Sara defence drops 15 bank witnesses; Punay testimony exposes questions over P2.14-M GenCorp payments

MANILA — Vice-President Sara Duterte's defence team has dropped 15 of the 16 bank representatives it originally intended to present in her impeachment trial, retaining only a senior official of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), as its presentation of evidence comes under mounting scrutiny from senator-judges.

Defence counsel Michael Poa announced the decision during the proceedings on 11-11-2026, saying the team wanted to shorten the trial and avoid unnecessarily prolonging the presentation of its witnesses.

"In the interest of time and as we don't want to waste the time of the court, and to abbreviate the proceedings, we would be dispensing with the testimonies [of] the bank representatives, except for the BPI bank representative," Poa told the impeachment court.

The defence retained Atty. Paul Roderick Ysmael, BPI senior vice-president, as its sole bank witness.

Ysmael is expected to identify bank correspondence involving Duterte and/or her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, including letters sent through their legal counsel and the bank's responses.

The defence also intends to present Atty. Anel Martin Antero, Chadrin Parian and Quezon City prosecutor Vimar Barcellano.

The decision came after a contentious hearing featuring lawyer Suzette Balucanag-Punay, in-house counsel of GenCorp Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corporation.

Punay's testimony confirmed that Duterte received P2,142,369.14 from GenCorp between 2022 and 2025, which she described as returns of capital from an investment originally made in a different corporation.

However, she admitted that she had no written records establishing the exact amount of Duterte's original investment.

That admission became a central point of contention, with several senator-judges questioning how the payments could be justified without documentary proof of the original capital.

The exchanges also raised questions about the Vice-President's financial interests in private corporations while occupying public office, as well as discrepancies between her sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) and the companies' corporate records.

Defence and prosecution clash over Punay's authority

The proceedings were already contentious before Punay could fully present her testimony.

Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan questioned the witness's authority to testify on behalf of GenCorp and Metro City Chow, pointing out that she had not presented a board resolution or secretary's certificate authorising her to represent the corporations.

Kapunan raised concerns about the possibility of Punay invoking lawyer-client privilege to avoid answering questions about the companies.

Defence counsel Justin Nicol Gular countered that Punay was appearing pursuant to a subpoena issued by the impeachment court.

"Her appearance today is by virtue of a subpoena," Gular argued.

He maintained that the prosecution's concerns about privilege were premature.

Presiding Officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero eventually allowed Punay to testify, clarifying the capacity in which she was appearing and the limitations on invoking privilege.

The exchange highlighted the prosecution's concern about the extent of Punay's personal knowledge and authority to speak about the corporations' transactions.

Punay confirms P2.14-million payments to Duterte

The most significant portion of Punay's testimony concerned the P2,142,369.14 GenCorp paid to Duterte over four years.

The amounts were broken down as follows:

| Year | Payments |

| 2022 | P337,500.00 |

| 2023 | P555,750.00 |

| 2024 | P612,419.14 |

| 2025 | P636,700.00 |

| Total | P2,142,369.14 |

Under questioning by Gular, Punay explained that the payments originated from Duterte's contribution to Davao Bounty Times Corporation, which had initially intended to operate the Jollibee Times Square branch in Davao City.

However, Davao Bounty failed to secure the franchise. The branch eventually operated under Great Jolly Times Foods Corporation, which subsequently became part of the corporate arrangements involving GenCorp.

Punay maintained that Duterte's original investment was carried over through these arrangements.

She described the payments as a "return of capital".

However, the prosecution and senator-judges questioned why GenCorp was making payments for an investment originally made in another corporation.

More importantly, Punay could not establish the precise amount of Duterte's original contribution.

"Unfortunately, I could not verify the amount because there are no written records for this investment," she acknowledged.

Corporate documents presented during the proceedings indicated a documented capital contribution of P46,875 to Davao Bounty.

The discrepancy prompted Escudero to question how the original investment could have generated more than P2.14 million in payments.

The presiding officer challenged the witness's description of the transactions, pointing out the distinction between a return of capital and a return on capital.

"Please take note of the preposition. This is not return of investment. This is return on investment, the capital earned already," Escudero said.

The distinction was important because a return of capital generally refers to the repayment of the original investment, while a return on capital refers to earnings generated by that investment.

Escudero wanted to establish the legal and documentary basis for GenCorp's payments.

Punay maintained that the transactions were connected to Duterte's original investment but could not produce the documents establishing the precise amount.

The presiding officer indicated that additional documents would be required to clarify the arrangement.

Hontiveros questions Duterte's continuing business interest

Senator Risa Hontiveros pursued the constitutional implications of the payments, particularly because Duterte continued receiving money from GenCorp after assuming the vice-presidency.

"The loose investment started in 2007. But in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, the Vice-President earned a total of P2.14 million from what you call 'return of capital', right?" Hontiveros asked.

Punay answered in the affirmative.

Hontiveros then questioned whether the payments demonstrated that Duterte maintained a financial interest in the corporation while serving as Vice-President.

She invoked Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution, which prohibits the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants from directly or indirectly participating in any business while in office.

The senator-judge stressed that the constitutional restriction was not limited to individuals formally listed as corporate shareholders.

The question, therefore, was whether Duterte's continuing financial arrangement with GenCorp constituted prohibited business participation.

Punay acknowledged the constitutional provision but was unable to definitively explain whether the arrangement violated it.

Pangilinan: Duterte was a beneficiary of GenCorp

Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan also challenged Punay's assertion that Duterte had no participation in GenCorp.

He pointed out that the Vice-President received payments from the corporation, making her a financial beneficiary of its operations.

"But receiving benefits, you are a recipient, then you have a role, a beneficiary of GenCorp. So it's not correct to say that there is no participation or no role whatsoever," Pangilinan told the witness.

Punay acknowledged that Duterte was a recipient of the payments.

"As a recipient, yes," she replied.

The exchange challenged the defence's attempt to distinguish Duterte's alleged loose investment from formal corporate ownership.

While Punay maintained that Duterte was not a registered GenCorp shareholder, the senator-judge pointed out that the absence of formal shareholding did not necessarily resolve questions about her financial relationship with the company.

Gatchalian raises possible conflict of interest

Senator Sherwin Gatchalian raised another concern involving GenCorp's transactions with the Davao City government.

He cited approximately P33 million worth of contracts secured by GenCorp from the local government under Mayor Sebastian Duterte, the Vice-President's brother.

Gatchalian questioned the circumstances surrounding the company's payments to Duterte while it was also doing business with the Davao City government.

"So mukhang conflict of interest," he remarked.

Punay explained that the government contracts were serviced by GenCorp's Bolton branch, while the payments to Duterte originated from the Jollibee Times Square branch.

However, Gatchalian questioned whether the distinction between branches sufficiently addressed the concern, given that both transactions involved the same corporation.

The senator-judge's questions highlighted the potential overlap between Duterte's private financial interests and the company's government transactions.

Tulfo questions Punay's preparedness

Senator Raffy Tulfo also questioned Punay's inability to provide documentary support for the transactions.

He pointed out that the witness should have secured the necessary records before appearing before the impeachment court.

"You should have at least asked from GenCorp a copy of the cancelled check so you would be ready here," Tulfo told her.

The senator questioned whether Punay had adequately prepared for her testimony, particularly because she was being presented to explain the financial transactions involving the Vice-President.

Punay maintained that she had conducted research but could not locate written documentation establishing the original investment.

Tulfo's questions reflected the senator-judges' growing frustration over the gaps in the defence witness's documentary evidence.

Villanueva questions accuracy of corporate records

Senator Joel Villanueva also questioned the reliability of GenCorp's General Information Sheets (GIS), which were being used to establish the Vice-President's corporate status.

He pointed out several apparent errors in the documents.

"Ang daming mali dito sa GIS," Villanueva remarked.

Punay acknowledged that there were inaccuracies but maintained that the company's shareholder records were reliable.

The issue became significant because the defence relied on the GIS to argue that Duterte was not a GenCorp shareholder, despite her own SALN declarations identifying a business interest in the company.

Senator Panfilo Lacson also questioned the apparent contradiction between Duterte's sworn declarations and GenCorp's corporate filings.

He pointed out that a SALN is a sworn document and asked why a public official would declare a corporate interest if she did not actually own one.

The defence maintained that the company's official records should be considered in determining Duterte's corporate status.

The senator-judges, however, were left to assess the evidentiary weight of the conflicting documents.

Metro City Chow shareholding also scrutinised

Punay also confirmed that Duterte owned a 20 per cent shareholding in Metro City Chow Foods Corporation.

The company's GIS from 2022 to 2025 listed her as an incorporator, director and member of its compensation committee.

However, Punay insisted that Duterte had no actual participation in the company's daily operations or management.

"She does not attend meetings, or I haven't seen her attend any company gatherings," she said.

Punay also maintained that Duterte did not participate in operational decisions.

The prosecution questioned the distinction between Duterte's formal corporate positions and the witness's assertion that she was not involved in the business.

The defence maintained that the existence of a shareholding did not automatically establish that Duterte actively participated in the company's operations.

Prosecution says Punay strengthened its case

Following the hearing, members of the House prosecution panel expressed satisfaction with Punay's testimony.

Manila 3rd District Representative Joel Chua remarked:

"Akala ko nga testigo namin yun."

Lanao del Sur Representative Zia Alonto Adiong also thanked the witness for confirming Duterte's financial transactions with GenCorp.

"Maraming salamat at mas pinatatag niyo po ang aming kaso," Adiong said.

The prosecution argued that Punay's admissions had strengthened its position that Duterte maintained financial interests in private corporations while serving as Vice-President.

The defence, however, maintained that the testimony should be viewed in its proper context and that additional witnesses would address the outstanding questions.

Tuesday's proceedings put Davao accountant and Samal property under scrutiny

The contentious hearing on 11-11-2026 followed another lengthy session on Tuesday, 10-11-2026, during which two defence witnesses faced sustained questioning over Duterte's compensation from the Davao City government and a property registered under her husband's name.

The witnesses were Davao City Accountant Vingelin Bajan and Island Garden City of Samal Assessor Engineer John Kenneth Enumerables.

Their testimonies were intended to support the defence's position on Duterte's financial disclosures and asset declarations.

However, both faced difficulties during cross-examination.

Davao accountant grilled over P64,194.72 payment

Bajan was presented to explain the P64,194.72 Duterte received from the Davao City government in January 2023, several months after she assumed the vice-presidency.

The defence maintained that the amount represented salary differentials from Duterte's service as Davao City mayor in 2020 and 2021.

The payment consisted of P31,718.64 for 2020 and P32,476.08 for 2021, following salary adjustments under the Salary Standardisation Law.

However, the prosecution questioned why the payment was released only in January 2023 and whether the supporting documents sufficiently established that it represented delayed compensation rather than additional income received while Duterte was already Vice-President.

Private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia also questioned the absence of the payment in Duterte's 2024 income tax return.

When asked to confirm the matter, Bajan replied:

"I cannot answer, Attorney."

The prosecution also questioned handwritten corrections in the disbursement voucher and the timing of the payment's processing.

Bajan maintained that the amount covered Duterte's previous service as mayor and that the original supporting documents had already been submitted to the Commission on Audit.

Former accounting partnership raises conflict-of-interest questions

Bajan's testimony became more contentious when the prosecution questioned her previous involvement in Ampil, Elises, Ciudadano and Co. CPAs.

The accounting firm had served as external auditor for companies linked to Duterte, including GenCorp, Metro City Chow and Great Jolly Times.

Bajan acknowledged that she had been a partner in the firm while also working for the Davao City government.

She said she had withdrawn from the partnership in 2015 and was appointed Davao City accountant in 2017.

However, she struggled to recall details of her former partnership, including her capital contribution and compensation.

When Senator Bam Aquino asked whether she had received compensation from the firm, Bajan replied:

"Hindi ko talaga ma-remember, Your Honor."

She eventually acknowledged receiving allowances.

Her answers prompted several senator-judges to question her credibility and preparedness.

Escudero, Tulfo and Lapid express frustration

Escudero eventually expressed his frustration with Bajan's repeated inability to recall details.

"Please, my patience is wearing thin," he told the witness.

Senator Raffy Tulfo was similarly critical, questioning why witnesses appeared unable to answer straightforward questions about their own professional backgrounds.

He compared Bajan's testimony with that of the previous defence witness, Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin.

Tulfo suggested that witnesses who continued giving evasive answers could be cited for contempt.

Senator Lito Lapid also intervened.

"'Yung mga nakikinig na kababayan natin dito, pag hindi kayo nakakasagot, naiinis sila. Kami rin," Lapid said.

He subsequently asked Bajan whether she was merely being used because of her position as Davao City accountant.

Bajan denied this.

The witness eventually became emotional during the questioning, prompting Senator Imee Marcos to defend her and argue that some of the questions were beyond the immediate subject of her testimony.

The exchanges underscored the tension between the prosecution and defence over the relevance of Bajan's professional background and the credibility of the documents she presented.

Samal assessor unable to confirm Carpio property

Enumerables, meanwhile, faced questions about a property registered under Carpio's name in Barangay San Isidro, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal.

The property was presented to establish that it had been properly declared in Duterte's joint SALN.

However, the prosecution pointed out that the SALN identified the property as being in Barangay Matanos, while the title and local assessment records indicated Barangay San Isidro.

When asked whether the two locations were the same, Enumerables acknowledged that they were not.

More significantly, he admitted that he could not definitively establish whether the property covered by the title was the same one declared in the SALN.

"I'm not certain, sir," he told the prosecution.

Enumerables explained that he had relied on similarities in the property's assessed and market values.

However, he acknowledged that the SALN did not contain the title number needed to establish a conclusive match.

The prosecution also pointed out differences in the property's acquisition details.

The deed of absolute sale indicated a purchase price of approximately P3.45 million and was executed on 15-03-2018.

The SALN, meanwhile, reflected an acquisition cost of approximately P4.04 million and an acquisition year of 2013.

The defence maintained that the documents referred to the same property, but the assessor's inability to confirm the connection became a significant point during cross-examination.

Defence faces mounting questions over financial disclosures

The proceedings on 10-11-2026 and 11-11-2026 exposed several unresolved issues in Duterte's defence against the allegations under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

The testimony of Bajan raised questions about the supporting documents for the P64,194.72 salary differential and her previous professional relationship with companies linked to the Vice-President.

Enumerables' testimony, meanwhile, left questions about the identification and declaration of a property registered under Carpio's name.

Punay's appearance subsequently brought Duterte's financial relationship with GenCorp into sharper focus.

While the witness confirmed that Duterte received P2.14 million over four years, she could not establish the precise amount of the original investment that supposedly justified the payments.

The senator-judges also raised questions about Duterte's 20 per cent shareholding in Metro City Chow, her declared interest in GenCorp and the latter's government contracts with Davao City.

The defence's decision to dispense with 15 bank witnesses represents a significant adjustment in its presentation of evidence.

With only the BPI official retained, the impeachment court is expected to examine the correspondence involving Duterte and Carpio and the bank's responses.

The senator-judges have yet to determine whether the evidence establishes the allegations against the Vice-President.