Prosecution highlights discrepancies in defense’s first witness

MANILA — The prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial said Monday the testimony of the defense’s first witness does not weaken their case against the country’s second-highest official.

Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, a House prosecutor, observed that Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin seemed to be lying.

“Lumalabas po yung pinresenta po kanina ng depensa na witness ay lumalabas na isang weakness ng depensa,” he said in a press briefing as the proceedings broke for lunch.

(It appears the witness that the defense presented is a weakness of the defense.)

As the impeachment court resumed proceedings after a weeks-long pause, the defense called Adalin, an engineer, as its first witness as it began presenting its case.

Adalin was presented to establish that a Davao City property purchased by Manases Carpio, the vice president’s husband, in 2024 was declared in Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, contrary to the testimony of a prosecution witness.

Adalin testified that the property Carpio purchased in Barangay Matina Crossing 74-A was the same property listed in Duterte’s SALN, citing maps and documents, including a Transfer Certificate of Title and tax declarations.

The prosecution, however, pointed out that Adalin could not establish that the property described in Duterte’s SALN was the same one covered by his documents, only that there is a possibility that it is.

The prosecution also cited the discrepancies between the records, arguing that these could indicate either that the properties were different or that there was possible tax evasion.

One discrepancy raised by the prosecution was the difference in acquisition values. The property listed in the Electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration (eCAR) was valued at around P6 million, while the property declared in the SALN was valued at around P10 million.

“Obviously this difference does not only signify a discrepancy, it could probably signify a different property,” said Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, House prosecution spokesperson.

The prosecution also highlighted that Duterte’s SALN listed the property as residential, while Adalin testified that he could not ascertain whether it was being used for commercial purposes.

The prosecution had presented him a photo of a building bearing the sign “Prime Bistro.”

Chua said Adalin told an “obvious lie” and asserted the property was clearly a commercial space.

Chua added that if the properties were indeed the same, declaring the property as residential instead could have been an attempt to avoid paying higher taxes.

He also brought up how the witness failed to remember details of a trip he took to China just last year.

“Ganoon ba karaming biyahe ang ginawa niya para hindi niya maalala ang isang biyaheng papuntang China?” Chua said.

(How many trips has he been on not to remember a trip to China?)

Some senators also raised concerns about Adalin’s testimony and his answers to their queries.

At one point, Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan pointedly told the witness, “There are inconsistencies in your testimony.” 

Duterte is accused of amassing unexplained wealth, and failing to fully disclose her assets and divest from business interests while in office. — With a report from Jaehwa Bernardo, ABS-CBN News