Impeach court warns lying witnesses: Testify truthfully or face contempt, perjury

The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday issued a stern warning to witnesses that they could face contempt and perjury charges for giving false testimony in the ongoing proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The warning follows the conduct of the defense’s first witness—Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin—who was called out for laughing while evading questions from the prosecution and senator-judges.

Senator-judge Ping Lacson took strong offense at Adalin’s demeanor, calling his actions a “mockery” of the trial, and reminded all parties that the Senate impeachment court is empowered to cite “anybody” for contempt.

“Yesterday was not a good day for the impeachment court, Mr. Presiding Officer, simply because we had a witness who smirked, who laughed, almost made a mockery of the impeachment trial. And we don't want to have a repeat of that kind of testimony,” he stressed.

Before his manifestation, Senator-judge Tito Sotto also sought the court’s clarification on the sanctions and legal consequences, not just to refresh the witnesses’ memory but also the prosecution's and the defense's.

Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero responded that witnesses who lied under oath may be subject to contempt by the court.

“And in addition to that, may be subjected to cases of perjury should one be filed against him before the proper prosecutor's office and our courts of law, because the statements given by any witness [are] under oath and [are] therefore covered by our laws on perjury as well,” he said.

Recall that Adalin drew the ire of senator-judges on Monday, on Day 40 of Duterte’s trial, after giving “evasive” answers when asked about an all-expenses-paid trip to China.

Private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. asked him whether he was among the Davao officials who went to China in November last year, sponsored by the Chinese consulate, in a bid to establish his personal ties with the VP.

Adalin was promoted to the city assessor's office in 2017, after the VP succeeded her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, as Davao City mayor.

In response, Adalin called Tolosa’s question “irrelevant,” drawing laughter in the impeachment court, and Escudero even called him “funny.”

During the trial, Adalin repeatedly chuckled while insisting that he could not recall the China trip despite it being barely a year ago, prompting some senator-judges to make independent verification.

He only admitted he went to China with department heads in Davao LGU in late January this year after an hour-long break and was threatened with contempt, though he insisted that he could not recall their itinerary.

Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros's verification revealed that Adalin flew from Manila to Beijing on 25 January and back to Manila from Shanghai on 30 January.

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo argued that Adalin’s admission was crucial to determine whether Davao officials’ frequent trips abroad were not sponsored by China and not facilitated by the Davao LGU.

He cited the P319.32 million in inward remittances from China and Hong Kong to Cale88 Food Corp., a firm partly owned by the VP’s husband—Atty. Mans Carpoi—amid the prosecution’s allegations of possible money laundering and that China may be funding the Dutertes, which the defense vehemently denied.

Escudero said Adalin has yet to submit relevant documents related to the China trip to the impeachment court, as some senator-judges requested.

“If by tomorrow the same is not yet complied with, unless sufficient cause or reason is given, the court will be forced to issue compulsory process on the same,” Escudero remarked.

The defense called Adalin as its witness to dispute the prosecution’s allegation that the VP declared a real property in Davao in her SALNs, allegedly in violation of the law.

Several tax declarations issued and signed by Adalin himself showed that Carpio was the registered owner of the property.

Adalin said the property covered by TCT 146-2024010775 is the same property listed in Duterte’s 2024 and 2025 SALNs, but the prosecution insisted otherwise, citing discrepancies in relevant documents, including the assessed and market values.