IMPEACHMENT TRIAL : Thursday, February 2, 2012

At 2:04 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile Presiding.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of the impeachment trial of the honourable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order.  (Gavel)

We shall be led in prayer by the distinguished Senator from Sorsoson, Senator Gregorio Ballesteros Honasan

PRAYER BY SENATOR HONASAN

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senators.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  The honorable Senators Angara; Arroyo; Cayetano, Allan Peter ‘Compañero’; Cayetano, Pia; Defensor-Santiago; Drilon, Ejercito-Estrada; Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmeña, Pangilinan, Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President Enrile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 19 Senator-Judges present in the Chamber, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  (Gavel)

Majority Floor Leader

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

THE SEARGENT-AT ARMS.  All presents are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is seating in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 1, 2012 Journal of the Senate, seating as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  The Chair hears none, the February 1, 2012 Journal of the Senate, seating as an Impeachment Court, is hereby approved.  (Gavel)

The Secretary will now please call the case before the Senate, seating as an Impeachment Court.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  Case No. 002-2011 in the matter of impeachment trial of honourable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we ask the respective counsels to enter their appearances.

REP. TUPAS.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

For the House of Representatives prosecution panel, same appearances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted for the prosecution.  Defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted for the defense.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are in receipt of a motion from the defense.  I move that we discuss the said motion on Monday during our caucus at twelve noon to give the other Members of the court time to appraise and study the motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  And I would like to announce and seek the forbearance of the prosecution.  There were so many request for a subpoena submitted to us, on this Presiding Officer.  I would like to submit this to the Members of the Impeachment Court in the caucus because in the opinion of this Chair, it touches on the principle of separation of powers between the three departments of government and I would like to get the counsel of the Impeachment Court.  Thank you.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President, may I include that in the motion that we will take it up on Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  Hearing none, the motion is approved.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we now call on the prosecution to continue with their presentation of evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution may now call their next witness.

We are still in Article II?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may I …

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Your Honor, we are still in Article II.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So proceed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, there is a request by the Members of the Court to ask the prosecution on how many witnesses and who are the witnesses they will present.

REP. TUPAS.  For the day?

SEN. SOTTO.  For the today.

REP. TUPAS.  The first witness is Mr. Greg Gregonia of the Burgandy Realty Corporation.  The second witness is Ms. Anna Venus Mejia from the Filinvest.

And we have a pending matter, there are two—the registrar of the deeds of Quezon City and the registrar of deeds of Marikina.  They have been here since three weeks ago, we’re not able to discharge of them because of the—because the defense reserved their right to cross examine.

And effectively, we have four for today, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  All on Article II?

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the defense ready to cross examine the witnesses that were not subjected to cross yet?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, we are ready to cross examine them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Maybe, we should start the proceeding this afternoon with the cross examination of the witnesses that have not been subjected to a cross examination, so that, to be fair to them, we could dispense their recurrent presence in this proceedings.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, may we now call on the registrar of deeds of Quezon City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The register of deeds of Quezon City may come to the chamber and take the witness stand, under the same oath.

REP. TUPAS.  May we request that Atty. Jose Justiniano be recognized for the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Companero Atty. Jose Justiniano is recognized.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You’re welcome.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please, may we request commission, that Atty. Esguerra, of the defense panel be allowed to conduct the cross examination of these two witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness not around yet, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we suspend the trial, Mr. President, while we are waiting for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is suspended until the witness is in the chamber.

It was 2:12 p.m.

At 2:12 p.m., the trial was resumed.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  If, your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.  Yes.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  May we know from the defense, what are the matters which they expect to elicit from our witness?  Maybe, if …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You cannot do that.  That is their right to …

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi, Your Honor, If they can inform me, maybe, we can just admit, Your Honors, to dispense with the cross examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, I will leave it to the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is cross examination, Your Honor, and the progress of the cross examination will depend on the statement to be made by the witness, Your Honor.

We cannot stipulate on this, Your Honor.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Okay, Your Honor.  I am just guided by the pronouncement of Senator Santiago that we should expedite …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry, we cannot accommodate …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Normally, cross is not subject to stipulation.

We cannot control the defense, how they will defend their client.

Proceed.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  With the permission of the honorable Presiding Officer and the honorable…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  … members of the impeachment court.

Mr. Witness, you are lawyer by profession.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Before you were assigned to be the registrar or registrar of deeds of Quezon City, you were posted with what office of the Land Registration Authority?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, I am Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  You have not been assigned to the head office, the office of the administrator?

MR. ALCANTARA.  I have not been assigned with the office of the administrator of the Land Registration Authority, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  You were here, according to your direct testimony, Mr. Witness, pursuant to the subpoena issued by this honorable impeachment court, am I right?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  You have identified in the course of your direct-examination certain documents in connection with the properties appearing in the name of Renato Corona and Cristina Corona, am I right?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  And you also identified the other documents, particularly titles in the name of the children of the Chief Justice Renato Corona and Mrs. Corona, am I right?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Can we go to that title first, Mr. Witness, of Carla Constantino concerning a property where there was testimony from you that the property or the lot was bought for P15 million.  Can you show that to us.  Witness, for the record, Your Honor, is going over his records.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this is Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125683, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  May we request the prosecution to hand to us, if we may borrow rather, this particular exhibit for purposes of easier identification.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution is directed to show the said exhibit for purposes of this cross-examination.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Witness, Your Honor, produced for my inspection Exhibit YY, YY-1, YY-2 and YY-3.  Is this the very title, Mr. Witness, that is in the name of Carla Constantino?  This is a cancelled title as it appears here.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, this is a cancelled title in the name of Mila Mela Bajar married to Veneroso E. Bajar, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Why was it cancelled, Mr. Witness.

MR. ALCANTARA.  There is an annotation on the face of the title, Your Honor.  It is stamped marked cancelled.  The reason for the cancellation, Your Honor, of this title is the registration of a sale.  This is entered under Primary Entry No. 8708 T-125683 Sale.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.  And by reason of this inscription evidencing sale of the property covered by this transfer certificate of title, Exhibit YY series, there was a new title issued, Mr. Witness?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  May I have a copy of that new title.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, I have with me the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-327732 registered in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  I am showing to you what has been marked as Exhibit BBB up to BBB-2 for the prosecution.  May I invite you to look at the dorsal portion on the second…yes, under the memorandum of encumbrances, Mr. Witness.  And focus your attention, invite your attention to the stamped entry here.  Can you read that for the record.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the second page of this title, there is Entry No. 2504T-327732 mortgage in favour of Bank of Philippine Islands to guarantee a principal obligation in the sum of P12 million …. consent necessary in case of subsequent encumbrance or alienation of the property.  Other conditions set forth in Document No. 461, Book No. 106, Page No. 301, Notary Public of  Quezon City, Delfin R. Agcaoili, date of instrument 5-15-09, date of inscription, 5-19-09, signed Carlo V. Alcantara, Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  This document, Your Honor, we would request to be marked as our Exhibit 50 consisting of three pages and that particular inscription read for the record by the witness, Your Honor, in the dorsal portion described as real estate mortgage with the signature of the witness above it, printed name Carlo V. Alcantara be encircled and submark as our Exhibit 50-A

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that an encumbrance on the title of Constantino Castillo III?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  We will go to another point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  You recall having testified about the Burgundy unit in the name of Renato Corona and Cristina Corona, Mr. Witness?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Do you have the certificate of authority or authorization to register?  You  have identified that if I recall correctly.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Do you have it?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, I have with me the original of the certificate authorizing registration, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Is this Exhibit QQQQ, may I invite your attention, Mr. Good Counsel, Atty. Justiniano.  I think we have the same although what I have is a certified true copy, Mr. Witness.  Can you just go in Section A, description of real property.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  And there is reference there under the column market zonal value of an amount, was well as the column selling price.  Can you read the market/zonal value as entered there, for the record.

MR. ALCANTARA.  The market zonal value is P1,567,500, Sir.  The selling price, Your Honor, is P2,508,000, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Your Honor, we would like to request that this Certificate Authorizing Registration Exhibit QQQQ for the prosecution, identified by the witness, be marked as our Exhibit 51, and the entries read be both encircled under market zonal value and selling price, and submarked as our Exhibit 51-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark all the documents accordingly as requested by the defense, including the previous ones because the Chair missed to give a direction with respect to the marking.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Do you recall having testified, Mr. Witness, relative to a parcel of land located in what is known as Ayala Heights Subdivision in the year 2010 for P8 million?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Do you have also the Certificate Authorizing Registration for this property?  Witness is examining his records.  Did you find it?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  And for the record, Your Honor, the copy with the Clerk of Court of this Impeachment Court is previously marked as Exhibit III.

May I invite again your attention to Section A of this particular document, Mr. Witness and go to the column market/zonal value.  It states there—Can you read it for the record.  I’m sorry.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Sir, the market/zonal value is P13,800,000.  The selling price, Your Honor, is P8 million, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you.  Would this document show who the buyer or purchaser of this lot is?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Sir, it indicated on the CAR as the buyer is Amelia E. Rivera, FR, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you.  Your Honor, we would request that this Exhibit III for prosecution, a document just identified once more by the witness, be marked as our Exhibit 52 and the entries under market/zonal value and selling price of P8 million be encircled and submarked as our Exhibit 52-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you, Your Honor.  We go to another point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark the document accordingly.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  There was another property, this time, located in La Vista Subdivision, also in Quezon City, Mr. Witness, that you—the documents of which, you have identified.  Would you have also the certificate authorizing registration insofar as this property is concerned?

The clerk of court handed to this representation, Your Honor, a certificate authorizing registration, Exhibit WW for the prosecution.

Did you find it, Mr. Witness?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  May I invite once more your attention to Section 8, description of real properties, particularly under the columns, market value, zonal value, and selling price.

Can you read for the record the entries under these columns, Mr. Witness.

MR. ALCANTARA.  The zonal value, Sir, is P21,600,000.  The selling price, Your Honor, is P18,000,000, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  We will request that this document, Your Honor, Exhibit WW, be also marked as our Exhibit 53 and the entries under those pertinent columns that the witness just read be encircled and sub-marked as our Exhibit 53-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark the document accordingly.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Two other properties in Quezon City, according to you, Mr. Witness, and you correct me if I am wrong, were also registered in the name of one Renato Corona and Cristina Corona, may I ask you if you have the titles with you covering these properties located in Xavierville Subdivision.

I have been informed that these are Exhibits QQ and RR, for expediency, please.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Sir, I have with me the original copy of transfer certificate of title number RT-3191(163660).  This title, Your Honor, is registered in the name of Renato C. Corona, married to Ma. Cristina R. Corona, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Okay.  May I invite your attention, when was this entered, based on your records?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this title, transfer certificate of title number RT-3191(163660) was issued on April 5, 1971 at 8:20 in the morning, Sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you.  Again, Your Honor, with the kind indulgence of the honorable impeachment court, we request that this particular Exhibit QQ for the prosecution—this has already been marked as Exhibit 20, I am so sorry.

May I just request for a sub-marking, Your Honor, the entry just read by the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATY. ESGUERRA.  The date of the entry be encircled in this particular TCT and sub-mark as our Exhibit 20-A.

Is there any transfer certificate of title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Transfer  Certificate of Title number N-141891, Sir.  This title is registered in the name of Renato C. Corona married to Cristina R. Corona, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.  Again inviting you to this exhibit particularly the entry as to the date of the inscription.  Can you read this for the record, Mr. Witness.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this title was issued on October 23, 1995 at 10:30 in the morning, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  For the record, Your Honor, we would just like to manifest that that particular entry in this particular Exhibit RR has already been previously marked as Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 21-A, Your Honor, insofar as the inscription is concerned.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  That will be all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any re-direct?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  No re-direct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Permission, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next witness.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, may we call on our second witness for the cross-examination of the defense, the Register of Deeds of Marikina.  The witness, Your Honor, is on his way to the session hall.  A few minutes.  He is here.  Your Honor, he is here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Trial resumes.  Let the witness take the witness stand.  Has he been sworn by the court?  Under the same oath.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The distinguished defense counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request, Your Honor, that Atty. Esguerra, a member of the defense panel be allowed to conduct the cross-examination of this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty Esguerra is recognized.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you once again, Your Honor.  With your permission, and the permission of the other honorable members of the impeachment court.  Since when have you been the Register of Deeds of Marikina City, Mr. Witness?

MR. GARCIA.  Sir, I have been the register of deeds of Marikina since 2006, that is six years, Your Honor.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  And you have identified in your direct testimony, Mr. Witness, certain properties, appearing in your record, to be registered in the name of Cristina Roco Corona married to Renato C. Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Now, as far as your record show, you did not find any deed of sale or deed of transfer or any form of deed of conveyance transferring this particular property to any person?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  And would I be correct in saying, therefore, that you are not aware that these properties covered by the seven titles have already been sold.

REP. BARZAGA.  Misleading, Your Honor.  Objection, Your Honor.  Because the counsel is already assuming a fact .  And what is the fact being assumed?  That there has been already a deed of sale.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MR. GARCIA.  As per records, sir, there is no record of any sale for that matter, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  You would not know a certain Demetrio C. Vicente, Mr. Witness.

MR. GARCIA.  As per record, sir, from the records of the register of deeds, there is no such name, sir.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Let me show you, Mr. Witness, and tell this honourable impeachment court a document denominated as deed of absolute sale consisting of five pages, Your  Honor.  May I simply ask you if have seen this particular document.

REP. BARZAGA.  Well, actually, Your Honor, there is no basis.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is just asking the witness if he has seen the document.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, I have not seen these documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The witness may answer.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  There is an inscription on page 5 and because you have not seen according to you this document under the dorsal portion on page 5, an entry in the blue ink, have you seen this particular entry, if at all?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  May I request the counsel for the prosecution to be deferent to the defense counsel, he is cross-examining and I think it is proper that the prosecution so state where they are.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.    Your Honor, may I request for a provisional marking of this exhibit because the witness would not be able to identify this at this point in time.  We will present when out turn comes, Your Honor, the appropriate witness to identify this particular entry here about a certificate of authorization to register signed by one Rodrigo M. Lopez, Assistant Revenue District Officer, dated July 30, 1990.  Just a provisional marking, Your Honor, so we will not get lost.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let it be marked accordingly.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  We request that the document be marked as our Exhibit 54, Your Honor, and that the particular CAR entry here at the last page, page 5, be encircled as our Exhibit 54-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let it be marked accordingly.

REP. BARZAGA.  Your Honor, may I be permitted to see the document.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  They are with the Clerk of Court, Your Honor, the original brownish document and the photocopy, Your Honor.

REP. BARZAGA.  I will just make a manifestation, Your Honor, that the photocopy…

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Nandoon po sa isang pahina, Kagalang-galang na Kongresista.

REP. BARZAGA.  We admit that the photocopy is a true and faithful reproduction of the original to expedite the proceedings.

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel for the defense, are you through with the cross?

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  We are, Your Honor, with the marking of this particular exhibit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the document already marked?  Is that document already marked for the parties?

ATTY. ESGUERRA.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the document already marked for theparties?  Please state it into the record if it is already marked for the parties.  Alright, the redirect.

REP. BARZAGA.  No redirect, Your Honor.  I would just like to manifest, Your Honor, that the seven titles involving the Marikina properties the photocopies have been previously marked in evidence starting from Exhibit HH up to Exhibit NN.  However, in the course of the marking, we requested the defense counsel if he is willing to stipulate that the photocopies are true and faithful reproduction of the original and they answered that they would make the stipulation in open court.  That is why, Your Honor, right now I am asking the defense counsel if they are willing to stipulate that the photocopies of the seven titles are true and faithful reproduction of the original titles in the possession of the Register of Deeds of Marikina.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Not only willing to stipulate, Your Honor, we’ll go on record as making the admission that they are the titles covering the seven parcels, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Are you satisfied with the answer?

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes, very much satisfied, Your Honor.  We don’t want to have any technicality in the future.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

REP. BARZAGA.  That would be with the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  The witness is discharged.  Are There Member of the court who wishes to post questions to the witness?

The distinguished Minority Leader has the floor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Magandang hapon, Mr. Presiding Officer, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Magandang hapon po.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  … my colleagues at ang defense and prosecution.

Mr. Presiding Officer, nung mga huling araw, meron po kasing confusion sa mga values o sa mga amounts at gusto ko lang i-clarify, I think the RD will be clarified—will be the right person or RDs are people dealing with land titles and assessment of land will be quailed to answer this questions, and after this question, I’d like to ask the defense and the prosecution for a legal memo para very clear tayo sa pinag-uusapan natin dito.

Mr. Witness, hindi po pa na yung fair market value, zonal value at yung schedule na makikita mo sa assessor’s office ay maaaring iba-iba yung amount na ito?

MR. GARCIA.  Posible po.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  At sabihin nyo po kung tama interpretasyon ko, pero kung mali po, pakipaliwanag no.

Ang fair market value, yun yung usual amount na isang taong gustong magbenta, at yung isang taong gustong bumili na be freely, as Senator Guingona said no, meeting of the minds sila nagkasundo.  So kung sa isang subdivision, nagkalimang bentahan, apat na P10,000 per square, isang P8,000 per square, ang fair market value ba is somewhere around P10,000 per square.  Tama po ba iyon?

MR. GARCIA.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  Ang zonal value ng BIR, nilalabas ‘to ng BIR?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes po.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  So ibig sabahin, fixed na ‘to?  So kung sa subdivision na yon, sinabi nila ang zonal value is P8,000, yun ang zonal value don?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes po.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  Pero pag sa Deed of Sale nakalagay P6,000 per square, for tax purposes you will follow the zonal value.

MR. GARCIA.  Whichever is higher po.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  The zonal or the market or the assessed value ng assessor’s office no?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  In a lot of areas, ang value sa assessor’s office at sa BIR ay magkaiba?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  So for example, ang assessed value, let’s say, for the assessor’s office of the City of Taguig, Fort Bonifacio, pwedeng ang pinakamataas is P30,000 per square, tapos sa BIR its P35,000, pero in reality, and selling price na is P100,000?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes po.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  That’s possible no?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  Just to make it clear.  Fair market value, yun talaga yung value?

Mr. President, I’ll finish my time to ask.  But this is the question I’d like to ask both the defense and the prosecution.  Ang charge po kasi niyan non-disclosure.  Ngayon, nasa batas naman kung anong dapat i-disclose.  So I would like to know, I assume that some of my colleagues would like to know, ano ba ang sinasabi niyong—Gano ka-specific dapat ang SALN at ano ba yung amount na dapat nandon?

So pag sinabing acquisition cost, dapat ba yung nandon yung zonal value?  Dapat ba nandon assessed value, o yung value nandon sa Deed of Sale?  Or kung hindi Deed of Sale e binayad don for tax purposes at binaba, no.  So, I think these are points of law, Mr. President, as you ruled before, when it comes to points of law we will allow the prosecution and the defense to just submit either memos or argue it, Mr. President, but I think this will help us in the future dahil in the last few days yan ang pinag-uusapan natin.  Kung ano ang dapat amount nasa SALN and whether or not nandon dapat at kung ano sa mga amount na yon ang dapat nandon.

Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Chair would like to make a comment.  Assessed value is for purposes of collecting real estate taxes.  That is the valuation of the municipal or city or provincial assessor for real estate purposes.

Now, in the case of zonal value, for purposes of transaction involving real estate, that is the basis.  The minimum basis for computing the capital gains, the final capital gains tax. it cannot be less than that, it cannot be higher than fair market value.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  I agree, Mr. President.  But a few days ago, when Senator Recto, note, he was asking about the P14.6 million in the deed of sale compared to the P6.8 million declared in the SALN, and there was a mention that maybe, the P6.8 million is the zonal valuation.

So, what I want the prosecution and the defense to clear up is, is the prosecutor now saying—is the prosecution now saying, ang dapat na amount na nandoon, ano ba, iyong sa deed of sale?  Kasi iyong sa deed of sale na iyon, 2008 pa, pero tumaas na ang presyo sa Fort Bonifacio ngayon, 2012 na ngayon.

On the other hand, what is the side of the defense, anong amount ang compliance now with law, Mr. President?  And as you said, in the past, Mr. President, points of law, we should not argue it, but allow the two parties to be the one to come out with their stand on each issue, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, may I ….

REP. BARZAGA.  A very short response, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The defense counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  On the part of the defense, Your Honor, may I be allowed, in connection with this issue now, to read what is provided for under the rules governing the contents of the SALN that must be filed by a public officer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am referring to rule 7,Your Honor, public disclosure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Whose rule is that?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is the rule, Your Honor, made by the Civil Service, Your Honor, in connection with what the contents of the SALN …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is issued by what department of the government?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Civil Service Commission, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Civil Service Commission, okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  Every—may I know proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Every official and employee, except those who serve in an official honorary capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary labourers, and casual or temporary contractual workers shall file under oath their statement of assets, liabilities and networth, and a disclosure of business interest and financial connections, including those of their spouses and unmarried children under 18 years of age, living in their household, in the prescribed form, contents of the statement, Your Honor.

The statement of assets and liabilities and networth shall contain information on the following:  First, real property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed value and current fair market value.

I would like to state, Your Honor, that the filer has no alternative, Your Honor.  All these must be stated, as per requirement of these rules, relative to the filing of the statement of assets and liabilities.  In other words, if the filer state merely the assessed value, that is not sufficient compliance.  If he said acquisition cost, it is not, because the rules, the implementing rules require these matters to be stated in the very document to be filed, Your Honor.

Now, insofar as whether the statement of assets and liabilities involved in this particular case involved, Your Honor, we have not gone this far, Your Honor, because if the court will remember, the introduction of evidence in connection with Article II merely refers to 2.2 and 2.3.

So, the only issue is, was there filing.  There was no statement as to whether what was filed is inaccurate.  If there were corrections we made, and so on, Your Honor.  So, I submit, that these items required to be filed in here, even if not complied with.  This will exempt the filer from any liability whatsoever.

In fact, under the same procedure, if after the examination of what was filed, there seem to be errors or discrepancies, then, he is allowed.  He is allowed to make the correction.

This is the provision of the rules and regulations, Your Honor.

So, we are not prepared to go on stipulation, relative to what it must contain, because the law is specific, the rules and regulation.

Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Mr. President, I am happy with that answer.  Because I believe, then, we can agree that the SALN should contain …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  … all of that …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  … because we all have copies of the SALN, and the public can get a copy or can see it through the media, so we can see whether there is compliance or not, but as the defense has said, they are taking two issues, whether or not 2.2 and 2.3 would include an examination of the SALN.

Basically, Mr. President I am just glad that we can agree na iyon po ang sinabi ng Civil Service.  So, ang sinabi ninyo po “and”.  So, it should contain fair market value, assessed value and acquisition cost.  So, if the prosecution also agrees on that, and that is what the law says, then, I think, at least, as far as that issue is concerned, we will simply examine the SALN and look whether or not nandoon po iyong mga binanggit noong law.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Whatever is our agreement, it will not affect the requirements prescribed by the rules and regulations.  We may agree otherwise, but that will not have the effect of amending …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  I agree, Mr. President.  I just wanted to know whether my issue po doon o wala.  And I am glad na we both believe … Kasi ang  nagiging issue ho, Justice, if I am correct, iyong interpretation ng law. But now, the way you read it, it seems that it is very clear to all of us and I can see my fellow Senator Judges nodding, so I will leave it at that.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you very much also.

REP. BARZAGA.  May the prosecution respond very short only.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution may make a response.  Proceed

REP. BARZAGA.  Well, actually we agree …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You   have two minutes.

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes.  Actually, we agree with the circular coming from the Civil Service and as a matter of fact, it is only a reiteration of what is provided under Section 8 of Republic Act 6713.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, that is  no quarrel about that.

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes. But we want to point out, Your Honor, that although the distinguished defense counsel has actually stated that the SALN should contain the acquisition cost, the assessed value, and the current fair market value, in the SALNs of the Chief Justice, which happen to be a common exhibit of both the prosecution and defense, the column pertaining to acquisition cost as well as the improvements are blank.  There is no declaration regarding the acquisition cost of the properties acquired by the Chief Justice in all his SALNs from 2002 up to 2010.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your ground under Article II is culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust.  Are you offering the SALN as evidence for culpable violation of the Constitution or for betrayal of public trust?

REP. BARZAGA.  Both cases, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Both.

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you explain to us the culpable violation of the Constitution.

REP. BARZAGA.  Under the Constitution, Your Honor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is required to file a statement of assets, liabilities and networth.  And also, when the highest official in the Judiciary should not declare accurately and truthfully and should intentionally let some blanks open, insofar as acquisition cost is concerned, then we think that that would be the highest form of betrayal of public trust.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you author it for both.

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Recto wishes to be recognized, then Senator Joker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Batangas has two minutes.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. President, I invite the attention of the prosecution and the defense, since we are talking already of the laws governing the filing and disclosures in the SALN.  The defense earlier mentioned, implementing rules and regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission, and he spoke about Rule 7 on public disclosure, is that correct?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.  That is not my opinion, Your Honor.  That is… I just read the rule as it is.

SEN. RECTO.  That is correct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No subtraction, no addition whatsoever.

SEN. RECTO.  Now, let me invite the attention of the defense, to Rule 8 of the same implementing rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission, and I would also like to get the comments from the prosecution, Rule 8 says, review and compliance procedure, Section 1.  The following shall have the authority to establish compliance procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements have been properly accomplished a) in the case of Congress the designated committees of both Houses of Congress subject to approval by the affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned; b)  in the case of Executive Department, the heads of departments, offices and agencies insofar as their respective department, offices, agencies are concerned subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice; c)  in the case of the Judicial Department, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and, d) in the case of the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, the respective chairmen and members thereof in the case of the Office of the Ombudsman, the above officials shall likewise have the authority to render any opinion interpreting the provisions of the review and compliance, procedures in the filing of SALN and disclosure of information following—it says, in the event said authority has determined that the state is not properly filed or filled, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.  Meaninig to say, it can be corrected.  And finally, it says, the individual to whom an opinion is rendered and any other individual involve in a similar factual situation and who after issuance of that opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in the court.  What does this mean, counsel for the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, to us, it is our humble opinion, Your Honor, that if there may have been discrepancies, inaccuracies, incompleteness in the returns, Your Honor, this can be remedied after a review of the SALN had been made.  If it is not intentional, Your Honor, no criminal liability nor any administrative liability is incurred by the filing official, Your Honor.  Furthermore, the law on the matter is very clear with respect to review and compliance procedure.  And with the kind permission of this honourable court, may I be allowed to read the same, Your Honor.  Section 10, I am referring to the very law itself, Your Honor.  “The designated of both Houses of Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statement to determine whether said statement which had been submitted on time are complete and are in proper form.  In the event a determination is made that the statement is not so fine, the appropriate committee shall inform the reporting individual and to direct him to take the necessary corrective action.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, Counsel, for the information of the court, what is the penalty of that complying with the required form.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Subject to corrective instructions that may be made by the committee investigating the issued, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There is no specific penalty?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No penalty.  If it is not malicious, it was not intentional and the committee determines that it is so, no criminal nor any administrative liability.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, okay.

SEN RECTO.  Mr. President, there are penalties under the law but I can get to that later on but can we hear from the prosecution the point of the prosecution on this matter as well.

REP. BARZAGA.  Well, actually there is a case already decided by the Supreme Court and that would be the case of Residential Anti-Graft Commission versus Plato.  In that particular case this provision cited by the defense counsel was also the subject of issue and according to the Supreme Court, if there has been omission or not a faithful or true declaration of the properties, the filer cannot avail of these provisions in that particular case the filer would be liable for perjury because the statement insofar as the SALN is concerned is made under oath and there is a certification at the last portion that all the statements contained therein are true and correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  If it is a crime, is it a high crime?

REP. BARZAGA.  Well, it is

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is it a high crime?

REP. BARZAGA.  No, Your Honor, it is not a high crime.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  You read the Constitution, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption and other high crimes could be the basis for impeachment.

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright so that’s the law.

REP. BARZAGA.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I be allowed to make a short reply, Your Honor.  The Plato case mentioned by my colleague, Your Honor, finds no applicability  to present situation.  No analogy. It has no compelling force so as to be considered by this honourable court.  In there, Plato have been found to be liable on so many occasions already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, you know, this is a legal issue and I thought that we agreed on that a legal memorandum be submitted.

May we request that we now proceed with the trial and have the witnesses presented and these issues on what …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So let’s finish this colloquy and proceed with the trial.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have gone this far because there is a query posted by the honourable Senator from Taguig, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The only reason why this Chair asked the prosecution to classify perjury because in order to relate it to the grounds for impeachment and the other thing.

So let’s stop this argumentation.  Let’s proceed with the trial.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, then, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Finally, Mr. President, may I just request that both counsels to submit the legal memorandum to the Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Comply with the request of the Gentleman from Batangas.  (Gavel)

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  One last final question to the prosecutor, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol, then after that the Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Just a final question, Mr. President.

In relation to the cross-examination earlier, may I find out from the defense the nature of that cross-examination earlier?  Because I did ask the question two or three days ago, if I’m not mistaken, ilang properties na ba ang na-present prosecution insofar as Article II is concerned?  At ang sabi nila, meron pang pitong properties in Marikina.  And today, you did a cross-examination of the witness.  Is it our position that in 1990, in effect, is that your position that these properties have been sold already, and therefore, it is no longer found in the SALN.  Is that what you’re saying?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s correct, Your Honor.

Secondly, the property referred to by the honourable Register of Deeds awhile ago does not belong to the Chief Justice.  It is registered in the name of the owner—the daughter, Your Honor, who is of legal age.  And there could be no presumption that could arise under the situation, unless, fraud had been proven, Your Honor.

Now, in this Marikina properties, if I may be allowed to go a little further in response to the query of the honourable Gentleman from Batangas, Your Honor, this property is one single parcel.  It was subdivided into seven parcels, Your Honor.  It was sold already.  There were seven titles, Your Honor.  We have the document of sale.  We are ready to present it when our turn comes.  But there was already payment of all the fees required by law.  But the buyer did not register it.

So it’s still appears in the name of …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Let me just state for the record and I will sit down and yield the floor to the Gentleman from Makati.

Nagtataka ko kahapon.  Sinasabi ninyo that dahil hindi pa nape-perfect yung transfer, and therefore, hindi kailangan ilagay sa SALN.  Okay?  Now, in this case, baligtad naman yung argumento ninyo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A, hindi po.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Let me finish.  Because in this case naman ngayon, sinasabi ninyo, hindi pala na-perfect to the buyer since 1990, and therefore, hindi pa dapat sa buyer yon, nasa sa inyo pa rin yon.  Based on your arguments yesterday.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No comparison between that property and this property.

The other property, there is a claim that there was already a transfer of ownership constructively, Your Honor.  We have authorities on the point that we should distinguish ownership from possession.  If what was delivered is only possession not ownership, there is no legitimate transfer.

In this particular instance, Your Honor, not only possession have been transferred, even ownership.  In fact, the real estate taxes are being paid by the buyer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At any rate, all of these will be covered by the memorandum of the parties when they submit their cases to this court.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Thank you, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will comply, Your Honor, as suggested …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from …

SEN. SOTTO.  Makati, and then Senator Pimentel, Mr. President.

SEN. ARROYO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

I think we should be happy that this discussion arose.  We have been hearing the evidence presented back and forth.  Now, what we have overlooked here is that we should determine whether the offenses or omissions committed by the respondent are of which is the level of an impeachable offense.  That is the criteria.

Not every offense, not every omission is an impeachable offense.  In other words, even a crime that may have been committed, it is not an impeachable offense.  We should not all look that—and so the responsibility of the prosecution is to present evidence that would amount to an impeachable offense, and the defense must also diffuse it.  Otherwise, if we are given—on the evidence presented here, is just any kind of evidence, then, I think, it is not fair to the Senate, because our criteria is an impeachable offense.

Remember, that President Clinton was impeached.  The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Clinton.  It was elevated to the Senate.  When the Senate heard it, the Senate said, it did not amount to an impeachable offense and cleared him.

Now, that is the picture now and that is the situation now that we have to—because otherwise, we will be hearing all this.  We want this finished.  But give us evidence that has reached the level of an impeachable offense.  It is not just any offense.  It must be of a higher bar because we are removing a Chief Justice.  This is not to say that it is—like for instance, an omission in this—if it is something to hang on to.

So, that is all I would like to say, otherwise, we will go astray in the course of the proceedings and if we have been listening to—and so, I am thankful that this issue arose.

Thank you, Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, just a …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will recognize first the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro and Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  To the defense counsel, how many documents, Sir, did you have provisionally marked during the course of the cross examination?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Of this particular witness, Your Honor?

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, of this particular witness, Sir.  Only one.  How many?   Only one.  One or two?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Only one, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  One.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The others are sub-marking,Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, so, one document, provisionally marked, because yuo will have it properly identified by your own witness.  But even though it is provisional marking, can we ask for a copy already?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is alright.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, that we can anticipate your theory and we can appreciate the cross examination.  And that document, Sir, is a deed of sale, dated 1990, covering the seven titles produced by this witness, is that it?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor.  He was only confronted with it because it is a document existing in our behalf, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, Sir.  It is a deed of sale, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, covering seven titles …

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Covering the seven titles …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … emanating from one title only.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, Sir.  Yes, Sir, but covering the seven titles produced by this witness.  Okay.  So, I want to ask this question to the witness, so, the seven titles that you produced before this court are still subsisting in your book of titles, so, if summoned, we are to ask for a copy, you would give this titles as still subsisting and valid titles.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, that means that 22 years has elapsed, and yet, the titles, the seven titles have not been transferred to the buyer named in that document.  Is that the—so, maybe, we will just ask your witness, why the buyer has allowed 22 years to pass without transferring the title to the buyer’s name.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, we are not in control of the buyer.  We are not privy to him.  We have no relation whatsoever.  What we did say is that there was a sale made by our client, Mrs. Corona, in favour of this buyer.  Now, whether she wanted it registered or not is his own look out.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, sir.  I know.  I know, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Okay.  Anyway, so, my point is, we are not to fault the prosecution for pursuing this subject matter because the titles still exist in the name of Maria Cristina Corona married to Renato C. Corona.  So, it means that the defense has to explain why the titles are  still in the name .of the wife of the respondent…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are not faulting them, Your Honor.  Never is it our intention.  We only wanted to stick with our evidence.  And our evidence show that this property had been sold several years ago, it was transferred to the buyer.  But the buyer refuses to register.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, as far I am concerned, I am not faulting the prosecution and this has not been a waste of time because they have correctly pursued this angle.  In my opinion.  Thank you, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you also.

REP. BARZAGA.  Just a brief response.  The defense is saying that these properties had been sold as early as 1990.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, sir.

REP. BARZAGA.  However, in our document which has been previously marked as Exhibit B, in the SALN of the Chief Justice for July, 1992, the Marikina properties are still included among the list of his properties.  And that is the reason we are bringing out these properties.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  And you could elaborate on that in your memorandum.

REP. BARZAGA.  Thank you.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But why will the Chief Justice, Your Honor …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.  Yes, Counsel, please finish your sentence.

SEN. SOTTO.  And then Senator Escudero, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Why the Chief Justice be the subject matter of an impeachment proceedings for the failure of the buyer of the property he has?  It is unfair.  No basis.  No justice, whatsoever, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, we are now discussing the evidence of the defense.  I think … let us wait for the defense to present their defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gentleman from Iloilo has the floor.

SEN. DRILON.  Well, the Senator Judges were not allowed access to this particular document.  This is deed of sale dated …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We could have done so, Your Honor, but for fear that we may have been …

SEN. DRILON.  Just for the record.  Just so for our information.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is a deed of sale, Your Honor, made by Maria Cristina Roco Corona …

SEN. DRILON.  In favour of …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In favour of Demetrio C. Vicente, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Dated.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Dated July 26, 1990.

SEN. DRILON.  July 26, 1990.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Notarized by one Maria Biatriz S. Montoya, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And how much is the consideration for the transfer?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  P509,985.00, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I beg the indulgence of the members of the court.  Let us not vary the order of proof here.  Let us wait for the defense to bring that out and that is the proper subject for cross-examination of the prosecution.  So ordered.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Escudero wishes to be recognized, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Just three points actually.  One, this is raised earlier already.  Tungkol ho doon sa tinatanong na…tinanong ko po ito kahapon.  Ano ba ang depinisyon ninyo?  Kailan ba idedeklara?  Dahil lumalabas ho yata na teorya ng prosecution, sabi ninyo kahapon, kapagka in-execute iyong deed of sale ay dapat nilagay na sa SALN.  Sabi ng depensa kahapon, kapagka tinurnover at tinanggap na, doon dapat ilagay sa SALN.  Ngayon po kasi lumalabas, iyong titulo nasa pangalan pa ni Chief Justice Corona pero may deed of sale na.  May I ask the prosecutor, if it is proven that indeed there is a deed of sale, kung napatunayan ho ng depensa iyan pagdating ng turno nila, pero iyong titulo nakapangalan pa po sa kanya.  Ayon sa inyo kahapon, kapagka may deed of sale, kahit wala pang titulo, dapat ideklara na.  Binibilang pa rin po ba ninyo ito kung saka-sakali mapapatunayan niya, bibilanging pa po ba ninyo ito kung may deed of sale na nga bagaman hindi pa rehistrado.  Kailangan ba nakalagay din po sa SALN niya iyon?

REP. BARZAGA.  Well, that is a matter of defense and appreciation on the  part of the impeachment court.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  But I would like to request, Mr. President, since we request them to submit a memorandum on this matter, can you kindly include this circumstance…

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  … because you cannot be inconsistent nor can you have a double standard on this.  And the same is true with the defense as pointed out by Senator Recto.  Hindi pupwedeng kapagka pomapabor sa magkabilang panig it should be consistent and one and the same.  The second point, Mr. President, I join Senator Arroyo.  We might be wasting our time discussing crimes that may not be impeachable.  For example, assuming na may video na nag-jaywalking si Chief Justice Corona, is this of the nature, indeed if it is a violation of the law, is this of the nature that we can impeach him based on this criminal act?  Let us say, naglagay siya sa LTO para mabilis-bilis iyong kanyang pagbigay ng lisensya, may video din, naglagay ng pera, nagbigay ng P500.00.  Is this of the nature?  What essentially we are asking for is kindly educate us on the gravity and level of crimes that would be and should be considered as impeachable.  In the United States, for example, they also require a similar document to be presented as our SALN.  The talk and speak of a range.  If you go beyond a certain range, then you are liable.  But if you are within a certain range, below or higher the actual value, okay lang iyon.  So, in other words, what I am asking for is kung mahigit P1 milyon iyong na-miss niyang hindi idineklara, does that make it impeachable?  Kung P500,000 lang, does that make it not impeachable?  Kung anim ang idineklara tapos lima lang pala talaga, is that impeachable?  Can you include that in your memorandum on the part of the defense and the prosecution.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will, Your Honor.  After you are through may we be allowed to be heard?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request the parties to please be courteous to one another.  The counsel for the defense is still talking and then there is an interruption.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  With due apologies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  From hereon, I will warn everybody that this Chair will impose the rules of this House.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President, sans the arguments and debates by the parties, again I am simply requesting for a memorandum on this matter.  We need not hear them at this point in time.  My last point, Mr. President, Your Honor, is just for clarity because I have been counting the properties.  Last time, I heard the prosecution, they announced that the Chief Justice has 45 properties.  Just that I may find out if my count is accurate, so far the prosecution has presented how many properties?  My count is 18 properties both in his name, in the name of his spouse, in the name of his children plus six parking lots.  That makes i t 24 if I will linclude the parking lots as properties.  You announced to the media and here, I guess in the impeachment court  as well that it is 45.  Do I take it that you are presenting 21 more titles?

REP. TUPAS.  No, Your Honor.  The 45 properties was a list from the Land Registration Authority.  But as far as the prosecution is concerned, so far we have presented 21 titles.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  21.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, so far.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Which includes the parking lots.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President, at this juncture, I join the Chair and again using this as an example in revealing evidence to the public, one side already said there were 45 titles and here we are waiting for 45 titles to be presented.  I hope, Mr. President, Your Honor, that this will serve as a guide that unless evidence is presented before the court and accepted, we cannot evaluate it.  It is unfair to the Senator-Judges to be accused of, 45 iyan, ano ba naman kayo ganyan pa rin ang desisyon ninyo.  Ang ipiniprisenta pa lang pala ninyo ay 21.  Do I take it you will not even reach 45?

REP. TUPAS.  We will not reach 45 and we just want to put on record, Your Honor, that the 45 did not come from the prosecution.  It was a letter…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Order.

REP. TUPAS.  May I proceed, Mr. President, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please, the counsel.

REP. TUPAS.  Just for clarification.  The 45 properties came from the Land Registration Authority.  It was a letter  coming not from the prosecution but from a government agency and right now it is up to the prosecution to present evidence and so far  we have presented 21 properties.  We might present some more but we are not bound by that 45 properties from the Land Registration Authority.

REP. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President, just one point now and I will yield to Senator Estrada.

Mr. President, I know that the letter came from the Land Registration Authority, but it was the prosecution, or through its spokespersons that revealed it to the public and told the public about the fact that there are 45 properties.

Again, it is putting us in a bind, because although it was announced that there were 45, in actuality, only 21, 24, 25 will be presented.  We might be put on the spot na hindi namin nakita yung 45, e ang pinresent na lang naman talaga dito e yun lang naman talaga.

Again, I just wanted to make sure of my count.  So, it’s not 18, it’s 21 so far, plus the ones that will be presented.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.  That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield to Senator Estrada, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The President Pro Tempore, Senator Estrada.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Maraming salamat Ginoong Pangulo.

Mr. Prosecutor, base sa mga tinanong ni Senator Escudero, base sa sinabi niyo na hindi raw nanggaling sa inyo ang listahan na sinasabi ninyong 45 properties na ari-arian ni Chief Justice Corona, tama po ba ko?

SEN. TUPAS.  Tama po.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Sino’ng naglabas na sa media non?

REP. TUPAS.  Ang nangyari po non, …

SEN. ESTRADA.  No, no, no.  Sino po ang naglabas sa media nung alleged 45 properties ni Chief Justice Corona?

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi po kami naglabas sa media.

SEN. ESTRADA.  E sino po’ng naglabas?

REP. TUPAS.  Nag-file po kami ng subpoena testificandum at duces tecum, may attached …

SEN. ESTRADA.  No, ang tinatanong ko po sa inyo, sino ang naglabas ng listahan ng LRA sa publiko?

REP. TUPAS.  Kaya po, …

SEN. ESTRADA.  Hindi, yes or no.

REP. TUPAS.  If the Senator will allow me.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Okay.

REP. TUPAS.  Please, Your Honor.  I think it was a few days before the start of the trial …

SEN. ESTRADA.  Yes.

REP. TUPAS.  … in January that we filed a motion or request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum with respect to the document and we attached the letter coming from the LRA.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, you are now admitting that you, yourself, released it to the media.

REP. TUPAS.  We did not release it to the media, Your Honor.  We filed it with the Impeachment Tribunal.

SEN. ESTRADA.  All right.  So, are you making it appear that out of 45 properties of Chief Justice Corona, only 21 belongs to Mr. Corona?  18 plus the 6 parking lot?

REP. TUPAS.  Around 24.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, 24.  Yung 21 hindi pagmamayari ni Corona yan.  Tama po ba?  45 yung sinasabi niyo e sa listahan ng LRA e.

REP. TUPAS.  Yung iba cancelled po, Your Honor.  Cancelled, naibenta, …

SEN. ESTRADA.  So lumalabas sa dyaryo, pinalalabas nyo na maraming ari-arian si Chief Justice Corona, where in fact, 21 lang.  Tama po ba?

REP. TUPAS.  Marami rin po ang 24 o 21.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ano, ano?

REP. TUPAS.  Ang alam po namin 24 ngayon.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, 24 lang.  Hindi 45.

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi 45.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pinakikiusap lang ng hukumang ito, kung maaari ay magiging fair tayo sa bawa’t isa, lalong-lalo na igagalang ang karapatan nung nakasakdal.  Sapagka’t yan ay hindi ko inimbento yan, hindi inimbento nitong hukuman na ito, kung hindi yan po ay utos ng taong bayan sa kanilang Saligang Batas.  At may obligasyon po tayong lahat na sundin ang kautusan ng makapangyarihang taong bayan.  So, hwag na nating pag-usapan yan at isolo na nating yung paglilitis para sa ganon ay matapos na natin itong kaso na ito.

O sige, proceed with the trial.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please, may the defense be heard even for one or two minutes only in connection with this specific matter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have one minute.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

What is revolting to us is the fact that while it is true there were documents marked, identified and marked, they are not yet evidence in this case.  Because the rules of evidence require, insofar as documentary evidence is concerned, it must be identified, it must be marked, it must be offered in evidence, because if not offered, it will not be considered.  And there must be a ruling of the court, e wala pa pong nangyayari dito, minarkahan lang, pinakikita na nila sa publiko, ayan, pag-aari ni Chief Justice Corona.  Hindi ho ba very unfair yan?  Iyon lang an gaming ibig—wala pa pong ebidensya, sapagkat hanggang ngayon, wala pang offer.  Sa ngayon, wala pa pong ruling.  So, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With due respect, Mr. Counsel, we take note of your remarks.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor.  Just 30 seconds, we just want to put on record, some matter, Your Honor, please, around 30 seconds.

May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, thank you.  It was raised earlier by the honorable Senator Escudero and honorable Senator Joker Arroyo, the issue on the nature of the crime or the nature of the impeachment, or which crime—iyong crime that would result doon sa impeachable offense.  Gaano ba katindi dapat iyong krimen na iyon?

And it was mentioned by the honorable Senator Joker Arroyo, that not all crimes would constitute an impeachable offense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is correct.

REP. TUPAS.  In the same way, Your Honor, that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute, that is correct.  If you read the Constitution, it says, culpable violation of the Constitution; treason, which is a very—it carries a capital penalty, all those now reduced to life imprisonment; bribery, and these are several types of bribery; and then, anti-graft law, and other culpable violation of the Constitution—other high crimes.

The other high crimes, and as you know, we are both lawyers, is ejusdem generis, meaning, those, that preceded his term should have an equal value as to the general statement at the end.  Correct, counsel?

REP. TUPAS.  May I proceed, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

REP. TUPAS.  … because I have also a humble position on the matter.

In the same way, Your Honor, that not all offenses punishable by statute are impeachable offenses.  There are also offenses which does not amount to a crime that would constitute betrayal of public trust.

There was a question earlier coming from Your Honor, Mr. President, to one of the prosecutors, about the Plato case, and the question was, whether perjury, assuming there is perjury in that case, for the entries—false entries in the SALN or the statement of assets, liabilities and networth.  It was asked by Your Honor, whether it would constitute other high crime.

And it was correctly answered by one of the prosecutors when he said no.  I just want to put on record, Your Honor, that our charge against the Chief Justice is the untruthful entries in the statement of assets, liabilities, and it would not fall under high crime, it would fall under betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution, and under the definition by Bernas, and I will quote, “Betrayal of public trust intended as a catch-all to cover any violation of the oath of office, refers to all acts, even if not punishable by statute, which would render the officer unfit to continue an office.

So, we just want to put on record, that our charge is not high crime, it is betrayal of public trust.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that is why, counsel, I asked, whether the evidence presented is to prove culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust or both, to be fair to you.

And truly, the distinguished Congressman from Cavite said, it applies to both.  So, I took that, but our opinions about the

characterization of a crime as one way or the other is simply an opinion.  If we will have to evaluate this, then while I respect the constitutional scholar, Father Bernas, well, we will have to take his opinion under advicement because we will, ourselves, evaluate what is the meaning of public trust.  And that the definition of betrayal of public trust will come from there.  Okay.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  We would like to know if there are any other question to the witness so that we may discharge him.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are through with the witness, Your Honor.  There is no re-direct, Your Honor, so may we request that the witness be excused.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Before a motion that I will be posing in a while, may we recognize Senator Honasan for an inquiry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon, Senator Honasan.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, as a Senator Judge, I cannot put this issue of premature disclosure of information to the public before it is offered as evidence until we hold both the prosecution and the defense accountable and bind them to an order of the court last week which required or directed the spokesperson of the court to confer with the spokespersons of the prosecution and the defense so that they may moderate their pronouncements and the information that they disclose to media.  Because it was our observation, to which no one objected, that apparently, the trial outside the court room is proceeding faster than the trial inside the court.  So, Mr. President, I would submit that we ask the spokesperson of the court for a report now on how that order of the court was implemented.  I submit, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I suggest that we take that in our caucus on Monday.

SEN. HONASAN.  I submit, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We will take that up on our caucus on Monday.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you.  Mr. President, before the prosecution calls its next witness, I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial suspended.

It was 3:37 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF HEARING

At 4:07 p.m., the hearing was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  (Gavel)

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before the next witness of the prosecution, Senator Estrada wishes to be recognized for a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore, Senator Jinggoy Estrada.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just for the record, when Congressman Tupas answered me earlier that they did not release that particular document stating that Chief Justice Corona owns 45 properties, and that list came from the Land Registration Authority, and during the break, Mr. President, I chanced upon the TV, TV coverage of I think it was ANC, showing that Mr. Tupas, together with the members of the spokespersons of the prosecution panel, showing to the media the list of the 45 properties.  Kaya po hindi po totoo na hindi po sa kanila nanggaling ang mga listahan na ipinalabas sa media, dahil nagpa-picture taking pa ho si Ginoong Tupas.  Kitang-kita ko po kanina sa TV.

That’s why, you know, Mr. President, this people are putting the Impeachment Court or the Members of the Impeachment Court on the spot.  Pinapaniwala kami, pinapaniwala nilang publiko na 45 ari-arian ang pagmamay-ari ng Chief Justice.  Pero pagdaing dito, 24 lang yata ang ari-arian ni Chief Justice.  Yung anim don ay parking lot pa.  Yung iba, nasa pangalan nung kanyang mga anak.

You know, Mr. President, I am not defending the Chief Justice.  I don’t even know him.  In fact, he is one of those who conspired to oust my father from office.  Ang sinasabi ko lang, kailangan maging patas tayo rito sa hukumang ‘to.  Hwag tayo magsisinungaling.

Yon lang po, Ginoong Pangulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Mr. President, my name was mentioned.  May I just reply.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed, proceed.

REP. TUPAS.  With utmost respect to the honorable Senator Estrada, I admitted last week, when we were asked by Your Honor, with respect to our spokepersons, that we officially released a document on January 3, 2012, and this document is the Bellagio document.

I was the one who released it at the House of Representatives during a press conference, and I showed it to the public.  But that was the only document which we released to the public, because after that, Your Honor, raised that and we complied.

With respect to the properties, I never release that.  There is no picture with the media, no press conference. It was attached as an attachment, with the request for a subpoena which was filed around three days before January 16.

So, I just want to clarify that, of course, with utmost respect to our honorable Senator, Senator Estrada.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I just remind everybody that apart from being politicians, we, are lawyers, elected by the Filipino people, are still agent of the court.  And we are governed by the strict rules of our profession and we must behave in accordance with the ethics of our profession.

And I would like to appeal to everybody, both sides, to observe the norms of ethical conduct that is required of us as lawyers of this country.

So ordered.

Proceed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we understand, there is another witness for cross examination.

REP. TUPAS.  No more.  It is a new witess, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  New witness.

REP. TUPAS.  So, may we now call our third witness for today, the vice president of the Burguny Realty Corporation, Mr. Greg Gregonia.  Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Call the witness to witness stand and swear him.

REP. TUPAS.  And may we request that Atty. Clarence Jandoc be recognized, Your Honor, to conduct the direct examination for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Companero Atty. Clarence Jandoc will have the floor to present the witness for the prosecution.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Where is the witness.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honors, Mr. Senate President, good afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Good afternoon.

ATTY. JANDOC.  While we are waiting for the witness, may we just manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the prosecution earlier received an urgent ex-parte manifestation and motion, dated 20 January 2012, that was filed by Atty. Yolando F. Lim, for and on behalf of Burgundy Realty Corporation.

In essence, Your Honor, please, it states that Mr. Rogelio T. Cerafica, who was required by this honorable impeachment court via the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum, dated 17 January 2012, to produce certain documents pertaining to the condominium unit owned by respondent, Chief Justice Renato Corona and his wife at One Burgundy Plaza, is not the custodian thereof but a certain Mr. Greg Gregonia, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that?

ATTY. JANDOC.  The addressee of the subpoena is Mr. Rogelio T. Cerafica, but based on this urgent ex parte manifestation and motion that was filed by Atty. Yolando Lim, Your Honor, it stated that he is not the custodian of the documents required in the subpoena but the person in the witness stand, Mr. Greg Gregonia, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor..

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The defense…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Do we have to swallow hook line and sinker with the statement appearing there?  He should be here because he was the one subpoenaed, Your Honor, out of respect to the authority and magistry of this court, Your Honor.

That is what we are complaining about.  Witnesses had been subpoenaed, subpoena had been issued, then, later on, not to be produced, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who was the person requested by the prosecution to be subpoenaed?

ATTY. JANDOC.  The person requested, Your Honor, is Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica, who is the president of Burgundy Realty Corp. but pursuant to this ex-part urgent manifestation and motion filed for and in behalf of Burgundy Realty Corp, Your Honor, with attachments as to the purported flight of Rogelio T. Serafica out of the country, as supported by photocopy of his flight itinerary and a plane ticket, we deemed it more expedient and consistent with the administration of justice to present the person who, nonetheless, can testify on the records subject matter of the subpoena, Your Honor, to avoid any further delay on this matter, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the other fellow, other than Roger Serafica present?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor.  He is now on the stand, Your Honor.  He is the custodian, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let him testify if he knows the records that are being sought to be presented in this court.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

(Witness Mr Gregonia was sworn to an oath)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is without prejudice to calling Mr. Serafica at the proper time.  So ordered.  Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  For the record, Mr. Witness, will you please state your name, age, occupation and other personal circumstances.

MR. GREGONIA.  I am Gregg Gregonia, married, of legal age, vice-president of Burgundy Realty Corp.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honors please, we are offering the testimony of Mr. Gregg Gregonia for the following purposes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you please spell the family name.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Gregonia – G R E G O N I A, Your Honor. And the name is G R E G G, Your Honor.  Gregg Gregonia, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  The purpose of his testimony, Your Honor, is to prove that  respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona failed to declare his acquisition of a parking slot at I Burgundy Plaza for a consideration of P450,000.00 in all of his SALN from the time of his acquisition thereof in 1997 up to 2010 SALN.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then, qualify the witness to establish his knowledge about the SALN of the respondent.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor please.  And also, Your Honor, to prove that respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona likewise failed to declare his acquisition of condominium unit No. 21D at I Burgundy Plaza in his SALN for the years 1997 up to 2002 and his subsequent failure to truthfully declare the same in his SALN for the years 2003 up to 2010 insofar as it is therein manifestly declared at an undervalued amount of only P921,080.00, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When was the transaction between Burgundy and the Chief Justice?

ATTY. JANDOC.  The transaction started, Your Honor please, was commenced by reason of a reservation application which is an offer to buy, coming as it does from respondent Chief Justice and his wife, Your Honor, to buy the property.  This was July 15 of 1997, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When was the respondent appointed Justice of the Supreme Court?

ATTY. JANDOC.  He was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sometime in 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the relevance of this to the impeachment of a Justice of the Supreme Court?

ATTY. JANDOC.  With due respect, Your Honor, we believe ..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no.  I am just asking.  Please state briefly.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor.  The relevance of this, Your Honor please, is that there is a continuing failure on the part of the Chief Justice up to 2010 to make a truthful, complete and timely declaration of all his assets, liabilities and net worth corresponding to the right of the public to know the same, Your Honor please, as required by the Constitution.  And that to the submission of the prosecution amounts to culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Let the witness testify and let the defense counsel react to it according to the rules.  Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, the matter sought to be listed from the witness are legal matters and they should be addressed more properly  to this honourable court, Your Honor.  For instance, when we say, failed to accurately, state accurately and so on, that is his appreciation and this court should not be bothered with…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, we are going to take that into account and we will hear the witness to expedite it.  I think the members of this court are quite intelligent enough to segregate the shop(?) from the gray.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is not that this court may not be able to distinguish, Your Honor.  My point of objection, Your Honor, is this— he is being made to testify on a matter which is not within his competency, Your Honor.  This calls for whether there was an accurate and correct statement in the assets and liabilities, Your Honor.  Is that not judicial in character insofar as this proceeding is concerned?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is true but let us hear the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. JANDOC.  May it please, the honourable court, Mr. Witness, you earlier stated that you are the Vice President of Burgundy Realty Corporation.  Since when have you been such Vice President.

MR. GREGONIA.  Since 1995, sir.

ATTY. JANDOC.  As such Vice President of Burgundy Realty Corporation, will you briefly state for the record your duties and responsibilities.

MR. GREGONIA.  As Vice President of the company, I was the one in charge of all the records, business development, security and other matters, sir.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Mr. Witness, I am showing to you an urgent ex parte manifestation and motion that was earlier filed by Atty. Yolando Lim for and on behalf  of Burgundy Realty Corporation.  Will you kindly go over the same and state for the record if you are the same Greg Gregonia as therein mentioned?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.  I am the same Greg Gregonia herein stated.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you.  Mr. Witness, why did you appear before this honourable impeachment court?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He was not subpoena so, okay, that’s proper question.  Go ahead.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. GREGONIA.  Our company received the subpoena from this impeachment court and I was the one tasked to attend this impeachment court, sir.

ATTY. JANDOC.  And for the record, Mr. Witness, will you kindly explain why were you tasked by your company, Burgundy Realty Corporation, to appear in connection with the subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum issued by this honourable impeachment court?

MR. GREGONIA.  As Vice President of the company, it is under my jurisdiction and control all documents that are stated in the subpoena to bring before this court, sir.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.  Now, may I direct your attention to the subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum dated 17 January 2012 issued by this honourable impeachment court which requires the presentation of reservation agreement pertaining to the purchase by spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona of the condominium unit at 1 Burgundy Plaza as embraced in Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812.  Did you bring the same?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.  I have the photocopy of the said title.

ATTY. JANDOC.  No, no, no, the reservation agreement.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir, I have the original copy of the reservation agreement.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Will you please present the same to the honorable impeachment court.  May we manifest for the record, Your Honor please.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you familiar with that transaction, Witness?

MR. GREGONIA.  I am familiar with the transaction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you familiar with the transaction?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why are you familiar with the transaction?

MR. GREGONIA.  Because it was all reported to me.  All sales during the time, all reported directly to me, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the ordinary course of business?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.

We would just like to manifest for the record, Your Honor, please that the witness is referring documents and is now in his possession, a document.  And may I request, Your Honor, please that it be handed to counsel.

MR. GREGONIA.  I have the original copy of this reservation application, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Date of the reservation?

MR. GREGONIA.  July 15, 1997, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What month?

MR. GREGONIA.  July.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Will you please fix your microphone so that your answers are clearly audible.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, please, may we manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the witness handed to this counsel a one-page document, Your Honor, which appears to be a duplicate original, having a caption reservation application pertaining to an offer, signed under Mr. and Mrs. Corona for said party to buy condominium unit B, floor 21, with the areas 62.7, for an indicated gross price of P3,448,500 and a parking space with an indicated price of P450,000 for accumulated price of P3,208,800.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that document signed?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Whose signature is bourn by that …

ATTY. JANDOC.  There is here a signature, Your Honor, please on top of the printed words Mr. and Mrs. Corona. and also a signature on top of the printed words Burgundy Realty Corporation, the owner-developer under the caption approved by, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, that was signed by the couple Corona?

ATTY. JANDOC.  This was signed by respondent Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  We likewise manifest for the record, Your Honor, please, that this has been premarked as Exhibit JJJJ for the prosecution, Your Honor, and I’m showing the same to the distinguished counsel for the defense for stipulation.  That the marked photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If the purpose is substitution, Your Honor, we have no objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.

I, again, direct your attention, Mr. Witness, to the subpoena dated 17 January, 2012, which likewise requires the presentation of the contracts over the same condominium unit acquired by respondent Renato C. Corona and spouse Christina Corona.  Did you bring the same?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.  I have with me the Contract to Sell.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Would you kindly present the same to the honourable Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you describe that document.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Mr. Witness, will you kindly describe the document.

MR. GREGONIA.  I have a copy of Contract to Sell by and between Burgundy Realty Corporation and spouses Renato Corona and Christina Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right. Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honors, please, may I manifest for the record that the witness handed to counsel a Contract to Sell consisting of two long pages, Your Honor, and that the same has been premarked in evidence as Exhibit KKKK for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the date of that document is?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, it appears that there’s no date in this document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why none?  How do we know that it was executed yesterday or 10 years ago?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Well, Your Honor, please, with due respect, we are just marking the document as document presented now by the witness, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.

May we request the good counsel for the defense, Your Honor, to stipulate that the previously marked photocopies are faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have no objection, Your Honor, to the—if the purpose is substitution, but may we make of record, Your Honor, that on the signature page, Your Honor, reading, Renato Corona, buyer, no signature, TIN, no number also, Cristina Corona, buyer, no signature also, signed in the presence of all truncated(?).

Notarization appears vacant, Your Honor, so, this is not a notarized document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then, anyway, let it be a part of the testimony of the witness.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  May I please proceed, Your Honor.

Mr. Witness, I can refer you to the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum, issued by this court, that likewise requires the presentation of schedule of instalment payments, provisional receipts, and all official receipts of payments, in connection with the purchase of the condominium unit and the parking lot at One Condominium Plaza by spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona.  Did you bring the same?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir, I have the statement of account with me.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Would you kindly present the same to this honorable impeachment court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What document is that?

MR. GREGONIA.  Statement of account, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Statement of account issued by whom to whom?

MR. GREGONIA.  By Burgundy Realty Corporation to spouses Renato Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

For what year?  What month?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, please, for the record, and for identification purposes, this statement of account is captioned Burgundy Realty Corporation, and with the date October 5, 2001, referring to project One Burgundy Plaza.  The indicated buyer here, Your Honor, is Renato Corona, with an indicated address of No. 95 Xavierville Avenue corner E. Abad St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The document is dated 2001.

ATTY. JANDOC.  The document, Your Honor, please, is dated October 5 of 2000, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  October 5, 2000.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor, and it indicates that the subject of the statement of account, Your Honor, is unit 21 D with one parking lot, and the contract price also indicated herein, Your Honor, is P3,208,800.

It has several attachments, Your Honor, please.  One is official receipt number 2171, pertaining to payment received from Renato Corona, in the amount of P50,000, Your Honor.  This is dated …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At this juncture of the proceedings, Your Honor, we would like to object because it is the lawyer practically testifying, not the witness.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, please, with due respect, Your Honor, this humble representation is making only description of what are contained in the document.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely.

ATTY. JANDOC.  It does not in any way vary, much less, alter the contents thereof, Your Honor, please.  Just for expediency, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the description remain.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, you can cross, Mr. Counsel.

ATTY. JANDOC.  The Official Receipt 2171, Your Honor, is dated 5/10/97 pertaining to a payment by Renato Corona in the amount of P50,000.00.  By the way, Your Honor please, for the record, the top cover which is the statement of account  has been pre-marked in evidence as Exhibit LLL for the prosecution, and that the Official Receipt, OR No. 2171 was pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-1.  Likewise, appearing as attachment thereto, Your Honor, is Official Receipt No. 2216 with the date 5/15/97 pertaining to payment received from Renato Corona in the amount of P50,000.00.  This has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-1, likewise, Your Honor.  Also as attachment is official receipt No. 1792 dated July 21, 1997 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the amount of P591,760.00.  This has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-2 for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that last receipt for?

ATTY. JANDOC.  This is pertaining to the payment for the account stated in the statement of account, Your Honor, involving the payment of a contract price of P3,208,800.00 for the acquisition of condominium unit No. 21D with one parking lot, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Further, Your Honor, for the record, likewise attached is a copy of official receipt 1800 dated July 31, 1997, pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the amount of P285,240.00 which has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-6, Your Honor.  Further, Your Honor, as attachment, there is also this official receipt No. 3192 dated January 8, 1998 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the sum of P591,760.00 which receipt has been pre-marked as LLLL-3, Your Honor.  Also, Your Honor, attached to this statement of account is official receipt No. 3191 dated January 8, 1998 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the sum of P285,240.00.  And the same has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-7 for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that payment for?

ATTY. JANDOC.  All these payments, Your Honor please, as covered by these official receipts pertain to the payment of the purchase price for the acquisition of Unit 21D with one parking lot at I Burgundy Plaza.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Those were monthly payments or quarterly payments or annual payments?

ATTY. JANDOC.  There is no such indicated manner of payment, Your Honor please but this would show that there were varying amounts paid at…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are these instalment payments?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Somehow, yes, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Huh?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor, yes, but they are not in equal instalment payments, Your Honor, as borned by these receipts, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, go ahead.

ATTY. JANDOC.  And likewise, Your Honor, attached thereto is Official Receipt No. 4092 dated 5-15-1998 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the amount of P438,500.00 and this has been premarked as Exhibit LLLL-5 for the prosecution, Your Honor.  And as last attachment to this statement of account, Your Honor, is Official Receipt No. 4591 dated July 31, 1998 pertaining to receipt from Francis R. Corona of the amount of P438,500.00, Your Honor, and this official receipt, Your Honor, has been premarked in evidence as Exhibit LLLL-4.  May we just like to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Francis R. Corona.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not Renato C. Corona.

ATTY. JANDOC  No, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. JANDOC.  May we just request from the good counsel for the defense, Your Honor, to stipulate for the record that the receipts mentioned are duplicate original receipts, Your Honor, and that the premarked photocopies thereof, Your Honor, are faithful reproduction of said duplicate original receipts, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them.  What is the question of the defense?

MR. GREGONIA.  Another bias ledger, sir, for payment for the respective parking slot.

ATTY. JANDOC.  There is a pending request, Your Honor please, from the good distinguished counsel for the defense for stipulation, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright.  We will admit, Your Honor, that the documents identified by the witness now are genuine reproductions of their alleged original, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But may we make of record, Your Honor, that at the bottom of Exhibit LLLL, Your Honor, which carries the statement “certified correct by Carmencita Kapangyarihan”, no signature, Your Honor, and then “noted by Cimbalyn L. Guerrero, Account Officer”, no signature also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The notation stating certified true copy bearing a signature is illegible, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor please, there was likewise a request or confirmation from the good counsel for the defense if the attached official receipts earlier mentioned, Your Honor, and described are indeed duplicate original copies, Your Honor.  May we request from the good counsel to stipulate on that, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  They appear to be copies, Your Honor, but whether they are duplicate original, that we cannot admit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s a matter of proof.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Well, Your Honor please, we would just like to request then, Your Honor, that the.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In that case you have to apply the rules in applicable to secondary evidence.

ATTY. JANDOC.  We believe, Your Honor please, that mere examination of the document, Your Honor, it is a duplicate original because it is just an impression of one single stroke, Your Honor, and that is pursuant to the rules still considered duplicate original and given full faith and value as that the original copy, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We take that up at the proper time when it’s over.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  And for that reason, Your Honor, given the fact that the good and distinguished counsel for the defense would not want to stipulate on that matter, Your Honor, instead of requesting that the faithful reproduction thereof be marked as exhibit, Your Honor, if the witness will be willing to have the duplicate original itself to be marked as evidence, Your Honor, then may we request said duplicate original to be marked respectively as exhibit for the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel for the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have yet to see, Your Honor, the document.  The witness is being asked whether he has alleged copies of the duplicate originals, Your Honor.  So as of this moment, we cannot as yet make any comment, Your Honor.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, please, for the record, Your Honor, the duplicate original adverted to, Your Honor, please, is now in the hands of the counsel for the defense, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are sorry, Your Honor, that based on an ocular examination of this document, Your Honor, it merely states official receipt, there is no indication therein whether it is original duplicate of what, Your Honor.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, please, given the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So you do not accept the original character of the document?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.  I didn’t get the statement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think this is the duplicate original, isn’t it?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor.  They are asking us to stipulate or to admit, Your Honor.  That’s why I said …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To stipulate to admit what?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That they are allegedly duplicate original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely.  If you do not say that you can’t admit it as a duplicate original when—let the counsel …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  They have to prove their evidence, Your Honor.

ATTY. JANDOC.  May we therefore request for the record, Your Honor, please, that the said duplicate original copies of the official receipts be now turned over to the custody of the honourable Clerk of Court for the eventual appreciation by the Members of the honorable Impeachment Court when the time comes that said documents be formally offered in evidence, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the prosecution.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor, please, for the prosecution.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Approved.  (Gavel)

ATTY. JANDOC.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

Mr. Witness, you were earlier mentioning about buyer’s ledger.  Will you kindly present the same to the honourable Impeachment Court.

MR. GREGONIA.  I have here the buyer’s ledger for the parking slot mentioned.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, please, may we manifest for the record that the witness has handed to this counsel a one-page document with the caption Burgundy Realty Corporation, and entries indicating the name Renato Corona, pertaining to unit UG#A with an indicated contract price of P450,000, and also indicated herein are the particulars of amortization payments, each in the equal amount of P15,000, starting from 31 July 2001 and up to 30 June 2003 for a total amount of P450,000, Your Honor.  And attached thereto, Your Honor, are likewise duplicate original copies of the following official receipts:  Official Receipt No. 10927 dated September 5, 2001, indicating receipt of amount of P15,000 from Renato Corona, Your Honor; Official Receipt No. 11143 dated October 3 2001, likewise evidencing or indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000; Official Receipt No. 10942 dated September 5, 2001, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000; Official Receipt No. 11578 dated December 5, 2001, indicating receipt of amount of P15,000 from Renato Corona, Your Honor.

Official Receipt No. 11143, dated October 3, 2001, likewise evidencing or indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.

Official Receipt No. 10942, dated September 5, 2001, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.

Official Receipt No. 111578, dated December 5, 2001, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.

Official Receipt No. 11375, dated November 8, 2001, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.

Official Receipt No. 13164, dated 28 February 2002, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the sum of P15,000.

Official Receipt No. 13162, dated 31 January 2002, indicating receipt of the amount of P15,000 from Atty. Renato Corona.

Official Receipt No. 13168, dated 30 April 2002, indicating receipt of the sum of P15,000 from Atty. Renato Corona.

Official Receipt No. 13166, dated 31 March 2002, likewise indicating the amount of P15,000 as having been received from Atty. Renato Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we most respectfully request, Your Honor, that in connection with these receipts and manifestation being made, this appears to be strictly out or order.

And insofar as evidentiary procedure is concerned, first, these are statements or manifestation made by counsel.  He is not under oath.  We cannot cross examine him.  Second, we cannot cross examine the witness on this particular matter because he has not testified on this.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, please profound your question properly so that the witness can be questioned on this individual receipt on cross examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will therefore move to strike out, Your Honor, all the manifestations of counsel because they should not be considered as forming part of the evidence in this case.  Otherwise, we will be denied of our due process, Your Honor.

ATTY. JANDOC.  With due respect, Your Honor, please, if this humble Representation may please reply to the manifestation made by the distinguished counsel for the defense, Your Honor.

As earlier indicated by this humble representation, Your Honor.  They are nearly descriptive of what are contained in these documents, Your Honor.  It does not in any way vary, much less, alter the tenor thereof.  It is for purposes of expediency, Your Honor, and we are now wasting so much time, if again, all these pieces of documents, numerous at that, Your Honor, please, will be confronted with the witness for him to make the appropriate declaration, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You ask the proper question, whether these receipts will be a part of the testimony of the witness.

ATTY. JANDOC.  We will oblige, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that he can cross examine the witness, so that …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If you will take the witness stand, we will be happy about that, so that we will be granted the opportunity to cross examine you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But out of respect, Mr. Counsel, we would not like to do that.  That is why we made of record our objection to the procedure being adopted.  Nowhere, under any rules of court or any jurisprudence on the point can we find such kind of evidence being—manifestation, how can it be considered evidence, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, in the spirit of leniency, because that is the request of the prosecution, to hasten this proceeding, I am aware of the rules, but anyway, I allowed it, for as long the counsel will profound the question to—properly, so that this will become part of the testimony of the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But as the court will note it, if, Your Honor, please, the witness had never said anything about this.  That is why we are being denied of—but thank you, anyway.

ATTY. JANDOC.  There was a mention, Your Honor, please, the record will bear us out, Your Honor, that the witness mentioned about the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)  Counsel, lay the basis and ask the proper question.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Witness, in this buyer’s ledger that you have presented to counsel, there are attachment thereto, which would appear to be official receipts, copies of the official receipts.

Will you kindly tell this honorable impeachment court, what is the relevance of those official receipts?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No basis, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, what are those receipts in relation to the Burgundy condominium units acquired by Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, this is what this humble representation wishes to elicit from the witness, Your Honor please, and instead of this humble representation responding to the query of the honourable Senate President, Your Honor, may we request that the answer be given by the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, go ahead.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  What is the relation of those receipts to the acquisition by respondent Chief Justice …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I said, with respect to the condominium units purportedly acquired by Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona from Burgundy Condominium Corporation.

MR. GREGONIA.  Your Honor, these are the receipts issued in favour of Atty. Renato Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what?

MR. GREGONIA.  For payment, as payment for the parking slots attached to the condominium units which they bought from the company.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that instalment payment?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Counsel  Yours.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Mr. Witness, may you please read into the record and describe to us what those receipts are.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Already answered.  Installment payments for parking lots.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Besides, if they will be presented as evidence, Your Honor, the best evidence rule applies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.  Sustained.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honors please, we will just manifest for the records that these receipts were earlier pre-marked as Exhibits MMMM-1 for official receipt 10927; MMMM-2 for official receipt 11143; MMMM-3 for official receipt 10942; MMMM-4 for official receipt 111578.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Again, Your Honor, may we be permitted to interrupt counsel at this moment.  He is now making a manifestation.  That should be testified to by the witness because we will cross-examine him on that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you please present the witness one by one so that we will not go into a wrangling like this.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor.  Again, Mr. Witness, will you please hand over to me the buyer’s ledger with the attachments that you were earlier referring to.

MR. GREGONIA.  Here are the buyer’s ledger, sir, with regards to the parking slot, sir.

ATTY. JANDOC.  You earlier stated upon query of the honourable Presiding Officer that these receipts relate to the payments, the amortization payments, consideration for the …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, he is already making conclusions and so on which is not allowed under our rules.

ATTY. JANDOC.  The witness has already answered, Your Honor please, upon query of the honourable Presiding Officer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request the counsels to calm down.  Anyway, these are receipts already stated by the witness, receipts in connection with the alleged purchase of a condominium unit from Burgundy by Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona, so this Presiding Officer will allow the question so that we can finish.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no pending question, Your Honor.  I was allowed to make a manifestation to support my objection.  My objection is, counsel is making manifestation again which cannot form part of the evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel is cautioned not to testify for the witness.

ATTY,. JANDOC.  We fully appreciate, Your Honor please.  Thank you, Your Honor.  I am just making a manifestation as to the pre-marking made on those exhibits earlier done in the presence of both representatives from both the prosecution and the defense, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you are going really too far.  You are already testifying for the witness.  So reform your question.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Mr. Witness, will you please describe what are the attachments to this bias ledger that you had presented to this honourable impeachment court?

MR. GREGONIA.  Attached in this bias ledger are the duplicate original of official receipts issued to the buyer, Atty. Renato Corona.

ATTY. JANDOC.  And how many receipts are there that you are referring to as attached to the bias ledger?

MR. GREGONIA.  For the parking slots, there are 24 receipts attached herein.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Would you  kindly state for the record, Mr. Witness, what are those official receipt numbers and indicate the name of the payor, the amount receipt as well as the date of the receipts?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Will not the best evidence rule apply in this particular instance, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.  Counsel, I will give you an example of a question.  You have a receipt number there, do you have?  Read one receipt number.

MR. GREGONIA.  One particular receipt here is No. 10927, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Issued by?

MR. GREGONIA.  Atty. Renato Corona, dated September 5…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Issued by Renato Corona or by Burgundy?

MR. GREGONIA.  Sorry, Your Honor, issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To whom?

MR. GREGONIA.  To Atty. Renato Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What date?

MR. GREGONIA.  Date September 5, 2001, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what purpose?

MR. GREGONIA.  As payment for the parking slot.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed, counsel.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor please, may we manifest for the record…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Of what month?

MR. GREGONIA.  Your Honor, this is dated September 5, 2001.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is for the month of September?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  That’s the way you must present those receipts.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  May we manifest for the record, Your Honor please, that Official  Receipt No. 10927 dated September 5, 2001 has been premarked as Exhibit MMMM-1 for the prosecution, Your Honor.  Aside from that receipt  Mr. Witness, what other receipts do you have in your possession?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next receipt, come on.  If you can sequentially so that the public will understand.

MR. GREGONIA.  Official Receipt No. 11143 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation, issued to Atty. Renato Corona  dated October 3, 2001.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what purpose?

MR. GREGONIA.  As payment for the parking slot.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Installment payment.

MR. GREGONIA.  Installment payment for the parking slot, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Next receipt.

MR. GREGONIA.  Official Receipt No. 10942 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation, issued to Atty. Renato Corona as instalment payment for the parking slot mentioned.  Official Receipt No. 11578 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation , issued to Atty. Renato Corona as instalment payment for parking slot mentioned, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what month?  State the month so that the receipt will jibe with the month.

MR. GREGONIA.  This is for the month of October 31, 2001, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, next receipt.

MR. GREGONIA.  Official Receipt No. 13164 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the month of?

MR. GREGONIA.  For the month of…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, may we place on record our observation that the witness is apparently having difficulty in deciphering the documents, Your Honor.

MR. GREGONIA.  For the month of January 31, 2002, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What amount?

MR. GREGONIA.  P15,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Installment payment.

MR. GREGONIA.  Installment payment for the parking slot mentioned, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, proceed, another receipt.

MR. GREGONIA.  Official Receipt No13168 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation, issued to Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Covering instalment for the…

MR. GREGONIA.  … covering instalment for the mentioned parking slots.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Never mind.  Covering month for what?

MR. GREGONIA.  For the month of April 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We already know that those are for parking slots.  Next.

MR. GREGONIA.  Official Receipt No. 13166 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation, issued to Renato Corona as instalment payment for the said parking slot, instalment for the month of March 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next.

MR. GREGONIA.  OR No. 13354, issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation issued to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 as instalment for the month of …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, you should have arranged those receipts …

MR. GREGONIA.  … for the month of June 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next.

MR. GREGONIA.  Another OR No. 13170 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of May 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next.

MR. GREGONIA.  Official Receipt No. 13545 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of July 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next.

MR. GREGONIA.  OR No. 14512 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation issued to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of October 2, 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel for the defense.  Would you not consider accepting all of these receipts?  Anyway, they are sufficient evidence that there is instalment payments for the same parking lot for the same condo unit in the same building.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We wanted to very much to our regret, but cross-examination is part of the due process of …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed, witness.

MR. GREGONIA.  Official Receipt No. 14227 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation issued to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of September 2002.

Official Receipt No. 15047 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of December 2002.

Official Receipt 14737 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of November 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the amount of—what amount?

MR. GREGONIA.  P15,000, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

MR. GREGONIA.  OR No. 15805 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of February 2003.

Official Receipt No. 15317 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of December 2002.

Official Receipt No. 17009 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  P15,000?

MR. GREGONIA.  P15,000, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what month?

MR. GREGONIA.  Dated July 2, 2003.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

MR. GREGONIA.  And lastly, Official Receipt No. 16111 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation issued to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What year?

MR. GREGONIA.  Dated April 3, 2003.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, these receipts cover a period of …

MR. GREGONIA.  Two years.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many years.

MR. GREGONIA.  Two years, two years.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2002 …

MR. GREGONIA.  From 2001, July 31st 2001 to June 30, 2003.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Counsel.

ATTY. JANDOC.  May I please proceed, Your Honor.  We manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the buyer’s ledger presented by the witness has been pre-marked as Exhibit MMMM for the prosecution, and that the several official receipts presented by the witness had been pre-marked as Exhibits MMMM-1 up to MMMM-21 for the prosecution, Your Honor.

And may we request from the good counsel for the defense to make a comparison of the marked exhibits which are photocopies, if they are indeed faithful reproduction of the original documents, as presented by the witness, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will admit, Your Honor, that is a faithful reproduction of the their respective original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it and submit it.

ATTY. JANDOC.  They have already been pre-marked, Your Honor.  It is manifested.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Witness, going back to the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum issued by this honorable impeachment court, the same likewise requires the presentation of certificate of turnover of the One Burgundy Condominium unit, 21D and its parking slot, in favour of spouses Renato Corona and Cristina Corona.  Did you bring the same?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pardon me for correcting.  You see, in asking your question, you immediately identified, Your Honor, why don’t you say, in favour of the owner?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Because the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, it is just a matter of style, but that is why you meet a lot of objections, because you are leading your witness.  So, anyway, I will allow the question.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Did you bring the same, Sir?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir, I have the original copy of the document, yes.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Will you kindly present the same to the honorable impeachment court.

MR. GREGONIA.  I have here the original copy of the acknowledgement of unit completion and acceptance.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Will you kindly read into the record, Mr. Witness, what unit is referred to in that document?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is covered by the letter.  Best evidence …

MR. GREGONIA.  Acknowledgement of unit completion and acceptance, One Burgundy Plaza, located along Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, particularly described as unit no. 21D.  And received by Cristina  R. Corona, dated November 10, 2000.

ATTY. JANDOC.  May we manifest, for the record, Your Honor, please, that witness here has handed to this counsel, Your Honor, a two-page document, and that the same has been pre-marked in evidence as Exhibit NNNN and NNNN-1 for the prosecution, Your Honor.

We request, Your Honor, please, the good counsel for the defense to make a comparison of the pre-marked exhibit, the photocopy of the same is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We admit, Your Honor, because we have seen this document before.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Admitted.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Again, Mr. Witness, I refer you to the subpoena issued by this honorable court that requires the presentation of the deed of absolute sale over condominium unit 21D of Burgundy Plaza.  Did you bring the same?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I just wanted to make a short observation, Your Honor.

Counsel had been using the word presentation.  That is a legal significance in the law of evidence.  What did subpoena state, “bring with you”, not presentation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, please use the proper terminology so that there will be no …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So that there will be no misleading or misrepresentation or misconception.

ATTY. JANDOC.  We will oblige, Your Honor, please, which requires the deed of sale to be brought to this honorable impeachment court.  Did you bring the same?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.  I have the original copy of deed of absolute sale.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Will you kindly present the same to the honourable impeachment court.  May we manifest for the record, Your Honor please, that the witness has handed to this counsel a deed of absolute sale consisting of two pages, which appears to be a notarized document, Your Honor, dated October 8, 2003 and the same has been pre-marked as Exhibit OOOO for the prosecution, Your Honor.  We request the counsel for the defense to stipulate whether or not the pre-marked document is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We admit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Mr. Witness, will you please state on the record the date of that deed of absolute sale.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Will not the best evidence be the document itself, Your Honor?

ATTY. JANDOC.  We are just requesting the witness, Your Honor please, to state for the record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Preliminary.  Let it be preliminary.  Witness may answer.

MR. GREGONIA.  The date herein described on the deed of absolute sale is October 8, 2003, sir.

ATTY. JANDOC.  And will you please tell this honourable court who are the parties to that deed of absolute sale.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The parties are stated in the document.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Will you please state for the record, Mr. Witness.

MR. GREGONIA.  It is by and between Burgundy Realty Corp. represented herein by Rogelio T. Serafica, President as seller, and Spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona as buyer of Unit 21D of 21st Floor with 62.70 square meters of I Burgundy Plaza.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Will you likewise state for the record, Mr. Witness, what is the subject of that deed of absolute sale between Burgundy Realty Corp. and Spouses Renato Corona and Cristina Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is already stated in the document.  I sustain the objection, if there is any objection.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, a description, Your Honor please, stating for the record, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the purpose of that question?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Well, Your Honor please, if we may be allowed, Your Honor, the deed of absolute sale as presented by the witness and already pre-marked in evidence only refers to condominium unit 21D, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.  That is contained in the document and the document speaks for itself.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor please.  As a preliminary to my next question, Your Honor.  And I am now asking the witness to explain why is it that the deed of absolute sale did not make mention of the parking slot, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness is very incompetent, Your Honor.  There is no showing that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Lay the basis.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Based on the documents in your custody, Mr. Witness, will you kindly inform this honourable impeachment court whether or not the parking slot is included in that deed of absolute sale being presented.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Again, the best evidence is the document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness, did the sale of the condominium to the Spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona include parking lots?  Did this include parking lots?

MR. GREGONIA.  Not with this deed of absolute sale, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, they are covered by a different deed of sale.

MR. GREGONIA.  No, sir, because the parking slots were transacted separately, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, they are covered by a separate agreement.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  It was with separate agreement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Counsel.

ATTY. JANDOC.  You mentioned about this separate agreement over the parking slot.  Did you bring that with you before this impeachment court?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.  I have it with me.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Will you kindly present the same.  May we manifest for the record, Your Honor please, that the witness has handed to this counsel an agreement consisting of two pages dated October 8, 2003 which appears to be a notarized document, Your Honor.  The same has been pre-marked in evidence as Exhibit PPPP for the prosecution, Your Honor.  May we request the good counsel for the defense to stipulate whether or not the pre-marked photocopy is the exact reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We admit, Your Honor.  We have examined this document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Admitted.

ATTY. JANDOC.  That would be all, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Now, I heard you state that you are the Vice President of Burgundy Realty Corporation.  Am I right?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And when you enumerated the functions of your office, I did not  hear you state that one of your functions is to appear in court where Burgundy is a party litigant.  Am I right?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So what made you appear in today’s proceeding relative to this case?  Because of the subpoena?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But you were not the one subpoenaed, it is Rogelio T. Serafica.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir, but through our counsel, we submitted this ex parte

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry, go ahead please.  Thank you.  The subpoena was directed to Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica.  I am asking you now how did you happen to appear here as witness for Burgundy or for the prosecution when it is not one of your functions?  Will you kindly enlighten the honourable court.

MR. GREGONIA.  Because I was, first, the company submitted an ex parte motion for me to appear before this court.  Second, it was my task and…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness, were you authorized by your corporation to appear here?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who authorized you?

MR. GREGONIA.  The president of the company.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who is the president?

MR. GREGONIA.  Rogelio T. Serafica.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did he write his authorization?

MR. GREGONIA.  We submitted an ex parte motion, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No.  Did he write an authorization to make you appear here or did he say it orally?

MR. GREGONIA.  He mentioned it orally, verbally and I believe he issued a document for me to attend before this hearing, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And you mentioned an ex parte motion, were you mentioned in the ex parte motion of Mr. Serafica?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor, we submitted an ex parte

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Were you mentioned in the ex parte motion of Mr. Serafica to appear here…

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  …in lieu of him?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Defense counsel, your witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I continue, Your Honor.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Continue.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the authorization to you that alleged letter of Mr. Serafica came when, yesterday?  The authorization came only yesterday?

MR. GREGONIA.  Sorry, sir, I can’t hear it clearly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This alleged authorization that you were telling us, did this come only yesterday?

MR. GREGONIA.  No, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  When?

MR. GREGONIA.  The week that we received this subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but when was that?  January what?

MR. GREGONIA.  January 17 or 18, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I notice that you were referring to an urgent ex parte manifestation and motion.  Is this the document you were referring to?

MR. GREGONIA.  One of the document I believe I have this board resolution, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness is ransacking his documents, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the defense counsel?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He is still ransacking his documents.  He said he was empowered by a power of attorney or a resolution , Your Honor.  He is looking for it.  You may have left it in your office.  It’s not there?

MR. GREGONIA.  It’s not here, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But you are sure there is that—was it a power of attorney or resolution?

MR. GREGONIA.  Board resolution, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You mean the board convened for this purpose?

MR. GREGONIA.  Secretary’s certificate, sir

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Ah secretary’s certificate. So it’s not a board resolution?

MR. GREGONIA.  It’s not, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Were you privy to the convening of the board for purposes of authorizing you to appear today?

MR. GREGONIA.  I was authorized.  Yes.  By means of Secretary’s Certificate.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What was the wording of that Secretary’s Certificate?

MR. GREGONIA.  To appear—To represent the company and to appear before this court, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And you were instructed on what to testify?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.  Just to tell what are to be said here.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Were you likewise instructed to determine whether the alleged transaction is not covered by the SALN Chief Justice Corona?

MR. GREGONIA.  I don’t know about that …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, that was not the subject of your talk with the secretary.

MR. GREGONIA.  I just came here to identify properly, based on the documents executed between Burgundy Realty and the spouses Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Mr. Witness, you are not answering my question.  My question is this, in your discussion with your secretary of the corporation, did you discuss about the SALN of the Chief Justice Corona?

MR. GREGONIA.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No.  All right.  So, the offer here made by counsel in connection with your coming in to testify on the correctness of what is stated in the SALN does not appear to covered by your coming here, right?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Sir.  You have nothing to do or you have no knowledge of that SALN?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In fact, you have not seen it up to now?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So you’re not in a position to determine the falsity, the correctness and the authenticity of what appears in that SALN?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, I notice that you appear to be very efficient in testifying.  I suppose this is not the first time you testified in court.

MR. GREGONIA.  This is my first time, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is your first time.  And you have never testified in any other proceedings where Burgundy is party litigant involved.

MR. GREGONIA.  Never, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Never.  Now, did you not tell the secretary that, why will you ask me to testify here, I do not know anything about this.  Did you tell him about—Is he a man—Is he female or male?  Babae po ba o lalake?

MR. GREGONIA.  Ang alin po?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yung secretary na sinasabi mo.

MR. GREGONIA.  Babae po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Did she tell you kung ano po ang magiging subject ng inyong testimony?

MR. GREGONIA.  Tungkol lang po sa—Ang pinag-usapan namin ay tungkol lamang dito sa dokumento na dapat iprisinta base don sa nilalaman ng subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Wala na pong iba?

MR. GREGONIA.  Wala na po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, nung kayo’y pumunta rito, maliwanag na ang inyong gagawin, i-produce lamang yung dokumento na sinasabi ng subpoena?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.  For proper identification.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Nothing more?  Bring the documents mentioned in here and nothing more.  Is that right?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, do you have any good reason to tell the court why you were chosen to appear in behalf or for representation of Burgundy in this case?

MR. GREGONIA.  As Vice President of the company, it is under my jurisdiction and control the documents stated in the subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But I heard you stated that this is not one of your functions, appearing in court as Vice President.  Am I right?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honor, please, the witness has already declared, Your Honor, his responsibility to appear in the court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, he has already—he was authorized to appear here.  And I think, as an employee, he has to obey the board that authorized him to appear in this court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

So, from the time you were notified that you should appear in this case, that was the time you examined the records and so on?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s why I notice you are having a hard time located them and identifying them. Is it not?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Is that the first time that you have seen these documents?  Or you have been examining this everyday when you are in office?

MR. GREGONIA.  No, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is no Sir?

MR. GREGONIA.  This is not the first time I’ve seen these documents.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  How many times have you seen it, the documents you identified now?

MR. GREGONIA.  First was during the preparation of this Deed of Absolute Sale way back 19—2000—

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The second was when?

MR. GREGONIA.  Not two weeks ago when we received this subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the third was when you are already in court?

Alright.   Alright  Now, I noticed that there is a document here identified by—where there are no signatures appearing, contract to sell.

Kindly go over the same and tell us what you know about it, if you have examined these documents.

ATTY. JANDOC.  The document is Exhibit KKKK, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Which is also our exhibit?  Is it our exhibit also?

May we therefore request, Your Honor, that this document, denominated or marked as Exhibit KKKK be marked as our Exhibit 55, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the portion carrying the names of—with no signature whatsoever, be encircled and marked as Exhibit 55-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The document is being presented to the witness for his comment, Your Honor.  Iyong walang pirma po, pakitingnan niyo.

When you were examining the various documents you identified in today’s proceeding, did you notice that there are no signatures appearing in that?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Did you conduct any inquiry as to why there are no signatures or is it not necessary?

MR. GREGONIA.  I conduct why it has no signature and

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What do you mean you conduct, you mean, you investigated?

MR. GREGONIA.  I asked our staff.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Who in particular did you ask?

MR. GREGONIA.  One of our managers.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Who is he?

MR. GREGONIA.  A certain Cindy Galero.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And this investigation is not in writing.  It is verbal or oral.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And what did you learn from him?

MR. GREGONIA.  At the time of sales transaction, Sir, ipinadala na po naming itong kopya ng original ng sales contract.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, without that information, you will not be able to tell the court what you know about it.  Your statement now is merely on the basis of that manager that you mentioned, right?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is not based on your personal knowledge, right?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Who is that manager again?  Will you kindly name him for the record, him ba or her?

MR. GREGONIA.  Her.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Her, for the record.

MR. GREGONIA.  Ms. Cindy Galero

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Has she executed any sworn statement, relative to the version or story she gave you.

MR. GREGONIA.  None, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Why?  You did not consider that important?  Here is a document for the protection of the Burgundy and there is no signature, you did not consider that important?

MR. GREGONIA.  Sir, at that time na it is under—we have the sales transaction already, it is much important to ask that, anyway we have the sales reservation agreement signed by Atty. Corona and they already issued checks to us.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, whatever irregularities or infirmity appearing in the previous documentation, provided you are paid, no question anymore, is that what you wanted to tell this impeachment court?

MR. GREGONIA.  We do not consider this as irregularity, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A document unsigned is not an irregularity, transferring rights and so on, is that what you wanted to tell this court?

MR. GREGONIA.  We have this reservation agreement signed by Atty. Corona and they issued already checks to us.

ATTY. JANDOC.  We manifest for the record, Your Honor please, that witness is presenting or exhibiting the document that was earlier marked in evidence as Exhibit LLLL for the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let it be recorded.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, you are satisfied that although these documents were not signed by the parties named therein, provided there were payments, you are already …

ATTY. JANDOC.  Objection, Your Honor please, the witness is mentioning documents, Your Honor please, without even referring to what document is he relating to, Your Honor.  That is vague, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Submitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness may answer, he is under cross-examination.  He is testing the credibility of the witness.

ATTY. JANDOC.  We submit, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness reading the document.  Ano’ng sagot po ninyo?

MR. GREGONIA.  Sir, permado po iyong reservation application and since nag-issue naman po ng kaukulang pambayad ang buyer at that time, so, sa amin po, hindi po unusual iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Eh kung ganoon po, bakit pa ninyo inembestigahan iyong inyong manager na sinasabi ninyo tungkol dito sa apparent irregularity na ito?

MR. GREGONIA.  Natanong ko lang po dahil napuna ko rin na wala pang pirma.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Nagbibiro lang kayo, hindi totohanan iyon, ganoon ho ba ang ibig ninyong sabihin?

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi ho ako nagbibiro dito, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi.  Noong iniimbestigahan ninyo.  Eh iyon pala eh walang katuturan eh bakit inimbestigahan pa ninyo?  Iyon ang tanong ko sa inyo.  Di ba sabi ninyo, total nagbayad, na, tinanggap na ninyo, eh bakit kayo nag-imbestiga pa?  Kailan ba ninyo iyan inembestigahan, noong bago magbayad o pagkabayad na?

MR. GREGONIA.  Natanong ko po noong matanggap naming iyong subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Noon lamang ninyo itinanong?

MR. GREGONIA.  Dahil nagpe-prepara ho kami ng mga dokumento na dadalhin dito at isa-submit.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, mayroon kayong, you touched in your testimony about several receipts.  I do not see your name or signature appearing therein, am I right?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You are not a party to the said payment.

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi po ako nag-i-issue ng mga resibo sa kumpanya, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi iyon ang tanong ko sa inyo.  Ang tanong ko sa inyo ay, you were not a party, hindi iyong kung hindi kayo nag i-issue.

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi ho ako kaharap noong magpermahan sila …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And itinatanong sa inyo, hindi raw kayo kasama sa paggawa ng mga resibo.

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi po ako nag-i-issue ng mga resibo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER,.  Kaya nga, sagutin mo lang kung kasama ka o hindi ka kasama sa pag –i-issue ng resibo.

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi po ako kasama, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oh iyon.  Tama.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ngayon, komo ang subpoena sa inyo ay i-produce ang mga dokumento na iyan, hindi ba ninyo sinabi sa nag-utos sa inyong humarap kayo na wala akong masasabi diyan.  Hindi ko naman nalalaman iyang mga resibo na iyan o iyang payment na iyan,.  Hindi ba ninyo sinabi sa kanya iyan?  Haharap kayo ngayon sa husgado, tatanungin kayo sa mga dokumentong iyan, na wala naman kayong kasangkutan at wala kayong kinalaman, hindi ba ninyo sinabi, eh ako ang pahaharapin ninyo wala akong nalalaman diyan.  Baka magsinungaling lamang ako diyan.

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi ho pumasok sa akin ang magsinungaling at hindi ho ako magsisinungaling dahil ang pagkaka alam ko, eh pinapa-produce po sa amin iyong mga dokumentong nakasaad sa subpoena na may kinalaman sa bentahan ng condominium unit.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po.  Kung ganoon po, maliwanag na maliwanag, na kahit na kayo walang kinalaman sa dokumentong dala ninyo, basta ang tungkulin ninyo dalhin lang ang dokumento.  Tama ho ba iyon?

MR. GREGONIA.  Oho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi ninyo inalintana o isinaalang-alang na kayo ay maaaring tanungin dito sa mga dokumentong ito tungkol sa nilalaman at kung bakit nagkaroon ng ganitong dokumento, di ho ba?

MR. GREGONIA.  Pumasok din ho sa isip ko na ako ay tatanungin.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Doon?

MR. GREGONIA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At ang sagot at ang inyong nasa isip eh, siguro sabihin ko lang wala akong kinalaman diyan, tama na, ganoon ho ba?

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi ho, kung hindi patunayan kung ano lang ho iyong nakasaad sa dokumento.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Eh bakit kayo magpapatunay e ‘ika ninyo, ang pagkaalam ninyo kaya lang kayo pinaharap dito para dalhin ang dokumento.  Ibig bang sabihin meron kayong patutunayan, ganoon ho ba ang ibig ninyong sabihin?

MR. GREGONIA.  Ang ibig ko hong sabihin ay patunayan na itong mga dokumentong hinihingi ay totoo at hindi gawa-gawa lang.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi ko naman tinatanong sa inyo kung totoo o hindi.  Ang tanong ko sa inyo ay kung iyong nakalagay diyan ay alam ninyong personal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo ba na personal iyon o hindi?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  E simpleng-simple ang tanong ko sa inyo e.

MR. GREGONIA.  No, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So meron bang nagsabi sa inyo kung ano iyang, halimbawa iyang mga resibo na iyan, kung ano ang kinalaman niyan sa transaksyon ninyo kay Chief Justice Corona at sa kanyang maybahay?

MR. GREGONIA.  Oho.  As kabayaran ho doon sa binili nilang condominium unit.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Iyan lang ang sabi sa inyo?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino ang nagsabi po sa inyo?

MR. GREGONIA.  Iyon hong staff namin sa opisina.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po  iyong staff ninyo na iyon?

MR. GREGONIA.  Symbie Galero.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kung hindi  niya sinabi sa inyo wala kayong alam tungkol dito?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Now, nadinig kong sinabi ninyo na hindi naman sangkot sa inyong tungkulin or karapatan bilang Bise Presidente na mag-testify sa husgado.  Tama ho ba ako?

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, did you not also talk with the party or the lawyer responsible for issuing the subpoena against Burgundy what you will be testifying on?  Because the subpoena requires you to testify and produce so testificandum testimony produce subpoena duces tecum.  Hindi ba ninyo tinanong doon sa humingi ng subpoena, bakit ba ako napasangkot dito?  Ano ba ang tetestigohan ko dito.

MR. GREGONIA.  Dalawang beses ko lang ho nakausap iyong isa sa mga abogado nila noong ako ay magpunta rito ng January 19.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A samakatwid po narito na kayo noong mga unang araw, January 19 according to you.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At ang inyo pong layunin para tumestigo subsequent to the subpoena.  Ganoon ho ba?

MR. GREGONIA.  Oho, dahil pinadalhan ho kami ng subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kailan kayo pinadala ng subpoena?  Kelan po?

MR. GREGONIA.  January 17 or 18, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  January 17.

MR. GREGONIA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright.  Noon ho bang January 17 ang tinutukoy ninyong petsa ng inyong pag-uusap noong isa sa abogado sa kaso na ito?

MR. GREGONIA.  January 18 ho noong…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A 18 so hindi po 17?

MR. GREGONIA.  We received this subpoena January 17 at dumating ho kami dito ng January 19.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ang tinatanong ko po sa inyo ay iyong petsa ng inyong pakikipag-usap doon sa isa sa abogado sa kaso na ito.

MR. GREGONIA.  January 19, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po iyong abogado na iyon?

MR. GREGONIA.  A certain Atty. Ginez.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Atty. Ginez.  He is not the lawyer who direct your direct examination.

MR. GREGONIA.  Iyon ho iyong napagtanungan namin doon sa prosecution room.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Diyan po sa inyong usapan na iyan naging maliwanag sa inyo na hindi kayo tatanungin o kayo man ay magdedeklara tungkol sa tinatawag na SALN.  Tama ho ba iyon?

MR. GREGONIA.  Wala ho, sa SALN.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi ninyo napag-usapan iyon?

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi rin naipakita sa inyo ang SALN ni Chief Justice Corona?

MR. GREGONIA.  Wala din ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi kayo naging interesado diyan sapagkat hindi naman ninyo napag-usapan iyan.

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kaya iyong sinabi ng inyong abogado dito na isa sa dahilan kung bakit kayo tetestigo ay para patunayan na ang nakalagay sa SALN hindi totoo at puro kasinungalingan.  Hindi po totoo iyon?

MR. GREGONIA.  Hindi ho iyon.  Hindi ho namin napag-usapan ang SALN.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po kung ganoon.  I am through with my cross-examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Redirect.

ATTY. JANDOC.  No redirect, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No redirect?

ATTY. JANDOC.  No redirect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Estrada wishes to be recognized before we discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  Alright, Senator Estrada has the floor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. Counsel, I am sorry I forgot to get your name.  Atty. Jandoc, Yandoc.

ATTY. JANDOC.  I am Atty. Clarence Jandoc, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Jandoc.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  After one hour and 45 minutes of deliberating this particular issue, what are you trying to prove here, Mr. Counsel?  Are you trying to prove that Chief Justice Corona failed to disclose this particular property in his SALN?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor, please.  With due respect, there are two properties involved.  One is the parking slot which has been separately paid for a consideration of P150,000.  It is nonetheless a real property in point of law as defined under Article 415, paragraph A of the Civil Code.  And the second one is the condominium unit itself, Your Honor, which is Unit 21B at One Burgundy Plaza, Your Honor, please.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Did he fail to disclose it in his SALN?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Your Honors, please, the—Your Honor, I’m just answering your …

SEN. ESTRADA.  My question is only answerable by yes or no.  Did he fail to disclose it in his SALN?

ATTY. JANDOC.  He failed, Your Honor, please, to disclose in his SALN the parking slot and that the condominium unit also was not disclosed.  Kindly, Your Honor, please, while belatedly, Your Honir, it was disclosed only in 2003, but it was not a correct disclosure, Your Honor, given the undervalued amount therein declared, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  All right.  Usually, if somebody buys a condominium, do you have to stipulate in the SALN, or do you have to include the parking lot in you SALN?

ATTY. JANDOC.  It’s hard, Your Honor, in the realty estate industry, Your Honor, whether or not it should be inclusive of the unit, Your Honor, or it should be treated as a separate property, Your Honor.  As can be seen in the reservation of application executed by respondent Chief Justice and his wife, Your Honor, they made an offer to buy, two items, Your Honor.  One is Unit 21B for an indicated price, and another one is the parking slot for the price of P450,000, Your Honor.  Which only goes to show that these two items are treated as separate properties for purposes of valuation of its consideration, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Because I have a copy of the SALN of Chief Justice Corona, December of 2003.  It is listed here that the Burgundy property, I assume that was being discussed as for one hour and 45 minutes.  The year acquired was 1997 and I believe that that was acquired in 1997.  It was stated here, but I doubt very much about the fair market value.  So, I think he disclosed it—the Chief Justice disclosed this particular property in the SALN, but I don’t want to make assumptions here, but according to you, he undervalued the price.  Am I correct?  Is that my understanding?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor, please.  It was under-declared.  Only pertaining to condominium unit 21B because there was never any declaration as to the separate property, which is the parking slot, Your Honor.

If I may, Your Honor, please, the constitutional requirement provided for in Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution, Your Honor, in relation to Section 8 of Republic Act 6713 requires the public officer concerned to make a disclosure of all his assets, liabilities and net worth, and gives the right to the people to know the assets, liabilities and net worth, Your Honor.

I make emphasis to the word net worth.  One cannot make a declaration of his net worth unless he makes a complete narration of all his assets and liabilities.  In this case, Your Honor, please, the reservation agreement indicated, and that was dated July 15, 1997, it indicated that the contract price is P3,208,800.  And that there was a down payment made, Your Honor.  This was done in 1997, and as confirmed by no less than the Chief Justice in his SALN for his 2003, he indicated that he acquired this property in 1997.  Then, therefore, Your Honor, please, it is incumbent upon the Chief Justice to indicate as part of his assets the total contract price for these properties, that has to indicate his remaining balance under the column liabilities so that in his net worth, it will be reflected how much money came out of his pocket, Your Honor, please.

That is the true sense that is embodied in the cited provision of Republic Act 6713, which is in relation to Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, the bottomline of this whole discussion is that, you are saying that Chief Justice Corona should have stated in his SALN of 2003, the condominium unit with the parking lot.

ATTY. JANDOC.  Yes, Your Honor, please, because the parking lot is a separate real property, and …

SEN. ESTRADA.  So ang wala lang dito, parking lot?

ATTY. JANDOC.  Not only that ,Your Honor …

SEN. ESTRADA.  It was properly disclosed, the condo was properly disclosed here—well, I do not know about the value, but the condo was listed here, pwera iyong parking lot.

Ang gusto mo lang, ang mailagay dito, iyong condo plus iyong parking lot.

ATTY. JANDOC.  With due respect, Your Honor, please, not only was there non-declaration of the parking lot, but while the condo was indeed declared, it was incorrectly declared, Your Honor, contrary to the requirement of the law and the requirement of the Constitution, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Because as you have stated, it was undervalued.

ATTY. JANDOC.  And there is not even any declaration of the acquisition cost, as required by Section 8, paragraph A of Republic Act 6713.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. President.

ATTY. JANDOC.  And if I may, Your Honor, please, just for clarification, Your Honor, the implementing rules and regulations earlier cited by the distinguished counsel for the defense, Your Honor, pertaining to a prior review of the contents in the SALN, Your Honor, please.

It is worthy to mention, Your Honor, please, that the reviewing authority, insofar as the judiciary, Your Honor, is no less than the Chief Justice, and here, the Chief Justice, being the reviewing authority, should have known that he is not filing his SALN, as required by Republic Act No. 6713, and in relation to Section 17, Article 11 of the Constitution, truthfully, timely and completely, that makes the act, therefore, a culpable violation of the Constitution, and a betrayal of public trust, insofar as it relates to the duty of the public officer, respondent, Chief Justice, on public accountability, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are ready to discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is an opinion but we will consider that when we evaluate this case, because a culpable violation suggest that—the violation of the Constitution must be of such a criminal nature as to be considered a high crime.

So, anyway …

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … the witness is discharged.

SEN. SOTTO.  The witness is discharged, but Senator Arroyo wishes to make a statement concerning the manifestation of the counsel for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

SEN. ARROYO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

I would caution again the prosecution.  On points of law, we have—the agreement was that the public prosecutors, meaning the House prosecutors are the only ones who can argue.  Now, the private prosecutor is limited to conducting an examination.  I did not want to stand-up because I did not want to interrupt, but henceforth, please observe the rule.  Thank you.

ATTY. JANDOC.  I am sorry, Your Honor.  I beg the kind indulgence of the honorable Senator juror.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your next witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.   Because of the lateness of the hour, we would expect the prosecutor to present the witness another witness on Monday.

Representative Tupas is asking for the floor, Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  Please, Mr. President, Your Honor, just regarding the statement issued earlier by Your Honor, on the numerous requests for the issuance of subpoena from the prosecution.  If it is not too much to ask for this honorable tribunal, we have pending request for subpoena that are not opposed, and if it is not too much to ask, if we can ask the honorable court to act on those request.  But of course, we know earlier, as was stated by the honorable Presiding Officer, that there were some matters that should be addressed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, counsel, the reason why we could not decide issuing those subpoena, was because you have to lay the basis first for the subpoena.  I assume that you must have some semblance of evidence in your possession that you can present to this court as a basis for requesting those subpoenas.  We cannot just subpoena anybody unless you have to indicate to us the relevancy of those things that are to be subpoenaed.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Your Honor, we understand.  And in fact, we are in touch with the office.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then you are requesting us to subpoena the records of the Supreme Court.  We cannot request you to subpoena your records neither can you request to subpoena our records.  You have to observe the separateness and co-equalness of the three departments of government.  So, if you have evidence, allunde or outside of the things that you want to be subpoenaed, please present them first as a basis for you to ask or to subpoena those records.

REP. TUPAS.  We will do that, Your Honor.  I am manifesting this because on Monday, we would like to inform the honourable tribunal that we will present witnesses already on Article III.  Of course, with reservation on other matters pending now with Article II.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We will be very liberal in dealing with the presentation of your evidence.  But tell us next Monday, what Article are you going to tackle.

REP. TUPAS.  We will present witnesses for Article III.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about Article II, you will suspend?

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  We would .like to ask for reservation because there are still matters, may I explain, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

REP. TUPAS.  Because we do have pending request for subpoena to the banks, namely, the PS Bank and the BPI.  So, pending decision by the honourable tribunal on those matters, and so as not to waste the time of this honourable tribunal, we are ready also pending the resolution to present witnesses for Article III.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I was about to issue a subpoena but, you know, may I request you  to finalize the things that you will require.  Because under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, the inviolability of persons and things and papers and effects of citizens of this country is provided and we cannot conduct any subpoena that might turn out to be an unreasonable search.  So, please, when you ask us to issue a subpoena, specify the account number and the particular transaction involved and the documents that you want to be subpoenaed.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is why I said, specify with specificity so that we will not be accused of unwarranted search.  Okay.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, before we close in today’s proceedings, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The defense counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are still in the process of cross-examining the BIR Commissioner, Your Honor.  And it was the prosecution who asked that she be given a leave of absence of 7 days.  Now, we would like to know if they are closing their evidence on impeachment Article II, Your Honor, without the testimony of the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not only that.  The Presiding Officer requested some brief, written brief, to tell us why CAR is required for shares of stocks sold outside the Stock Exchange of the country.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, with the kind permission of this honourable court, Your Honor, may we register our objection to the fact that we go to another article without disposing Article II, Your Honor.  My only point is, we are not yet through with our cross-examination.  I think the honourable prosecutor will bear us out on this particular aspect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you present all your witnesses on Article II tomorrow?

REP. TUPAS.  Monday.  Monday, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Monday.

REP. TUPAS.  In that case, if there is an objection, the only reason we manifested because we thought the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue would not be available on Monday.  But we got information that she will be available so we will present the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, we will not consider that problem because the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is on official mission so they have no control over that so we have to be understanding.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We submit, Your Honor.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor please, and also with that, there is a pending request for subpoena so we will present some witnesses for Article II on Monday if that is the case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  May I request you to confer with your witnesses so that we will not rumble in the presentation of the witnesses.  I am not saying that you are not doing your job properly but we want the flow of this hearing to be faster and more expeditious.

REP. TUPAS.  We will do that.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Any further remarks?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  None, Your Honor.  We wanted an adjournment already.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mr. Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, in compliance with the directive of the court…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  Mr. President, in compliance with the directive of the court, counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona filed on January 31, 2012 the list of witnesses and documentary evidence to be adduced by the defense with the reservation to present additional evidence as may be deemed necessary for the information of the court, Mr. President.  Also we are in receipt of the entry of appearance of additional private prosecutors under the control and supervision of the House of Representatives, well, a panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives.  The entry is signed by Rep. Tupas and Rep. Umali and the private prosecutors, Attys. Cynthia Corazon G. Roxas and Jose Luis Rey S. Monsayat.  Also for the information of the court, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are already 58 private prosecutors, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, let us allow them to have all the assistance of counsel who would want to help the prosecution.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is part of the liberality of the court, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you.  Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-arms to make an announcement before I move to adjourn.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.  All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have  left the session hall.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move to adjourn until 2 o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, February 6, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The motion to adjourn until f2 o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, February 6, 2012 is approved.

It was 6:03 p.m.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s