Public prosecutor Representative Jose Manuel "Chel" I. Diokno requested marking of the report, Annexes A to E and a flash drive associated with the previous day's witness. The Chair directed marking before the Clerk of Court with both parties' counsel present.
← Timed transcript
Research record
October 13, 2026
Financial materials identified for marking, the withdrawal filing, pleadings and authorities discussed during the sitting.
Related Documents
Read and verify
An exact document is linked only when a public or privacy-cleared copy is available. Specifically identified unavailable documents remain listed without a substitute download. Transcript citations remain with each record.
Attorney Alexander B. Cabrera's October 2, 2026 forensic report and Annexes A to E
Expert financial report
Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte
Impeachment pleading
The prosecution withdrew Articles 1, 3 and 4 and retained Article 2; the court distinguished the consequences of the withdrawn articles.
Prosecution manifestation dated October 6, 2026 concerning Article 3 and the NBI witness
Prosecution filing
Not available in the Senate document archive.The Chair identified the filed manifestation withdrawing Article 3 and recalling the subpoena for an NBI official. The October 13 oral withdrawal expanded to Articles 1 and 4.
Respondent's Answer dated May 25, 2026
Defense pleading
Sison read paragraphs 140 and 141 while explaining the respondent's description of earlier committee hearings; the Chair later declined to strike the defense's use of persecution.
Amoroso v. Vantage Drilling International and Group of Companies, G.R. No. 238477, August 8, 2022
Supreme Court decision
Sison sought judicial notice of the decision's jurisdiction and due-process limits on piercing corporate fiction. Diokno reserved further argument.
Gas Corporation of the Philippines v. Inciong, G.R. No. L-49481, October 23, 1979
Supreme Court decision
Sison invoked the decision's statement that procedural latitude does not dispense with fairness.
Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987
Supreme Court decision
The Chair cited the court's discretion over disposition after a charge is filed, by suppletory analogy to the withdrawal request.
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, resolution of April 3, 2001
Supreme Court resolution
The Chair invoked the distinction between impeachment and subsequent criminal proceedings when explaining that withdrawal did not confer immunity.
Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 166838, June 15, 2011
Supreme Court decision
The Chair cited docket control and economy of time and effort, alongside Rule 135 section 5(g), in directing evidence toward the retained Article 2.
1987 Constitution, Article XI section 3(6)
Constitutional provision
The Chair invoked the Senate's sole power to try and decide impeachment cases as the source of its independent authority over withdrawal.
Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, Rules V, VI and XVIII
Trial rules
The court invoked its power to manage proceedings and apply court rules suppletorily. Its relaxation of Rule XVIII for the withdrawn articles remained operative pending client consultation and notice of the respondent's position, with reconsideration available in whole or in part. The linked reference prints Rule XVIII as the public-access provision; the hearing's discussion of restrictions on public comment is sourced to the transcript.
2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules 128 and 132
Rules of Court
The Chair invoked relevance under Rule 128; Sison cited Rule 132 section 35 when urging that evidence issues be addressed at the proper time.