MCT DAILY BRIEF

Cabrera presents his financial analysis

Forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera appeared before the impeachment court on Friday as a prosecution witness on Article II. Reports of his testimony describe a computed total of about ₱817.87 million in allegedly undeclared assets and income involving Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio. This is a figure presented through the prosecution’s expert, not a finding of the impeachment court.

Cabrera explained that his report compared financial assets with Duterte’s SALNs and income with the tax returns. Those comparisons concern different declarations. The combined figure should not be described as cash sitting in one account, or as their net worth on a single date. Readers need the components, reporting years and treatment of overlapping entries to understand the calculation.

The defense questioned Cabrera’s access to confidential records. Chel Diokno defended the use of experts, while presiding officer Chiz Escudero said experts commonly examine legally acquired materials and that the defense could raise its questions during cross-examination.

A ten-year tax rule becomes a courtroom question

During the BIR witness’s cross-examination, defense counsel Kristine Ferrer asked whether fraud discovered in 2026 would mean the earliest year the bureau could assess was 2016. Private prosecutor Erwin Matib objected, and Escudero sustained the objection. The exchange involved BIR Office of the Commissioner chief of staff Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez.

Under Section 222(a) of the Tax Code, the extraordinary assessment period is counted from discovery when the conditions for using it are established. It does not automatically produce a ten-year backward cutoff. Whether the exception applies requires examination of the return, the alleged violation and the relevant dates.

The livestream is ordered taken down for redaction

Garcia-Marquez raised concerns after the defense displayed Letters of Authority containing revenue officers’ names. Escudero ordered the livestream taken down and a redacted version uploaded. The documents concerned authority to examine the couple’s tax records.

The order addressed information shown in the public broadcast. It should not be turned into a claim that the financial records disappeared from the case or that the entire trial was cancelled. Access to evidence, its use by an expert and its display to a livestream audience raise different questions.

There is also a practical responsibility here. Exhibits intended for public screens need checking before they are shown. Redaction after disclosure cannot undo what viewers have already seen.

The prosecution confirms its decision on Article III

The House prosecution said Friday that its decision to stop presenting the bribery article was final. Jonathan Keith Flores said a formal manifestation had been filed with the impeachment court on October 6 and that the prosecution would finish its presentation with Article II. Article III concerns alleged bribery involving DepEd procurement.

The panel says it has presented sufficient evidence on the other three articles and wants to avoid prolonging the trial unnecessarily. That is its assessment of its own case. The announcement is not an acquittal, and it should not be reported as a verified court dismissal of Article III without the court’s actual disposition.

Duterte’s criminal arraignment is deferred again

At the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Duterte’s scheduled arraignment on three counts of grave threats was postponed again on Friday. Her counsel, Paul Lawrence Lim, said the judge decided against proceeding that morning. Reports linked the deferment to pending defense motions.

This is a separate criminal proceeding from the Senate impeachment trial, even though the alleged threats also feature in the broader controversy. The postponement does not resolve the charges. Neither should a development in one proceeding be presented as an automatic ruling in the other.