(Screengrab from Senate livestream)
MANILA – Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Tuesday raised the possibility that Vice President Sara Duterte had overdeclared the acquisition cost of a Samal Island property after a Php 587,151 discrepancy emerged between her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and the property’s deed of sale.
During the second day of the defense’s presentation, Escudero questioned why Duterte’s SALN listed the property’s acquisition cost at Php 4,041,000 when its 2018 deed of absolute sale reflected a purchase price of only Php 3,453,849.
The presiding officer asked whether the difference could be attributed to additional expenses incurred during the purchase rather than indicate an undeclared asset.
“But if I want to be safe, isn’t it better to over-declare what I paid instead of under-declaring it?” Escudero asked.
He also sought clarification on whether reporting an acquisition cost higher than the amount stated in the deed of sale would violate SALN disclosure requirements.
The discussion centered on a property in the Kembali Coast development in the Island Garden City of Samal, which Duterte’s defense maintained had already been disclosed in her SALN.
However, private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. disputed the suggestion of overdeclaration, arguing that the property identified in the land title was different from the one listed in Duterte’s SALN.
“First and foremost, Your Honor, our position is these are not the same property,” Tolosa said.
Tolosa cited Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2013, which he said requires acquisition cost to reflect the amount paid for the property, excluding taxes and fees associated with transferring ownership.
Defense lawyer Lindon Bacquel countered that the higher declared amount could include additional expenses related to the acquisition.
“But our position remains that these are the same property which are declared in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth,” Bacquel said.
The defense argued that acquisition costs could include transfer taxes, documentary stamp taxes, registration fees and other transaction-related expenses.
Escudero, however, questioned whether those expenses were sufficient to explain the Php 587,151 difference.
“I computed it, Atty. Lindon. It’s still more than that. You’re talking roughly, capital gains tax, transfer taxes, doc stamps. It won’t reach 12 percent of total,” Escudero said.
He also raised the possibility that the amount declared in Duterte’s SALN represented the actual payment made for the property, although the defense declined to speculate on that explanation.
Meanwhile, the prosecution maintained that discrepancies in acquisition dates, property descriptions and declared values supported its position that the land title and SALN entry referred to separate properties.
The disputed Samal property remains among the assets being examined under Article II of Duterte’s impeachment case, which involves allegations of unexplained wealth.
