The prosecution panel has no issue with Vice President Sara Duterte’s husband Manases Carpio, supporting young athletes, but lawyer Benjamin Tolosa Jr. clarified that questions had to be asked of a defense witness whose testimony touched on credit card expenses discussed before.
In a press briefing on Thursday, Tolosa, one of the private lawyers on the prosecution side, explained that there was never a discussion on whether parents should support their children’s ventures into sports, as the topic remains Duterte’s unexplained wealth.
But since the defense brought in Chadrin Parian to explain where the over P256,000 worth of shoes purchased by Carpio in Malaysia went, Tolosa said it is well within the prosecution’s right to raise questions during cross-examination.
‘Para hindi ho tayo medyo maligaw do’n sa issues, just to clarify: ang tinatanong ho ng prosecutor natin kanina sa sa witness, hindi naman ho siya tinanong about do’n sa kung tama ba ang magulang suportahan niya ‘yong anak niya sa sports, hindi naman ho ‘yan kine-kwestyon at sinabi naman ng prosecutor kanina no’ng tinatanong siya,’ he explained after Day 43 of Duterte’s trial
(So that we would not get lost in the scheme of things, just to clarify: what the prosecutor was asking of the witness is not whether it is correct for a parent to support his or her child going into sports, that is not the issue being questioned and our prosecutor said that when he was asked.)
‘We’re not challenging that ‘yong pagsuporta ho sa mga atleta. Wala ho tayong issue d’yan. Natanong lang naman ho ‘yang issue na ‘yan dahil nag-present ho sila ng testigo na ‘yan ho ‘yong mismong subject ng testimony niya na pinapaliwanag niya para saan itong more than P250,000 na single transaction dito sa Nike,’ he added.
(We’re not challenging that support for athletes. We have no issue there. That issue was just raised because they presented a witness, and the subject of his testimony was the explanation of where the more than P250,000 worth of Nike purchases in a single transaction came from.)
Parian, one of the parents of children who joined and were admitted to the basketball team that Carpio supports, testified that they went to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia for a basketball tournament, which they eventually won.
After this, Parian surmised that Carpio was happy with the outcome, and since not everyone on the team can afford Nike shoes, the vice president’s husband bought shoes for the children as a gift.
And because of that explanation, Tolosa said that the prosecution has the right to ask questions since new information came out. Eventually, Tolosa said that an issue came out-the shoes are not for the student-athletes only, but for their parents and other people as well.
‘So sinagot niya, sinabi niya, para daw ‘yan sa mga member ng isang basketball team. Of course, meron ho kaming karapatan mag-cross-examine, tanungin siya para makita ano ‘yong buong picture dito, ano’ng context niyan, ano ho ang buong katotohanan ng issue na ‘yan,’ Tolosa noted.
(So he answered that it was for the members of the basketball team. Of course, we have the right to cross-examine, ask him to see the whole picture and what the context is, and what is the truth behind the said issue.)
‘Dahil sinagot niya ‘yan, we have to try-na lumabas naman do’n sa cross-examination at he admitted, based sa photos din na ipinresenta niya, hindi naman din binilihan lang talaga ‘yong mga bata, lahat no’ng mga nando’n, binilihan talaga. So again, ano ‘yong question doon, at sinasabi nga niya, again pinag-uusapan kasi dito unexplained wealth,’ he added.
(And because he answered the issues, we have to try-which we were able to confirm in cross-examination, and he admitted that based on the photos he presented, it is not only the children who got shoes; he bought shoes for everyone. So again, what is the question there, and we said that we are talking about unexplained wealth.)
Tolosa’s clarification came after reporters asked him, along with public prosecutor Manila Rep. Joel Chua and prosecution spokesperson Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, about their thoughts on the criticism leveled against the prosecution-that the panel makes it seem that supporting sports is a bad thing.
The statements came from Senator-judge Pia Cayetano during her interjection at Thursday’s trial.
Cayetano, who admitted that she was irked by the prosecution, said this after counsel for the prosecution Reynaldo Robles pointed out that Carpio’s lifestyle-being able to buy over P250,000 worth of shoes in one go-contradicts provisions of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees on avoiding ostentatious display of wealth.
‘Prosecution, I’m warning you. I will not hide my disdain. I will not. I cannot, I cannot,’ Cayetano said.
‘Is it the prosecution’s intention to make a parent relinquish their parental duty in terms of rearing their child in the manner they feel is the best to promote character, leadership, teamwork, just because one of the parents becomes a public official?’ she asked.
Tolosa maintained that the topic at the impeachment trial is still Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, along with pieces of evidence like the report from financial forensic expert Atty. Alexander Cabrera.
Cabrera testified last October 9 as a witness for the prosecution, saying that the vice president has not declared P817 million worth of assets in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) from 2022 to 2025.
‘Ang pinag-uusapan dito merong hindi mapaliwanag na yaman based do’n sa testimony ng mga prosecution witnesses na P817 million at nakita among those may transactions (na) ganito kalaking halaga,’ he said.
(What we are talking about here is that they are still unable to address the unexplained wealth issue based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that there is P817 million worth of unexplained wealth and among those transactions are specific, big amounts.)
Prior to Tolosa’s clarification, Chua had already accused Duterte’s lawyers of setting up a defense that seems to be more of a Korean drama (K-drama), claiming that they are trying to gain sympathy from the people instead of addressing pressing issues.
Chua said the two defense witnesses who testified before the Senate Impeachment Court earlier were geared for the social media content of Duterte’s team, rather than addressing unexplained wealth allegations.
Chua was referring to testimonies from Parian, and another witness-Atty. Anel Antero, who was with Duterte’s husband Manases Carpio, during the Japan trip where P200,007 was spent in one restaurant.
If it were up to him, Chua would have tackled the supposedly more glaring issues raised by the prosecution-like the testimony from Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, that Duterte and Carpio had P4.4 billion worth of flagged transactions, and Cabrera’s analysis of the couple’s finances.
Aside from the Japan meal and the shoes, Cabrera pointed out other credit card transactions linked to Duterte which were considered ‘unusual’:
two transactions on December 27, 2025 with the Nike store at a Davao City mall worth P93,750.00 and P205,392.00
two transactions with a Don Quijote shop in Shibuya, Japan worth P62,900.95 and P65,877.64
one transaction with a Don Quijote shop in Naka-ward, Japan worth P111,109.24
Several members of the prosecution panel noted that this ability to spend over P300,000 in a day to buy shoes and P200,000 for a dinner in Japan is not the hallmark of living a simple life-contrary to what Duterte would like to portray.