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

MANILA, Philippines— Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo on Monday accused a defense witness  of “lying through his teeth” during   the 40th day of  the impeachment  trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. 

Davao City Assessor Engr. Jaime Adalin took the witness stand in relation to the remaining article of impeachment against  Duterte, which accuses her of amassing unexplained wealth and failing to truthfully declare all her assets. 

During his cross-examination of the witness,  prosecution counsel and spokesperson Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr., showed Adalin Google Maps views of a property in  Matina Crossing, Davao City allegedly belonging to Duterte’s husband, Atty. Manases Carpio.

Article continues after this advertisement

This property, however, was not declared in Duterte’s statement of  assets, liabilities and net worth,  according to the prosecution.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

One of the three images showed a building bearing the signage “Prime Bistro.”

Tolosa then asked the witness to assess the property, and if it could be qualified as residential.

When defense counsel Atty. Lindon Miguel Bacquel raised an objection, the prosecutor argued that he just wanted to test the credibility of the witness “considering that he has been  dodging questions left and right.”

Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero then directed Adalin to answer the question.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Tulad nga ng sinabi ko, hindi ko naman alam kung yan ba yung subject property,”  the witness said.

(As I said, I do not know whether that is the subject property.)

Article continues after this advertisement

“Pero sa pananaw ninyo, bilang assessor, residential po ba ito o hindi? We’re not talking of the same property, Engineer Jimmy. Pag may nakita po kayo ganitong uri ng building, ang tingin nyo po ba dito ay residential o commercial?”  Escudero asked.

(But in your opinion, as an assessor, would you consider this residential or not? We’re not talking about the same property, Engineer Jimmy. If you were to see a building like this, would you classify it as residential or commercial?)

“Depende po yan kung ano yung gamit. Again, our basis is the actual use after inspection of the building. There are times na commercial ang building pero ang gamit is residential so magkakaiba po yan,” Adalin answered.

(It depends on how the property is being used. Again, our basis is the actual use after inspection of the building. There are times that a building is classified as commercial but is actually being used for residential purposes, so it varies from case to case.)

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo later pursued the issue, pointing out that the signage clearly indicates that the  building was a commercial property.

“Natawa ako kanina, Mr. Presiding Officer. Nakalagay na nga yung Prime Bistro. Commercial yun, pag sinabing Prime Bistro. And yet sabi niya, commercial pero ginagamit residential,” Tulfo said.

(“I couldn’t help but laugh earlier, Mr. Presiding Officer. It clearly says ‘Prime Bistro.’ That’s commercial, if you ask me. And yet, he said that while the building is commercial, it is being used for residential purposes.”)

“He’s lying through his teeth, lumilitaw. Na para bang pinagloloko tayo, Mr. Presiding Officer…” he added.

(He’s clearly lying through his teeth. It’s as if he’s trying to make a fool of us, Mr. Presiding Officer…)

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian agreed that since the building was clearly used as a restaurant, then it should be classified as a commercial property.

“So kahit  na residential ang zoning, pero ang pinagaggamitan ay restaurant e  dapat  i-classify yan as commercial,” Gatchalian said.

(So even if the property is zoned residential, if it is being used as a restaurant, it should be classified as commercial.) /gsg