Metro Manila, Philippines – Tax records presented in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Thursday, Oct. 8, showed compensation from the Davao City government while she was already the second highest official of the land, as well as other income reported in the following years beyond her compensation.
Testifying as witness for Article II, which alleges unexplained wealth and discrepancies in financial disclosures, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Office of the Commissioner chief of staff Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez a BIR Form 2316 attached to Duterte’s 2023 income tax return identified the City Government of Davao as her employer and Duterte as the employee.
The form was signed by the local government accountant and Duterte.
Garcia-Marquez said this meant Duterte received compensation from the Davao City government in 2023.
The prosecution then raised constitutional provisions on the vice president’s restrictions against holding another government position or receiving other government emoluments while in office.
Other income, cash holdings
Garcia-Marquez also testified that Duterte’s audited financial statements showed other income separate from compensation of ₱1.06 million in 2024 and ₱1.08 million in 2025.
The records did not identify the source of the other income.
Garcia-Marquez said Duterte was registered with the BIR as a professional with legal activities. Based on that registration, she said the BIR viewed the other income as related to her legal profession.
The defense disputed the interpretation, noting that the documents did not specifically identify the income as legal fees or income from practicing law.
The BIR witness also testified on the joint audited financial statements of Duterte and her husband, Manases “Mans” Carpio.
The statements showed cash on hand and in banks of ₱21.23 million in 2022, ₱28.97 million in 2023, ₱15.53 million in 2024 and ₱13.8 million in 2025.
An earlier testimony from ombudsman witness Karen Batu stated that Duterte’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) had no separate declaration of cash on hand or cash in bank from 2019 through 2025.
The prosecution argued that the BIR figures raised questions about whether Duterte fully disclosed her assets in her SALN.
The defense has maintained that cash may have been included under the “others” or “other personal properties” category. A retired Sandiganbayan justice who testified earlier, however, said cash on hand and cash in bank should be separately declared.
Earlier income as baseline
The prosecution also presented Duterte’s 2021 income tax return, when she was still Davao City mayor, as a financial baseline.
It showed ₱2.36 million in compensation income and ₱4.65 million in sales, revenues, receipts or fees.
Garcia-Marquez said the tax return did not identify the source of the ₱4.65 million. She linked it to Duterte’s registered legal profession based on BIR records.
The defense objected, saying the document itself only identified the amount as sales, revenues, receipts or fees.
The prosecution also cited Duterte’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 returns, which showed similar sales, revenues, receipts or fees separate from compensation.
Private prosecutor Erwin Matib said the older records were intended to establish a pattern of income beyond compensation from public office.
The court said the 2021 records were presented only as a baseline and not treated as an additional impeachable offense.
No BIR record of Cale88 share transfer
Garcia-Marquez also testified that the BIR found no record of the reported transfer or sale of Carpio’s shares in Cale88 Foods Corporation, a food manufacturer and exporter.
A BIR certification stated that the agency found no record of any transfer, sale, disposition or other conveyance of Carpio’s Cale88 shares, and no records showing payment, assessment or settlement of taxes connected to such a transfer.
The witness said an Electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration, or eCAR, is required for the transfer of non-listed shares before the transaction can be recorded in a corporation’s books.
When Matib asked about the effect of the missing eCAR, the court clarified that corporate share ownership is reflected in the company’s stock and transfer book.
The defense also objected when Matib described the reported sale as “fake,” and the statement was stricken from the record.
Garcia-Marquez is expected to continue her testimony and face further cross-examination.
READ: Duterte impeachment trial delayed; prosecution lawyer for BIR witness appears from sick bay
