Luistro: Defense testimony ‘self-destructive’ on VP investments

MANILA, Philippines — House lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro described the defense’s testimony in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte as “self-destructive” after its witness acknowledged the official’s investment in a Jollibee branch and P2.14 million in payments she received from GenCorp Industries Inc.

Luistro was referring to the testimony of Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel of GenCorp and Metro City Chow Foods Corp.

During the trial, Punay testified that GenCorp’s records showed total disbursements of P2.1 million to Duterte from 2022 to 2025, which she described as a return of capital from an earlier investment in a Jollibee Times Square branch.

While maintaining that Duterte was not a GenCorp stockholder, Punay distinguished the Vice President’s investment in the Jollibee branch from ownership of the corporation itself.

For Luistro, however, the testimony showed that Punay did not deny the investment.

“Even explaining that she calls it loose investment, whether loose or otherwise, it is still investment,” the lead prosecutor said.

GenCorp appears among the business interests listed in Duterte’s 2024 and 2025 statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Luistro also pointed to Metro City Chow Foods Corp., where corporate records show Duterte holds a 20-percent shareholding and is listed as a director.

Punay confirmed Duterte’s corporate positions, including her membership in the company’s compensation committee.

Witness withdrawals

Turning to the defense’s presentation of evidence, Luistro suggested that the withdrawal of witnesses could indicate that they did not want to be associated with or support the party that had requested their testimony.

She made the observation after noting that 18 of the 24 witnesses initially listed by Duterte’s defense team had already been withdrawn, a development she said could create a negative impression among the public.

“If there are witnesses who are declining, the easiest interpretation would be that they do not want to be identified as supporting the position of whichever party,” Luistro explained.

The withdrawals, she added, had dampened the high expectations surrounding the defense’s presentation of evidence against the allegations raised by the prosecution.

“The defense’s presentation of evidence did not begin explosively because it started with the withdrawal of a very important witness,” Luistro said. “We were anticipating explosive testimonies and/or evidence, but apparently, this was not even a firecracker. It might have been a watusi firecracker instead.”

Dollar accounts

Meanwhile, the House prosecution panel is prepared to question witnesses about Duterte’s dollar accounts if the Senate impeachment court allows it, according to Luistro.

Prosecutors were ready to cross-examine defense witnesses on the foreign currency deposits after Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) documents submitted to the impeachment court confirmed the existence of the accounts.

However, the defense opted not to present BPI senior vice president Paul Roderick Ysmael, whom prosecutors had wanted to question about the deposits.

Luistro acknowledged that the court had expressly excluded foreign currency deposits from the subpoenas because of bank confidentiality laws.

Similar restrictions also arose during the 2012 impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona.

Any further testimony involving Duterte’s foreign currency accounts would ultimately depend on the impeachment court, she stressed.

“If the impeachment court allows the defense to present the witness later on regarding the foreign currency deposits, it will be up to the impeachment court. But we will definitely be very much ready to conduct our cross-examination,” said Luistro.