Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo warned Davao City Assessor’s Office engineer Jaime Adalin that he could be cited for contempt after expressing frustration over the witness’ responses to questions about his alleged trip to China in November 2025.
During the 40th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Monday, November 9, Adalin was presented as the defense’s first witness to address allegations that the Vice President had unexplained wealth and failed to fully disclose her assets in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
During cross-examination, private prosecutor Jay Tolosa asked Adalin whether he was among the Davao City local government officials who allegedly went on an all-expenses-paid trip to China sponsored by the Chinese consulate in November 2025.
“You would also admit that sometime in November 2025, you were one of the LGU officials of Davao who went to China on an all-expenses-paid tour sponsored by the Chinese consulate. Is that correct?” Tolosa asked.
Defense lawyer Lindon Miguel Bacquel objected, arguing that the question was irrelevant. However, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who presided over the proceedings, directed Adalin to answer.
“I think that is irrelevant,” Adalin replied, drawing laughter from the courtroom.
“Actually, hindi ko talaga ma-recall,” Adalin added.
Escudero then asked the witness to clarify whether he had forgotten the date or the trip itself. Adalin responded that he might have forgotten the date and would need to check his records to recall his activities.
Senator-Judge Tito Sotto also emphasized the importance of answering the prosecution’s question, saying it could help determine the witness’ credibility.
“I believe that question is important to gauge the credibility of the witness. If he doesn't want to answer, we can always ask the Bureau of Immigration—simple,” Sotto said.
Tulfo subsequently expressed frustration over Adalin’s responses, reminding him that he was testifying under oath and that evasive or dishonest answers could have consequences.
“Para ho tayong niloloko ng testigong ito. Sir, may I remind you that you're under oath. Ginagawa niyong kengkoy ang inyong testimonya. Bawal po 'yan, we can cite you for contempt,” Tulfo said.
“Just to remind you, sir. We’re serious here. Tinatanong kayo kung nakapunta ba kayo, ayaw niyong sabihin. 'Yong petsa di niyo rin malaman. Kung talagang di niyo alam, e di hindi niyo alam,” he added.
Tulfo further stressed that the responsibility for telling the truth rested with the witness and that lying under oath carried consequences.
“Just to remind this witness na under oath siya. 'Yung pagsisinungaling po ay nasa kanya po iyon, may consequences po,” he said.
