MANILA — A House prosecutor on Thursday accused Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s defense of highlighting relatively small expenses, including restaurant and shoe purchases, instead of addressing hundreds of millions of pesos in alleged unexplained wealth.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua said the defense appeared to be drawing public sympathy by portraying Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, as generous, while leaving the prosecution’s major financial findings unanswered.

“Pinagtatakpan po nila ’yung issue ng malaki na bilyon-bilyon, daang-daang milyon na issue para po mapagtakpan ’yung mga totoong isyu na hinahanap natin,” Chua said at a post-trial press briefing.

“So what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to appeal to the sympathy of the people,” he added.

Chua questioned the defense’s decision to present witnesses to explain a ₱205,007.29 restaurant bill in Tokyo, Japan, and a ₱256,882.50 Nike purchase in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, rather than directly address the prosecution’s broader financial findings.

The two transactions amounted to ₱461,889.79, or about 0.06% of the ₱817.87 million in alleged unexplained wealth identified by forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera.

“Bakit po ang pinipresenta nila ’yung pagkain sa restaurant at saka ’yung mga pagbili ng sapatos na P200,000?” Chua asked.

He cited testimony from Anti-Money Laundering Council Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura on approximately ₱4.4 billion in reported financial transactions involving Duterte and Carpio.

Chua also referred to Cabrera’s findings of alleged unexplained wealth and undeclared assets ranging from ₱817.87 million to ₱1.5 billion between 2022 and 2025.

He said the defense had yet to dispute hundreds of millions of pesos in bank transactions included in the forensic accountant’s report.

“So far, undisputed ’yan. Kasi part ’yan ng report ni Atty. Alex Cabrera, eh,” Chua said.

House prosecution spokesperson Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong also criticized the defense for concentrating on the smaller transactions instead of explaining the larger financial discrepancies.

“It’s even less than one percent of the 817 million [pesos] that we were expecting the defense to explain to the court,” Alonto Adiong said.

“Banggain po nila yung 817 million [pesos],” he challenged the defense.

The defense called lawyer Anel Martin Antero to explain the restaurant bill and Chadrin Parian to account for Carpio’s Nike purchase during a children’s basketball tournament.

House prosecution legal spokesperson and counsel Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said the defense, not the prosecution, had chosen to present witnesses on the two credit card transactions.

“Hindi ho kami namili ng witnesses today,” Tolosa said.

He said Antero testified that the diners shared the restaurant bill but failed to present receipts or other evidence showing that they reimbursed Carpio.

“Of course he claimed na nag-ambagan sila doon. But when asked on cross-examination, narinig naman natin there’s also no evidence to prove that,” Tolosa said.

Alonto Adiong added that Sen. Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri had also urged both sides during the hearing to address the substantial findings in Cabrera’s report.

“Unfortunately, we were left empty-handed as to the supposed explanation,” he said.

The defense is presenting evidence under Article II, the sole remaining impeachment charge against Duterte, which concerns allegations of unexplained wealth.