Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team presented on Thursday at her impeachment trial two witnesses who disputed the prosecution’s allegations that her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, used his credit card lavishly to pay for fine dining and expensive shoes.
On Nov. 12, the fourth day of the defense’s turn to respond to the sole article of impeachment accusing Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth, the focus was on Carpio as witnesses Anel Martin Antero and Chadrin Parian came to his defense. The witnesses both acknowledged their closeness to him.
Defense lawyers focused on disproving the controversial forensics report commissioned by the prosecution, which alleged that Duterte and Carpio have undeclared wealth amounting to P1.5 billion, and which flagged, among others, Carpio’s large single credit card purchases.
In his presentation in October, forensics analyst and lawyer Alexander Cabrera noted “unusual” credit card purchases made by Carpio worth hundreds of thousands of pesos in just one transaction. These included payments of ₱205,000 at a restaurant in Ginza, Japan, and ₱256,000 at a Nike store in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Restraint
Before the men testified, Senate presiding officer Francis Escudero reminded the senator-judges as well as defense and prosecution lawyers to observe witnesses’ rights in court and “exercise restraint expected of us.”
He said that while examining witnesses and testing the credibility of their testimonies, “we must refrain from resorting to a manner of questioning or to making declarations that elicit fear rather than candor.”
In past days, some senator-judges had expressed frustration at the testimonies of defense witnesses, especially those they found “evasive” and unresponsive to their questions. There were also at least two occasions when some senator-judges threatened to use the court’s power to cite evasive witnesses in contempt.
Citing Rule 1323, Section 3 of the Rules on Evidence, Escudero said witnesses must answer questions, and although their answers may tend to establish against them, these were their rights:
— To be protected from relevant, improper, or insulting questions and from harsh or insulting demeanor.
— Not to be detained any longer than the interest of justice requires.
— Not to be examined except only as the matter pertinent to the issue.
— Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her to a penalty for an offense, unless otherwise provided by law.
— Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her reputation, unless it is the very fact at issue or a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed.
“The chair wishes to emphasize that an answer which may be unsatisfactory is not inherently contemptible,” Escudero said, citing cases where the Supreme Court reminded courts to use their contempt power with “the highest restraint.”
“Our rules behoove us to receive and evaluate the evidence with impartiality and, due to the often lengthy examination by both parties, with utmost patience as well,” Escudero said.
“We owe it to the parties, to the witnesses, and to the institution we represent to conduct the proceedings with fairness, dignity, and respect, in spite [of] and despite our frustration and/or disappointment with what witnesses may or may not be saying,” he said.
Japanese dinner
On direct examination by defense lawyer Lindon Bacquel, Antero said he was present at the dinner at the Inakaya restaurant in Tokyo in May 2023 with Carpio and nine others, mostly their law school friends. They had come for dinner after a long day of shopping and visiting the area, he said.
The dinner bill amounted to over ₱200,000, he said, and they were “shocked” because they did not expect it to be that steep.
“We paid it. We contributed. And it was the credit card of Mans that was used,” Antero said. He contributed ¥40,000, he said, adding: “We all contributed because that’s our arrangement when we travelled.”
During cross-examination, House private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan showed Antero his own Facebook and Instagram photos with Duterte and her husband as early as 2016, when she won the vice presidency.
Bacquel questioned Ligutan’s line of questioning. The latter said they were “testing the credibility of the witness, if he is free of bias and interest.”
Antero said he met Carpio at San Beda College in 1998, and Duterte in 2004.
Ligutan noted that Antero seemed to be “an avid defender of Duterte.” The witness said he was “part of her legal team in cases filed against her.”
Ligutan showed one of Antero’s FB posts in January 2024 where he expressed support for the Vice President, who was then being rumored as about to step down as education secretary.
A heated exchange between Ligutan and Bacquel ensued after the defense lawyer questioned the relevance of his counterpart’s questioning.
Ligutan said his questioning had to do with whether Duterte and her husband were “leading a modest life,” as this was “central” to the allegation of unexplained wealth. “It’s in the law and the Constitution that a public official and his family should lead a modest life,” he said.
Bacquel pointed out that “neither the witness nor Carpio is on trial,” and that the defense team’s offer of Antero’s testimony dealt with the credit card issue against Carpio.
Ligutan replied: “There is a misconception that Carpio, being the spouse of the Vice President, is immune to the requirements of leading a modest life.”
Escudero eventually intervened after Bacquel protested Ligutan’s “pontification,” and told the private prosecutor to proceed with his questioning.
Ligutan asked Antero whether, beyond his word that he was at the Japanese dinner, he had photographs confirming the presence of the 11 other attendees. Antero said he had no photos, prompting Ligutan to say Antero had “no corroborative documents” on his presence.
Antero then said many from their group had volunteered to pay the bill but that Carpio eventually paid it with his credit card. Ligutan noted that Antero did not disclose that many had offered to pay the bill during his direct examination.
When Ligutan asked if he had proof that he reimbursed Carpio for his share of the dinner bill, such as an online transfer or acknowledgement from Carpio, Antero said he had no documents.
Ligutan also asked Antero if he received money from Carpio. Antero said he did not because he was part of the latter’s law firm. Ligutan then asked him if he received ₱580,000 from Carpio, and showed a check that came from the Anti-Money Laundering Council. Antero said he could not recall receiving it.
Ligutan noted that Antero had personally attended the Senate impeachment trial nine times in August, September and October, and asked if he had been monitoring the trial even outside the chamber. Antero said he monitored the trial “very seldom.”
Nike shoes
The second witness, Parian, testified that he saw Carpio pay for shoes amounting to ₱256,000 at a Nike store in a mall in Kuala Lumpur on June 15, 2025.
As he explained to defense lawyer Justin Gular, Parian said Carpio bought the shoes for 11 children who had taken part in a basketball tournament and won the championship in Kuala Lumpur at that time. He said Carpio was not only the manager of Elite Philippines basketball team but was also a co-parent because their children were players.
Parian brought photos he took showing Carpio paying for the boxes of shoes piled up on the store counter.
“Maybe he was happy about the outcome of the game,” Parian said when asked why Carpio treated the children to the shoes. Parian also said Carpio likely took his turn like other parents in helping with the expenses of the team players.
On cross-examination, House private prosecutor Rey Robles asked Parian about his closeness to Carpio. Parian said that he met Carpio in March 2025, that they attended five basketball tournaments abroad, and that he considered Duterte’s husband a friend.
Robles asked him whether he appeared at the impeachment trial because he wanted to help Carpio. Parian said he was there to testify on the purchase of the Nike shoes, but after much prodding, he said that “eventually” he was helping Carpio on the issue.
Parian denied that the defense team had reached out to him to testify in court.
Robles asked Parian about the photos showing that Carpio paid for 24 pairs of shoes when the athletes numbered only 11. Parian said some parents and guardians were also treated to new shoes.
Robles then asked Parian if Carpio’s spending for the shoes was an example of someone leading a simple life, pointing out that the law prohibits public officials from “ostentatious displays of wealth.”
“I cannot comment on the way Attorney Manases was thinking. I can’t answer for him,” Parian said.
Robles said he was only asking whether Carpio’s gift-giving was a good example of someone leading a simple life.
“I think the children and parents deserved it,” Parian said.
No hearing is scheduled today, Friday, on the defense team’s request. The next hearing is scheduled next week. CS
