Senator-judges push back against prosecution’s scrutiny of Carpio’s personal expenses

Defense witnesses in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial have sought to justify several credit card expenses charged to her husband, Atty. Manases Carpio, including purchases of shoes for a basketball team in Malaysia and a group dinner in Japan.

Chadrin Parian, a co-parent of Carpio in their children’s basketball team, testified before the Senate impeachment court that Carpio’s credit card charge of around 256,000 pesos in Malaysia covered shoes for the team’s players and entourage following their championship victory.

Parian, who identified Carpio as the team’s manager, said the children were allowed to choose their shoes as a reward for their performance in the tournament.

He said he was near the counter when Carpio made the purchase and took a photograph of the occasion.

The prosecution questioned the expense, invoking the constitutional provision requiring public officials and employees to lead modest lives. It also pointed to Parian’s close relationship with Carpio.

Prosecution counsel Atty. Reynaldo Robles cited Article 11, Section 1 of the Constitution, as well as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

But Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero cautioned Robles against pursuing the argument during the witness examination, saying it was more appropriate for the prosecution’s summation.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano also strongly objected to the prosecution’s line of questioning.

Cayetano questioned whether a parent who becomes a public official should be expected to give up decisions concerning their children’s upbringing, including supporting their participation in sports and providing opportunities for their teammates.

She cited her own experience bringing the University of the Philippines football team to China and Japan through sponsorships, saying such opportunities help develop athletes’ character, leadership, and teamwork.

The prosecution also challenged the explanation of another defense witness, Atty. Anel Martin Antero, a close friend and fellow mason of Carpio, over a dinner bill worth more than 200,000 pesos during a group trip to Ginza, Tokyo, Japan.

Antero testified that the group agreed to use Carpio’s credit card because some of the travelers had run out of cash after a long day of sightseeing.

He said everyone contributed to the bill, with his share amounting to around 4,000 pesos, or 40,000 yen.

Escudero, however, noted that the expense was well within the declared net worth of the Vice President and her husband.

The presiding officer said the amount of around 205,000 pesos was within the 88-million-peso net worth reflected in Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or SALN.

He added that the expense was highlighted in the prosecution’s forensic report, but pointed out that it was still within the couple’s declared financial capacity.

Senator-judge Robinhood Padilla also criticized the prosecution’s questioning, comparing it to its handling of the testimony of Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin during Monday’s hearing.

Adalin had testified to rebut allegations that Duterte failed to declare certain landholdings in her SALN.

Padilla questioned why Adalin’s trip to China had become an issue, saying he himself had visited the country several times but could no longer recall the specific places he had been to.

House prosecutor and Quezon City Representative Terry Ridon defended the questioning, saying it was intended to test the witness’ credibility.

Ridon maintained that the issue was not the trip itself but Adalin’s initial inability to provide details, which he said were eventually established through further questioning.

Padilla also cited the testimony of city accountant Vingelin Bajan, who maintained that she had no conflict of interest when she clarified allegations of double compensation involving the Vice President.

The senator-judge pointed out that the compensation Duterte received as mayor had not been disallowed by the Commission on Audit.

Defense counsel Atty. Michael Poa confirmed that Duterte had not received a notice of disallowance from the state audit agency over the amount of 64,194 pesos.

At the start of Thursday’s hearing, Escudero reminded the senator-judges and both parties to respect witnesses’ rights and exercise restraint during questioning.

He stressed that witnesses should not be threatened with contempt simply because their answers were unsatisfactory, adding that the court must avoid questioning that elicits fear rather than candor.

The hearing ended earlier than expected after the defense decided not to present Quezon City prosecutor Vimar Barcellano. The prosecution had stipulated to the authenticity of the document he was supposed to authenticate.

The defense also dropped a Bank of the Philippine Islands witness who had been summoned to authenticate a letter that was already verified during an earlier hearing.

The prosecution said it had wanted to question the bank witness about Duterte’s alleged dollar account.

There will be no impeachment hearing on Friday because no witness is scheduled to testify.

The trial will resume on November 19, following a three-day security lockdown around the Senate premises next week in connection with the ASEAN Summit.

No further hearing dates have been set beyond November 20, as the Senate is expected to prioritize deliberations on the proposed 2027 national budget.

The defense said it still has eight to 10 witnesses left to present. – ANC, The World Tonight, November 12, 2026