2026 ImpeachmentTracker tracks claims made in the impeachment trial and the evidence cited for them. Status labels describe the state of evidence in the proceeding — never guilt, innocence, or a predicted verdict. This is an independent, solo-developer civic project; corrections are welcome. Read our methodology & disclaimers.

2026 ImpeachmentTracker
All sessions
Published recap

Impeachment Trial - Day 34

Session recap: Impeachment Trial - Day 34 (2026-10-06, 2026-10-06-impeachment-trial-day-34). Covers source-supported material as of 2026-10-07T11:39+08:00, not a complete account.

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX
Transcript status: Machine-cleanedGo to the transcript in SenateHearingTranscripts

Session record

Claims introduced or updated

None published for this session yet.

Evidence & exhibits

  • Session video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvD7eFqFhW4
  • Canonical transcript: https://hearings.pinoysagainstcorruption.com/sessions/2026-10-06-impeachment-trial-day-34
  • Amlc witness explains ctr str reporting process
  • The witness testified that AMLC's CTRs and STRs do not require identifying who owns the accounts at that stage.
  • The witness testified that a third party may request access to AMLC files such as CTRs and STRs, but AMLC would more likely deny such requests based on its rules and guidelines.
  • The AMLC witness testified that AMLC typically files bank inquiry petitions with the Court of Appeals and freeze order petitions to preserve funds, and files money laundering criminal complaints with the DOJ or the Ombudsman depending on evidence level and jurisdiction.
  • The AMLC witness testified that AMLC has filed more than ten money laundering case complaints with the DOJ or Ombudsman in recent years, and that AMLC continued filing cases this year independent of the impeachment proceedings.
  • Landbank exhibit clarifications
  • Defense counsel stated that the 21-page exhibit pertains only to the movement of payroll, and the witness was perusing a separate series of withdrawal slip documents.
  • Defense counsel Atty. CJ stated upon perusal that the document being offered contains not only withdrawal slips but also check deposit slips and a pay-to-the-order document, and objected to the question as misleading.
  • The witness clarified that the documents she submitted included check deposit slips in addition to withdrawal slips.
  • The witness stated that the documents submitted to the court in the withdrawals category also include check deposit slips, deposit slips, and on-us check images, in addition to withdrawal slips.
  • Amlc witness mandate and volume
  • The witness testified that the AMLC received approximately 120 million covered and suspicious transaction reports last year, averaging about 10 million per month.
  • The AMLC witness testified that the council cannot conduct criminal investigations alone but can conduct parallel financial investigations in coordination with law enforcement agencies.
  • The witness testified that the Revised Corporation Code permits corporations with fewer than five stockholders, with an OPC having only one.
  • The AMLC witness testified that the council received about 120 million covered and suspicious transaction reports last year, averaging roughly 10 million per month.
  • The witness confirmed under cross-examination that Land Bank does not send a separate copy of account notices to the account holder's spouse, does not automatically notify the spouse of deposits, withdrawals, or year-end balances, and that merely being married to an account holder does not make one an authorized signatory.
  • The witness testified that Land Bank requires a special power of attorney, not merely written authorization, before releasing account information to a spouse.
  • The witness testified that merely naming a spouse in the customer information sheet does not make that spouse a joint account holder, unless specifically indicated.
  • The witness testified that Land Bank verifies a person's identity and authority before releasing confidential account information.
  • The AMLC witness testified that Table 6 (CTRs involving insurance policies and investment-related transactions) covers the years 2007 to 2025.
  • The AMLC witness testified that time deposits of 529,805,306.40 pesos are counted within the bank-reported CTR totals and were broken out in a separate table only because the prosecution's letter requested investment-related transactions.
  • The AMLC witness confirmed that the time-deposit amounts for 2022 to 2025 are included in the 4.4 billion total shown in Table 1.
  • The AMLC witness testified he is unable to say whether the amounts involve rollovers, only that they are 'as reported.'
  • Defense attacks bank records authentication
  • The prosecutor stated that the Certificate of Outstanding Balance was not included among the documents submitted by the bank to the court.
  • The witness testified that she could not find the certificate of outstanding balances among the documents handed to her.
  • The defense counsel asserted that handing a witness a stack of documents to locate one she issued is improper procedure.
  • Landbank year end balance document
  • The witness testified that the document (Exhibit P-2-8-3-4-2.5-LBP) contains accounts of the Davao Recto Branch, not her own branch, but she is familiar with the branch head's signature.
  • The witness explained that bank officers know other branches' signatories' signatures because Land Bank maintains signature records of authorized signatories of other branches, particularly for verifying manager's checks.
  • The witness stated she did not submit the year-end balance document herself.
  • The witness testified that AMLC did not summarize the CTRs and STRs for juridical persons in its submissions, except in relation to the prosecution's request.
  • The witness testified that AMLC did not submit records pertaining to juridical persons to the House Committee on Justice because they were not included in the subpoena at that time.
  • Tapang malasakit records outside subpoena
  • The AMLC witness testified that the Tapang at Malasakit Alliance records are not included in the documents covered by the subpoena and were not provided to the prosecution or the court.
  • The AMLC witness testified that records relating to the Tapang at Malasakit Alliance were not included in the records provided in response to the subpoena.
  • The prosecution stated it is considering a move to obtain the records of the Tapang at Malasakit Alliance.
  • Amlc corporate records identification
  • The AMLC witness testified that covered banks' CTRs and STRs for corporations indicate the account holder's name.
  • The AMLC witness testified that covered banks' CTRs and STRs record the account name and, depending on the transaction type (e.g., remittances), the sender's name and address, but he could not say without examining each report whether the Vice President or Atty. Carpio was identified as the person actually behind the corporate transactions in Table 4.
  • The AMLC witness testified that to determine the actual persons behind corporate transactions, AMLC conducts bank inquiries and requests SEC records.
  • The AMLC witness testified that AMLC records show a detailed breakdown of who sent remittances to a suspicious account, as long as it was reported to them.
  • Bank records scope objections
  • Defense counsel argued that the offer regarding 30 bank accounts across 8 banks is improper for the Land Bank witness, whose knowledge and competence are confined to the Land Bank of the Philippines.
  • Defense counsel argued that the fifth offer on the P190 million total is likewise improper because the witness's knowledge is confined to Land Bank of the Philippines.
  • Defense counsel argued that the sixth offer's statement that 'the numbers don't change' is improper because no witness can prove it.
  • Defense counsel registered a continuing objection to the examination and presentation of Atty. Manases Carpio's bank records.
  • Bank records witness panel organization
  • The prosecution counsel confirmed the panel reduced the bank witnesses to 13 witnesses across 8 banks, as discussed in the pre-conference.
  • The prosecution counsel stated that the case will involve evidence from eight banks and 14 witnesses.
  • Defense amlc not source of trillanes cited documents
  • The defense counsel asserted that a document from the AMLC website states that the BSP and AMLC are not the source of documents and information being cited by a vice presidential candidate (exhibits D-2-2 and D-1).
  • The witness testified that AMLC is not the source of the documents and information cited by a vice presidential candidate, and that the material was sourced from the AMLC website.
  • Defense counsel asserted that AMLC documents were sourced from the AMLC website, and the witness confirmed the subpoena covered only summary and financial investigation reports and confidential information sharing.
  • The witness testified that he was unable to say whether former Senator Trillanes requested files from the AMLC in the past, as the matter was not included in his review.
  • The witness testified that he was confronted with several STRs the previous day and read explanations from banks on why transactions were categorized as suspicious.
  • The witness testified that he did not personally consent to and was not aware of the flashing of the STR slides during the previous day's hearing.
  • The witness confirmed that the STRs in question were sourced from reports submitted by banks.
  • The witness testified that he did not see the slide about the DPWH flood control issue shown the previous day.
  • The witness confirmed AMLC has an Investigation and Enforcement Department-Financial Crimes Investigation Group (IED-FCIG).
  • The AMLC witness testified that the AMLC has an Investigation and Enforcement Department-Financial Crimes Investigation Group (IED-FCIG).
  • The AMLC witness testified that the AMLC does not witness the actual conduct of transactions and relies only on records.
  • The witness stated that the AMLC considers companies' financial statements in its investigations when available.
  • The witness testified that AMLC does not itself declare transactions suspicious; the covered person does, based not only on adverse news but on KYC, account monitoring, and internal checks.
  • The AMLC witness testified that news reports can serve as a trigger or factor, along with STRs and CTRs, for initiating AMLC analysis and further investigation.
  • The witness confirmed that securities and bonds transactions, which may include money market instruments and T-bills, totaled 94,261,000 (with decimals to 61-75 range unclear in transcript).
  • The witness confirmed the total for insurance policies was 65,322,688.10.
  • The witness stated that the trust and agency investment entries reflect a UITF code appearing in the records, totaling 60,492,278.57.
  • The witness testified that further verification of covered transaction reports must come from the covered persons (banks), not depositors, because covered persons are prohibited from informing clients that CTRs or STRs are filed.
  • The witness testified that covered persons, not account holders, file CTRs/STRs, and covered persons are prohibited from informing clients that such reports exist because they are confidential.
  • The witness declined to disclose internal operations regarding coordination with the legal evaluation department.
  • Landbank exhibit markings
  • Prosecution counsel stated for the record that the withdrawal documents were previously marked as P-R2-8-3-2-1-4-LBP, with a corresponding defense marking of Exhibit D-R2-8-3-2-1-4-LBP.
  • The certificate of outstanding balances was marked as P-R2-8-3-2-1-5-LBP, consisting of 26 pages, with a corresponding respondent marking of D-R2-8-3-2-1-5-LBP.
  • The prosecution counsel stated the exhibit marked P-2-8-3-4-2.5-LBP is a common exhibit also marked as D-2-8-3-4-2-5-LBP for the defense.
  • The AMLC witness testified that the aggregate CRS amount is in Table 5 and the actual CTR reports have already been submitted to the court.
  • The witness confirmed the CTR records cover the period 2007 to 2025.
  • Senator Judge Pangilinan stated, with witness confirmation, that the aggregate bank-related (annulator) amount is 529 million pesos.
  • The witness confirmed that as Executive Director he can proactively initiate investigations and prepares investigation reports on money laundering subject to review by the AMLC Council.
  • The witness stated he could not recall testifying that AMLC exercises control and supervision over his office, and that under the law the office exists to assist the Council in performing its mandate.
  • The witness testified that, per law, IRRs, and the Supreme Court, prosecution of an unlawful activity can run parallel with a money laundering case, allowing AMLC to file before law enforcement does.
  • Amlc records correction before submission
  • The witness testified that the records submitted to the House upon subpoena had already been corrected, and that nothing was rectified in the submissions to the impeachment court.
  • The witness confirmed that the records were validated and necessary changes were made.
  • The witness testified that there were three or four reasons for the rectification, not solely the request from the covered institution.
  • The presiding officer noted that the witness had testified the previous day citing three or four reasons for rectification, which the witness confirmed.
  • The AMLC witness testified that the report presented covers transactions of the couple but does not show whether the particular bank accounts contained money.
  • The AMLC witness testified that the summary report was sourced from banks and covered persons.
  • The witness confirmed that for the period 2022–2025, of approximately 424 million in reported transactions, about 178 million was classified as undetermined as to inflow or outflow.
  • The witness testified that AMLC records do not indicate whether 'undetermined' transactions were inflows or outflows because AMLC uses more refined transaction codes (e.g., cash deposit, check deposit, remittance) rather than a simple inflow/outflow designation.
  • Amlc witness declines disclosure of follow up actions
  • The AMLC witness testified that the agency is unable to disclose whether it filed an ex parte petition with the Court of Appeals for a freeze order on the flagged transactions.
  • The AMLC witness testified that there are three STRs concerning Kalye 88 and that he is unable to disclose any further action taken on them.
  • The witness testified that under corporate law, when a corporation's unrestricted retained earnings exceed 100% of its paid-in capital, it must declare dividends.
  • The witness testified that stockholders receive declared dividends, and that with two stockholders both would receive dividends.
  • Presiding officer allows ctr exhibits on redirect
  • The defense objected that CTR documents shown on redirect were never put to the witness on cross-examination and thus were not proper subjects of redirect examination.
  • Amlc covered banks testify
  • The prosecution confirmed that the banks included as covered persons in the AMLC report are the same banks summoned to testify on that day.
  • The AMLC witness testified that AMLC has frozen numerous accounts and submits AMLA records as supporting documents in cases brought to the Court of Appeals, which courts accept and use to decide on freeze orders.
  • The AMLC witness testified that he could not answer whether AMLC will investigate the bond transactions or accounts of the Vice President, as the decision still requires internal discussion.
  • The witness testified that the 129 CTRs for time deposits were based on unique transaction reference numbers and that he could not say whether they were rollovers.
  • Amlc witness clarifies prior testimony
  • The witness testified that he never mentioned yesterday the name of any covered person, only that a covered person requested a correction of a report.
  • Amlc witness defers unexplained wealth call
  • The AMLC witness testified that he leaves it to the Honorable Court to determine whether any amount attributed to VP Sara remains unexplained.
  • Hontiveros records request
  • Senator Judge Hontiveros requested that the witness be shown records so amounts of transactions reported as related to illegal drugs could be placed on the record before the trial day ends.
  • Presiding officer announces witness presentation procedure
  • The presiding officer stated that during the recess an agreement was reached with counsel for the parties on a new procedure for presenting witnesses, and that only one more witness (a Land Bank representative) would be called that day.
  • The prosecution requested a conference of the parties with the subpoenaed bank and insurance representatives to obtain preliminary information about their identities and type of work.
  • Subpoenaed banks insurance appear
  • The presiding officer stated that all 15 subpoenaed banking and insurance companies were present, with the 16th being the BAR official included in the list.
  • Subpoenaed corporations opc check
  • The witness testified that, per the subpoena served on the AMLC, none of the listed corporations bears 'OPC' in its name.

Court rulings

  • Landbank spousal access testimony
  • Amlc time deposit breakout explanation
  • The defense counsel asserted that many problems have arisen in the prosecution's authentication process.
  • Amlc report scope juridical persons
  • A prosecutor stated that Tapang at Malasakit is not a juridical entity but may have an account or policy covered by AMLC.
  • Str slides handling dispute
  • Amlc iad fcig and record reliance
  • Amlc investigative methodology
  • Amlc securities insurance trust totals
  • Amlc verification through covered persons
  • Senators request remittance country breakdown
  • The Presiding Officer directed the clerk of court to furnish all Senator Judges with a list of the remitting companies from the countries mentioned in the AMLC report.
  • Amlc ctr coverage period 2007 2025
  • Amlc executive director mandate
  • Amlc parallel investigation doctrine
  • The witness testified that under the AMLA, its IRR, and Supreme Court rulings, an unlawful activity investigation can run parallel with, or precede, a money laundering investigation, so AMLC may file even before a criminal case is filed.
  • Amlc rectification reasons testimony
  • Amlc report scope limitations
  • Amlc undetermined flow classification
  • Bir summaries service on parties
  • The prosecution manifested that it received, on the day of the hearing, BIR summaries dated October 6 pertaining to the taxpayer's profile, incomes, and taxes.
  • Counsel for the respondent stated that the defense had not received the BIR summary because the prosecution's email used a wrong address (nfslaw.com.ph instead of fnslaw.com.ph).
  • Bir summary furnishing to court
  • The prosecution stated the BIR email furnishing the summary was received at 12:14 p.m. that day and showed a copy furnished to [email protected].
  • The presiding officer directed the Clerk of Court to furnish respondent's counsel a copy of the BIR summary.
  • Dividend declaration questioning
  • Lacson amla political harassment provision
  • Senator Lacson stated that Section 16's second paragraph provides that no money laundering case may be filed and no assets frozen, attached, or forfeited to the prejudice of a candidate during an election period.
  • The presiding officer ruled that the prosecution could use the CTR exhibits on redirect despite the defense objection, because the documents were mentioned in cross-examination and copies were previously unavailable to the defense, and offered the TSN for a recross.
  • Amlc freeze order practice testimony
  • Amlc pending bond investigation
  • Amlc time deposit ctr questions
  • Padilla trillanes funds manifestation
  • Senator Padilla stated in a manifestation that he received no money, in response to former Senator Trillanes' remarks made outside the impeachment court about 'tapang at malasakit' funds.
  • Prosecution conference with bank representatives
  • Senator queries gencorp 888 bistro str disparity
  • Senator Villanueva stated that Table 2 shows GenCorp with approximately 3 billion pesos in reported transactions but no STR, while 888 Bistro shows about 43 million pesos with 1,197 STRs.

Open questions

    Claims updated in this session