries came from the earlier tables and that the later submission answered the prosecution’s specific request. She identified added columns for non-taxable income and income subject to final tax; her office also encoded those columns and income net of tax from copies of the annual returns.

Garcia-Marquez said both lawful and unlawful income are taxable. Answering the chair, she confirmed that a letter of authority had been issued in relation to Duterte or her spouse, but said its details were confidential and outside the subpoenaed documents.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero replaced his initial plan to start Cabrera with an early recess after Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III's appeal; the change was made without putting the appeal to a senator-judge vote.

The court classified the BIR records as public documents under Rule 132, Section 19, treating their production in ordinary official duties as prima facie evidence of authenticity. The ruling preserved defense challenges to authenticity, execution and custody and noted its continuing objection.

The court permitted display of the witness's tables and summaries, while reserving the question of displaying the underlying subpoenaed BIR records covered by presidential clearance. Counsel had to request permission before displaying source documents; the defense's continuing privacy objection to summaries was noted.

When audited financial statements drew the same display objection, Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero allowed questioning and confrontation of the witness with the documents without flashing them publicly, or use of her summary tables.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero cautioned Atty. Erwin G. Matib against supplying the forensic SALN comparison himself, allowed the existing statement to remain subject to no repetition, and sustained the objection to asking this BIR witness how cash could be classified in a SALN.

After the witness acknowledged a letter of authority but said audit details were confidential and outside the subpoena, Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero left the audit issue there. He directed Atty. Erwin G. Matib to reform a speculative question about allegedly pocketed confidential funds.

The court allowed 2021 material only as a baseline or pattern, not an additional impeachment charge for a period before Duterte was an impeachable officer. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero later required Atty. Erwin G. Matib to distinguish questions about document contents from questions asking the witness for BIR inferences.

The court struck Atty. Erwin G. Matib’s characterization of the Cale88 share sale as fake after Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer objected that it was a conclusion.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan proposed beginning the expert witness's direct examination in the morning to save court time, with defense cross-examination after the afternoon legislative session or the next morning. When he asked whether the documents had been available since Saturday, Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero confirmed from the clerk that the forensic expert's report and annex had reached both parties on October 3; Pangilinan said that left four intervening days to prepare and called the sequence a reasonable compromise. Escudero initially adopted a modified course giving the BIR priority if Atty. Erwin G. Matib arrived and preserving cross-examination for the next day; Atty. Sheila C. Sison maintained that meaningful preparation for direct examination also mattered and that another prosecutor should present the BIR. In his later recognized intervention, Pangilinan reconsidered the practical benefit: proceeding would save less than an hour. He yielded to Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III's appeal for a morning recess, after which Escudero granted the appeal without a senator-judge vote and called an early lunch.

Sen. Juan Miguel “Migz” F. Zubiri urged hearing the BIR before the financial analyst so the court could first establish income and tax payments, then evaluate the analyst's synthesis. He specifically asked whether Cale88 transactions involved payment of taxes, export duties and income taxes, warning against putting the cart before the horse. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero noted the intervention and initially directed that the BIR take priority if Atty. Erwin G. Matib arrived, explaining that Cabrera would begin with preliminary matters to accommodate Zubiri's sequencing concern. In a second recognized intervention after the sidebar recess, Zubiri said BIR findings were important to assessing unexplained wealth and the relationship between bank cash flows, declared income and taxes; he invoked a Supreme Court ruling as his rationale. He supported Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III's request to stop the morning proceedings and present the BIR that afternoon before a financial expert supplied conclusions. Escudero then heard further senator-judge interventions; after Sen. Francis Pangilinan yielded, the chair granted Sotto's appeal without a vote and called an early lunch recess.

Sen. Camille Villar appealed for a fair accommodation of both parties' concerns, noting that the court had repeatedly adjusted witnesses and their order of presentation. She asked the Presiding Officer to consider the prosecution's circumstances, the defense's concerns and Sen. Juan Miguel “Migz” F. Zubiri's proposal to hear the BIR before the financial analyst, while observing that the trial was making progress. The chair initially allowed preliminary direct examination of the financial expert while retaining priority for the BIR witness when presenting counsel could attend. After further discussion and Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III's appeal, the chair instead called an early lunch recess without putting the appeal to a vote and directed an afternoon check on whether the BIR could proceed through the scheduled or another prosecutor.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III first clarified, after Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero invited him to explain the sidebar discussion, that he had thought the BIR witness was ill and had only then learned that a prosecutor was ill. He initially left the decision to the presiding officer; Escudero replied that he would rely on Rep. Terry L. Ridon's candor and call the BIR when Atty. Erwin G. Matib became available. In a later intervention, Sotto asked whether Matib or another prosecutor could present the BIR after the afternoon legislative session, appealed the ruling to begin with the financial analyst, and moved for a brief suspension to discuss taking the morning recess instead. He tied the request to avoiding the appearance of unfairness identified by Atty. Sheila C. Sison. Escudero immediately suspended the session. Sen. Juan Miguel “Migz” F. Zubiri supported Sotto's appeal, and Sen. Francis Pangilinan yielded from his earlier proposal to use the morning for direct examination. After further consultation, Escudero granted Sotto's appeal without a vote, called an early lunch recess and directed the prosecution to report in the afternoon whether Matib or another counsel could present the BIR; otherwise the BIR would be first the following day. When Escudero asked whether that course satisfied Sotto, he recorded Sotto's thumbs-up assent.

Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino clarified that the illness concerned a prosecution lawyer rather than the BIR witness and proposed resuming the trial at 2 p.m., after the 1 p.m. legislative session. He said the interval would give another prosecutor about an hour and a half to prepare the BIR direct examination and would be fair to both sides. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero replied that he was about to address that point, but explained that the legislative session and rearrangement of tables put trial resumption nearer 2:30 or 3 p.m. The chair initially allowed preliminary direct examination of Cabrera while retaining BIR priority. After the later appeal for a recess, Escudero instead called an early lunch and required the prosecution to report whether Atty. Erwin G. Matib or another lawyer could present the BIR that afternoon. When trial resumed, Rep. Terry L. Ridon reported that Matib was present and the prosecution was ready to present the BIR witness.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo questioned why another prosecutor could not present the BIR witness when the assigned lawyer was absent, noting the number and apparent competence of the prosecution lawyers and agreeing with the defense on that point. He warned that suspending whenever either side was unprepared or a lawyer absent could become a recurring practice and delay completion of the trial. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero thanked him and recognized Sen. Francis Pangilinan rather than eliciting a separate prosecution answer. After Pangilinan yielded to Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III's appeal, the chair called an early lunch without a vote and required the prosecution to report whether Atty. Erwin G. Matib or another counsel could present the BIR that afternoon; otherwise the BIR was to be first the next day. On resumption, Rep. Terry L. Ridon reported that Matib had arrived and the prosecution was ready for the BIR witness.

Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero asked how BIR-held tax records could be private documents; Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer maintained that position. He questioned Garcia-Marquez about the October 6 summaries’ authorship and source, confirmed Annex A’s identity, and distinguished the witness-made tables from subpoenaed source records while preserving challenges to accuracy. He established that the financial statements were joint submissions by the spouses and asked when audited statements are required; she cited annual gross sales above ₱3 million and said purely compensation earners need no AFS. His questions about lawful and unlawful income and BIR audits drew confirmation that both are taxable and that a letter of authority had been issued in relation to Duterte or her spouse, with its details confidential. He separated the returns’ revenue entries from the witness’s inference of legal practice. On Cale88, he asked about the corporate secretary’s reporting duties and a transfer reflected in the GIS without eCAR. Garcia-Marquez described tax-payment requirements and penalties before stock-book registration. He confirmed that the management-responsibility statement was a standard template, as Atty. Erwin G. Matib described it, then asked whether missing eCAR invalidated a transfer; she said it may remain valid between the parties and referred validity to contract law. His follow-up established that the taxpayers’ management-responsibility statements were signed but not sworn. During cross-examination he asked whether the corporate sales, net-income and tax columns were prepared by the respective RDOs; after Matib flagged a different document, Ferrer clarified the question and Garcia-Marquez confirmed the RDO source. His comparison of the July 30 tables with the October 6 summaries elicited that the later submission was simpler, added non-taxable-income and final-tax-income columns, and included columns her office encoded directly from copies of annual returns.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano asked whether the defense objected specifically to public display of the tax documents; Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer confirmed that it did. Cayetano urged counsel, technical personnel and the media to await a ruling before displaying disputed material, noting that it had already appeared on screen. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero said the display had led to the objection and was taken down afterward. In a later round, Cayetano asked whether presidential authority to inspect the records also authorized public display, and raised the possibility of asking questions and receiving answers without showing the documents. She placed constitutional privacy concerns on record rather than treating inspection authority as automatic permission for public dissemination. Escudero distinguished the witness-created summaries from the subpoenaed source documents and referred to earlier impeachment media practice, without deciding the full scope of the presidential authorization. He retained permission to show summaries and tables while requiring permission before showing source records; Ferrer maintained that summaries still exposed the same private information.

Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson confirmed that the income being discussed was from 2021, when Sara Duterte was mayor rather than Vice President; Atty. Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez confirmed the year. He questioned the relevance of the constitutional restriction on professional practice, observing that its wording concerned the President and Vice President. Atty. Erwin G. Matib answered that a separate prohibition applied to mayors and argued that the earlier conduct showed a pattern carried into the vice presidency. The Presiding Officer said that even assuming a mayoral prohibition, it was outside the articles of impeachment, and directed counsel to move toward the covered period and distinguish document contents from BIR inferences. The court had already limited the earlier-year evidence to baseline or pattern rather than an additional charge. Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer urged adherence to the document's wording. Matib later pursued the separate Local Government Code issue through Section90(a), which the witness read as prohibiting governors and city or municipal mayors from professional practice or another occupation outside their executive functions.

The trial resumed with appearances. Rep. Terry L. Ridon asked to present financial analyst Atty. Alexander Cabrera before the BIR witness because the BIR presenting counsel, Atty. Erwin G. Matib, was ill. Atty. Sheila C. Sison objected that the defense had prepared for the BIR and received no timely notice of the change.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III appealed for a morning suspension so the BIR could still be presented in the afternoon. Sen. Francis Pangilinan withdrew support for using the remaining morning for direct examination; Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero yielded to Sotto without a vote and called an early lunch recess.

On resumption, Rep. Terry L. Ridon announced that Atty. Erwin G. Matib was present and the prosecution was ready for the BIR. Matib called Garcia-Marquez, who took the oath; Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer reserved the respondent's challenge to submission of the tax records and objected to their public display.

Cross-examination was unfinished. Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer estimated at least two more hours; Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero directed an effort to finish the BIR before lunch the next day and then proceed to the financial analyst. The witness committed to return with a new subpoena. The trial adjourned to October 9, 2026 at 10 a.m.

Rep. Terry L. Ridon asked to change witness order because Atty. Erwin G. Matib was ill, submitted the issue to the court and later said the prosecution had obeyed both rulings rather than demanded that the defense adjust. It brought Matib to court despite his continuing illness.

Atty. Erwin G. Matib characterized Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer's display request as reconsideration of a prior privacy ruling and argued that records needed to be shown to prove their contents. He invoked Data Privacy Act Section 16B and IRR Section 22F as stated in court and said personal addresses, unrelated names and tax identification numbers had been redacted.

In his offer of testimony, Atty. Erwin G. Matib alleged that the couple’s income did not explain Duterte’s declared net worth, that professional fees and other income implicated constitutional restrictions, that cash and assets were undeclared, and that records raised questions about Manases Carpio’s Cale88 interest. He later compared the ₱85,343,803.23 combined income figure with ₱98,656,131.20 in declared net worth in Duterte’s 2025 SALN.

Atty. Erwin G. Matib relied on BIR's direct delivery to the court to dispense with individual authentication. During cross-examination he objected to treating October 6 summaries as merely derivative of an earlier table, saying they were based on actual income-tax returns.

Atty. Sheila C. Sison argued that the late witness switch impaired preparation for direct examination as well as cross-examination. With the BIR witness present and numerous prosecutors available, she urged another prosecutor to take over rather than shift the burden of adjustment to the respondent.

Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer reserved the right to challenge the legality of tax-return submission and distinguished presidential authorization for court inspection from permission for public display. She invoked sensitive-personal-information protections and National Internal Revenue Code Section 71 as arguments in court, asking that judges receive copies instead.

Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer disputed automatic public-document treatment and maintained continuing objections after both the authenticity and summary-display rulings. She argued that displaying summaries revealed the same private entries as the returns.

On cross, Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer questioned who encoded the RDO compliance returns, the relationship between those returns and the October 6 summaries, and which information the later summaries omitted or added in response to the prosecution's request.

Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer challenged the witness’s association of revenue with legal practice because the returns stated sales, revenues, receipts or fees rather than a professional source. She also objected to asking the BIR witness for a SALN opinion.

The defense's challenge to public display of the underlying subpoenaed tax documents was reserved; the operative permission concerned tables and summaries, with source-document display requiring a separate request.

BIR cross-examination remained underway, with differences between July 30 compliance material and October 6 summaries explored but further defense questioning deferred to the next hearing.

The financial analyst’s testimony remained the next planned stage after completion of the BIR witness.