Tolosa: GenCorp witness unaware of investment contract details

PRIVATE prosecutor Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. on Saturday said the GenCorp counsel presented by Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense had not seen the contract behind her “loose investment” and could not explain its terms.

At the Saturday News Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City, Tolosa questioned the basis of Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay’s explanation of the arrangement and payments to Duterte.

“Hindi naman niya nakita, mismo yung kontrata,” Tolosa said, recounting the witness’ answer during the trial.

“Kaya hindi din niya masabi kung ano yung terms niyan,” he added.

He said the testimony left questions about what the arrangement required and why payments were made.

“Ano ba yung terms of payment? Ano ba ang purpose niyan? Para saan ba yan?” Tolosa asked.

“Hindi din yan naipaliwanag ng witness,” he said.

The dispute involves a continuing investment arrangement linked to the Times Square Jollibee branch operated by GenCorp.

During the hearing, Punay distinguished the branch investment from registered shareholding in the corporation and described the payments as a return of capital.

Tolosa emphasized the prosecution’s position: the witness had acknowledged an ongoing financial interest and payments during Duterte’s vice presidency.

He also recalled questions about the difference between Duterte’s sworn asset declaration and GenCorp’s General Information Sheet (GIS), the corporate filing listing its shareholders and officers.

According to Tolosa, Duterte had declared a financial interest in GenCorp in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), while her name did not appear in the GIS.

He said a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) witness had raised a possible explanation involving an interest held in another person’s name.

“Ang sinabi ng witness na maaaring explanation, baka pwedeng held in trust yan,” Tolosa said.

He described an arrangement in which the registered holder and the person benefiting from the interest are different.

His account presented this as a possible explanation of the conflicting records.

Tolosa also linked the financial-interest question to GenCorp’s contracts with the Davao City government.

“Yan ang same entity, same corporation, na tumatanggap ng payments from Davao, yan din ang nagbibigay ng pera sa vice president,” he said.

He said senator-judges would assess whether the admitted arrangement violated the constitutional restriction on the Vice President holding direct or indirect financial interests in government contracts.