HOUSE lead prosecutor Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro of Batangas has said it was clear that there were alleged disparities between a property that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte declared in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) and the official records kept by the government.
In what should have been an opportunity for Duterte’s defense lawyers to explain certain entries in her SALNs, Luistro said the testimony further strengthened the prosecution’s position that the vice president allegedly made inaccurate or untruthful declarations in her SALNs.
The said property was listed by the vice president as a residential lot in Barangay 74A in Davao City that was acquired for P10 million based on her 2024 SALN.
On the first day of the defense panel’s presentation of evidence and witnesses, City Assessor of Davao City, Engineer Jaime Adalin testified on property records involving Barangay 74-A, also known as Matina Crossing, where a property registered under the name of Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, is located.
“Of course we are so positive because the prosecution was able to point out very well the disparity between the property described in the SALN, vis-a-vis the property described in the title, the deed of sale, at may pahabol pa, the picture,” Luistro said in a press conference after Monday’s trial.
During his cross-examination of Adalin, prosecution counsel Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. presented details of the deed of absolute sale and the Electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration (eCAR) issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which indicated that Carpio purchased the property for P6 million in July 2024.
Tolosa pointed out that the property covered by the transaction was not merely a residential lot, as described in Duterte’s SALN, but land with improvements.
The prosecution has alleged that the property purchased by Carpio in Matina Crossing was not properly declared in Duterte’s SALN. Adalin, however, confirmed that Barangay 74-A and Matina Crossing referred to the same area but could not conclusively establish that the property covered by the title was the same one declared in the vice president’s SALN.
Tolosa also presented a photograph purportedly showing the property in its more recent state, with a building bearing the signage “Prime Bistro.”
The prosecution questioned the residential classification of the property in light of the photograph showing what appeared to be a commercial establishment.
Luistro said it was highly unlikely that Adalin could verify that the property in Barangay 74A with the Prime Bistro signage and the property listed by the vice president in her SALN were the same.
“Because the property is described merely by acquisition cost, by assessed value, and by location of barangay in the SALN. No way that the witness will be able to verify that that is the same property subject matter of the title and the deed of sale, which was presented by the prosecution,” Luistro said.
Luistro took note of the question raised by Senate Impeachment Court presiding officer, Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero, if it is possible that the property that Adalin claimed was the same one listed in the SALN was not the same property, to which the city assessor replied in the affirmative.
“So in conclusion, there was no way for the witness to actually verify that the property described in the SALN is the same property presented by the prosecution,” Luistro said.
metrosundaily
