MANILA, Philippines — House private prosecutor Jay Tolosa pressed Davao City Assessor Engr. Jaime Adalin to identify a property linked to documents under examination in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Monday, November 9, but the defense witness repeatedly admitted he was uncertain whether photographs showed the same property.
The exchange unfolded during the 40th day of the Senate impeachment proceedings as prosecutors sought to establish the identity and location of a property covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
Tolosa presented a street-view photograph and asked Adalin whether it showed the same property identified in the land title previously discussed during his testimony.
“This is the street view of the same property. Since you’re familiar with the area and already confirmed that the property reflected a while ago is the same property contained in the TCT that we’ve been discussing, will you also admit that this photo, this is the property indicated in the TCT?” Tolosa asked.
Adalin declined to confirm the identification.
“I’m not quite sure, sir,” the witness replied.
Tolosa continued questioning the assessor, noting that the photograph was dated July 2025 and asking whether the location corresponded to a property now reportedly known as Davao’s Prime Bistro.
“That’s understandable if it is not that recent, as reflected this is as of July 2025… Is this the same property now since you’re familiar with the area? Is it the property which is now called the Davao’s Prime Bistro?” the prosecutor asked.
“Again, hindi po ako sure,” Adalin responded.
The repeated expressions of uncertainty became a focus of the prosecution’s cross-examination, particularly because Adalin had earlier testified about property documents and his familiarity with the area.
Prosecutors sought to determine whether the witness could reliably connect the property described in the official records to its actual physical location.
Adalin’s inability to positively identify the property from the photographs left that particular point unconfirmed during the exchange.
The questioning followed earlier instances in which Tolosa challenged the witness for giving qualified answers, including his use of the word “probably” when discussing information contained in an Electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration (eCAR).
Tolosa had previously urged Adalin to provide factual answers rather than speculate about the contents of property documents.
The prosecution’s examination centered on the relationship between the property title, tax declarations, and information reflected in Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
The disputed property records form part of the evidence being examined in connection with the remaining impeachment charge involving allegations of unexplained wealth.
While Adalin’s responses highlighted uncertainty in his identification of the property, they did not establish that the official records were inaccurate or that the property was improperly declared.
The defense retains the opportunity to clarify the witness’s testimony and present additional evidence concerning the property.
The Senate impeachment court will determine the evidentiary weight of the testimony and documents presented by both sides.
Source: Senate impeachment trial proceedings, November 9, 2026
Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines
