THE first defense witness in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial admitted on Monday that he could not verify whether a 379-square-meter property in Matina Crossing, Davao City, acquired by her husband, Manases Carpio, was the same residential lot declared in her 2024 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), despite earlier testifying that the properties matched city tax records.
Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin made the admission under questioning by Senator-Judge Bam Aquino during the 40th day of the impeachment trial, acknowledging that he had not checked all properties registered under Duterte and Carpio’s names in Barangay 74-A and could not establish how many properties the couple owned in the area.
Adalin said he examined only the property covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) ending in 0775 because it was the specific title identified in the subpoena issued by the impeachment court.
“Did you check all of Vice President Sara’s properties in Barangay 74-A? Or did you only check this particular lot? Did you check how many properties she actually has in Barangay 74-A?” Aquino asked.
“I did not check them anymore because the subpoena already specified the particular title ending in 0775,” Adalin replied.
Aquino pointed out that without examining the other properties in the barangay, Adalin could not establish whether the lot covered by the title was the couple’s only property in the area.
“So you cannot say that? Because if you had checked, you could have said that she owns only one property in Barangay 74-A. You cannot say that now?” Aquino asked.
“No, I cannot,” Adalin admitted.
Asked again whether he had checked how many properties were registered under Carpio and Duterte’s names in Barangay 74-A, the assessor replied, “I did not check.”
Adalin said the Electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration (eCAR) and the previous tax declaration could be used as references in determining whether the property was reflected in Duterte’s SALN.
The admission followed a lengthy cross-examination by House private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr., who questioned whether the defense had sufficiently established that the property covered by the TCT was the same residential lot declared in Duterte’s SALN.
Tolosa presented an eCAR dated July 24, 2024, covering a property in Huna Subdivision, Matina Crossing, Talomo, Davao City. The document indicated that Carpio purchased the 379-square-meter lot, including its existing improvements, for P6 million.
The prosecutor compared the transaction with Duterte’s 2024 SALN, in which she declared a residential lot valued at P10 million.
Tolosa questioned the absence of specific property identifiers in the SALN, including block and lot numbers, street names, and land coordinates.
When asked whether these details appeared in the document, Adalin acknowledged, “That is not indicated there.”
The prosecution also challenged Adalin’s identification of the property after presenting a street-view photograph and asking whether it showed the same property covered by the TCT.
“I’m not quite sure, sir,” Adalin replied.
When Tolosa clarified that the photograph, taken in July 2025, showed the establishment now known as Davao’s Prime Bistro, Adalin again expressed uncertainty.
“I’m not sure,” he said.
Tolosa also called attention to Adalin’s repeated use of the word “probably” when explaining the relationship between the tax declarations and the eCAR.
“You’re quite fond of using the word probably, but again, we don’t have to venture into probabilities. Let’s talk about facts,” Tolosa told the witness.
At another point, Tolosa pressed Adalin to directly answer whether Duterte’s SALN included the tax declarations that could help establish the actual locations of the properties.
“Sir, this is very simple. Let’s not beat around the bush. My question is very straightforward,” Tolosa said.
Defense lawyer Lindon Bacquel interjected, saying the question had already been answered, but Presiding Officer Francis Escudero disagreed.
“Not yet answered, attorney Lindon,” Escudero said.
The prosecution’s questioning contrasted with Adalin’s earlier testimony during the defense’s direct examination, when he confirmed that properties listed in Duterte’s SALN corresponded to tax declarations maintained by his office.
Defense counsel Bacquel presented Duterte’s SALN as of Dec. 31, 2025, and asked Adalin to verify the declared properties against the assessor’s records.
Adalin confirmed that the residential lot in Barangay 74-A, with an assessed value of P82,046, and a commercial building in the same barangay corresponded to the tax declarations on file with his office.
Escudero also asked whether the residential property, with a market value of P2,051,150 and an assessed value of P82,046, was the same property being presented by the defense.
“Yes, it is the same property, Your Honor,” Adalin said, based on the tax declaration.
Adalin subsequently confirmed that the property in Matina Crossing was the same property declared in Duterte’s SALN, explaining that Matina Crossing and Barangay 74-A referred to the same location.
However, when Bacquel asked whether his confirmation meant there was no basis for the prosecution’s claim that the property had not been properly identified in the SALN, Tolosa objected, arguing that the question called for an opinion.
Escudero sustained the objection.
The proceedings also revisited the discrepancy between the P6-million purchase price indicated in the deed of sale and the P10-million amount declared in Duterte’s 2024 SALN.
Asked to explain the difference, Adalin said he did not know.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian also questioned how Adalin established that the property in Barangay 74-A was the same one declared in Duterte’s SALN, noting that the disclosure document did not contain a title number or tax declaration number.
Adalin said he based his identification partly on the property’s assessed value of P82,046, its market value, and an electronic record showing the previous tax declaration.
Gatchalian also questioned the property’s classification, emphasizing that actual use, rather than zoning designation alone, should determine whether a property should be classified as residential or commercial.
He pointed out that the establishment shown during the proceedings was being used as a dining business.
Adalin confirmed that the building belonged to Carpio and stood on the property covered by the TCT ending in 0775. However, he clarified that he had not personally inspected the establishment and had instead instructed technical personnel from his office to verify the property.
Gatchalian further noted that several lots in the subdivision appeared to have similar shapes and dimensions, raising the possibility that other properties could have comparable assessed and market values.
Adalin agreed that this was possible.
Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva, meanwhile, sought to distinguish the property’s assessed value, market value, and actual acquisition cost.
Adalin explained that his office determines assessed values based on the approved schedule of market values and the applicable ordinance but does not independently verify the actual purchase price paid by buyers.
Villanueva also confirmed with the witness that the property’s assessed value of P82,046 had been carried over from the previous owner’s tax declaration when the property was transferred to Carpio.
Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan subsequently challenged Adalin over his changing statements about whether photographs shown during the proceedings depicted the same property identified in Duterte’s SALN and the deed of sale.
Pangilinan said Adalin had initially expressed uncertainty about a photograph showing Prime Dining but later became certain about the property’s identity after consulting personnel from his office.
Adalin explained that he was certain about a separate photograph without the business sign because it matched the images submitted by the city’s appraisers.
“The picture shown earlier without the business name — that is the one I am certain about. That is indeed the property,” Adalin said.
Pangilinan nevertheless questioned the consistency of the witness’s testimony.
“Clearly, there are inconsistencies in your testimonies. Forgive me, engineer, but you say one thing and then you say another. So, we are wondering: What is really true in what you are saying?” he said.
Senator-Judge Imee Marcos also examined the discrepancy between the P6-million consideration in the deed of sale and the P10-million acquisition cost declared in Duterte’s SALN, raising questions about whether additional transaction expenses could account for the difference.
Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo, meanwhile, suggested that the impeachment court compare the property titles side by side to determine whether the lot declared in Duterte’s SALN was identical to the property covered by the title presented during the proceedings.
The Matina Crossing property is among the assets examined under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which concerns allegations of unexplained and undeclared wealth against Duterte.
Records presented during the trial showed that Carpio acquired the 379-square-meter property on July 2, 2024, for P6 million. The couple subsequently mortgaged it to Philippine Savings Bank for P8 million on Aug. 27, 2024.
The Davao City Register of Deeds had earlier reported finding no matching entry in Duterte’s 2025 SALN based on the property’s price, location, and mode of acquisition.
The defense, meanwhile, has maintained that Matina Crossing and Barangay 74-A refer to the same location.
Adalin, who has served as Davao City assessor since his appointment by then-mayor Sara Duterte in 2017, was presented by the defense to testify on the city’s tax declarations, property records, and tax maps concerning the disputed property.
Forensic accountant Alexander Cabrera, former chairman of PwC Philippines, earlier estimated that Duterte and Carpio accumulated P817.87 million in allegedly undeclared assets and income between 2022 and 2025. He testified that the figure could approach P1.5 billion under less conservative assumptions.
Cabrera’s property subtotal alone reached P143.50 million, covering real estate, insurance, investments, firearms, and corporate equity.
Duterte declared a net worth of P98.66 million at year-end 2025, an increase of P26.99 million from 2022.
Although Cabrera referenced the Matina Crossing transaction, noting that the couple declared P10 million in the SALN and P16.5 million in a bank loan application, he excluded the property’s value from his final undeclared-wealth estimate pending clear identification.
‘Weakness’ for defense
House prosecutors said Adalin was more of a liability than an asset to the defense.
“He’s not a witness but a weakness,” Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua said in a briefing on Day 40 of the proceedings, pointing to what he tagged as “very glaring” inconsistencies in Adalin’s statements.
“We all saw the defense’s first witness — and what a liar he turned out to be. Right from the start, it was clear how he tried to defend his claims,” he added in Filipino.
This was echoed by prosecution spokesman and Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong who said Adalin “failed miserably” to weaken the prosecution’s case.
“He wants to save the vice president by making up stories. He’s not only biased but he is also very incompetent,” Adiong said.
“The statement of the witness of the defense did not hurt the prosecution. It strengthened the case of the prosecution,” he added.
Adiong asserted that Adalin was trying to protect Duterte rather than resolve the disputed details.
Davao City’s published description of the assessor’s office lists tax mapping, property appraisal and maintenance of assessment records among its functions.
Chua said Adalin should have answered directly from the records.
“The sad part is, instead of responding based on facts, he had to resort to making excuses and lying,” he said.
