[ANALYSIS] Loose investment, loose assumptions?

Instead, GenCorp, which was in the red in the last three years, remitted to Duterte a total of P2.2 million as “return of capital” released through several checks at different times until 2025. No records are available for 2026, as it was not part of the court subpoena.

Broken down, Duterte received P337,500 in 2022; P555,750 in 2023; P612,419 in 2024; and P636,700 in 2025.

Effectively, Punay disputed the estimates previously presented by prosecution forensic expert Alexander Cabrera, who had claimed Duterte earned P55,714,292 in undeclared income from GenCorp Industries, Inc. in 2023 alone. 

Using GenCorp's internal accounting summaries, Punay said Duterte only received P2,142,369.14 in total check disbursements from 2022 to 2025 as a "return of capital" for an earlier investment in a Jollibee Times Square branch.

But how did GenCorp compute the P2.2 million? That’s way too much, said several senators who presumed that Duterte invested only P46,000, which represented 20 percent of the company’s capitalization.

She did not know because she was not part of the company's accounting department, the witness said. 

The senator-judges’ question hour zeroed in on the discrepancy until into the night.

Duterte's 'loose investment'

Neither Cabrera nor Punay could confirm that Duterte had indeed invested only 20 percent. Cabrera did not present a document detailing an investment contract, if there was any.

Until she took the witness stand, Punay said there was no document or contract between Duterte and other stockholders of GenCorp, Times, or Davao Bounty Times Food Corporation.

But Duterte did invest, which Punay called a "loose investment."

It is an informal, non-technical financial or legal term she coined to describe money or capital placed into a business, branch, or venture without formal documentation, written contracts, clear governance, or official corporate structure. 

Duterte’s initial investment could have been the subject of what is sometimes forged as a “gentlemen’s agreement” among investors. Still, Punay did not say it was so.

Punay said Duterte placed the “loose investments” in 2007 with Davao Bounty, which was supposed to have hosted a Jollibee franchise.

“Before Jollibee Times Square started its operations, there was a corporation called Davao Bounty Times Food Corporation where the Vice President was a stockholder. This corporation was supposed to be [the] one to operate Jollibee Times Square Branch, but it did not materialize,” she explained. 

“Since Davao Bounty failed to acquire a branch, it was Great Jolly Times that commenced the operations of Jollibee Times Square. The investment of Sara in Davao Bounty was just carried over to Great Jolly Times,” she added. 

But Metro City Chow Foods, not Davao Bounty, got the franchise. GenCorp later acquired Metro City Chow Foods. 

In his earlier September testimony, del Rosario bared Duterte’s holdings or involvement in at least 10 companies, as declared in her SALN.

Based on SEC records, Metro City Chow Foods explicitly retained her name as a board director and stockholder from 2022 to 2025, with some 500 shares, or owning a 20 percent stake, but the company had since been in deficit. 

Del Rosario noted that because these companies were in the red, they declared no dividends for the past decades.

Its sales were worth millions, but the company must have used the funds to pay for its liabilities, he said.

Duterte declared business interests in Gencorp in her SALN, but her name did not appear on the firm’s official Articles of Incorporation or General Information Sheets. 

Her name disappeared later on, probably as her way out of withdrawing her interest from the companies, Del Rosario said. 

“One can be an investor without being a stockholder,” Punay said. 

She said she never saw Duterte in the board directors’ meeting of GenCorp and Metro Chow. But the witness said she was not aware if Duterte had attended a stockholders’ meeting. 

Between Duterte’s SALN and SEC records, which had more probative value, senator-judge Panfilo Lacson asked.

But the company wouldn’t adjust its records because “anybody” had claimed interests in it.

Heated exchanges, more questions

Prosecution lawyer Lorna Kapunan and several senators pounded Punay on the alleged discrepancy between Duterte’s alleged investment and the “return of capital” remitted to her. 

As Punay could offer limited knowledge of GenBros’s financial operations, Kapunan and several senators got confused over the term, which they repeatedly referred to as “return on investment” instead. Roughly, ROI means profit.

Perhaps because Kapunan and the senators came too strongly, Punay could not expressly contradict all the assumptions.

At one point, defense counsel Justin Nicol Gular accused Kapunan of badgering Punay, which she denied. “I may have a loud voice,” Kapunan said. “This is just my voice.”

Not badgering, “but I am agitated,” she said. “Am I badgering? I have the right to badger.”

But when the witness fell short of answers, the field was wide open for wild theories.

Where were the contracts? Raffy Tulfo asked. “Where are the checks?”

Because of the discrepancy between the P2 million as testified by Punay and Cabrera's P200 million estimate, senator-judge Joel Villanueva said it was indeed an ROI, not return of capital.

Punay would submit more documents, as requested by Erwin Tulfo, Risa Hontiveros, and Chiz Escudero.

Another defense counsel, Michael Poa, promised to submit more documents and more witnesses to answer all the questions.

Until then, the senators’ assumptions, right or wrong, remain. And in a subsequent news conference, the prosecution team feasted on the assumptions for another day.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.