Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel of GenCorp Industries, Inc. (GenCorp) and Metro City Chow Foods Corporation (MCCFC) testified on Wednesday, November 11. Official handout.
Manuel Mogato | November 12, 2026
MANILA — The Vice President’s defense team presented several witnesses in the impeachment trial this week, but they failed to clear Sara Duterte of allegations of unexplained wealth.
For instance, lawyer Suzette Punay, internal legal counsel for a food corporation that Duterte listed in her annual statements of assets and liabilities as a business interest, could not explain why the vice president kept receiving payments from GenCorp, owner of five Jollibee branches in Davao City.
Based on records Punay brought to the impeachment court, GenCorp paid Duterte 2.1 million pesos from 2022 to 2025. (Also read: Duterte family amasses properties while in power)
However, Punay could not say whether the food company was simply returning Duterte’s investment in Davao Bountry Corp two decades ago, or whether the payment was a return on investment (ROI).
Davao Bounty, which owned a Jollibee store in Times Square, became part of GenCorp in 2021, but Duterte continued to receive payments from the company 45 times even if ownership changed.
In her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), Duterte said she has shares in GenCorp.
However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has no record that Duterte owned stocks or was an officer of the food company.
Duterte invested more than 46,000 pesos in Davao Bounty in 2007 but the operation of the fastfood store was transferred to Great Jolly Times Food Corp and later Times Square Bee Food Corp. in 2013.
Punay could not explain why the SEC did not list Duterte as an incorporator or a shareholder in GenCorp when she listed the food company in her SALN. (Also read: Vice President has an undeclared wealth of 817.87 million pesos in her SALN)
The head of Davao City’s assessor’s office and the city’s chief accountant were both evasive, testing the patience of the senator-judges.
They were also uncertain about data on the vice president’s husband’s property and the salary differential payment that the vice president received in 2023.
The prosecution panel said Duterte violated the 1987 Constitution and betrayed the public trust when she got compensation from a private corporation and from the Davao City government.
The defense presented witnesses to dispute the prosecution, but they failed. The witnesses’ credibility was doubted.
Punay’s testimony also confirmed Duterte’s compensation from a private corporation, a clear violation of the Constitution.