THE DEFENSE OPENED WITH THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DECLARATION

Defense lawyer Lindon Bacquel called Adalin to challenge the prosecution’s allegation that Duterte had failed to disclose a property in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or SALN.

As city assessor, Adalin works with property assessments, tax declarations and certifications drawn from assessment records. The defense presented him to explain documents concerning a property in Matina Crossing, Davao City, linked to Duterte’s husband, Manases Carpio.

Prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa questioned whether Adalin could establish that the property covered by the land title was the same asset listed in Duterte’s SALN. He also objected to the defense’s characterization of the prosecution’s allegation as malicious and false.

The questioning focused on the connection between the land title, tax declarations and SALN entry.

ADALIN IDENTIFIED MATINA CROSSING AS BARANGAY 74-A

Adalin testified that Matina Crossing and Barangay 74-A refer to the same barangay in Davao City. The location descriptions were part of the dispute over whether the property had been declared.

He referred to local records and the barangay’s identification in explaining the two names. The defense used his testimony to address the difference between the location stated in the property documents and the location appearing in the SALN.

Prosecutors continued to challenge whether the records identified the same parcel. Their objection concerned the specific property covered by the title, beyond the barangay in which it was located.

HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERING AMOUNTS

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero asked about a ₱6-million purchase price in the deed of sale and a ₱10-million value in the SALN entry being discussed. Adalin said he was not aware of the explanation for the difference.

The defense presented tax declarations to support its position that the disputed property had been disclosed. Prosecutors questioned whether those documents sufficiently connected the property acquired by Carpio with the asset declared in Duterte’s SALN.

When Bacquel asked Adalin whether there was no truth to the allegation that Duterte had failed to declare the property, the prosecution objected. Escudero sustained the objection.

Adalin did not provide an explanation for the differing amounts during that exchange.

QUESTIONS ABOUT A CHINA TRIP DREW A WARNING

During cross-examination, Tolosa asked Adalin about an allegedly all-expenses-paid trip to China. Adalin initially said he could not recall and questioned the relevance of the inquiry.

Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III said the question could help assess the witness’s credibility. Escudero pressed Adalin on whether he could not remember the trip itself or only its date. Adalin indicated that it was the date he could not recall.

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo criticized the shifting answers, reminded Adalin that he was under oath and warned that he could be cited for contempt.

The exchange concerned the reliability of Adalin’s answers as a witness. The warning itself did not establish a contempt conviction or a finding of perjury.

THE REMAINING IMPEACHMENT CHARGE IS STILL UNRESOLVED

The defense is answering the remaining article involving alleged unexplained wealth, incomplete asset disclosure and business interests. The prosecution withdrew the other three articles in October. Duterte denies wrongdoing.

Adalin’s testimony addressed a disputed property declaration. It did not resolve the entire financial case, which includes other records and allegations that the senator-judges must assess.

The court had previously admitted financial and property documents while reserving judgment on their weight and whether they prove the allegations. Those documents remain subject to examination alongside the testimony from both sides.

Duterte’s own appearance as a witness also remains undecided. Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said Monday that it was too early to say whether she would testify.