VP SALN questioned over Davao restaurant
A Davao City restaurant operating on a property declared as residential in Vice President Sara Duterte’s asset disclosure came under scrutiny during her impeachment trial on Monday.
Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo questioned Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin’s explanation that a building classified as commercial could nevertheless be used for residential purposes, asking how this could apply to Prime Bistro, which operates on a property registered under the name of Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
“There are instances when a building is classified as commercial but is used for residential purposes,” Adalin told the Senate impeachment court.
Tulfo rejected the explanation, saying the restaurant’s name and dining facilities clearly indicated commercial use.
“Prime Bistro is clearly identified there. That is commercial. He says it is classified as commercial but used for residential purposes. He is lying through his teeth, making it appear as though we are being fooled,” Tulfo said.
“So you put up a dining area and a signboard just to use the place for sleeping? That is what this witness is making it appear,” he added.
The property, identified as number 910 on Davao City’s property identification map, was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 146-2024010775, Adalin testified. The defense maintained that the property had been disclosed in Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
However, Duterte’s SALN describes the property as a residential lot, while Prime Bistro operates on the site. Records presented during the trial placed the land’s assessed value at about P82,000 and the combined market value of the land and building at roughly P9 million.
Duterte’s SALN listed an acquisition cost of P10 million.
Defense lawyer Lindon Bacquel presented Adalin as the first witness for Duterte’s legal team, saying his testimony would establish that the prosecution’s allegation that the property was omitted from her SALN was “malicious and completely false.”
Private prosecutor Jay Tolosa, however, challenged the witness’s ability to establish that the property described in the SALN was the same parcel covered by the title.