Day 32 Sara Duterte Impeachment trial: Property records, a dropped witness and the AMLC delay

Day 32 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial was supposed to begin the Senate impeachment court’s full-day schedule.

It did not go as planned.

Two land registry officials testified about properties registered to Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio. The House prosecution dropped former senator Antonio Trillanes IV as a witness. Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo criticized the prosecution’s handling of its witnesses. The expected testimony of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura was postponed.

The Senate is hearing Article II of the impeachment case, which accuses Duterte of failing to fully disclose assets and liabilities in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), among other allegations.

Here are five highlights from the October 1 hearing.

1. Is the Matina property in Duterte’s SALN?

Davao City Register of Deeds IV Kathy Florence Baldonado testified about a 379-square-meter property registered to Carpio in Matina, Davao City.

Land records showed that Carpio acquired the property in July 2024 for ?6 million. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

The prosecution questioned whether the property could be matched to an entry in Duterte’s 2025 SALN.

The defense said it could.

Defense counsel Lindon Bacquel presented records showing that Matina Crossing is officially Barangay 74-A. Duterte’s SALN contained a property entry under Barangay 74-A with an assessed value of ?82,000. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

This left the court with two sets of records to reconcile: the land title showing the purchase and the SALN entry the defense says refers to the same property.

The testimony established the existence and ownership of the property. It did not settle whether Duterte failed to disclose it.

2. The Samal property produced another records dispute

The second property witness was Marco Pineda, deputy register of deeds for the Island Garden City of Samal.

He testified about a 791-square-meter property in Barangay Matanos purchased by Carpio in March 2018 for ?3.453 million.

The prosecution compared the deed with Duterte’s SALNs, which contained property entries in Barangay Aundanao rather than Matanos.

The defense again turned to tax records. It presented a tax declaration for the property with an assessed value of ?346,000. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

Both property witnesses also acknowledged limits to what they could establish. Their offices maintain and authenticate land records. They do not investigate whether a particular land title corresponds to a particular entry in a public official’s SALN. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

For the senator-judges, the issue is not simply whether Carpio owned the properties. The court must determine whether Duterte’s disclosures properly accounted for them and what the differences between the records mean.

3. Trillanes is out as a prosecution witness

One of Day 32’s biggest developments involved someone who never took the witness stand.

Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville “Jinky” Luistro announced that the prosecution had decided not to present former senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

“The prosecution has finally decided not to present former senator Sonny Trillanes,” Luistro told the impeachment court.

She also confirmed that the decision was final.

Trillanes had been expected to testify about alleged bank accounts and financial transactions involving the Duterte family.

The prosecution did not explain its reason for dropping him during Luistro’s announcement.

That is worth keeping in mind when reading claims online about why he was removed. Unless supported by evidence or a statement from those involved, those explanations remain speculation.

4. Raffy Tulfo told prosecutors they were wasting time

Before the prosecution announced its decision on Trillanes, Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo criticized the way the House panel had been presenting witnesses.

“There are times na naglalagay kayo ng mga witnesses dito na hindi naman kailangan talaga. Nagsasayang lang tayo ng oras,” Tulfo said.

He also argued that if Trillanes were going to testify about bank accounts, he should appear before the AMLC executive director so that AMLC could subsequently confirm or challenge what he presented.

Tulfo’s remarks were criticism of the prosecution’s trial strategy. They were not a ruling on the evidence already presented or on Article II itself.

Shortly afterward, Luistro told the court that Trillanes would no longer be called.

5. AMLC testimony was postponed

AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura was expected to testify on Day 32.

That did not happen.

The defense objected that it had not been given sufficient time to examine material connected with his testimony. According to the research, defense counsel Sheila Sison said the documents had only been furnished to the defense that morning and also raised the confidentiality markings on the AMLC records. Sara Duterte Trial Day 32

The dispute pushed Buenaventura’s testimony to another hearing.

The impeachment court has also been seeking financial records relevant to Article II, while officials from the BIR, banks and insurance companies have been called as the case moves further into Duterte’s financial records.

What those documents actually contain will matter more than assumptions about them.

What netizens were talking about

Online discussion during Day 32 centered heavily on Trillanes.

Some users questioned why the prosecution would remove a witness who had repeatedly made allegations about Duterte family bank accounts. Others argued that AMLC and bank officials could provide documentary evidence without relying on Trillanes’ testimony.

Those are competing interpretations. Luistro’s announcement itself gave no reason for the decision.

Tulfo’s criticism also drew strong reactions. Some commenters welcomed his demand that prosecutors move faster and choose witnesses more carefully. Others questioned whether a senator-judge should publicly scold prosecutors over their trial strategy while the case is still being heard.

The property testimony produced another familiar divide.

Those supporting the prosecution focused on differences between the descriptions and figures in the land records and Duterte’s SALNs. Those defending Duterte pointed to the barangay classifications and tax declarations presented during cross-examination.

Social media comments are not evidence of public opinion, much less evidence in an impeachment case. The discussions are useful mainly because they show where confusion can develop: a property can have different geographic descriptions, and its purchase price and assessed value are not necessarily the same figure.

The records have to do the work

Day 32 showed the problem with reading an impeachment trial through isolated numbers.

A ?6-million deed does not automatically prove a ?6-million SALN omission. An ?82,000 SALN entry does not automatically prove that everything required by law was properly disclosed either.

The prosecution has to connect the records to its allegation. The defense has to show why the apparent differences do not amount to nondisclosure. The senator-judges have to decide which explanation the evidence supports.

The same standard should apply when the AMLC, bank, tax and insurance records reach the witness stand.

For now, two property titles are in evidence, the defense has offered records it says correspond to them, and Trillanes will not testify for the prosecution.

The next question is narrower than much of the political argument surrounding the trial: when the financial records are finally presented, what will they actually show?