October 12, 2026

Officer and Central Judges of the Impeachment

Court.

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 Mark Villar.

Let us put ourselves in the presence of God. Almighty Father, we humbly stand before you today as we resume trial in this impeachment court. We beseech you to bless and inspire us so that all we think, say, and do aligns with your will. In times of adversity, we ask that you renew our spirit, keep our focus steady, and grant us the physical, emotional, and spiritual strength required for the magnitude of our responsibilities. We lean fully upon your grace to sustain us. Fill our hearts with wisdom, discernment, and integrity. Lighten our minds with clarity to carefully weigh the evidence before us, stripping away all confusions. We may examine every testimony and record the objective fairness, distinguishing truth from speculation. Shield us from the traps of personal bias, political variance, or divisiveness that could cloud our judgment, and grant us the grace to put the justice

before gain, the plight of the Filipinos before our own, and truth above all.

Fill our hearts with wisdom and understanding in all our judgments that we may be effective channels of truth and justice. Grant us the grace of true independence, giving us courage to stand firm in what is right against political pressures and outside influences, remaining faithful to our solemn oath to the Constitution and the people we serve. Give us humility to seek your will, the truth that may be fully revealed under your light as we take our final steps. Continue to guide us so that peace and accountability may prevail. May our concluding judgment be rooted entirely in fairness, integrity, and righteousness for the fulfillment of your greater glory. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Trial suspended.

The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Roll call of members. The Honorable Senator Judge Aquino. Senator Judge Cayetano Alan. Senator Judge Cayetano Pia. Senator Judge Dela Rosa. Senator Judge Ejercito.

Senator Judge Estrada Senator Judge Go Senator Judge Hontiveros Senator Judge Lacson Senator Judge Lapid Senator Judge Legarda Senator Judge Marcoleta Senator Judge Marcos Senator Judge Padilla Senator Judge Pangilinan Senator Judge Sotto III Senator Judge Tulfo Erwin Senator Judge Tulfo Raffy Senator Judge Villanueva Senator Judge Villar Camille Senator Judge Villar Mark, Senator Judge Zubiri, the Presiding Officer Senator Judge Escudero, the Senate President Senator Judge Gatchalian.

With 13 Senator Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a courtroom.

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

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. If there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading of the journal. for October 7 to 8 and October 9. That is journal number 35 and journal number 36 of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court and shall consider the same as approved.

The clerk will please call the case before the impeachment court.

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

Appearances of the parties.

Good morning, Your

Honor. Same appearances. We're ready. for the prosecution.

Same appearance for the respondent. Accused, your honor.

The clerk of court is directed to situate the witness, attorney Alex Cabrera, to the witness stand for

the continuation of his testimony, specifically the cross-examination by counsel for respondent.

Attorney Kristine, your apple box is there already.

Yes, your honor. Thank you, your honor.

Good morning, your honor.

Good morning, Honorable Chel.

Kindly take

your seat.

Atty. Cabrera, naunawaan niyo po na patuloy kayong magbibigay ng inyong testimonya sa hukumang ito, sang-ayon at base sa pinanumpaan po ninyo nung huli kayong tumistigo dito noong nakaraang biyernes.

Atty.

Kristine, are you ready?

Ready, Your Honor.

You may proceed with your cross-examination then.

You can drink your water. First, sir. It's okay.

Are you good, sir?

Thank

you.

Good morning, Atty. Cabrera.

Good morning, Honorable Kristine.

Just don't call me honorable because I'm not an honorable. I'm not part of the prosecution team.

Sir, I hope you had a great weekend. Now, you are here to testify as a forensic accountant of the prosecution, correct?

That's right.

And your testimony is to prove the allegation of unexplained wealth against the Vice President, Sara Zimmerman Duterte, under Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment, correct?

That's right.

And sir, aside from professional competence, all CPAs are bound by integrity and objectivity in conducting their forensic audit. Do you agree with that, sir?

Tama po.

Now, we have

a copy of your CV and your CV shows that you are the chairman of the Justice Reform Initiative or JIR. Do you confirm that, sir?

Yes, ma'am.

And

as the chairman of JRI, is it fair to state that you have knowledge of the statements released by your organization?

Of course,

ma'am.

Thank

you, sir. Are you aware that your organization, the JRI, issued a statement on May 14, 2026, calling that the impeachment court convene and proceed with the impeachment trial of the Vice President, Sara Duterte? Are you aware of that, sir?

Yes, ma'am.

We are showing you a copy of that statement and we are also showing that statement on screen.

Do you confirm now, sir, that that is the statement that was issued by JRI?

That is correct.

Thank

you, sir.

Your CV also shows that you are the chairman of the Integrity Initiative Inc., correct?

That's right, ma'am. It was still an active organization.

Thank you, sir.

I was the last chairman.

Thank you, sir.

And as the chairman, you are aware that it was organized in 2009 by five leading business organizations, and one of which is the Makati Business Club, correct?

That's right.

Thank you, sir.

Your Honor, I'm very sorry to interrupt. May I just request a copy of the document that was shown to the witness? Thank you.

Assisting counsel is directed to furnish a copy to opposing counsel through assisting counsel as well.

Through the back of the witness preferably.

A copy of

the documents that we have shown to the witness are being provided to the prosecution, Your Honor.

So I will not interrupt later, Your Honor, if other documents will be shown to the witness. May I request that we immediately be given copies as well. Thank you.

The other documents are already part of the examination or the direct examination of Mr. Cabrera, Attorney Diokno. Don't worry.

Are you aware sir that the Makati Business Club issued a statement on June 9, 2025 calling for the convening of the impeachment court?

I'm aware po.

And we are showing you a copy of the statement and we are also showing a copy on screen.

Council is being shown a copy of the statement.

Do you confirm that that is the statement that was issued by the Makati Business Club, sir, on June 9, 2025?

I'm aware po of the call for convening the impeachment court, but I do not have the time po to read the rest of the statement to confirm that this is such statement.

Okay, thank you, sir. That will suffice. Now, you also listed chairmanship in the Ethics Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines, or MAP, correct?

That's right, po.

You're of course aware that on June 11, 2025, the MAP voiced out its concern over the move to return VP Sara's impeachment case to the House of Representatives. Are you aware of that statement?

I am aware po.

We

are showing you a copy of the statement.

And the statement is also being shown on screen.

Do you confirm that that was the statement that was issued by the MAP on June 11, 2025, sir?

Again, I am aware of the statement, but I don't have time to read to confirm that this is the

entire statement.

Okay, that would suffice, sir. But still, at that time, you are the chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines. Thank you, sir. Now, despite of all of these publications which were released by your organizations, you still accepted your appointment?

by the public prosecutors for you to render forensic accounting services on the supposed unexplained wealth of the Vice President, Sara Zimmerman Duterte. Correct?

That's right po.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

With the indulgence of Attorney Kristine, can the tech kindly adjust the cursor on the screen? It's right at the forehead of Attorney Kristine. Okay. Thank you. You may proceed, Attorney Kristine.

Thank you, Your Honor. Now, sir, let's go to your appointment by the panel of prosecutors. Last Friday, we were provided with your appointment letter by the panel of the prosecutors. We will show the letter on screen, but we have covered your signature, sir, both your signature and Attorney Luistra's signature.

Just a clarification for the record, Your Honor. As I recall, it was the witness who produced a copy of the engagement letter. The prosecution panel did not provide it to him.

But it was part of the testimony of the witness.

Kindly show a copy of the letter to the witness.

Now, do you confirm that that is your appointment letter by the public prosecutors?

I confirm po.

Thank you, sir.

Now, that letter is undated. Do you confirm that, sir?

June 2026 po. Wala pong naisulat na.

Okay. Thank you, sir. On the second paragraph, on the second paragraph of that letter,

kindly

zoom.

The second paragraph.

Okay. I think that's enough. On the second paragraph, there seemed to have a planned vacation to Europe for two to three weeks and that will start tomorrow, sir. Is that right? Do you confirm that?

I confirm po.

Okay. My question is quite personal. Have you packed your bag, sir?

Kalahat. I'm a

late packer po eh.

Okay. What time will be your flight tomorrow, sir?

It's not tomorrow. It's on Wednesday.

It's on Wednesday. Okay. Okay. So this is not accurate, this letter. The date is on Wednesday and not yet tomorrow. Okay, sir.

Based on this document, sir, it was the panel of prosecutors who approached you to be their forensic expert. Is that correct?

That is correct. The prosecutors po.

Thank

you, sir. And who among the members of the panel of prosecutors approached you, sir, if you can recall?

Yeah, it is Congressman Shell Diokno.

Congressman Shell Diokno. And you have known Congressman Shell Diokno before by reason of your appearances in public hearings. Is that a correct statement?

No po. The first time I met Congressman Shell Diokno, I mean face-to-face, We sat on a panel together in the Good Governance Advocates of the Philippines.

And that was way back in?

That was not way back po. That was last

year

lang po yata.

Okay, so that's last year. Sir, the engagement provides that your engagement is pro bono. The letter provides that.

When was this letter handed to you, sir, if you can recall?

This engagement letter?

Yes,

sir.

Noon June po.

Also in June 2026. Now, do you recall a specific date in June when the letter was handed to you, sir?

Early

June po eh.

Early June?

Early

June.

Okay,

first week or second week?

Yeah, thereabouts po. Thereabouts.

Mga first week

po. Alright,

sir. And... The engagement letter does not outline the procedures to be undertaken by you. Do you confirm that, sir?

Yeah,

I confirm po.

Did you send another letter, sir, confirming the procedures? Procedures?

Yes,

sir.

Wala po kong sinend na ito po lahat yung gagawin ko. Pero ang kasunduan po namin ay magkakanda ka po ng forensic report doon sa documents na ibibigay nila.

Okay, sir. Thank you for that answer. So you confirm that this is the only letter that covers the engagement of your services,

correct?

That is true po.

Okay. Now, the appointment letter also says that you may be assisted by such persons that you select. Do you confirm that, sir?

I confirm po.

And how many people have assisted you in drafting and finalizing your forensic report, sir?

Noong first half po, mga dalawa lang. Pero nung second ha po Nel, na-delay po yung pagdating ng mga bank accounts. Nagdagdag po kami ng ako ng tatlo.

Salamat po. Now, all of these people are also rendering their service as pro bono.

Apo.

Meaning for free.

Apo.

Thank

you, sir. Last Friday, you testified on the results of your assessment on the alleged unexplained wealth of the Vice President and her spouse, Manases Carpio, correct?

Tama po.

And this allegation is found in Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment, correct?

Allegation po of?

Under Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment, sir. Okay, thank you, sir. In fact, your forensic report, if you have a copy, sir, you can refer to it. Your forensic report dated October 2, 2026. Can a copy be shown, please? We are showing a copy to the witness.

Concluded that the respondent, vice president, had an unexplained wealth of 817.8 million pesos.

Tama po.

That is your allegation in your forensic report.

That is the results of my review po. Yung allegations po ay wala pong basihan ng ibig sabihin.

Okay. Okay. We'll accept your answer, sir. Now, on page 39, you concluded that the Vice President committed constitutional violations year on year by reason of her supposed unexplained wealth. Correct?

Tama po.

Okay.

Thank you, sir. Now, your report covers the year 2022 to 2025, correct?

Tama po.

Thank

you, sir. And that is during the respondent's tenure as a vice president.

That is right

po.

That no longer covers the prior years from 2007 to 2021, correct?

The unexplained wealth that

we covered

is

for

the period 22 to 25.

Thank

you, sir. And apart from the Constitution, sir, you also cited the following laws which were allegedly violated by the respondent in page 39 of your report. With your kind indulgence, sir, we will go through these laws one by one. Now, You cited RA 1379.

Pwede pong i-correct yung pagkakasabi niyo po. Were violated or may have been violated.

Okay, thank you sir for that. Were violated or may have been violated. Now, these laws include, first, RA 1379. And if you recall sir, based on your recollection, This governs the civil forfeiture of any property unlawfully acquired by a public officer, correct?

APA.

RA 6713 is also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees, correct?

APA.

RA 3019 is of course the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, right?

APA.

And RA 12009 is the New Government Procurement Act. Correct?

That's right, Pa.

Thank you, sir, for that confirmation. Now, your report also cited the omnibus rules on statement of assets and liabilities and net worth, correct?

Apo.

If you can recall, which, if you can recall also, the Civil Service Commission adopted through CSE Resolution No. 250063 dated June 25, 2025. If you can just recall it, sir.

And that

was in footnote 3 of

your report. And

that omnibus SALN rules took effect on September 29, 2025, correct?

Okay.

Thank you, sir. Now, just some personal questions, sir, if you don't mind. You testified last Friday that you were with Isla Lipan and Company or formerly Joaquin Cananan, sir?

From

1988. until you retired in 2025. Correct, sir?

That's correct po.

You have not been employed in the government, sir. Correct?

Not yet po.

Okay, thank you, sir. And you have not been appointed to any public position?

That is right po.

Either.

Okay,

thank you, sir.

You have not been employed with the Civil Service Commission, correct?

Not

yet po.

Okay,

thank you, sir. How about the Office of the Ombudsman?

Hindi pa po.

Okay, and also COA?

Pa po.

Yes, thank you, sir. Not having employed with the government, sir, with all due respect also, you have not executed and filed a SALN with the office of the Ombudsman, correct?

Opo, tama po yan.

Thank you, sir. Even if such is the case, you still opine that the VP committed violations in the declaration she made in her SALN. Is that right, sir? Even without having been employed with the government, not having executed any SALN, you still opine that the VP, committed violations in the declarations she made in the year SALN. Thank you, sir. Now, let's go back to your employment with Isla Lipana, sir.

By

the way, Isla Lipana changed its name or firm name, Joaquin Cunanan, rather, changed its firm name to Isla Lipana in 2005. That is correct? Okay, thank you, sir. Now, you started as a... staff accountant, at Joaquin Cunanan and Company, correct?

Apo.

On July 7, 1988, correct?

That's right, Pa.

Thank you, sir. If you can just share, may I know the name of your partner in charge at that time, sir? If that's okay for you to share. If not, it's okay.

Apo. Huwag na po nating banggitin po yung pangalan ng partner. Okay. Tutal po, Yumao na po

siya.

Okay. That's okay, sir. And... Your work as a staff accountant was to conduct an external audit of financial statements of your clients in Joaquin Cunanan, correct?

That's right po.

In

short, you are a staff auditor, correct?

That's right po.

In the modern version or in the later structure of PWC or Isla Lipana, this staff accountant is what we call as an associate in the audit and assurance department.

That's right po.

Thank

you, sir. In fact, the current... Okay, I will no longer mention his name. I was about to mention the name of the current audit and assurance managing partner of Isla Lipana. Now, going back to your work experience, sir, you served as a staff accountant from July 7, 1988 to June 30, 1989, correct?

That's right, po.

And that is for about a year?

One year, po.

Thank you sir. Thereafter, you transferred to the tax services department of Joaquin Cunanan or Isla Lipana on June 1, 1989.

That's right po.

Thank you sir. Because of that transfer, you became a tax technical consultant. That was your job description then.

Tama po.

Thank you sir. And today, we call that tax technical consultant as a tax associate. Is that a correct attribution sir?

Tama po.

Thank you sir.

I will no longer ask the name of your tax partner in charge.

And your report to this new tax partner, sir. To this tax partner of yours.

Apo.

Okay. You no longer report to your previous audit and assurance partner in charge, correct?

That's right po. Pero...

Counselor Diokno or Attorney Diokno can ask you questions later, sir, regarding this matter if she has to. Now, I understand. that East Lalipana has a department also called Brother Assurance Services. Is that correct, sir?

That's right po.

And

it offers fraud and compliance audit, correct?

That's right

po.

In fact, this department of East Lalipana is currently headed by Mr. Pocholo Dumundon. Is that correct?

Hindi ko po alam kung siya po yung leader ngayon.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Now, going back to your resume, sir. The same does not mention that you were part of the broader assurance services, is that correct?

It

doesn't mention that po. Okay,

thank you, sir. Also, it did not, while, although, it did mention your chairmanship in Isla Lipana. Now, let's go to your work in the tax department, sir.

Sir, the tax department is a separate division of Isla Lipana, correct?

Separate LOS, but not siloed.

Yes, sir. It's a separate department of Joaquin Cunanan and Company.

Yes, it doesn't

operate independently of the firm.

Yes, sir.

It's not

siloed.

Yes, sir. But it is still under Isla Lipana, although a separate department.

Meron pong separate na LOS po ang tax. Opo.

Okay.

It is also separate. It is separate from the Audit and Assurance Services Department, sir. Correct?

Tama po.

Thank

you, sir. It is also separate from the broader assurance department, correct?

Tama po.

Thank you, sir. Now, the tax department under which you were already working at the time, in 1989, offers the following services. Tax accounting and regulatory compliance. Do you confirm that?

Tama po.

Such as assistance in the preparation and filing of tax returns.

Tax audit or due diligence, sir?

Tama po.

But the audit, The determination refers to the determination or tax compliance of a client with the BAR, correct?

Hindi po ganun ka-restrictive po yan.

Yes, but mostly that is the coverage of your tax audit.

Kasama

po ang rules at hindi po natin yung matitignan na hindi po inaanalyze ang financial statements po.

Okay, sir. Yes. I get that, sir. Now, international tax and transfer pricing and also rendering of tax opinion, sir.

Yes po.

Okay. The tax department under which you were working at that time does not offer auditing and assurance services, correct?

The

tax department does not audit...

Does not offer auditing and assurance services.

Hindi

po. Meron pong separate na department po yan.

So the answer is yes, it does not offer auditing and assurance services.

Opo.

Thank you, sir. The tax department does not conduct an external audit of the financial statements of... The clients of PWC or Isla Lipana or Joaquin Cunanan. Thank you, sir. Its services do not include rendering an independent opinion on the financial statements of your clients. Correct? Thank you, sir. While the tax department offers tax fraud audits, the focus of the audit is compliance with tax laws.

Compliance with tax laws and kung ano po yung misrepresentation po sa financial statement po.

All of these relate to tax laws also.

Thank

you, sir. Now, because fraud audit in general is being handled by the assurance department, correct, sir?

Fraud

audit in general?

Yes, sir.

Pagka po fraud audit po kasi yung pinag-uusapan, na-involved na po yung lahat po ng LOS po ng firm.

Ang

audit po, ang tax po, ang broader assurance, at kung sino man po yung expert na kailangan po, nagtutulong-tulong po kami. Yan po ang ibig sabihin ng hindi po siya siloed.

Okay, sir. Thank you for that clarification. Now, while working in Joaquin Cunanan's tax department, you took up law, correct?

That's right po.

And lawyering is also consistent with your career track under the tax services department of Joaquin Cunanan?

That is right po.

And

after passing the bar in 1996, you maintained your employment with Joaquin Cunanan, correct?

1994 po ako

nakapasa ng bar.

Sorry, I stand corrected. 1994, sir.

Okay,

after passing the bar in that year, you maintained your employment with Joaquin Cunanan, correct? As a tax lawyer in the tax services department, of course.

So you were employed? as an attorney in the tax services department of Joaquin Cunanan and Company.

As a CPA and lawyer po.

Of course, sir. You were not employed as an auditor of the audit and assurance department of Joaquin Cunanan and Company.

Hindi po ako auditor sa LOS na yun po.

Okay, sir. As a tax lawyer in the tax department, your work was focused on taxation, corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, correct?

Opo.

Okay.

And... As a tax lawyer, you can now represent clients before the SEC, correct?

Nagre-represent po kami sa SEC po.

Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. More importantly, as a tax lawyer, you can now represent clients before the BIR, correct?

Oo

po. Kahit punong CPA pa lang po, pwede na po mag-represent sa BIR po.

Okay, thank you, sir. And, am I correct to say that as a tax lawyer, your work mostly involved? Representing clients before the SEC and the BIR and other government agencies.

As a

tax lawyer.

Hindi po eh. Hindi po. Talaga pong ano. Talaga pong malaki po yung M&A component. Malaki po yung due diligence review. Malaki po yung consulting.

Just answer yes or no, sir. Sorry. I have to.

No, Your Honor, please. It's

not po. It's

not po na. Puro

ganun po ang ginagawa ko.

Okay, sir. I understand. Your

Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. May I just request that since the good counsel was the one who asked the question of the witness, that she not interrupt him and allow him to finish the question, to the answer I mean.

Sir, if I will ask you, if I will request you to just answer with yes or no, can you please answer with yes or no? And your lawyer will also ask a question regarding that matter if he deems appropriate later on redirect.

The comment of Honorable Diokno is duly noted. The witness is instructed to kindly be responsive. As the case may be, although if there is a need for you to explain your answer, if it cannot be answerable by a simple yes or no, you may ask permission of the counsel if there is a need to ask further questions or if you can explain your answer. If not, then opposing counsel, the Honorable Diokno, can take that up and redirect. You may proceed, Atty. Kristine.

Thank

you, Your Honor. Now, as a tax lawyer, you no longer audit the financial statements of PWC's clients.

As a tax lawyer po?

Yes po.

Opo.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Am I correct to say, sir, that under PWC's global policy and standards, the firm's tax department is strictly prohibited from providing external audit services to any of The firm's client.

Opo, hindi po ganun ang design nun. Ang audit partners lamang po yung nakakapirma ng audit

credentials.

Thank

you, sir. So, the answer to that is yes. Yes. Thank you, sir. Now, let's go back to your work

as a tax lawyer. Let's expound a bit. Now, your work as a tax lawyer already involves handling requests before the BIR, correct?

Kasama po yun.

Okay. Law division?

Kasama po yun.

International Tax Affairs Division.

Kasama

po yun.

Okay.

And you also represented clients for tax assessments or audits before the BIR.

Tama po.

Okay, sir. If I can recall your testimony last Friday, you said that you really considered yourself as a tax expert. Tama po?

Tama po.

And if I may recall, if I can quote you, you mentioned something along the lines like, And taxation, yan ang expertise ko talaga.

And

this representation really understands where you're coming from, sir. In fact, that statement really showed your passion also when it comes to taxation, if my assessment is correct.

Taxation po, because of tax planning, tax structuring, M&A po.

Thank you, sir. Now, even if you focus your entire career in taxation,

and

Only devoted about a year in external audit as a staff accountant, you still consider yourself, sir, as a forensic accounting expert?

That's right, sir.

Objection, Your Honor. I think the...

Already answered, Your Honor.

Your Honor, already answered is not an excuse for the objection to be made. That's very clear, Section 39.

What is the objection, counsel?

May I ask that the question be repeated?

Your Honor, the witness already answered, I believe.

Your Honor, Section 39, should the witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection, or where the question is not objectionable but the answer is not responsive, or where a witness testifies without the question being posed, or testifies beyond limits set by the court, and such objection is found to be meritorious. The court shall sustain the objection and order such answer, testimony, or narration to be stricken off the record.

That is why I'm asking for the ground for the objection, counsel.

That's why, Your Honor, I'm asking that the question be repeated. Because if I recall the question, good counsel here misled the testimony or misdeclared the testimony of the witness last week.

Quick reply, Your Honor. So

your ground is that it's misleading.

Yes, but I would like, Your Honor, please, that the question be repeated so that I can make it clear which part is objectionable.

A quick reply, Your Honor.

We

believe that the witness is an intelligent witness, Your Honor, and he fully understood and in fact responded to the question, Your Honor. Thank you.

Your Honor, may I be heard? Hindi po karera ito na pag sinagot ng witness agad yung tanong ay hindi na po pwede mag-object? ang abogado. That's very clear from section 39 of rule 130. If the witness answers quickly but the question is objectionable, counsel is still entitled to object. The court must rule on the objection and have the answer or the question stricken off the record. Now, to make my objection clear, I don't know why it's so difficult for counsel to repeat her question.

Yes, counsel, but

Yes, Attorney Kristine, before the court makes a ruling.

Your Honor, may we know the ground of the objection, Your Honor, because if it was misleading, the witness could not have answered it intelligently, Your Honor. But as you see, Your Honor, the witness has in fact given his answer, Your Honor.

Allow the court to make a ruling.

If the panel of prosecutor needs the question to be repeated to make the appropriate objection and the witness has already answered, then The court would have to overrule that objection and also if it is based on the fact that it was misleading, it was not misleading. I remember the question. She was simply comparing the claim of the witness in regard to his supposed one-year experience only in the division when he was starting out that focused on this particular fact. and or assertion.

I now

recall what was stated by the good counsel and she said that if you're only especially if if you only did tax lawyering sorry she was stating that she

was

insinuating your honor that this witness has not had any experience at all in auditing That was the import of her question and that's why it's misleading.

Your Honor, please, that statement of Atty. Diokno is the one which is misleading.

Yes,

I don't recall it that way, Honorable. I think Atty. Kristine asked that he had experience but that only it was for a short period of time, a year in fact, if I recall correctly. Let's move on. For the meantime, with your indulgence, Honorable Diokno, the objection is overruled. Atty. Kristine, you may continue.

Thank you, sir. With your kind indulgence, sir, I will be asking more personal questions, sir.

As a lawyer, sir, have you handled a complaint for graft and corruption before the Office of the Ombudsman?

Hindi po.

Thank you, sir. Have you handled, either as a private prosecutor or defense lawyer, a case involving graft and corruption before any court?

As a

lawyer, po, hindi po.

Thank you, sir. How about a case involving malversation or misuse of public funds?

Hindi pa po.

Thank you, sir. How about a case involving violation of RA 6713?

Hindi pa po. Pero lahat po

ng elements nito alam po kahit po ng estudyante.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Gusto ko lang po

masabi na

hindi po mahirap

basahin yung batas.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We take that answer too. How about plunder? Have you handled a case involving plunder? How about handling a civil forfeiture case, sir? Have you done so?

Not yet, po.

Have you been an expert witness, sir, in a graft and corruption case before any court?

Hindi po. CTA lang po ako nakapag-commissioner po.

Okay.

Salamat po. How about being an expert witness in a case involving unexplained wealth or ill-gotten wealth before the Sandiganbayan?

This is the first

time po and I hope it's the last.

Okay sir, we got that answer. Now, so you have not been an expert too in a civil forfeiture case in any court?

Not yet po.

Okay, thank you sir. Have you been an amicus curiae in an unexplained or ill-gotten wealth case before the Sandiganbayan?

Hindi po, napaka-justices lang po pwede doon.

Okay.

Why not, sir? How about a civil forfeiture case? Have you been an amicus curiae?

Hindi

pa po.

Okay.

Despite not having appeared in any court as counsel or as an amicus curiae, in cases involving graft and corruption, ill-gotten wealth, or civil for future, you of course are still appearing as an expert witness and opining on the supposed constitutional violations of the vice president, correct?

That's right

po.

Thank you sir. We understand also sir that you attended leadership and management program at Harvard Business School in 2006.

That's right po.

And that is a non-curriculum leadership program sir.

That's right po.

Which lasted for about a week?

A week po, hindi po.

Four to six days?

Mga less na naman po pero mga one month po yung preparation.

Okay, thank you sir. And finally sir,

May we know sir if you are a member of the Institute of Certified Forensic Accountants in the Philippines?

Hindi po. Nung tinayo po yan ay 2001. Eleven years na po akong partner nung

tinayo po

siya.

Thank

you for that answer. Eleven years

na po ako at partner na po ako nun. Sorry.

Okay. Thank you sir. Thank you for that answer.

Pardon me sir. but I will have to ask you some more questions. Of course, these are not meant sir to downplay your achievements. Please have that in mind sir because your achievements are what they are already. Now, going back to your CV sir, Curriculum Vitae, Curriculum Vitae, can a copy be shown to the witness?

In your CV sir, nothing was attached to it. Do you confirm that, sir?

Opo, ito lang po yung pre-prepare kong summary po.

Okay, salamat po, sir. Your diplomas were not attached to the CV?

Hindi po,

hindi po naka-

Certifications from the PRC and the Supreme Court concerning your admission to the CPA profession and the bar were also not attached to the CV, correct, sir?

Opo,

hindi po naka-attached.

Of course, again, this doesn't mean that they don't exist, but I'm just asking this as a matter of record, sir. Please understand.

Hindi po naka-attach po.

Okay, thank you, sir. No client testimonials were attached to your CV, sir.

No

certification from PWC also regarding your employment and partnership with the firm.

Wala pa.

No

peer reviews were attached. No reviews by fellow tax lawyers, by audit partners were attached also in your CV, sir.

Okay sir, I

understand. No other certifications on memberships were also attached to your CV, sir.

Okay,

nandun po. May isang kwarto po puro po, ano dun.

thank you, sir.

Okay,

salamat po.

Okay, sir. Now, let's proceed with your appointment. Going back to your appointment letter. I hope you have a copy of that.

Okay.

Going back to your appointment letter, may we know, sir, when did you accept your appointment as a forensic expert?

Noong

June pa.

June, if you can recall, ah, June first week or second week. That's your answer earlier.

Okay. So, when did you commence your work, sir, after signing the appointment letter? If you just can recall.

Immediately po eh. Because naka, yeah, immediately po.

So, by saying immediately, second week or third week of June?

Yeah, around second

week po yan.

Okay. Second week or third week of June. If you can recall, sir, what were the documents that were provided to you by the prosecution at that time?

Lahat po

nung documents

na sinabit po sa impeachment court sa house po.

In June 2026, sir?

Lahat po nung mga galing po sa house na impeachment proceedings po.

Alright. So, you're saying that In June 2026, based on your recollection, you were already provided with SALNs of the respondent from 2022 to 2025.

SALN

po, AMLA,

AMLA documents, AMLC documents, income tax returns?

Wala pa po.

Wala pa. Financial

statements po ng corporations.

Okay. Bank statements?

GIS.

Wala pa.

Wala pa. Okay. That's clear. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Now, when

These documents were handed to you or provided to you in June 2026.

Did the turnover of the documents to you or was the turnover of these documents to you covered by any transmittal letter, sir?

Ang po nung karton. Parang meron po yata yung transmittal po.

Okay but

there was a transmittal letter that was given to you

and

which you also received, sir?

I don't think I signed po. Pinadala po yung, pinadala po sa office ko po yung ano.

Precisely, they were not attached to your report?

Apo.

That's the reason why?

Apo.

Okay. Now,

when you received the documents from the banks and the AMLC and the BAR, may I know when you received this sir? If you can recall?

Bandang September na po yan eh.

Okay, September. Okay.

Opo.

When you received these subpoenaed documents, of course, it did not occur to you or did it ever occur to you that you or the person who provided the documents, the bank officers, the AMLC officers, or the BIR officers, may be violating confidentiality law, sir?

Wala po akong concern po doon. Ang

concern ko

lang po ay matangga po yung documents sa prosecution at yun po yung titignan ko.

Wala po akong

concern doon sa... outside of that po.

Thank you, sir.

We are showing you this law, sir, that I mentioned earlier.

Kindly give your answers after my question, sir. For the AMLC report, sir, we are citing Section 8A of RA 916.

Section 8A, we are showing it on the screen, sir. I hope you can see that.

Medyo pa.

Okay. Section 8A provides, if I can read the first paragraph, the AMLC and its secretariat shall securely protect information received or processed and shall not reveal in any manner any information known to them by reason of this office. This prohibition shall apply even after their separation from the AMLC. And then the second provision that we will show is section 6 of RA 9194 which amends section 9C of RA 9160. Can that be shown on the screen?

Can the in-charge of the tech booth show that on screen?

Kindly blow it up a bit.

Kindly blow it up a bit, David.

I hope you can see that, sir.

Medyo mahirap po.

Okay, I will just read it sir for your reference. Okay, when reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly in any manner or by any means to any person or entity, the media, The fact that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made. The contents thereof or any other information in relation thereto. I'll stop in that portion. And lastly, sir, the last provision regarding the AMLC records that we will show on screen is Section 9D of RA 9194, which amends Section 14 of RA 9160.

Can that provision be shown on screen? Then I will read it also sir for your reference. Section 9, Section 14, Paragraphs C and D of the same act are hereby amended to read as follows. Letter D, breach of confidentiality. I will no longer specify the penalties but it includes imprisonment and fine. But this is not meant to scare you, sir.

I'm

not scared

naman po.

Yes, sir. I will now ask my question, sir. As a lawyer, you did not feel concerned that the furnishing of AMLC documents to you and information also to you without the permission of the impeachment court may violate this laws which we cited earlier.

Dahil na take up na po sa house at pinagtalunan na po sa house, kaya po ang nasa isip ko ay okay lang po yan na

tanggapin ko.

Okay, salamat po. Now for the bank documents, we will also show Section 2 of RA 1405 or the Bank Secrecy Law. Kindly show it on the screen. I will also read it sir for your reference. Section 2, of course I know you are familiar with this. Section 2, all deposits of whatever nature. With banks or banking institutions in the Philippines, including investments in bonds issued by the government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities are hereby considered as an absolutely confidential... as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired, or looked into by any person, government, official, bureau, or office except upon written permission of the depositor or in cases of impeachment. or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or the reliction of duty of public officials or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Now, my question sir is, having known this law as a lawyer, you did not feel concerned also by the furnishing of copies of bank documents to you without the authority of the impeachment court?

Objection, Your Honor.

Pwede pong sagutin.

Maya-maya na, Atty. Alex.

Are you withdrawing your objection that you haven't stated yet?

May I just

make a manifestation instead, Your Honor, that the witness earlier, when asked when he was provided with the documents in early June, said that he was not yet provided with the bank records at that time.

Just to be

clear, Your Honor.

Your Honor, quick reply.

Yes, Attorney Gacin.

The questions were asked, in relation to his receipt already of the documents. Not when the documents were not yet provided to him.

No,

this one. This one. I think Honorable Diokno was referring to the earlier questions na sinagot ng testigo. Not this one. And the witness expressed willingness to answer.

Yes,

I withdraw my objection.

Duly

noted. Witness may answer.

Kaya po ako hindi concerned kasi sa 3019 po na siya pong section 8 po na nagsasabing yung

acquisition po ng property na manifestly disproportionate po sa income po.

Sir,

I'm sorry, I have to stop you.

Sinasabi po niya na bank deposits have been taken into consideration.

Your Honor, please.

Atty. Alex, I think that would be enough. Again, any further explanation not called for in the question by Atty. Kristine may be dealt with by the Hon. Diokno during his redirect examination.

Yes, sir. My only question, my question was simple. You did not feel concerned? Hindi kayo nabahala when the bank documents were furnished to you by the prosecution without the authority or approval of the impeachment court?

Dahil po 3019 po, ang

bank deposits po ay kailangan din

pong matignan.

Sabi po. Kaya po ako

hindi na

bahala. Pinapaliwanag ko lang po kung

bakit po ako

hindi na bahala.

Nasa

batas po yung bank deposits. Kailangan pong i-provide.

Okay sir. So the answer to that is no po. So for the BIR documents which you received also, we will be citing section 270 of the tax code. We are showing that on the screen. This refers to unlawful divulgence of information. I know that you are quite familiar with that provision, sir. It says that except as provided in section 6F and 71 of this code and section 26 of Republic Act number 6388, any officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue who divulges to any person or makes known in any other manner that may be provided by law, information regarding the business, income, or estate of any taxpayer, the secrets, operation, style, or work, or apparatus of any manufacturer, or producer, or confidential information regarding the business of any taxpayer, then I have to stop in that sentence. Now, sir, based on this... Section 270 of the Tax Code, although we know both that this refers to officers and tax agents of the BIR, you are not concerned of any possible violation under Section 270 when you were furnished copies of the BIR documents without the authority of the impeachment court?

Opo, hindi ko po problema maging concerned po doon.

Sige po, salamat po.

Tatanggapin ko lang po yung document at akin pong i-examine at bibigyan po ng analysis. Wala pong concern kung meron pong concern doon.

Okay, salamat po, sir. Now, let's go to your report, sir. I hope you have a copy of your report. Kindly furnish a copy of the report to the witness.

Let's go to page 24 of your report, sir.

I

hope you found page 24, sir.

Thank you,

sir. According to page 24 of your report, Your examination focused on three corporations, correct?

Apo, doon po kami nag-concentrate sa tatlong corporation po.

Okay,

salamat po, sir. And these corporations are Metro City Chow Foods Corporation, tama po,

Tama po.

GenCorp

Industries Inc.,

tama po,

and Cale88 Foods Corporation.

Tama po.

Salamat po. You also mentioned in the same page, page 24, that the reason for this is because of lack of material time. Do you confirm that? Thank

you,

sir. Now, we noticed that the report does not contain a checklist of documents, this report itself that you examined. that you made, sir. Can you confirm, sir, that this report does not contain the checklist of documents?

Wala pong checklist

of documents. Every document that we examined.

Salamat po.

Wala po. Pero meron po itong annex at nandun po yung mga documents na

pinonsider

po sa report.

So, this document, this report does not contain that checklist. The main report, sir.

But supported po with documents na nandun po sa annex.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Your report also, sir, this report has no table of contents. Although it's only 50 pages, but it does not have a table of contents.

Okay,

thank you, sir. Your report has no list of authorities. When I say list of authorities, it means the laws that you cited and the jurisprudence that you cited and the pages that... They were cited. It's a short summary of all of these authorities.

Pero

meron pong mga footnote pa.

Yes, sir. I understand. But there is no list of authorities in the front page or somewhere else. Thank you, sir. Now, you can say this because of lack of material time too.

So,

let's go to the main report, sir.

As

the appointed forensic auditor, of the panel of prosecutors, it is your opinion, sir, that the spouses Carpio had an undeclared wealth of 817.8 million as of 2025, correct?

And

this 817.8 million was the product of your examination of the documents provided to you by the prosecution, correct? Thank you, sir. Now, this 800... 17.8 million is composed of two items. First is undeclared assets. Sir, do you confirm that?

And

second is undeclared income alleged.

Second

is alleged undeclared income of the spouse's carpio. Correct?

So,

your report Does not contain any undeclared liabilities?

Wala po.

Okay, thank you, sir. Now, according to page 1 of your report, if you can refer to it, you did not examine or use any document coming from the respondent and her spouse, correct?

Hinanap po namin doon sa impeachment proceedings

po

sa answer.

Okay,

sir. I have to

stop you, sir. Sorry. I have to stop you, sir. Kindly respond to my question, please.

Wala po

kasi. Yan po yung sagot.

Wala po

kasi dun sa reply po, answer niya po sa House, tsaka po sa Senate. Wala

po kasi.

So, that is a yes. You did not use any document coming from the respondent and her spouse.

Had there been, I would have used po.

Anyway, that is... Okay, let's answer the question, sir. Let's answer the question. So, that is a yes. Based on your report, of course.

And... The answer is yes. Will

the witness kindly speak to the mic instead of simply nodding? So yes.

Yes. Okay. You also did not interview the respondent. Kindly just say yes or no.

Yes po.

Okay. You also did not interview Mr. Manases Carpio. Yes or no only.

Yes po. Based on documents lang po kami.

Okay. Thank you. No interview was made with the accountant of the respondent vice president.

Yes, po. Na-examine lang po namin yung FS nila.

Okay, salamat po.

You also did not interview the accountant of Mr. Manases Carpio?

Yes, po. Pare-pareho naman po yung accountant nila.

Okay. Now, no interview was also conducted with the auditor of the spouse's Carpio, correct?

Correct po. Pare-pareho po lahat ng auditor nila.

Anyway, you already answered the question, sir. Thank you. Now, let's go to the undeclared cash, sir. In your alleged... Sorry, I have to rephrase my question, the alleged undeclared cash. Now, just a quick inquiry, sir. When did you receive the bank documents from the prosecution? You mentioned a date earlier, but can it be more specific, sir, if you can? You can look at your notes, it's okay.

Nareceive po. September po namin nareceive eh.

Okay, September, sir. Is it correct that the BDO The BDO documents containing four boxes, Metro Bank documents which are contained in three boxes, BPI documents which are contained in two boxes, Land Bank documents which are contained in one small box or one box, and Security Bank documents which are in five boxes and one envelope.

and PS Bank documents which are in one envelope. All of these were received by you after September 8, 2026. If you can recall, sir.

Apo. May time drive din pong

kasama

po. Kaya may digital copy po kami.

Salamat po. When exactly after September 8, 2026?

Hindi ko po ma-recall po yung exact date po.

But is it a week after that?

A week

after September 8, 2026,

when

you received these documents that I enumerated, sir?

If you can just recall, sir.

Parang around that week po eh. Parang second week po.

Second week of September. Okay, sir. Now, is it also correct to say that you received the Asia United Bank Corporation documents? East-West Banking Corporation documents, Philippine National Bank documents, and Union Bank of the Philippines documents later after September 22, 2026.

Hindi ko po ma-recall yung exact date po.

But these documents were received later by you.

Okay.

After September 22, 2026, of course.

Meron po mga bankong dumating po. Bank documents po ang

dumating

na mga later po than the earlier batch po.

Okay. Salamat, sir.

Again, these documents that were transmitted to you by the prosecution, does not or does have transmittal letters with them?

Opo. Wala pong transmittal letters po?

Meron ho bang transmittal letters? Or wala hong transmittal letters?

Parang

wala pong... Hindi ko pa ma-recall na may exactong transmittal letters.

Okay. Pero

minomonitor lang po namin yung mga dumarating po.

Thank you, sir. So, you did not also provided the prosecution of copies or a list of the documents that were received by you. Did you provide that list, sir?

Hindi

po. Wala

po.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Kasi po ang alam ko po, sabay pong pinadala sa

prosecution

at sa defense.

Sir, I have no question yet. I think you have already answered my question, sir. Thank you, sir.

So, your report, that's the reason why your report did not append any transmittal letter from the prosecution, correct?

Sabay naman daw po kasi.

Okay, salamat sir. Now, according to your report,

the

undeclared cash, you can also refer to your report sir, is the difference between the ending cash balance per bank and the cash declared in the SALN. You can refer to your notes sir.

Anong page po yung tinitignan niyo?

Wait, I'll look for it.

That's on page 3, sir.

Ito po yung, ito pong page 3, ito po yung mga listahan po ng mga bank accounts po nila.

Yes, sir. Ah, kindly wait for my question, sir.

Okay. So, in your cash audit, you determined the undeclared cash as the difference between the cash balance per bank. and the cash declared in the SALN, correct?

Tama po.

And

you assume that the cash per SALN is zero under that item, the cash item. Thank you, sir. Because the account cash was not specified in the SALN, correct?

Tama po.

You did not also consider in that specific report only on cash that the cash was slumped somewhere in the SALN, correct?

Naisip ko po. Possible pong ganun pero wala pong

nakalagay

po.

Okay,

thank you, sir. Now, your report categorized the supposed bank accounts of the vice president and her husband into four. Your Honor, can I just ask permission to drink water?

Okay, sir. You can also drink water, sir.

Thank you, po.

Your report categorized the supposed bank accounts into four.

Table 1, table 1

are the supposed accounts of the vice president, correct?

Tama po.

Table 2 are the supposed accounts of Manases Carpio, correct?

Tama po.

Table 3 are the supposed joint accounts held by the respondent and Mr. Manases Carpio, correct?

That's right po.

And table 4 are the supposed accounts of 888 Bistro, which is a sole proprietorship of Mr. Carpio, correct sir?

Tama po.

Okay. Going back to all of these tables, sir, the names of the account holders do not appear as a separate column in each of the tables, correct? You can go through each of the tables, sir.

Apo. Nakalagay lang po yung account number, po.

Yes, po. Thank you. Furthermore, there was no separate column in table 1 showing, let's go to table 1, sir, showing whether the listed accounts of the VP are held singly or with another person, correct?

Siya lang po yung nakapangalan po doon.

But it did not refer to any account name, sir, as reflected in the bank statement.

Apo,

nakareflect naman po yung account number,

kasi

sinabi po namin na accounts niya po ito. But,

okay, can

the person in the tech booth please remove the document?

As earlier agreed, kindly, who's in the tech booth again? Is it Dave?

David. Well,

David, similar to your request with the prosecution, kindly redact the account numbers.

Kindly redact all the account numbers before flashing them on screen.

That's also for the respondent.

Now, I'll go back to my question, sir. Table 1 does not show... The names of the account holders as reflected in the bank statements.

Only the account number po. It doesn't show the name. Kasi po sinabi na po

namin.

Yes, sir. Kindly, I have to stop you on that. So, that table does not contain the names of the account holders. Now,

one of the, or among the documents that are to be examined, in a forensic accounting are the kyc documents correct and your report does not contain sir can you please answer the question one of the documents that should be examined in a forensic audit are the kyc documents okay

thank

you sir and uh your report as it is now does not contain Any information on the KYC documents that you examined?

Only when there is one provided by the bank po yung mga na-examine namin KYC.

So you're saying that there's no KYC that were provided to you, sir?

Meron po kaming KYC na...

natanggap po.

Merong KYC na natanggap but not for all the banks.

Okay,

so you completed your examination without examining all of the KYCs of this bank.

Lahat lamang

po ng available documents.

Okay, thank you sir. Thank you for that answer. Now, so that is the reason why the KYC information are not reflected in your report. Correct?

That's right.

Thank

you sir.

Now sir, you mentioned that you reviewed the year-end balances of each of the bank accounts.

That's right po.

But you did not conduct your own confirmation as to the nature of these accounts with the banks, correct? Of course, I know the answer to that because you were not authorized by the account holders.

You answered your question po.

Thank you sir.

And of course, you were not also given authority. to send confirmation letters to the banks, correct?

Tama po.

That's why no confirmation letters were also sent to these banks which you examined.