VICE President Sara Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, had a combined net income after tax of P85.3 million from 2007 to 2025, according to Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records presented during her impeachment trial on Thursday.
The figure is P13.3 million lower than Duterte’s declared net worth of P98.7 million in her 2025 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), a difference highlighted by private prosecutor Erwin Matib as he examined the couple’s financial records.
BIR Chief of Staff Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez told the Senate impeachment court on the 36th day of the trial that Duterte and Carpio’s combined net income after tax over the 18-year period amounted to P85,343,803.23.
Matib compared the figure with Duterte’s declared net worth of P98,656,131.20 in her 2025 SALN, noting a difference of about P13.3 million.
Garcia-Marquez also read out the couple’s reported cash on hand and in bank balances based on their audited financial statements.
The records showed cash balances of P21,234,980 as of Dec. 31, 2022; P28,971,725 as of Dec. 31, 2023; P15,525,209 as of Dec. 31, 2024; and P13,804,540 as of Dec. 31, 2025.
Garcia-Marquez also testified that Duterte had other income separate from her compensation income, amounting to P1,082,800 in 2025 and P1,058,021 in 2024.
The witness said the source of the other income was not stated in the records. However, she said that because Duterte’s registered business activity with the BIR was “legal activities,” the BIR understood this income to be related to her practice of law.
Duterte is registered with the BIR as a “professional,” with “legal activities” listed as her primary line of business, Garcia-Marquez said.
The witness also said Duterte had another business activity that was not identified in her testimony.
Garcia-Marquez further testified that Duterte received compensation income from Davao City in 2023, based on a BIR Form 2316 that she signed.
Matib asked whether Duterte could continue practicing her profession and receive professional fees while receiving a salary as vice president.
Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer objected to the question, and Senate Presiding Officer Francis Escudero directed Matib to move on.
Garcia-Marquez also testified about the BIR’s treatment of income from different sources.
She said that under the Tax Code, all income derived from whatever source, whether lawful or unlawful, is subject to tax.
Garcia-Marquez explained that the BIR issues a Letter of Authority to conduct an audit to determine whether the proper taxes have been paid and to examine reported income.
She confirmed that the BIR had issued a Letter of Authority involving either Duterte or Carpio.
The prosecution is presenting this testimony as part of its effort to examine the couple’s income and financial records, and determine whether their reported wealth is supported by their declared sources of income.
Matib said Garcia-Marquez’s testimony is intended to show that Duterte and Carpio’s income does not square with their declared net worth and that Duterte had undeclared assets.
The prosecution’s offer of testimony also seeks to establish that Duterte allegedly violated the Constitution, had millions of pesos in undeclared cash and continues to own Cale88, a banana chips exporter that reportedly received millions of pesos in remittances from China.
The defense, meanwhile, asked the impeachment court to prohibit the prosecution from displaying copies of Duterte’s tax returns on screen, citing the Data Privacy Act.
Ferrer said the court’s authorization only allowed it to inspect or view the tax returns.
“The authorization is only limited or given to the Senate impeachment court to inspect or view the tax returns,” Ferrer said.
She said Duterte was not waiving her right to question the legality of the submission of the tax returns before the impeachment court.
Ferrer asked the court to instruct the prosecution not to display copies of the tax returns and related summaries on screen.
Matib countered that Ferrer’s manifestation effectively amounted to a motion for reconsideration of the impeachment court’s previous ruling.
He argued that it would be useless for the court to have the records if the prosecution could not show them during the proceedings.
Escudero allowed the prosecution to display tables and summaries but cautioned Matib against showing the underlying BIR source documents covered by the authorization for their submission to the impeachment court.
“We’ll allow at this juncture, the showing of tables and/or summaries if any, which will be furnished to the parties and senator-judges as well,” Escudero said.
He reminded Matib not to display source documents containing information originally submitted to the BIR and covered by the presidential letter allowing their submission to the impeachment court.
The 36th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial initially hit a snag after the prosecution sought to change the order of its witnesses because Matib, who was scheduled to present Garcia-Marquez, fell ill.
House prosecutor Terry Ridon asked the impeachment court to hear financial analyst Alexander Cabrera first, saying Matib was suffering from “a minor illness.” Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison objected to the last-minute change, saying it would unfairly force the defense to adjust its preparations.
The trial went into an early recess to allow time for the Senate to hold its scheduled legislative plenary session before resuming the trial.
Matib eventually returned to the impeachment court in the afternoon and apologized before beginning his direct examination of Garcia-Marquez.
