THE House prosecution on Monday laid out 11 subjects it intends to establish through Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Atty. Ronel U. Buenaventura, led by ₱4.4 billion in reported transactions involving Vice President Sara Z. Duterte and her husband, Atty. Manases “Mans” Carpio.
Private prosecutor Atty. Mae S. Divinagracia made the offer before Buenaventura’s direct examination in the Senate Impeachment Court.
First, the prosecution offered Buenaventura’s testimony to establish the total financial activity reported under the couple’s names from 2007 to 2025.
“Mula 2007 hanggang 2025, ₱4.4 billion ang iniulat sa AMLC. Ito ang kabuuang halaga ng mga transaksyon nina VP Sara at Atty. Manases Carpio,” Divinagracia alleged.
The October 1 AMLC summary placed the precise aggregate at ₱4,400,089,940.70, covering 666 covered transaction reports and 55 suspicious transaction reports after overlapping entries were removed. The amount represents aggregate reported transactions, not a finding that the entire sum was income, net worth or an account balance.
Second, Divinagracia said the records classified ₱1.630 billion as inflows and ₱1.308 billion as outflows. Another ₱1.462 billion could not be classified in either direction.
“At least ₱1.6 billion came in, at least ₱1.3 billion went out, and no record shows where it went,” she said, adding that these figures came from the CTRs and STRs submitted to AMLC.
Third, the prosecution said the ₱4.4-billion aggregate remained after BPI corrected what Divinagracia described as an error in its reporting system. An earlier AMLC presentation before the House had placed the amount at ₱6.77 billion.
“Even after a bank corrected its own error, ₱4.4 billion in aggregate transactions remained,” she said.
Fourth, prosecutors offered Buenaventura’s testimony on six cash transactions attributed to Carpio on August 6, 2024. Divinagracia placed their combined value at ₱41 million—₱23 million from BDO and ₱18 million from PNB—and said Duterte’s 2024 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth contained no declared cash.
“Her husband walked out of two banks with ₱41 million in cash in a single day,” she said. The figure was stated in the offer and remains subject to testimony and examination before the court.
Fifth, the offer covered checks purchased in 2011 and 2012 by Samuel Cang Uy and his children, with Duterte named as beneficiary. Divinagracia said the checks totaled ₱14,881,692.14 and described Uy as allegedly linked to illegal drugs. The offer did not state the purpose of the checks.
Sixth, prosecutors cited repeated reports concerning the couple. The AMLC summary listed 34 STRs for Duterte and 30 for Carpio. Divinagracia separately cited 27 derogatory reports concerning Duterte and 17 concerning Carpio, involving categories such as graft and corrupt practices, malversation, possible drug links and transactions connected to alleged flood-control anomalies.
“Banks and insurers flagged them again and again,” Divinagracia said.
Seventh, the prosecution identified ₱319.327 million in inward remittances from mainland China and Hong Kong to Cale88 Foods Corporation, in which Carpio allegedly held a 47.5-percent interest. The AMLC table recorded 143 CTRs and three STRs for those remittances. It did not classify them as deposits into Carpio’s personal accounts.
Eighth, prosecutors offered to present the reported financial activity of 15 juridical persons. From 2022 to 2025, the AMLC table listed ₱4.553 billion in aggregate transactions involving those entities, separate from the couple’s ₱4.4-billion total.
Ninth, Divinagracia said the prosecution would trace the figures to reports filed by banks, insurers and other covered institutions and submitted by AMLC to the court on July 30, 2026.
Tenth, she said Buenaventura would explain why the law requires covered institutions to report qualifying large cash transactions and activity they consider suspicious, as well as how those reports help AMLC examine the movement of funds.
Eleventh, the prosecution offered his testimony on AMLC’s powers and functions, the rules governing covered and suspicious transactions, and the procedures the council followed in answering the impeachment court’s subpoenas.
Before the offer, Buenaventura said he was appearing under the court’s compulsory process and that AMLC rules allowed compliance with competent courts.
“Pursuant to the coercive and compulsory process of this court, we are in compliance with our internal rules, the law, and the order of this court,” Buenaventura said.
Divinagracia closed the documentary foundation of the offer: “Every figure comes from the banks’ own reports.”
metrosundaily
