Duterte prosecutors say their existing case is enough after dollar-account disclosure

Yet the prosecution is not promising a new hunt for dollar balances. At a November 14, 2026, news forum in Quezon City, prosecution counsel Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said the team already had enough evidence for its unexplained-wealth case. His position shifts attention from what the newly discussed accounts might contain to what the financial records already presented can prove.⁠35

On November 12, HeyDay News reported that a BPI letter confirmed dollar accounts and that the defense had dropped the bank witness prosecutors wanted to question. The fuller account now establishes a much broader withdrawal of witnesses, alongside the prosecution’s announced reliance on its existing case. What has not emerged is equally important: the dollar accounts’ number, balances, opening dates or treatment in Duterte’s sworn asset declarations. Their disclosure has not produced another quantified allegation.⁠2⁠37⁠35

The Senate impeachment trial concerns Article II, the sole remaining charge of alleged unexplained wealth after prosecutors dropped three of the original four articles on October 13. Conviction and removal require 16 Senate votes. Holding a foreign-currency account is lawful; the issue is whether assets were properly declared and explained. The court has not ruled that the alleged wealth was undeclared or unexplained.⁠2⁠1

The withdrawn prospective witnesses came from eight banks. They were not sixteen people who testified and then retracted their evidence. Removing them from the defense list dispensed with planned testimony; withdrawing Ysmael also ended the opportunity to cross-examine him at that session.⁠37

Defense counsel Michael Poa gave a straightforward procedural explanation. Ysmael was supposed to authenticate an inquiry letter Poa had written, but Poa said he had already acknowledged its authorship at an earlier proceeding. The document had been marked as a defense exhibit. “It would be in the interest of time that we just dispensed with this witness,” Poa told the court on November 12, according to Philstar’s November 13 report.⁠37

That acknowledgment concerned Poa’s own letter. It was not an admission by Duterte that a particular balance was missing from her asset declarations. Separately, Tolosa said other withdrawn bank representatives had been intended to authenticate letters sent by Duterte’s husband, Manases Carpio, rather than challenge account balances. Those were a different set of letters from Poa’s inquiry.⁠37⁠1

Prosecutors suspected a strategic retreat. House prosecutor Joel Chua likened the possible questioning to opening a “Pandora’s box,” while prosecution spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong suggested it might expose more amounts needing explanation. But Chua supplied the necessary qualification himself: “Well, we can only guess.” Their suspicions do not establish the defense’s motive.⁠1

The prosecution’s central figure remains forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera’s earlier calculation of at least PHP817.87 million in alleged unexplained wealth and undeclared assets involving Duterte and Carpio from 2022 through 2025. That precise period refines our earlier description of four years; neither the period nor Tolosa’s latest statement creates a new total.⁠1⁠35

At the November 12 post-trial briefing in Pasay City, Adiong said prosecution-presented bank managers had confirmed accounts belonging to Duterte, Carpio and companies in which they held financial interests. He alleged that some balances were absent from Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, known as SALNs. Disclosure rules include a public official’s spouse’s assets and financial interests.⁠1⁠23

Adiong called the bank evidence an “indisputable fact.” That was an advocate’s characterization, not the impeachment court’s conclusion. Tolosa’s narrower assertion was that the defense had not challenged the accounts’ authenticity when prosecutors presented them, and that no defense witness had yet denied their existence or directly disputed the records.⁠1

Those distinctions matter. Establishing a document’s origin, establishing that an account exists, and proving that wealth was inadequately declared or explained are different tasks. A record can be authentic without the prosecution’s interpretation of it being conclusive. Withdrawing an authentication witness does not settle the charge.

Tolosa cited year-end balances exceeding PHP20 million and PHP30 million in certain years, but did not identify the accounts or years. Those examples cannot responsibly be added together or assigned to the dollar accounts. Cabrera’s broader earlier range—PHP817.87 million to PHP1.5 billion—was likewise a prosecution estimate, not a fresh valuation of the dollar accounts or a court finding.⁠1

By November 12, trial day 43, the defense had presented six witnesses over four hearing days. Prosecutors maintained that those witnesses had not directly rebutted Cabrera’s calculation. That describes their assessment at that point in an unfinished defense presentation; it does not establish a concession or relieve prosecutors of proving their case.⁠37

Tolosa said on November 14 that other foreign-currency accounts had not been subpoenaed because access had not been allowed under applicable bank-secrecy laws. That is his explanation of the limits on the subpoenas, not an established account-specific ruling that closes every possible route to further records.⁠35

He also cited foreign-currency transaction records already presented for Calle88, a company described as 47.5 percent owned by Carpio. He supplied no transaction amount. Company records do not establish Duterte’s personal dollar-account balance, and partial ownership does not turn all company funds into a shareholder’s personal assets.⁠35

The BPI letter’s final evidentiary status remains unresolved. On November 12, presiding officer Senator Francis Escudero declined an additional prosecution statement at that point because prosecutors had already rested. But he left later avenues open: a tender of excluded evidence, which preserves material the court has not accepted; discussion in written submissions or closing arguments; or rebuttal evidence after the defense rests.⁠2⁠37

The available reporting does not establish that the letter has since been admitted, tendered or used through those avenues. Marking a document as an exhibit is not the same as settling its final admission. Equally, saying additional evidence is unnecessary does not formally abandon every possible later use of the BPI material.⁠2⁠35

The next hearings are scheduled for November 19 and 20. The Senate then pauses the trial to concentrate on the 2027 national budget, with another trial day expected on December 1. That is an expected resumption of proceedings, not a verdict date. The immediate test is whether the defense answers the existing financial evidence—and whether that evidence supports the prosecution’s charge, rather than merely its confidence.⁠35