DUTERTE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DAY 41
[ANALYSIS] Prosecution pounds witnesses’ background, steals the show anew
The defense in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte lost some ground to the prosecution as its Day 41 witnesses drew frustration from several senators with their hesitant, evasive testimony.
The defense’s witnesses on Day 41—Engr. John Kenneth Enumerables, city assessor of Island Garden City of Samal, and Vingelin Bajan, accountant of Davao City Hall—played their respective parts well enough for the defense early on to debunk the prosecution’s allegations contained in Article II involving unexplained and undeclared wealth.
On direct examination, Enumerables presented tax declarations and official tax maps regarding real estate in Samal, including Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 142-2019013134 and tax records, under the name of Duterte’s husband, lawyer Mans Carpio, to argue that the Samal property was properly accounted for under joint marital asset filings, contending that minor variances in administrative location tagging or updated tax assessment values do not equate to non-declaration.
The testimony directly targeted claims previously made by prosecution witness Atty. Marco Pineda (acting Samal Register of Deeds). Pineda had stated that a P3.4-million Samal property acquired in 2018 by VP Duterte’s husband, Atty. Manases Carpio, was not reflected with matching details in her 2019 SALN. The defense's records aimed to demonstrate proper compliance and clarify property valuation and mapping details.
On the witness stand, Bajan said that a payment of P64,194.72 the Davao City Hall made to Duterte, a former city mayor, in 2023 was a salary differential (covering 2020 and 2021), rather than double compensation as alleged by the prosecution. The differential was a result of the Salary Standardization Law of 2019, or Republic Act No. 11466
She brought salary differential payroll registers for year 2020 at P31,718.64 and year 2021 at P31,476.08, alongside a December 30, 2022 disbursement voucher, all confirming that the City Hall owed Duterte the amount due to RA 11466, not because she received double compensation.
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Like the defense’s first and only witness on Day 40, James Adalin, Davao City assessor, Enumerables and Bajan testified smoothly, winning the day for the defense—at least for a moment.
It was a different story when prosecution lawyers Benjamin Tolosa and Mae Divinagracia took the floor for cross-examination.
Enumerables told Tolosa he was not certain whether the disputed Samal property in TCT No. 142-2019013134 was the exact same property declared in Duterte’s SALN, owing to the discrepancies in the address detailed in the SALN and the land certificate.
When pressed by the court, the assessor acknowledged his only basis for linking the two records was that they shared the same assessed value at P346,960 and market value at P4,956,600. He conceded he had no other proof because the title number and Assessment of Real Property number were not stated in the SALN.
Tolosa and the senator-judges highlighted what he called two major inconsistencies:
One, the location. The deed of sale and field appraisal reports listed the property in Barangay San Isidro, Kaputian District, whereas the TCT and SALN listed Barangay Matanos, Kaputian District (with questions raised over whether Matanos is an official barangay).
Second, Property value. The SALN listed an acquisition cost of P4,041,000 (acquired in 2013), while the deed of absolute sale showed a selling price of P3,453,849 executed on March 15, 2018.
Tolosa also questioned the authenticity and lack of signatures on a computer-generated tax map presented by the defense.
Meanwhile, Divinagracia pounded on Bajan’s professional background, beginning with her affiliation with an accounting firm whose leaders were close to the Dutertes.
Bajan confirmed her past appointments by then-Mayor Sara Duterte as Davao City accountant (2016), chairperson of the City Audit and Transition Teams for Barangays in 2018, and member of the Investigating Committee in 2020.
But she applied for the job. She didn’t get it for some political considerations, she said.
Bajan spent some 20 minutes flipping the pages of a document detailing the background of the accounting firm to the consternation of both Divinagracia and some senators-judges.
“'Pag hindi kayo nakakasagot, naiinis ang mga tao, kami rin,” said senator-judge Lito Lapid.
Before Lapid, there were others who expressed frustration over Bajan’s testimony: senator-judges Bam Aquino, Riza Hontiveros, Erwin and Raffy Tulfo, Joel Villanueva, among others.
It was obvious the defense at this point was losing some goodwill.
“You are on dangerous territory,” said Aquino.
“Kung sumagot kayo parang kayo ay may tinatago,” said Villanueva.
“I am sorry, your answers were unbelievable,” said Hontiveros.
Prosecution lawyers Tolosa and Divinagracia outdid themselves while they were on the other side of the fence, or while doing the cross-examination, not the direct examination.
But not without reason. “Yesterday, the witness was smirking,” said Raffy Tulfo. “Today, the witness was evasive.”
Both Raffy and Ping Lacson suggested citing the witness in contempt. Raffy accused Bajan of feigning ignorance.
Bajan’s silence or half-reply was indeed annoying. "Hindi ko po talaga maalala, Your Honor." She said she was not familiar with the documents. She would say it over and over again.
Divinagracia repeatedly flagged Bajan for glancing toward the defense table before answering questions and for giving non-responsive justifications instead of direct "yes" or "no" answers.
“The chair also noticed that,” said Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero, himself visibly frustrated. “My patience is getting thin.”
On interjection, Escudero got Bajan to confirm her capital and involvement in the accounting firm, and ordered her to directly answer the prosecution's questions without consulting or looking toward the defense team.
Lapid encouraged Bajan to speak only the truth, but only after asking if Bajan thought that the accounting firm had only used her. “Kasi andito ka, tapos wala kang alam, pati birthday mo nakalimutan mo.”
Throughout the trial, Tolosa and Divinagracia were persistent. Sometimes, they doth protest too much. One Duterte supporter called them court bullies, wondering if the two had forgotten that the witnesses were not on trial.
But Divinagracia was firm on the importance of establishing—or questioning—the credibility of a witness. She almost gave a lecture on the rules of court justifying her assertions, except that Escudero stopped her short.
Given the silence or no reply of the defense witnesses, Raffy recalled anew his previous question of whether the defense would call Duterte to take the witness stand.
The defense would reply to that at the proper time, said lead defense counsel Sheila Sison.
To settle all questions and discrepancies about Duterte’s SALN, said Raffy, who made quite a bewildering suggestion that Davao City Hall should have paid Duterte her salary differential as mayor after she shall have finished her term as vice president.
There are no discrepancies, said Sison, referring to the testimony of the defense witnesses.
But the prosecution and the frustrated senators had a different perspective.
“It has only been two days,” said Sison. The defense would look forward to a “more meaningful” day in court for their other witnesses.
Until then, the men and women watching the trial and looking forward to finding out the truth about Sara Duterte will have to keep their fingers crossed.
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.
WATCH: Boomers: Hirap mag-adjust o ayaw lang? (Generations Ep. 27)
October 28, 2026