While some senator-judges were frustrated by the “evasive” answers of a defense witness to questions about trips to China, Senator-judge Robin Padilla was puzzled why it was even an issue in the first place.
Padilla expressed his confusion over the matter at the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. on Thursday, November 12. This was days after the first defense witness, Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin, irked some senator-judges to the point of contempt warnings, after he evaded, then brushed off, the question of prosecutor Jay Tolosa about a China-sponsored trip just the past year.
Like Adalin, Padilla also did not see the relevance of the question. “Bakit po issue ‘yung pagpunta sa China (Is traveling to China an issue)?” Padilla asked the prosecution.
He shared that he had been to China several times, once with former president Rodrigo Duterte, but he could not recall the names of the places that he visited.
“Di ko rin ma-recall saan ako nagpunta kasi di pumapasok sa isip ko po na ‘yung mga lugar sa China siguro di talagang familiar sa akin. At tinanong ko pa staff ko saan ako nagpunta dahil di ko matandaan. Totoo po ‘yan. Problema po ba ‘yun kung di mo matandaan kung saan ka nagpunta sa China?” Padilla asked prosecutor Terry Ridon.
(I also couldn’t recall where I went because it didn’t enter my mind, the places in China are really not familiar to me. And I asked my staff where I went because I couldn’t remember. That’s true. Is that a problem, if you can’t remember where in China you went to?)
Ridon reiterated the prosecution’s response at the Monday hearing that the queries on Adalin’s foreign travels were made to test his credibility as a witness. He also stressed the issue was not Adalin’s travel to China but his failure to give direct answers about the trips.
“‘Yung pagpunta sa China ay bahagi ng pag-test ng credibility ng witness. Walang usapin kung naging maagap ang testigo sa pagsagot ng tanong patungkol sa biyahe sa China. Wala naman sanang debate kung agad-agad inamin mismo…. Ang issue ‘yung parang di pagiging matapat sa harap ng korte,” Ridon said.
(The questions on the trip to China are part of testing the witness’ credibility. There should have been no issue if the witness immediately responded to the question about the trip to China. There would have been no debate if he admitted it immediately…. The issue is that he did not appear to be honest before the court.)
Play Video
On Monday, Adalin, as Senator-judge Panfilo “Ping” Lacson described it, “almost made a mockery of the court” when he smirked and deemed as “irrelevant” a prosecutor’s question about an alleged all-expenses-paid trip to China in November 2025. After contempt warnings, the Davao City assessor eventually regained his memory and recalled the trip.
At the trial on Thursday, Padilla said witnesses’ responses should be respected, echoing the reminder of Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero at the start of the trial that morning. He called on counsels and the impeachment senator-judges to exercise restraint and give witnesses due consideration when they say they are unable to recall certain details.
Escudero, however, was apparently referring to another witness, Gencorp in-house counsel Suzette Balucanag-Punay, who faced intense grilling from some senator-judges the day before. She had testified that the Vice President received over P2.1 million in “return of capital” from Gencorp between 2022 and 2025 from what she called a “loose investment.” – Rappler.com