The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took a dramatic turn on November 9 after senator-judges sharply questioned the defense’s first witness, Davao City Assessor Engineer Jaime Adalin, over his overseas travel history and his testimony concerning properties linked to the vice president’s husband.
Adalin faced intense questioning after initially saying he could not remember an alleged China trip that prosecutors wanted to examine. His answers prompted Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo to warn that he could be cited for contempt if he continued giving evasive or unserious testimony.
The confrontation became one of the most closely watched moments of the Senate impeachment proceedings, as lawmakers questioned not only Adalin’s recollection of his travels but also his credibility as a witness defending Duterte’s property disclosures.
The hearing is particularly significant because the defense is now presenting evidence against the remaining impeachment charge, which involves allegations of unexplained wealth, inaccurate Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and prohibited business interests.
Duterte has denied wrongdoing. The prosecution’s allegations have not been established by a final judgment. SunStar Publishing Inc.+2
Senator-Judges Lose Patience Over Witness’s Answers About China Trip
The confrontation began when private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. questioned Adalin about an alleged December 2025 trip to China that was reportedly sponsored by the Chinese consulate.
Defense counsel Lindon Bacquel objected, arguing that the question was irrelevant to the property issue being examined.
Tolosa responded that the inquiry was intended to test the witness’s credibility.
Adalin initially said he could not remember the trip and suggested that the question was irrelevant. His response drew laughter inside the Senate impeachment courtroom.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero also reacted to the witness’s seemingly casual answers, while Tolosa described his responses as evasive.
Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo then reminded Adalin that he was testifying under oath and warned that the court could cite him for contempt.
Tulfo stressed that witnesses must take the proceedings seriously and that false testimony could carry consequences.
Senator-Judge Tito Sotto III also indicated that the travel question could be relevant to assessing Adalin’s credibility, suggesting that immigration records could help verify the trip.
The exchange intensified the scrutiny surrounding the defense’s first witness. SunStar Publishing Inc.+2
Adalin Eventually Confirmed a China Trip in January 2026
Further questioning after the lunch break brought a significant development.
According to reports by Philstar.com and GMA News, Adalin eventually confirmed that he had travelled to China with other Davao City government officials in January 2026.
He said he checked with his office before confirming the trip.
The delegation reportedly included the city engineer, city treasurer and city administrator. Adalin maintained that the journey was personal and that the participants paid their own expenses.
However, Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros continued pressing him about the locations he visited and the details of the itinerary.
Adalin said he was not particularly interested in travelling and had not memorised the places included in the trip.
Hontiveros questioned how a city assessor who regularly works with maps and property records could struggle to recall the locations he had visited in a major country.
The senator’s questioning highlighted the difference between acknowledging that a trip occurred and providing a clear account of its purpose, arrangements and expenses.
Importantly, Adalin’s confirmation of a January 2026 trip does not independently establish that it was sponsored by China. He maintained that it was personally funded. Philstar+2
Prosecutors Raise Questions About a Reported 25-Day Stay in China
The controversy deepened when House prosecutors raised questions about the length of Adalin’s reported China travel.
GMA News reported that House lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said Adalin was part of a delegation that stayed in China from January 5 to January 30, 2026.
Luistro questioned why a supposedly personal trip would last 25 days and asked who paid for the travel and accommodation.
Adalin, however, maintained that the trip was personal and that he and the other officials covered their own expenses.
There are differences among published accounts concerning the precise travel dates. Philstar.com reported that Hontiveros presented flight information indicating that Adalin entered Beijing on January 25 and departed from Shanghai on January 30. GMA’s report separately carried the prosecution’s claim of a January 5–30 stay.
These accounts should not be treated as interchangeable. The precise itinerary and duration need to be established through official travel and immigration records.
The key issue for the impeachment proceedings is whether the trip was properly disclosed, who arranged it, who paid for it and whether it has any relevance to the allegations being examined. GMA News Online+2
Raffy Tulfo Also Questions Earlier Overseas Trips
Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo brought up Adalin’s other reported international travels, including trips to Hong Kong, Thailand and Australia.
Tulfo also questioned him about an alleged November 12, 2018 trip to China, citing flight information that he said he could provide.
Adalin said he could not recall that particular journey.
Tulfo questioned how frequently the city assessor had travelled abroad and whether his reported trips were consistent with his income.
The senator also raised concerns about whether any travel had been sponsored or facilitated by outside entities.
These questions remain matters of examination, not proof of wrongdoing. A public official’s overseas travel does not automatically establish improper financial activity. The relevant questions concern the source of funding, the purpose of the trips and whether any disclosure or ethical requirements were violated.
The prosecution is seeking to establish whether the travel history has a bearing on Adalin’s relationship with the parties and transactions being examined in the impeachment case. SunStar Publishing Inc.+2
The Bigger Issue: Properties Linked to Sara Duterte’s Husband
Beyond the heated exchange over travel, Adalin’s testimony was intended to defend Duterte’s property declarations.
The disputed property is located in Matina Crossing, Davao City, and is registered under the name of her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
The defense presented Adalin to support its position that the property corresponds to an asset declared in Duterte’s SALN.
The prosecution, however, questioned whether the property records actually matched the details in the vice president’s financial disclosures.
Earlier testimony and documents identified a 379-square-metre property in Matina acquired by Carpio in July 2024 for P6 million.
The prosecution pointed to differences between the purchase documents and the information in Duterte’s SALN, including the acquisition cost and the description of the property.
During the November 9 hearing, Adalin relied on details such as the property’s location and assessed value to support the defense’s position.
But lawmakers questioned whether those details were enough to establish that the property in the title and deed of sale was the same asset reflected in the SALN.
The issue is important because matching an assessed value or barangay location does not necessarily establish that two documents refer to the same property. Philippine News Agency+2
P6 Million Purchase Versus P10 Million SALN Entry Raises Questions
One of the major issues raised by prosecutors concerns the difference between the property’s reported purchase price and the amount appearing in Duterte’s financial declaration.
The prosecution pointed to a P6-million selling price in the transaction documents, while Duterte’s 2024 SALN reportedly reflected an acquisition cost of P10 million.
The defense’s position is that the property was already represented in the vice president’s disclosures, citing its location and valuation details.
However, prosecutors questioned whether the matching assessed value was sufficient to establish that the two records referred to the same property.
Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan also questioned the witness’s explanations, particularly after photographs were presented showing a commercial establishment identified as Prime Bistro.
Adalin said property classification is determined by actual use and explained that the assessor’s office relies on its own procedures when assigning classifications.
The prosecution challenged whether the witness had sufficiently established the connection between the photographs, the property title and the SALN entry.
The Senate impeachment court must ultimately determine the evidentiary weight of the competing explanations. The disputed figures and property records do not, by themselves, establish that Duterte committed an offense. Philstar+2
P319 Million in China and Hong Kong Remittances Also Draws Attention
The questioning about China travel also took place against the background of separate financial allegations involving a company partly owned by Carpio.
During the hearing, Tulfo referred to reported inward remittances amounting to approximately P319.32 million from China and Hong Kong to Cale88 Food Corp.
The company has been mentioned in the wider controversy surrounding financial transactions linked to Duterte and her husband.
The prosecution has sought to examine whether the transactions raise questions relevant to the remaining impeachment charge.
However, the existence of remittances does not automatically prove that the money was illegal, that it belonged to Duterte or that it was connected to the China trip.
The source, purpose, beneficiaries and legal significance of the transactions must be established through evidence.
Duterte and her camp have denied wrongdoing in the broader allegations. The financial issues remain part of the proceedings and must be evaluated by the impeachment court. Daily Tribune+1
Defense Says Adalin Helped Establish That the Property Was Declared
Following the hearing, defense spokesperson Michael Poa maintained that Adalin had provided testimony supporting the defense’s position.
Poa said the defense presented the city assessor to explain the property records and left the interpretation of the evidence to the impeachment court.
The prosecution, however, offered a sharply different assessment.
House prosecutors argued that Adalin failed to conclusively establish that the Matina property was the same property reflected in Duterte’s SALN.
They also criticized the witness’s answers about his travel history and the disputed property documents.
The disagreement illustrates the central challenge facing the impeachment court: determining whether the documentary records and testimony actually establish the claims being made by either side.
The defense is entitled to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation, while prosecutors are entitled to test the credibility and reliability of the witnesses presented. Philstar+2
The Remaining Impeachment Case Involves at Least P817 Million in Alleged Unexplained Wealth
The November 9 hearing forms part of the remaining impeachment charge against Duterte, which focuses on alleged unexplained wealth, inaccurate financial disclosures and prohibited business interests.
The House prosecution has cited at least P817.87 million in alleged unexplained wealth and undeclared assets.
That figure represents the prosecution’s financial allegations and analysis. It is not a final judicial finding that Duterte or Carpio illegally acquired or concealed that amount.
Duterte denies wrongdoing, and her defense has been given the opportunity to challenge the financial records and present witnesses.
The defense has prepared a list of 24 witnesses, including bank officials, corporate representatives and other individuals expected to address the prosecution’s claims.
For additional background, WWC ONE MEDIA has covered the major developments in the proceedings:
- Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Trial Resumes November 9 as Defense Lines Up 24 Witnesses Against P817.87-Million Wealth Allegations
- Two Properties Linked to Sara Duterte’s Husband Questioned in SALN During Impeachment Trial
- Impeachment Court Subpoenas 14 Bank, Insurance and Finance Executives in Sara Duterte Trial
- Sara Duterte Impeachment: Prosecutors Submit Evidence on Alleged Wealth — What Happens Next?
- Sara Duterte’s Alleged Unexplained Wealth Under the Microscope: What Will the Impeachment Court Uncover?
The proceedings remain a test of evidence, credibility and constitutional accountability. Reuters+4
What Happens Next in Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Trial?
The Senate impeachment court is expected to continue hearing the defense’s witnesses and examining the disputed property and financial records.
The prosecution will have opportunities to challenge the defense testimony, while senator-judges must assess whether the explanations are supported by reliable evidence.
Several major questions remain:
- Who arranged and paid for Adalin’s reported overseas trips?
- What were the exact dates and purpose of his China travel?
- Can the defense conclusively establish that the Matina property was properly reflected in Duterte’s SALN?
- How will the impeachment court evaluate the alleged financial discrepancies?
- Will the defense’s remaining witnesses provide explanations that change the direction of the case?
The November 9 hearing did not establish that Adalin lied, that his China trip was sponsored by the Chinese government or that Duterte committed an impeachable offense. It did, however, expose significant questions that the senator-judges want answered.
As the defense begins presenting its witnesses, the pressure is increasing on both sides to produce clear, verifiable explanations.
The biggest test now is whether the defense can resolve the questions surrounding the properties and financial records — or whether the prosecution will use the witness’s testimony to strengthen its remaining case against the vice president.
