Davao assessor grilled by senator-judges over Duterte properties, China trips in impeachment trial

MANILA — The first defence witness in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte faced intense questioning from senator-judges on Monday, 9 November, as his testimony on properties registered under the name of the Vice President's husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, raised questions about discrepancies in the couple's Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

Davao City Assessor Engineer Jaime Adalin was presented by the defence to challenge the prosecution's allegation that a property in Matina, Davao City, purchased by Carpio, was not properly disclosed in Duterte's SALN.

However, what was supposed to establish the defence's position turned into a lengthy examination of property records, conflicting valuations, the actual use of a building, and Adalin's overseas travels.

The Matina property and the couple's SALN

During his testimony, Adalin identified a 379-square-meter property in Juna Subdivision, Matina Crossing, Talomo, Davao City, registered under Carpio's name.

He presented tax declarations covering the land and the building constructed on it.

According to the records presented:

- Land: Assessed value of P82,046 and market value of approximately P2.05 million.

- Building: Assessed value of approximately P5.24 million and market value of approximately P6.99 million.

Adalin maintained that Matina Crossing and Barangay 74-A referred to the same location, supporting the defence's argument that the property corresponded to an entry in Duterte's 2024 SALN.

He also identified entries for a residential lot and a commercial building in the Vice President's SALN, which he said corresponded to the property records he presented.

The property had reportedly been purchased by Carpio for P6 million in July 2024. However, questions immediately arose when Senator-Judge Francis "Chiz" Escudero pointed out that the SALN indicated an acquisition cost of P10 million.

Asked to explain the difference, Adalin responded that he was not aware of the reason.

The discrepancy became one of the central issues during the examination. [1][2]

Prime Bistro issue draws Raffy Tulfo's ire

Another contentious moment came when prosecutors presented photographs of a commercial establishment identified as Prime Bistro, which occupies the disputed property.

The issue was whether the property could properly be described as residential when a restaurant was operating on the premises.

Adalin attempted to explain that a building could appear commercial but actually be used for residential purposes.

His explanation did not sit well with Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo.

Tulfo questioned the witness's explanation, pointing out that Prime Bistro was clearly a commercial establishment.

He even accused Adalin of "lying through his teeth," saying the explanation appeared to make it seem as though the senator-judges were being fooled.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian also questioned the assessor's explanation, emphasizing that the actual use of a property should determine its classification for real property taxation.

Gatchalian further questioned how Adalin could conclusively match the property to the SALN when the document did not contain the corresponding title number or tax declaration number.

Adalin explained that his assessment was based on the property's assessed value, market value and previous tax declaration.

Erwin Tulfo threatens contempt over China trip answers

Adalin's credibility also became a major issue when House prosecution lawyer Benjamin "Jay" Tolosa questioned him about an alleged all-expenses-paid trip to China.

Initially, the assessor said he could not recall the trip and even described the question as irrelevant.

His answers prompted Senator-Judge Vicente "Tito" Sotto III to intervene, saying the Bureau of Immigration could be asked to verify the witness's travel records.

Presiding Officer Escudero also pressed Adalin to clarify whether he had forgotten the trip itself or merely its date.

Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo subsequently reminded the witness that he was testifying under oath and warned him about the consequences of giving false or evasive testimony.

Tulfo remarked:

"Para ho tayong niloloko ng testigo na ito."

He also warned that the impeachment court could cite Adalin for contempt.

The questioning continued when senators Risa Hontiveros and Raffy Tulfo confronted the assessor with information about his overseas travels.

Hontiveros questions China travel, requests Carpio's property records

Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros questioned Adalin about his January 2026 trip to China, including his inability to remember the places he visited and the person who organized the trip.

Hontiveros cited travel information indicating that Adalin flew to Beijing on January 25 aboard Philippine Airlines Flight PR 358 and returned from Shanghai on January 30 aboard Flight PR 339.

Adalin eventually confirmed the trip, saying he travelled with several Davao City officials, including department heads and the city administrator.

He maintained that the trip was personal and that he paid for his own expenses. He also said neither Sara Duterte nor Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte accompanied them.

Hontiveros questioned why the assessor could not recall important details despite having official travel authority.

She also requested that Adalin submit a complete list of properties registered under Carpio's name in Davao City.

Adalin agreed to ask his office to provide the requested records to the impeachment court.

Defence and prosecution disagree over witness's testimony

The House prosecution panel questioned whether Adalin had successfully established that the P6-million property purchased by Carpio was the same property declared in Duterte's SALN.

Prosecutors highlighted several discrepancies, including:

- The P6-million purchase price compared with the P10-million acquisition cost reflected in the SALN.

- Differences in the descriptions of the property in the transaction documents and SALN.

- Questions about the property's actual use, particularly the presence of a commercial establishment.

- The absence of a title number or tax declaration number in the SALN that could directly establish the property's identity.

House lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said Adalin's testimony failed to conclusively establish that the property covered by the title was the same property declared in the SALN.

The defence, meanwhile, maintained that the assessor's testimony supported its position that the property had been disclosed.

The dispute remains part of Article II of the impeachment complaint, which involves allegations of unexplained wealth and incomplete or inaccurate asset disclosures. Duterte has denied the allegations.

The bigger picture

Adalin's appearance marked the beginning of the defence's presentation of evidence after the House prosecution rested its case.

His testimony was expected to counter the prosecution's evidence concerning the couple's real estate holdings and financial disclosures.

However, the proceedings also exposed unresolved questions about the identification and valuation of the Matina property, the classification of the building, and the assessor's recollection of his overseas travels.

The impeachment court has yet to resolve the disputed property declarations and the allegations of unexplained wealth.