Financial expert needed to connect dots in Sara impeachment case—Diokno

MANILA — House prosecutor Chel Diokno on Tuesday defended the prosecution’s decision to present an independent forensic financial analyst in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, saying the expert was needed to connect financial records and explain the allegations of unexplained wealth against her.

“From the very start, we knew that it was important that we had an expert who could tie it all together or connect the dots,” Diokno told ANC’s Headstart.

The prosecution presented lawyer Alexander Cabrera as its final witness for Article II of Duterte’s impeachment complaint, which involves allegations of unexplained wealth and failure to fully disclose assets in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

Cabrera’s analysis identified P817.87 million in alleged undeclared assets and income involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, from 2022 to 2025. He described his estimate as conservative and said the amount could reach P1.5 billion under broader assumptions.

The findings remain allegations presented by the prosecution, which the defense has challenged during the proceedings.

Diokno said the prosecution had to establish the basis for Cabrera’s findings by presenting records from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), banks and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

“Because those documents were needed to lay the basis for the opinion of the expert,” he said.

He acknowledged that presenting financial evidence was challenging because the records involved numerous figures and transactions that needed to be examined together.

He said the case was more complicated than previous impeachment proceedings because the financial records also covered accounts associated with Carpio and other individuals.

“It was more challenging and more sophisticated, I think, than the previous impeachments. And that’s why it was really necessary to find someone who had the expertise to look deeply into the numbers,” Diokno said.

Cabrera’s report examined Duterte’s SALNs, bank records, tax returns, investments, insurance policies, real and personal properties, and financial records of corporations in which the Duterte-Carpio couple allegedly had interests.

Diokno clarified that the analysis covered accounts in which Duterte was either a signatory or a depositor, including individual accounts and those associated with her husband and father.

“As Atty. Cabrera mentioned when he was questioned, this covers all accounts where VP Sara is a signatory or a depositor,” he said.

The prosecution’s financial expert compared year-end bank balances with Duterte’s SALN declarations and examined other properties and investments against the assets she reported.

Cabrera also analyzed deposits to identify potentially undeclared income, excluding transactions that did not constitute new income, such as transfers between accounts, to avoid double-counting.

Diokno said these distinctions demonstrated why the prosecution needed an expert to interpret the financial records.

“The bottom line naman talaga dito, kung malinis ang isang official ay wala dapat siyang tinatago,” he said.

The prosecution’s case under Article II seeks to establish three elements: Duterte’s participation in business, assets allegedly omitted from her SALN, and unexplained wealth.

Diokno said the prosecution drew evidence of Duterte’s alleged business participation from her own SALN.

“First, ‘yung participation in business,” he said. “And sa amin, madali lang naman ‘yun dahil mismo nang galing sa salen ni VP yung evidence namin.”

The prosecution then sought to establish what appeared in the couple’s bank accounts and tax declarations before presenting Cabrera’s analysis.

During the interview, Diokno also discussed whether funds covered by final and executory Commission on Audit (COA) notices of disallowance could be considered income if a public official failed to return the money.

He said that, under his understanding of the law, a final notice of disallowance creates an obligation for the official to return the disallowed amount to the government.

“When there is a notice of disallowance by the Commission on Audit and that has reached final judgment, pag umabot na yan ang final judgment, then an obligation is incurred by the official na dapat ibalik yun sa pamahalaan,” Diokno said.

“So pag hindi ibinalik ‘yun, then I think that could already be considered as income,” he added.

The discussion followed Cabrera’s statement that his P817.87-million estimate was conservative and could reach P1.5 billion under broader assumptions, including amounts he believed could involve confidential funds allegedly pocketed.

Diokno’s remarks were conditional and did not establish that Duterte had pocketed disallowed funds. A COA disallowance, on its own, does not prove that an official personally appropriated public money.

“I think it’s important to remind the public the impeachment is not a criminal case. Hindi pagkakulong ang parusa dito kay Vice President Sara Duterte, kundi ang tanong dito ay nilabag ba niya ang certain, for example, betrayal of public trust, etc. At dapat pa ba siyang manatili sa kanyang opisina,” he said.

Diokno said the prosecution had completed its presentation of evidence under Article II but still had administrative matters to address before the next stage of the proceedings.

These include the marking of exhibits and the formal offer of evidence, during which the prosecution identifies the evidence it wants the Senate impeachment court to consider.

“We will know this afternoon kung paano ‘yung magiging process niyan,” he said.