Duterte impeachment trial Day 43
[ANALYSIS] Defense asks witnesses: 'Will you lie for Sara Duterte?'
The defense in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took the upper hand on Day 43, with some senator-judges even expressing support for its sixth witness.
Lawyer Anel Martin Antero and businessman Chadrin Parian, the fifth and sixth witnesses for the defense, appeared in court in the hope of shattering allegations by prosecution witness, lawyer-CPA Alex Cabrera that Duterte’s husband, lawyer Mans Carpio, has lived an incredibly ostentatious life as a result of his and his wife’s supposed amassed wealth.
On the witness stand in October, Cabrera claimed in a forensic report that Carpio had used his credit card in Tokyo to pay for a Japanese meal involving some 11 friends. According to him, the bill amounted to an equivalent of P205,007.29.
He likewise claimed that Carpio used his credit card again to foot the bill for dozens of pairs of Nike shoes for a team of Filipino basketball players who competed and won a tournament in Malaysia.
He said Carpio had at least two credit cards, but it was not clear which one he used for which transaction.
The defense had described Cabrera’s report as wild, preposterous, full of conjectures, especially after Cabrera admitted that he had little time and limited access to documents while preparing for it.
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Antero and Parian’s appearances were short, but they turned the tables at last for the defense. Unlike in the cases of the defense’s first four witnesses, the senators were not hostile to Antero and Parian. Several senators even praised Parian for supporting the basketball team, particularly his son, among them Pia Cayetano, Migz Zubiri, Joel Villanueva, Robin Padilla, and even Chiz Escudero. The others kept their peace.
They delivered their testimonies in court smoothly and calmly, without any unnecessary facial expressions.
Antero is a lawyer and has known Duterte since 2004. He has been supportive of her political career; his personal Facebook account said it all. He met Carpio in law school in 1998. He and Carpio shared a bond as fellow Masons, and had travelled together on many occasions.
Antero said he treated Carpio “as a brother.” He worked at Carpio's law firm where he received compensation, and that he was part of Duterte’s legal team for other cases filed against her.
WITNESS CALLED TO EXPLAIN HUGE JAPAN CREDIT CARD CHARGE Atty. Anel Antero took the witness stand to testify about the circumstances surrounding a ₱205,007.29 credit card charge at Ginza Inakaya in Tokyo, Japan, on May 19, 2023. Antero was with VP Sara Duterte’s husband, Atty. Manases Carpio, in Japan on that date. 📷: Screenshots / Senate PH YouTube
— PhilSTAR L!fe (@philstarlife) November 12, 2026
When Carpio used his card in Japan, the lawyer gave details without any hesitation. It happened in May 2023, a year after Duterte assumed the vice presidency.
On the witness stand, Antero said he, Carpio, and some other fellow lawyers and Masons flew to Japan on vacation in May 2023.
On one occasion, they dined at Inakaya Ginza. They were all “surprised” when the bill exceeded P200,000, covering food and drinks. It should probably not be surprising at all since they were 11 in the group, possibly male-dominated.
Why did Carpio foot the bill? Because several members of the group had run out of Japanese money by that time, they asked Carpio if he could advance the payment, and they agreed to reimburse him afterward. “Nag-chip in kami,” he said. He later paid Carpio for his share.
But he had no proof of his payment, he told prosecution lawyer Virgil Ligutan, who asked for a receipt.
That was awkward, to say the least. Among close friends, would you ask for a receipt from a friend who had initially paid for your meal?
It prompted Ligutan to deliver a lecture on laws prohibiting public officials from leading what he called a luxurious life, stretching it even further by saying that a Filipino everyman could hardly afford a decent meal.
Escudero had to cut Ligutan short, saying that Carpio was a lawyer and a businessman, and that his wife’s last declared SALN amounted to P88 million. “They could afford it,” he said.
Ligutan tried to pin down Antero for his opinion on the Duterte impeachment. To have an opinion, is that a crime? So many people watching the trial thought Ligutan was just nitpicking, for lack of better things to ask.
Carpio's P256k Nike purchase for Filipino athletes
On the witness stand, Parian said his son and about nine other children flew to Kuala Lumpur for a basketball competition. The families of these children were not as well off as the others. He paid for his family’s tickets, except for that of the son athlete, which was paid for by the organizer.
Parian told the court that the team won the championship. They celebrated their victory with a KL tour, including its Chinatown and a mall where they saw nice pairs of Nike shoes.
He said some of the team members could afford the new pairs of shoes; the others could not.
Parian personally witnessed the children choosing their shoes in the store and Carpio paying for them at the counter, he said.
WITNESS TO EXPLAIN ₱256,882 NIKE PURCHASE IN MALAYSIA Chadrin Parian was called to the witness stand to testify on the circumstances surrounding a ₱256,882.50 credit card charge by Atty. Manases Carpio at the Nike Pavilion in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 📷: Screenshots / Senate PH YouTube
— PhilSTAR L!fe (@philstarlife) November 12, 2026
As a symbol of goodwill, Carpio used his card to pay for the shoes of the team members and their families, which in all amounted to P256,882.50.
Prosecution lawyer Reynaldo Robles questioned Parian about the purchase, touching on whether such a large expenditure reflects a modest lifestyle expected of public officials.
It didn’t sit well with some senator-judges.
One by one, they stood up and gave Robles a dressing-down.
Cayetano, Zubiri, Villanueva, Padilla, and even Escudero pushed back against the prosecution's focus on the purchase of the shoes and defended the support for Filipino athletes.
An athlete, Cayetano minced no words, showing disdain for the prosecution's line of questioning, apologizing for becoming emotional during the hearing.
She asked whether a parent was expected to stop supporting their child's team simply because their spouse is a public official, noting that young athletes need help and are far from being "nepo babies."
Zubiri defended Carpio's support for student-athletes, citing his own experience with the Philippine Arnis team, noting that helping athletes compete locally and abroad was a common practice. He urged the prosecution to move on to more substantive issues.
Villanueva questioned the prosecution's focus on footwear given to youth champions who represented the Philippines internationally. He shared that he has personally bought Nike shoes for about 30 athletes and former teammates at his alma mater, the University of Sto. Tomas and in the Senate. “Baka maging guilty din ho ako.”
Padilla pushed back against the prosecution's argument that Carpio's purchase violated the “simple and modest life” expected of public officials' families and asked them to take a look at the House members. "Siguro po, dapat una nating tingnan 'yung mga kasama natin dahil may kasabihan nga po tayo, ‘Tingnan muna natin 'yung mga kasama natin bago tayo kumahol,'" he said, later adding, "Sana alamin na natin talaga kung sino talaga dito 'yung nabubuhay talaga ng may P16 million, may P22 million, may maraming bahay dito."
Escudero echoed Zubiri's call to wrap up the discussion on the shoe purchase, jokingly telling the chamber, "Move on na nga, 'di ba? Kasasabi lang ni Senator Migz na move on na eh."
The trial ended that way—in a light mode, lighter than how the trial was held the last three days.
It was about Carpio’s lifestyle, not about his alleged accumulated wealth.
Perhaps, because the prosecution looked at Cabrera’s testimony as its crowning glory, it found itself trapped in his findings.
The defense found it an opportune time to turn the tables in its favor by destroying that part of Cabrera’s testimony as a prelude to destroying it in full.
It is a traditional common-law legal maxim that if a witness is found to have deliberately lied about one material fact during testimony, his entire testimony can be disregarded as untruthful or lacking credibility.
Defense lawyers Lindon Bacquel and Justin Gular asked Antero and Padrian if they would lie for Duterte or Carpio.
They both said no. “I am a lawyer,” said Antero, “and I am under oath.”
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: Can you still trust someone who betrayed you? (Generations Ep. 22)
September 23, 2026
WATCH: Good parent ka ba? (Generations Ep. 28)
November 4, 2026