THE alleged largest annual discrepancy in the prosecution’s personal-income comparison involving Vice President Sara Z. Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, occurred in 2022, when identified bank inflows purportedly exceeded declared income by approximately P50.47 million.
House trial spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong of Lanao del Sur reviewed the four-year comparison Thursday at a press conference, pressing for an explanation of receipts beyond the income reported in the couple’s tax returns.
“Magkano ang income, actual income ng VP? Magkano ang pumasok sa kanilang individual bank accounts at corporate incomes ng kanilang kumpanya?” Alonto Adiong asked.
For 2022, the presentation placed identified inflows at approximately P60.08 million against P9.60 million in declared income. The resulting P50.47-million difference was larger than the corresponding amount in each of the following three years.
The figures followed the original comparison prepared by forensic financial analyst Atty. Alexander Cabrera. The 2022 entry covers the spouses’ annual records, including months before Duterte assumed the vice presidency.
“Ito ay individual income. Wala po tayo dito sa corporate income,” Alonto Adiong said, distinguishing the personal-account comparison from the separate review of company finances.
The annual residual fell to approximately P12.20 million in 2023, rose to P28.03 million in 2024 and stood at P21.15 million in 2025. Over the four years, the presentation listed P174.96 million in identified inflows against P63.11 million in declared income, resulting in a P111.85-million residual in Cabrera’s original model.
“And we’re not coming up with this figure. This is not a result of something that we just got out of thin air,” Alonto Adiong said.
He pointed to filed tax returns and bank records presented during the impeachment proceedings as the basis of the comparison.
“This is based on the ITR that she submitted to the BIR,” he said.
Alonto Adiong explained how Cabrera removed recognized loans, account transfers and other movements of existing money before examining the remaining receipts. The comparison therefore concerned identified inflows after those exclusions, rather than treating every deposit as new earnings.
“Base po dapat sa actual na pumapasok na income at hindi kung ano yung dineklara niya,” he said.
The prosecution’s demand was for the receipts to be explained against the income reported for the same years. Alonto Adiong linked the financial questions to Article II, the remaining impeachment charge concerning alleged unexplained wealth, asset disclosures and business interests.
metrosundaily
