The Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered another important stage on October 8, 2026, as prosecutors began presenting Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records related to allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
Day 36 featured a dispute over the prosecution’s witness lineup, a ruling on the public disclosure of tax information, and testimony concerning Duterte’s reported income.
Prosecution Attempts Last-Minute Witness Change
Proceedings encountered an early delay when the prosecution requested a change in the scheduled witness order.
Prosecutor Erwin Matib, who was assigned to question BIR official Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez, reportedly became ill.
The prosecution consequently requested permission to present forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera ahead of the scheduled BIR witness.
However, Duterte’s defense objected.
Lead defense lawyer Sheila Sison argued that the defense team had prepared to cross-examine Garcia-Marquez and had not received sufficient notice of the proposed change.
The disagreement prompted a temporary suspension of proceedings.
The Senate impeachment court ultimately directed prosecutors to proceed with the originally scheduled BIR witness.
BIR Official Takes the Witness Stand
Later in the afternoon, BIR official Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez appeared before the impeachment court.
Prosecutor Matib apologized for the earlier delay before beginning her direct examination.
The testimony focused on financial documents relevant to Article II, including income tax returns, audited financial statements and records associated with Duterte, her husband Manases “Mans” Carpio, and related business entities.
The prosecution is attempting to establish whether the Vice President’s financial records support allegations involving unexplained wealth, inaccurate asset declarations and undisclosed financial interests.
Senate Court Rules on Public Disclosure of Tax Records
Another significant development involved the confidentiality of tax information.
Duterte’s defense raised objections concerning the presentation of sensitive financial records in a public impeachment proceeding.
The impeachment court, presided over by Senator Francis Escudero, allowed prosecutors to display summarized tax information while restricting the public disclosure of original tax documents.
The ruling permitted the prosecution to explain relevant financial figures without making the underlying confidential tax records publicly available.
It also demonstrated the court’s attempt to balance evidentiary requirements with legal protections surrounding taxpayer information.
Duterte’s 2021 Income Tax Figures Presented
During her testimony, Garcia-Marquez identified figures appearing in Duterte’s 2021 income tax return.
The reported amounts included:
- ₱2.36 million in compensation income.
- ₱4.65 million in non-compensation receipts.
The defense objected when the prosecution suggested that the non-compensation amount represented professional earnings.
The distinction matters because tax return categories do not automatically establish the precise nature of income or how those amounts should be compared with an individual’s assets.
The prosecution is expected to use the tax records alongside bank documents and Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) to examine whether Duterte’s declared financial position is consistent with her reported income and holdings.
Why Day 36 Matters
The previous trial days focused heavily on Anti-Money Laundering Council reports, bank accounts and financial transactions involving Duterte, Carpio and related entities.
Day 36 introduced another layer of financial documentation: official tax records.
These records could help establish reported sources of income and provide a basis for comparing financial transactions with declared assets.
However, large bank transactions, differences between financial records and tax return figures do not automatically establish unexplained wealth or wrongdoing.
The prosecution must demonstrate how the records support the specific allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.
The defense retains the opportunity to challenge the accuracy, relevance, admissibility and interpretation of the evidence.
What Happens Next?
As the trial progresses, several questions remain unresolved.
Can prosecutors establish a significant discrepancy between Duterte’s lawful income and her declared assets? Do the bank records demonstrate personal ownership or control of funds? Are there financial interests that should have been disclosed in her SALNs?
The defense is expected to continue challenging the prosecution’s interpretation of the records and the connection between the transactions and the Vice President.
As of October 8, 2026, the impeachment court has not issued a verdict on Article II or made a finding that Duterte committed an impeachable offense.
Day 36 therefore marks another step in the examination of financial evidence, but the ultimate legal significance of that evidence remains for the Senate impeachment court to determine.
The Daily Caffeine — Continuing Coverage
Follow our ongoing Sara Duterte impeachment series for the timeline, Senate proceedings, witness testimony, constitutional issues and major developments.
This article reports allegations, testimony and procedural developments. Allegations should not be interpreted as findings of guilt.
Sources: GMA News and ABS-CBN News, October 8, 2026.
