VICE President Sara Duterte received more than P2.14 million over four years from a Davao City Jollibee branch, for what GenCorp Industries Inc.’s lawyer described as a “loose investment” in which no paper records were kept on how much she originally invested in the business.
Testifying on Day 42 of the vice president’s impeachment trial, defense witness Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel of GenCorp and Metro City Chow Foods Corp., said Duterte’s alleged investment was limited to the Jollibee Times Square branch in Davao City and did not give her an ownership stake in GenCorp, which operates the outlet.
She said Duterte held a 20-percent stake in a company operating a Chowking branch in Davao City while she was already vice president, but took no part in its management or business operations from 2022 to 2025.
The vice president was one of the incorporators of Metro City Chow Foods Corp., holding a 20-percent shareholding equivalent to P50,000 in subscribed capital and P12,500 in paid-up capital, Balucanag-Punay testified.
Prosecutors were gratified by the admission, pointing out that this confirmed what they have been saying, that the vice president kept her business interests while in public office, even though this is prohibited under the Constitution.
What is a loose investment?
Pressed by Presiding Officer Francis Escudero to explain the nature and basis of the investment in the Jollibee Times Square branch, Balucanag-Punay admitted she could neither verify Duterte’s original contribution nor produce documents supporting it.
“There are no written records for this investment,” she said.
Escudero questioned why GenCorp had been making payments to Duterte if the amount and nature of her alleged investment could not be established.
“So why is GenCorp giving a monthly amount to the vice president from the Times Square branch from June 2022, presumably when the branch was opened, and then nothing from January to April in 2024, but monthly for the years 23 and 25?” Escudero asked. “You characterized it as a return of capital. What’s the basis of giving her anything?” Balucanag-Punay said the payments represented a return of capital from what she described as a “loose investment” carried over from the previous operator to subsequent companies.
She explained that the alleged investment came from contributions Duterte made to Davao Bounty Times Foods Corp. in 2007, before the actual commencement of operations of Jollibee Times Square. The company previously operated the outlet.
When Escudero asked how much Duterte had contributed and what documents supported the investment, the witness admitted she could furnish neither detail.
Escudero further asked whether the witness could establish the basis for describing the payments as a return on investment or determine the actual nature of Duterte’s alleged interest in the branch.
“So you don’t know whether she was being given a return on investment, and you also don’t know the nature of her alleged loose investment in Times Square? Would that be correct?” Escudero asked.
“Yes, Your Honor,” Balucanag-Punay replied.
Asked why she attributed the payments specifically to Duterte’s Times Square investment rather than to an interest in other Jollibee branches, the witness pointed to the checks issued through the branch’s bank account.
Balucanag-Punay also disclosed that Duterte received P337,500 from GenCorp in 2022, P555,750 in 2023, P612,419.14 in 2024 and P636,700 in 2025.
The payments totaled P2,142,369.14 over the four-year period, according to a transaction summary prepared by the company’s accountant and presented during the witness’ testimony.
She added that the disbursements were made through checks issued by GenCorp and represented returns of capital from Duterte’s alleged investment in the Times Square branch.
Her testimony disputed a prosecution forensic report that attributed P55,714,292 in alleged undeclared GenCorp income to Duterte in 2023.
Defense counsel Justin Nicol Gular presented a portion of the report prepared by prosecution forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera, which placed Duterte’s alleged undeclared income from GenCorp at P55.7 million for that year.
Balucanag-Punay rejected the computation, saying Duterte received only P555,750 from GenCorp in 2023.
Earlier in her testimony, she said Duterte had no shareholdings or corporate position in GenCorp from 2022 to 2025.
Asked by Gular how many shares Duterte owned in the company, she answered: “None.” She also denied that the vice president served as an officer or director of GenCorp during the period.
Her testimony contradicted Cabrera’s forensic report, which attributed a 20-percent ownership interest in GenCorp to Duterte.
Referring to Table 25 and Annex E of the report, Balucanag-Punay said the findings were inaccurate and inconsistent with the company’s corporate records.
“I think it is incorrect because you cannot attribute 20 percent to the vice president because she has no shareholdings in GenCorp,” she said.
The exchange prompted private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan to question the witness’ qualifications and personal knowledge in disputing the findings of a forensic financial expert.
Gular countered that Balucanag-Punay was not being asked to provide a competing expert opinion but to explain facts based on her knowledge of the company’s records.
Kapunan also questioned Balucanag-Punay about Duterte’s declaration in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) that she was a GenCorp stockholder.
In her 2024 and 2025 SALNs, Duterte declared herself a stockholder of GenCorp, with 2013 indicated as the year she acquired the interest or connection.
Kapunan asked whether only Duterte could explain why she identified herself as a GenCorp shareholder despite the witness’ testimony that she had no shareholdings in the corporation.
“So only the vice president can explain why she listed herself as a GenCorp shareholder?” Kapunan asked.
“She can answer,” Balucanag-Punay replied.
Kapunan also pointed out that GenCorp had not issued a public statement clarifying that Duterte had no ownership interest in the company.
Asked why Duterte declared herself a GenCorp stockholder if she was not one, Balucanag-Punay said she could not answer for the vice president. She maintained that Duterte’s unilateral declaration would not make her a GenCorp stockholder.
Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson also questioned Balucanag-Punay about the evidentiary weight of Duterte’s SALN compared with GenCorp’s official corporate records filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Lacson asked which carried greater admissibility and probative weight: an admission against interest or official public documents such as the company’s General Information Sheet.
“The SEC records, Your Honor,” Balucanag-Punay answered.
Lacson countered that an admission against interest carried greater probative weight under Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
“I know someone who was sent to prison based on an admission made on television. This one is even notarized — the SALN,” Lacson said, referring to Duterte’s sworn asset declarations in which she identified herself as having interests in companies including GenCorp.
Balucanag-Punay identified GenCorp as a domestic corporation engaged in the fast-food business, operating five Jollibee branches in Davao City: Bolton, Matina Crossing, Gaisano Mall, Times Square and Abreeza.
She said GenCorp acquired the outlets from different companies that previously operated them.
The witness testified that Duterte had no shareholdings, financial interests or capital contributions in Jolly A Foods Corp., the former operator of the Bolton branch.
For the Matina Crossing outlet, she identified Southern Bee Foods Corp. as the previous owner and likewise denied that Duterte had any shareholdings or interest in the company or branch.
She also denied that Duterte had interests in the previous owners of the Gaisano Mall and Abreeza branches.
For the Times Square outlet, however, she clarified that Duterte had a separate investment through her earlier involvement with Davao Bounty Times Foods Corp., but did not own shares in GenCorp.
She said that GenCorp did not declare or distribute dividends from 2022 to 2025.
Prosecution: Witness helped us Members of the House prosecution panel on Wednesday maintained that the defense’s latest witness further strengthened their impeachment case against Vice President Duterte instead of weakening it.
In Day 42 of the trial, prosecutors said Balucanag-Punay’s testimony confirmed that Duterte continued to have a business interest in a private firm while serving as the second-highest elected official in government.
“Thank you very much, because she confirmed our claim that the vice president has an interest, as she receives monthly payments from GenCorp Industries,” trial spokesman and Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said in Filipino in a briefing.
He further noted that Balucanag-Punay acknowledged what the prosecution has been pointing out from the start that Duterte kept her business interests even though this is prohibited under the Constitution and that she was receiving compensation for this investment, which she did not declare in her SALNs.
“So, that’s very clear. By receiving anything other than her salary, any form of emoluments, any compensation, any financial packages, for that matter, while she is serving as vice president, is a culpable violation of the Constitution,” Adiong said.
Meanwhile, prosecutor and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua said the monthly disbursements to Duterte may be considered as bribes considering that she is the sitting vice president and should not be receiving any compensation other than her own salary.
“What is the monthly contribution for? Doesn’t this seem like bribery? Because first of all, we know that GenCorp has business transactions in Davao. So, instead of being able to rebut the things they wanted to rebut that were presented by the prosecution, they are even more entangled,” Chua said.
“I actually thought she was our witness. So, clearly, it seems that even she herself got confused by her own statements,” he added, and stressed that Balucanag-Punay offered nothing substantial to challenge the prosecution’s evidence of alleged unexplained wealth.
The panel maintained that Duterte must explain discrepancies between her declared assets, business interests and financial records under Article II, the remaining impeachment charge involving her alleged unexplained wealth.
