Metro Manila, Philippines – A property the defense said was already declared in Vice President Sara Duterte’s wealth statement, and a payment it maintained was earned before she became vice president, became the focus of Day 41 of her impeachment trial on Tuesday, November 10.

The defense presented its second and third witnesses, Island Garden City of Samal assessor John Kenneth Enumerables and Davao City accountant Vingelin Bajan, to address questions surrounding Duterte’s properties and compensation under the remaining unexplained-wealth allegation.

Their testimonies, however, drew pointed questions from senator-judges and prosecutors, with some expressing frustration over the witnesses’ answers and questioning their credibility. The prosecution later said the testimonies had not resolved the issues, while the defense maintained that its witnesses had supported Duterte’s 

Property location

The defense presented Enumerables with a tax declaration, field appraisal records, and Duterte’s 2019 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) to establish that a property registered under her husband Manases Carpio’s name had been declared.

Enumerables identified a SALN entry with the same assessed value of ₱270,360 and market value of ₱2.703 million as the property records presented in court.

Asked by Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero whether the matching values were his only basis for identifying the properties as the same, Enumerables said yes, explaining that the SALN did not contain a title number or tax declaration number.

The witness also said tax records placed the property in Barangay San Isidro, Kaputian, while the title and SALN referred to Matanos, Kaputian. Senator-judge Ping Lacson pointed out that Matanos was not a barangay but a place within Barangay Pangubatan, not San Isidro.

Escudero pressed Enumerables on why the title identified Matanos while the assessor’s records listed San Isidro. The assessor said his office relied on its tax mapping and the property’s technical description.

Defense counsel Lindon Bacquel also pointed to the earlier testimony of prosecution witness, Samal Acting Register of Deeds Marco Pineda, who explained that the location indicated in a transfer certificate of title is carried over from the mother title and cannot simply be changed without a court order under the Property Registration Decree. Bacquel argued that this differs from a tax declaration, which the city assessor’s office can update based on its own tax mapping. Escudero said the court would refer to Pineda’s earlier testimony.

During cross-examination, private prosecutor Jay Tolosa also cited differences between the ₱4.041-million acquisition cost declared in the SALN and the ₱3.453-million selling price in the deed of sale. The defense maintained that acquisition cost included the purchase price and other expenses related to the transaction, while Escudero questioned if those additional costs could really account for the discrepancy.

Ire of senator-judges

The other witness, Bajan, maintained that the ₱64,194.72 Vice President Sara Duterte received from the city government in January 2023 was a delayed salary differential covering her service as mayor in 2020 and 2021.

But the prosecution questioned why the payment was released only in 2023 and pointed out that Duterte’s 2023 BIR Form 2316 did not identify the amount as a salary differential or specify the years it covered. Bajan said separate payroll records contained those details.

Her credibility also came under scrutiny over her former involvement in an accounting partnership established in 2003. Bajan repeatedly said she could not remember documents bearing her name and signature, including the firm’s original Articles of Partnership and an affidavit confirming her withdrawal in 2015.

As she flipped through the thick documents without giving direct answers, several senator-judges grew visibly frustrated. Senator-judge Kiko Pangilinan called her responses “unacceptable,” while Escudero said, “My patience is wearing thin.”

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo warned, “Baka ma-contempt ka. Sana huwag. Kami napipikon na.”

[Translation: You might be cited for contempt. I hope not. We’re getting frustrated].

Bajan eventually confirmed her signature and acknowledged that she had withdrawn from the partnership in 2015, a year before Duterte appointed her city accountant.

The prosecution also presented corporate records identifying the successor firm, Elises & Ciudadano, as external auditor of companies linked to the Duterte-Carpio family, including GenCorp Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corporation. 

Bajan said she had no knowledge of the firm’s engagements after she left.

Sub judice concerns

The defense withdrew its plan to present Matina Crossing barangay chairperson Cindy Colina, with lead counsel Sheila Sison telling the court that lawyer Suzette Balucanag-Punay, who represents GenCorp Industries Metro City Chow Foods, would instead testify on Wed., November 11. Balucanag-Punay had been scheduled to testify on Monday but was unable to attend for medical reasons.

Sison also raised alleged violations of the sub judice rule involving public statements by private prosecutor Tolosa, saying these could affect the probative value of the prosecution’s cross-examination and the weight given to the defense witnesses’ testimony. 

Tolosa said he was prepared to respond to any formal motion and maintained that he had been careful with his public statements. 

“We’ve always respected the sub judice rule and the court’s authority, integrity, as well as the integrity of the proceedings,” he said at a post-trial briefing.

Defense lawyer Michael Poa later explained that the defense was concerned that the witnesses’ credibility and the weight of their testimonies were already being discussed in the media. 

Escudero said the court was looking into two separate matters involving different members of the House prosecution panel: one raised by the defense and another brought to his attention through a motu proprio finding by Senate staff. 

Court spokesperson Regie Tongol said that the court is awaiting formal written manifestations before taking action.

Tongol also said it would also await formal submissions from the prosecution after it manifested that it has been considering asking the court to sanction Duterte over statements it said questioned the integrity of the court.