Will Sara Duterte take the witness stand? Lawyer says it may depend on 24 defense witnesses

MANILA — The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte will have to convince senator-judges that the prosecution’s financial evidence against her does not establish unexplained wealth.

But whether the defense can make its case without Duterte herself taking the witness stand remains a key question, according to impeachment lawyer Tranquil Salvador III.

In an interview on Headstart, Salvador said the defense’s initial lineup of witnesses could serve as a gauge for whether Duterte would eventually need to testify personally.

“That is a gauge. That is to my mind, that is a sufficient gauge, the 24, on whether or not she will be present,” he said.

Salvador said the defense would likely use its witnesses to dispute the prosecution’s findings, explain financial transactions and other evidence, and put the allegations into context.

“In simple words, they are to dispute, to explain, and to contextualize. That’s how it’s seen in presenting those witnesses,” he said.

The prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence in October, with its final witness, forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera estimating that Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, had at least P817.87 million in allegedly unexplained wealth and undeclared assets and income from 2022 to 2025.

Among the defense witnesses is lawyer Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel of GenCorp Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corp.

Salvador said her testimony would likely address the prosecution’s claims involving the two corporations, particularly Cabrera’s analysis of Duterte’s alleged beneficial interest in the companies.

During the prosecution’s presentation, Cabrera attributed portions of the corporations’ income to Duterte based on his analysis of her alleged interests, including an estimated 20 percent beneficial interest in GenCorp.

“I think the defense realized that it is material to meet the matters or the facts presented in relation to these two corporations,” Salvador said. “Because I recall in one of those corporations, she really had no shares as listed in the GIS. Except that based on the expert’s analysis, forensic, financial expert’s analysis, he tried to elicit or he tried to deduce that probably 20 percent of this [she] owns.”

The defense is also expected to call bank representatives whose records figured in the prosecution’s presentation.

Salvador said the defense could question whether the banks’ disclosure of financial information was permitted, as well as challenge the accuracy and ownership of the accounts involved.

The defense’s original lineup included law professor Ralph Sarmiento, who was supposed to be its first witness on Nov. 9. However, he declined to participate, saying he wanted to preserve the independence of his constitutional law scholarship and the impartiality of his legal views.

Salvador said the defense’s presentation of its 24 remaining witnesses could help determine whether Duterte herself would be called to testify.

If the witnesses are able to address the prosecution’s allegations and provide sufficient explanations, the defense may decide not to expose the Vice President to questioning.

“If the public, and let’s say if they present her, if they decide eventually let’s present her, and she’s able to handle it quite well, I think public opinion may change, may tip,” he said.

On Cabrera’s financial findings, Salvador said the defense must challenge the underlying documents and information rather than simply reject the analyst’s conclusions.

“You will have to go to the facts that were the basis of his conclusion,” he said, adding that questions about document authentication and the reliability of sources could put the analysis into question.

Salvador also cautioned that Duterte’s continued popularity in surveys should not be equated with the strength of her legal defense.