Witness says Manases Carpio’s Davao lot in VP’s SALN

MANILA, Philippines — A Davao City assessor on Monday testified that a 379-square-meter property in Matina Crossing owned by lawyer Manases Carpio, husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, was the same residential lot declared in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), disputing the prosecution’s claim that the property was omitted from her disclosure.

Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin, the first witness presented by Duterte’s defense lawyers when her impeachment trial resumed, told the Senate impeachment court that the Matina Crossing property was covered by the title presented during the proceedings and corresponded to the SALN entry under Barangay 74-A, Davao City.

“Yes, Your Honor, that is the same property,” Adalin told presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero.

Article continues after this advertisement

The SALN entry cited by Escudero lists a residential lot in Barangay 74-A with an assessed value of P82,046, a fair market value of P2,051,150 and an acquisition cost of P10 million.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Adalin said the fair market value matched the figure in the tax declaration for Carpio’s property, which was canceled after the sale.

The defense maintains that the parcel questioned by prosecutors was already disclosed in Duterte’s SALN. The prosecution, however, argues that the documents do not establish that the SALN entry refers to the same land covered by Carpio’s title.

READ: Defense witness in impeach trial lying through his teeth – Sen. Tulfo

Duterte is being tried only on Article 2 of the articles of impeachment, which accuses her of unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in her SALNs.

Article continues after this advertisement

The prosecution withdrew three of the four articles on Oct. 13, leaving the unexplained wealth charge for trial.

Same barangay

Escudero asked how Adalin determined that the property listed in the SALN as being in Barangay 74-A was the 379-sq-m lot in Matina Crossing.

Article continues after this advertisement

Adalin cited the tax declaration, which carried the same fair market value of P2,051,150. He said it was the declaration canceled after the property was sold.

READ: Defense witness’ answers in Sara Duterte trial irk Erwin Tulfo

Pressed for other evidence linking the two records, Adalin said the assessor’s office checked the city’s comprehensive land use plan, an ordinance implementing the plan and records at the barangay office.

“Matina Crossing, 74-A,” Adalin said, describing how the area was identified in the land-use records. He added that photographs attached to barangay records also identified the location as Barangay 74-A, Matina Crossing.

Escudero clarified whether Matina Crossing and Barangay 74-A referred to the same barangay, with the latter being its current name.

“Yes, Your Honor,” Adalin replied.

The testimony directly challenged the prosecution’s earlier presentation of two property registrars who said Carpio’s landholdings were not reflected in Duterte’s SALN.

During the Oct. 1 hearing, Davao City Register of Deeds IV Kathy Florence Baldonado testified that Carpio had acquired a 379-sq-m lot in Juna Subdivision, Matina Crossing, Talomo, Davao City, which she said was not declared in the Vice President’s SALN.

Samal Deputy Register of Deeds III Marco Pineda also testified that Carpio bought a separate 751-sq-m property in Matanos for P3,453,849 on March 15, 2018. Pineda said no entry in Duterte’s SALN perfectly matched the deed of absolute sale for that property.

Prosecution challenges

Prosecution counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. questioned Adalin’s identification of the Matina property, presenting Google Maps images of the location.

Adalin confirmed that a satellite image pinpointed the property being discussed. But when Tolosa showed a street-level image and asked whether it depicted the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 146-22024010775, Adalin said he was not sure.

Tolosa then presented what he described as a more recent image showing a building bearing the sign “Prime Bistro.” Adalin again said he could not be certain that it was the same property.

Adalin explained that market value and assessed value were not necessarily the same.

“The value of a property differs from the assessment conducted by assessors. Assessors follow a schedule of market values, which is in accordance with an issued ordinance,” he said in Filipino.

Asked whether the building could be classified as commercial, Adalin said classification depended on its actual use, which assessors determine through inspection.

“It depends on the usage. Again, our basis is the actual use following an inspection of the building. There are instances where a building is classified as commercial, but it is being used for residential purposes,” he said.

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo questioned the explanation, saying the Prime Bistro signage indicated a commercial establishment.

“It already says Prime Bistro. It’s a commercial term when it’s called Prime Bistro,” Tulfo said, adding that Adalin’s explanation made it appear that the witness was misleading the impeachment court.

Building ownership

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian then asked whether Adalin had personally inspected the property. The assessor said he had instructed technical staff to visit the location and that they confirmed it was the property being discussed.

Although he said he had not noticed the bistro signage, Adalin confirmed that the building belonged to Carpio.

“That’s correct,” he replied when Gatchalian asked whether Carpio owned the building.

Adalin also affirmed that the building stood on the property covered by the title ending in 0775 and was connected to the tax declaration presented by the defense.

Price discrepancy

Despite Adalin’s identification of the property, the prosecution has also questioned the discrepancy in its declared acquisition cost.

Duterte’s SALN lists the property’s acquisition cost at P10 million, while the deed of sale and electronic certificate authorizing registration reportedly indicate a purchase price of P6 million.

Tolosa opposed the defense’s reliance on Adalin, arguing that the assessor could not establish that the property in the SALN was the same one covered by Carpio’s title.

“There’s no way that this witness could prove that that property indicated in the SALN is the same property covered by the subject TCT,” Tolosa said.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

At most, the prosecutor argued, Adalin could establish that the properties were in the same barangay, which would not resolve what he described as a “glaring discrepancy” between the records. /cb