IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Monday, February 20, 2012

 At 2:17 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 of the Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona, is hereby called to order.  We shall be led in prayer by the Majority Floor Leader, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III.

(Prayer by Sen. Sotto)

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

THE CLERK OF COURT.  The Honorable Senators:  Angara, Arroyo, Cayetano Allan Peter “Companero”, Cayetano, Pia; Defensor, Santiago; Drillon; Ejercito, Estrada, Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmena; Pangilinan; Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 21 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  Majority Floor Leader.

REP. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make a proclamation.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 16, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  There being none, the February 16, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court is hereby approved.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we ask the parties or their respective counsel for their appearances.

REP. TUPAS.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.  For the prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let’s call the case…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us call the case first.  The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting 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.  Appearances.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, the prosecution and the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Good afternoon, again, Your Honor, for the prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.

The defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please, for the defense, the same appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, for the Business for the Day, Mr. Pascual Garcia III, president of the Philippine Savings Bank has been asked to come back.  The prosecution has reserved their desire to conduct a redirect earlier, and compliance of PS Bank regarding the questions, requests of the court, namely the logbook, the signature card, record of accounts of respondent Corona, for comparison vis-a-vis annexes A1 to A4.  And also, Ms. Annabelle Tiongson, manager of the Katipunan branch was asked to return, together with the representative of the BPI Ayala branch, Mr. President, and then, we would be tackling one or two other matters after that.  So, Mr. President, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The named witnesses, the president of the Philippine Savings Bank as well as the manager of the Katipunan Branch of that bank are hereby directed to enter the session hall and take the witness stand, one after the other.

First, the manager and the president, under the same oath.  Please bring the witnesses to the chamber.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we have a one-minute suspension, Mr. President, while they are being called.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is suspended for one minute.

It was 2:22 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 2:25 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, in the last day of the trial we were informed that the defense wanted to cross-examine—but I  have been informed also by other members of the court that they would want to ask question on clarification.  So, may …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Chair would like to make some clarificatory questions from the manager of the bank.  If there is no objection from anybody regarding the order of questioning,

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  On the part of the defense, Your Honor, we have no objection whatsoever.

ATTY. PUNO.  No, objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.

Madam Witness, in the last hearing, and I would like to make you recall it, this Presiding Officer asked you about the security procedure in the handling of sensitive documents in your branch, in the Katipunan Branch of Philippine Savings Bank. And you explained that all sensitive documents bearing on the account of each depositor are placed in a steel cabinet.  Correct?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that steel cabinet cannot be opened by a single person.  Is that correct?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That actually, you, as a branch manager, you know that there are assigned officers, two officers, that would enable anyone to access that steel cabinet.

MS. TIONGSON. Two branch personnel, Your Honor.   One officer and one customer service associate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   How do you call the first one?

MS. TIONGSON.  Branch Service and Control Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Branch Service and Control Officer.

MS.TIONGSON.  Or the BSCO for short, and the Customer Service Associate or the CSA.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that you also confirm that either one of them could not open that steel cabinet without the presence of the other.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor, the steel cabinet of sensitive accounts or documents are located in the inner grill of our vault.  So, they cannot really open it unless there are two of them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that even you as manager of the branch could not open it without the presence of the two officers allowed to hold the security numbers to open these steel cabinet.

MS. TIONGSON.  Your Honor, I am an alternate custodian of one of the combinations and one of the keys, so I can also enter for as long as there is somebody with me, dual, joint pa rin.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Either one of them?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, but normally, when the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no, no, just answer the question.  Either one of them must be present if you access that steel cabinet.

MS. TIONGSON.  No, not either, Sir,  just the CSA,  because I am the alternate holder of the BSCO.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  A, the alternate.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Sir, they are separate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are the alternate to the BSCO.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that if the BSCO is absent, you can open the vault with the Customer – what do you call it?

MS.TIONGSON.  Customer Service Associate, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Customer Service Associate.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, then, you also testified that, I think it was prior to the filing of the Articles of Impeachment against the respondent Chief Justice, when you received the subpoena of this court, you consulted your bank president?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was it when you received the subpoena of this court that you consulted the bank president or was it prior to the filing of the Articles of Impeachment?

MS. TIONGSON. I also referred to him or talked to him even before, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is before? Before what?

MS. TIONGSON. On that day that we were visited about this account, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Wait a minute. There was an Articles of Impeachment filed on December 12, 2011, did you consult the bank president before that, the filing of Articles of Impeachment or after?

MS. TIONGSON. After, Your Honor, the filing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How long after?

MS. TIONGSON. It was on the same day that we were visited by Congressman Banal, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When was that?

MS. TIONGSON.  January 31, 2012, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. January 31, 2012?

MS. TIONGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, almost more than a month after the Articles of Impeachment was filed that you were visited by Congressman Banal and as a consequence, you consulted the bank president, is that correct?

MS. TIONGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And was this after this Court issued the subpoena duces tecum to produce the bank records of the respondent from the Katipunan Branch of PSbank?

MS. TIONGSON. You are asking me—may you clarify your question, Your Honor. You are asking me if it was made before or after …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

MS. TIONGSON. … the subpoena?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, we are talking here of a period of more than a month, from the time the Articles of Impeachment were filed up to the time Congressman Banal saw you. I cannot now remember when the subpoena was issued by this court. I think—may I refer to the Clerk of Court.  When was it filed?

THE SENATE SECRETARY.  February 6.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  February 6.  So, you met Congressman Banal or—Congressman Banal visited you on the 31st of January 2012?

MS. TIONGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, that is before you received the subpoena duces tecum from this court?

MS. TIONGSON. Yes, Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, when did the president of your bank ask you for the records …

MS. TIONGSON.  On January …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … of bank records of respondent Chief Justice Corona?

MS. TIONGSON. On January 31st, Your Honor, we met with him and then, we …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who are “we”?

MS. TIONSON.  The whole branch personnel, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The whole branch, all the members of the branch?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.  And then, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He went to the branch, himself?

MS. TIONGSON. No, Your Honor. We met in—outside the Branch.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Where outside the branch?

MS. TIONGSON.  In a restaurant, Your Honor, in Katipunan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What restaurant?

MS. TIONGSON.  Red Garlic, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Red Garlic.  And how many were you, if you can remember?

MS. TIONGSON. I will try to recall, Your Honor.  We were eight, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Huh?

MS. TIONGSON.  Eight.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Eight.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Including the president.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what was discussed in that meeting?

MS. TIONGSON.  I told him about the visit of Congressman Banal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who initiated the meeting?  Was it you as manager of the branch of that bank or was it the president of the bank?

MS. TIONGSON.  It was the president, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why did he call for that meeting?

MS. TIONGSON.  Because right after the visit of Congressman Banal, I immediately reported it to my superior.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By how did you report it?

MS. TIONGSON.  Through the phone, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By phone.

MS. TIONGSON.  And then I called another head, the branch banking head and then I talked to our executive vice president and then…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, wait a minute.  After Congressman Banal visited you and he left, you called the president of the bank.

MS. TIONGSON.  Not directly the president, Your Honor.  I called my area head.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who is your area head?

MS. TIONGSON.  Her name is Ma. Cristina Duque.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is her rank in the bank?

MS. TIONGSON.  She is assistant vice president, area head of our area, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She is holding office in the central office.

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.  She is holding her office in our Acropolis branch, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what did you tell your assistant vice president?

MS. TIONGSON.  I narrated to her what happened and then…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please narrate what happened.  How did you report it?

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay.  I reported to her that there was a visit from Congressman Banal.  I told her almost all, Your Honor, almost all that I mentioned last time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I want it repeated into the records to clear this.

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay.  So on January 31, it was around a little after 12:30 or around 1 p.m., there was a visit from Congressman Banal and then I thought that he was going to open an account with me so I asked him if I could assist him.  But that time that he was still waiting for me in the lobby, I was still assisting two customers who were opening an account.  So I approached him after my branch service and control officer told me that Congressman Banal is seated in the lobby.  And then I approached him and I told him that I cannot assist you right now because I’m still assisting other customers.  If you want I can let my BSC attend to you.  He said that he will wait for me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was he alone?

MS. TIONGSON.  He was alone, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No companion.

MS. TIONGSON.  No companion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

MS. TIONGSON.  And then while I finish the transactions of my clients who were at my table, I went to him and told him that I’m already done with my clients and that we could already talk, if he could go to my table to talk.  So when he was seated, we exchanged some chitchats, about the transfer of the branch because the branch of Katipunan branch was previously located in the middle.  This new location is now very near Miriam, things like that. And then, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  After your conversation, what happened?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, I asked him, what can I do for you?  So, I again asked him if he will open an account, he said, no, actually, he said, that he is already a Representative, and that he is no longer a Councilor.  So, I apologized for addressing him wrongly.  And then—so, he said that—I actually recall, Your Honor, that he said that he was assigned, I think, by the Speaker, to the secretariat, and then, I was not able to mention it last week, but I remember him asking about the raffle.  And then—if we still have records with us on the raffle.  I said, I am sorry, I cannot help you, I do not have any information, it was a long time ago, we do not have records of that.

And then, ayon, then he said—I asked him—before that, noong tinanong ko siya, that—when I asked him pala if he will open an account …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tagalugin mo na lang para mas maintidihan ng madla.

MS. TIONGSON.  Sige—anyway, Your Honor, I am okay.  When I asked him if he was gonna open an account, he said, no nga, and that he was assigned to the secretariat, so, what can I do for you?  And then, he asked about the raffles and the—I said, I am sorry, I cannot help you, I cannot disclose anything.  Then, he said, if you can just help me on your personal capacity, and he was holding this pieces of paper, and then, it was folded, and then, he showed them to me partly.  Since it was folded, he opened it partly and his hand was partly covering the document or the paper.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sinabi sa iyo …

MS. TIONGSON.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … pwede mo ba akong tulungan dito sa papel na ito?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.  He said it in a general way, Your Honor.  He said that, if you can help me on a personal basis, what do you mean by that?  Because I cannot say anything about any account, if you are asking for that.

Then, he said—he just immediately showed me …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bakit mo tinanong iyon na, I cannot help you about any account.

MS. TIONGSON.  Kasi,  parang nagtatanong siya, Your Honor, about a raffle, and then …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  About …

MS. TIONGSON.  Kung nanalo ba si CJ Corona, ganoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oo.

MS. TIONGSON.  Parang I recall him mentioning that already.  And then, that is why I said I cannot help him.  And then, on a personal basis daw, pa-guide lang—ganito, if this is dollar, if this is seven, if this is a K, mga ganoon.

And the document, the photocopy was really blurred, Your Honor, and I was so shocked to see that the form was a PS Bank—resemble the form of the PS Bank customer service—sorry, customer information specimen signature card, we call it CISSC or for short, the signature card.

And then, when I was scanning it, kasi nga it was partly covered, I scanned it around that area which he was pointing, and then, I saw the name of Renato Coronado Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, he was asking, precisely, about the account of a specific person.

MS. TIONGSON.  Based on the photocopy that he was showing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga, ang tinatanong niya, ay walang iba kundi account ni Chief Justice Corona.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Pagkatapos noong konbersasyon ninyo, usapan ninyo, ano ang ginawa mo?

MS. TIONGSON.  When—after he left, I called my area head.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gaano katagal siya pala doon sa iyo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Parang he was there for mga 10 to 20 minutes, I think.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige, pagkatapos noon, ano ang ginawa mo?

MS. TIONGSON.  After he left, Your Honor, I was parang shocked, I just stayed in my table. and then I called my ano …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Bakit ka na-shocked?

MS. TIONGSON.  Because I was holding a photocopy of what seemed to be like a signature card.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Of your bank?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, I asked him before he left where he got it but he did not disclose.  He just said that I can tell you if you will help us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ngayon.

MS. TIONGSON.  And then I was trying to get hold of the paper that he was holding so I could further examine it, Your Honor, to really verify that that was indeed  our signature card or something resembled our document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon.

MS. TIONGSON.  But he did not give it to me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   So, pagkatapos noong usapan ninyo, tumawag ka doon sa assistant vice president.?

MS. TIONGSON.  Right after, Your Honor, kinausap ko muna iyong BSCO ko, and then, I told her can you please check if the documents are still there.  We were ano—it was lunch time and so medyo …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano iyong sinabi mo na can you please check if the document is still there, ano ang ibig mong sabihin?

MS. TIONGSON.  I wanted to check, Your Honor, from what I recall, from what I saw on the photocopies that you showed me, if it was also there in our record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Iyong dokumento ninyo na kaparis noong ipinakita sa iyo ay kung andun pa sa inyong lalagyan?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pwede bang umaccess iyong assistance vice president doon sa vault?

MS. TIONGSON.  Your Honor, I was still talking to the branch service and control officer, my assistant at that time before I called my …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Teka muna, teka muna.  Ang kausap mo, ang unang kinausap mo ay iyong control officer.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Iyong ikaw ang alternate?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Itinanong mo sa kanya kung andoon pa iyong dokumento na ipinakita sa iyo ni Congressman Banal na halos kapareho, sa iyong akala, noong dokumento ninyo sa vault.

MS. TIONGSON.  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, tinatanong lang kita para madalian ang usapan natin.

MS. TIONGSON.  Basta I told her, Your Honor, na pwede bang tingnan natin iyong records lang kasi we were just wondering how he got photocopy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga tinanong mo kung nandoon pa iyong records sa pinaglalagyan ninyo dahil nababahala ka dahil may ipinakita sa iyong dokumento na kaparis noong dokumento na iyon.

MS. TIONGSON.  Well, I am sure naman, Your Honor, that it was there …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tinatanong lang kita, hija, huwag kang nenerbyusin, hindi naman kita ilalagay sa alanganin.  Tinatanong lang kita para ma-clarify ito.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.  I was sure that it was inside, the records, Your Honor, but, I wanted to see it myself also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga tinanong mo, hindi maklaro iyong sa kuwan mo eh kaya kinaklaro ko.  Tinanong mo iyong control officer na tingan kung andum pa iyong dokumento ninyo sa loob noong steel vault.

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.  I said please check.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Check, kung andoon pa.

MS. TIONGSON.  Not necessarily, parang please check the signature cards if—because I want to see also eh.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam ko, ano ba talagang sinabi mo doon sa control officer mo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Gusto ko rin, Your Honor, ma-compare iyong mga nakita ko from what was presented to me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Kaya nga itinatanong ko sa iyo, pina-check mo doon sa control officer kung andoon pa iyong original ng dokumento ninyo para ma-check mo.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   O, iyon.  Simple lang iyan eh.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.  After that, I called my area head, so I talked to her for a long—for quite sometime.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Sino iyong area head mo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Ma. Cristina Duque, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyon iyong assistant vice president?

MS. TIONGSON. Yes, I talked to her on the phone and reported to her what transpired.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    About what she saw?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  About the visit of Congressman Banal and what you saw–what the document you saw?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That he was interested in?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay. Pagkatapos na makausap mo iyong assistant vice president or area head mo, kinausap mo ulit iyong control officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  I talked to our branch banking head, Your Honor, and also reported this thing to him.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    After the assistant vice president?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pagkatapos, kinausap mo iyong control officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.  But before I talked to my ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Kinausap mo ba iyong control officer?

MS. TIONGSON. Control officer …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Iyong sa vault?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  After you talked to your branch, the vice president?  Tatlo iyong tao na kinausap mo, eh?

MS. TIONGSON.    Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Una, kinausap mo iyong control officer ng vault. Pagkatapos, tinawagan mo iyong assistant vice president, hindi ba, area head mo?

MS. TIONGSON. Oo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Pagkatapos, tinawagan mo iyong branch, ano ba ito?

MS. TIONGSON.  Branch banking head.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Branch banking head.  Pagkatapos, kinausap mo ulit iyong control officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  At that time, Your Honor, the officer was still having lunch in the—so, I let her take her lunch and I also took my lunch. And then, I came back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Immaterial na iyon. Gusto ko lang ang sequence …

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … ng mga tao na kinausap mo.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Kung ikaw natulog, kumain, nagmeryenda, nagsigarilyo, immaterial iyon. Kinausap mo ulit iyong control officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ano ang tinanong mo sa kanya?

MS. TIONGSON. So, pinapa-check ko po iyong, ano, pinalabas naman niya.  And then, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pina-check mo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Oo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Inilabas niya iyong dokumento ninyo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    In-examine mo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Nandoon iyong dokumento ninyo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Hindi nawawala?

MS. TIONGSON.  Hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Pagkatapos, ano ginawa?

MS. TIONGSON.    And then, later on, our executive vice president who is higher than our branch banking group head called me also about it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino iyon?

MS. TIONGSON.  His name is Jose Vicente Alde. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bakit tumawag sa iyo?

MS. TIONGSON.  I also told him about what happened. He asked about it and then, he said …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Teka muna, you also told her?

MS. TIONGSON.   Him, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the sequence of the order of calls that you made.

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay, the first one, the first call I made was with my area head.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

MS. TIONGSON.    The second call I made was with my branch banking head.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then?

MS. TIONGSON.  The third call I received from our executive vice president.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You received ha? Your received?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You did not call, ha?  You received?

MS. TIONGSON.    Yes, po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was?

MS. TIONGSON.  Was from our executive vice president.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is he?

MS. TIONGSON.    Jose Vicente Alde, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then, after that you talked to your control officer to check?

MS. TIONGSON.  Before I talk to Mr. Alde, Your Honor, I already talked with my control officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, ang last na kinausap mo ay iyong vice president?

MS. TIONGSON.    Yes, Your Honor, over the phone..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano sinabi mo sa vice president?

MS. TIONGSON.  Briefly lang I mentioned what happened and then, he said, “Okay, please arrange for the whole personnel branch to meet up, our president would like to speak with all of you.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sinabi noong vice president?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, that is—iyon ang dahilan kung bakit nagkaroon ng meeting …

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … doon sa Red Garlic Restaurant?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, noong mismong araw na rin iyon ay nag-meeting—nagkaroon ng meeting kayo kasama iyong vice president?

MS. TIONGSON.    Yes, Your Honor, He was there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hapon na iyon?

MS. TIONGSON.  It was 6:30, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the evening.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, 6:30 to 7:00, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano ang sinabi ng presidente ng bangko sa iyo?

MS. TIONGSON.  So he asked me about what happened and then he instructed that the branch records of that particular account be brought to the head office for safekeeping and then it was…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang.  Sinabi niya lahat ng record noong account na iyon ay ipunin at i-transfer sa head office.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino ang gumawa noong utos na iyon, ikaw o iyong control officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  It was the president, Your Honor, and then the following day…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It was the president himself?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, in that meeting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no, no, iyong aktwal gathering of the documents.

MS. TIONGSON.  The gathering.  It was already in a folder, Your Honor, in one folder.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How did it happen that it was already in a folder?

MS. TIONGSON.  That’s how we file our documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So all the documents pertaining to a particular account are contained in a folder.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the folder was taken off the vault, given to the president.

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.  The following day, the head of branch banking group, Mr. Reyes, went to the branch to get the folder, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Teka muna.  Nagkaroon kayo ng miting, sinabi ng president doon sa miting na iyon, nandoon siya, sa iyo na I want all the records of this particular account which is contained in a folder, hindi ba?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then hindi niya kinuha noong miting na iyon kung hindi the following day, another officer called you—ikaw ba tinawagan?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.  The order was based on that meeting.  That branch was already closed at that time.  We were already outside of the branch and then the following day, when the branch was opened, that’s when the records were brought out from the vault.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who brought them out from the vault?

MS. TIONGSON.  The branch service and control officer, Your Honor, and the customer service associate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino iyong mga iyon?

MS. TIONGSON.  The officer, Your Honor is, Honeylette Marasigan and the CSA is Emelyn Dizon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sabihin mo ang—kami rito hindi namin alam kung sino ang CSA o ano.  Sabihin mo iyong pangalan niya at katungkulan niya.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.  The officer, Your Honor, is Honeylette Marasigan and the other custodian, Your Honor, is Emelyn Dizon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino ang kumuha noong record na iyon doon sa vault na nasa folder?

MS. TIONGSON.  Both of them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  From the vault ha?

MS. TIONGSON.  Both of them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Both of them.  Saan nila dinala?

MS. TIONGSON.  They gave it to the branch banking head, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino iyon?

MS. TIONGSON.  Mr. Reyes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, nandoon ka noong binigay kay Mr. Reyes?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Reyes ba?

MS. TIONGSON.  Reyes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Reyes.  Paano mo alam na binigay kay Mr. Reyes.

MS. TIONGSON.  He received them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Huh?

MS. TIONGSON.  He received them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May resibo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, sir.  I asked—they showed me…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May resibo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So basta sagutin mo lang para madali tayo.

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wala tayong panahon dito.  May resibo na inisyu ni Mr. Reyes na tinanggap niya iyong mga dokumento na iyon, iyong folder from whom?

MS. TIONGSON.  From Milette Marasigan and Emylyn Dizon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano ang puwesto noong tao na iyon?

MS. TIONGSON.  Officer and customer service associate respectively.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyon ang officer-in-charge doon sa vault.

MS. TIONGSON.  The custodians, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Na kung saan ikaw ay alternate.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You were not present when it was delivered by that officer to the receiver?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, after that, when was this?

MS. TIONGSON.  February 1, 2012, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

MS. TIONGSON.  Feb 1, 2012, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  February 2?

MS. TIONGSON.  1, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  February 1.  San dinala yon?  Saan ba’ng head office ninyo?

MS. TIONGSON.  Our head office is located at 777 Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O ngayon, alam mo kung pano hinandel nung—sino’ng tumanggap don sa head office nung folder na yon?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hanggang ngayon hindi mo alam?

MS. TIONGSON.  I think it was brought, Sir, to Mr. Garcia, Your Honor.  Maybe he can confirm it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you’re not sure?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  I will ask that from the president of the bank later on, how they handled that document.

I remember that you said that prior to this impeachment—the filing of the Articles of Impeachment, nagkaron kayo ng audit sa inyong bangko?  In-audit kayo ng Bangko Sentral at ng AMLC?

MS. TIONGSON.  I just remember, Your Honor, that the BSP audited …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tinanong ko sayo yan hindi ba?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At sinabi mo nagkaron kami ng audit.

MS. TIONGSON.  The bank was audited by BSP, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tinatanong ko lang sayo, nagkaron kayo ng audit.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please don’t be evasive because I know when you are evading my question.  Nagkaron kayo ng audit, di ba?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ang nag-audit sa inyo, sino?

MS. TIONGSON.  Mr. Garcia could better answer that, Your Honor, because it …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino?  Anong ahensiya ng gobyerno ang nag-audit sa inyo?

MS. TIONGSON.  BSP, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  BSP.  Sino pa?

MS. TIONGSON.  The details, Your Honor, I’m sorry I cannot—I do not know.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How do you know that there was an audit?

MS. TIONGSON.  Because I remember that we even celebrated after that.  Parang there was a celebration.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You celebrated after that?  What do you mean by after that?

MS. TIONGSON.  The rating was okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  After what?

MS. TIONGSON.  After the audit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  After the audit?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you know why you were audited?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you know the date when you were audited?

MS. TIONGSON. Mr. Garcia would be the best person to answer that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  You were not involved in the audit?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You were not asked questions in the course of the audit?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They did not ask any records from you in the course of the audit?

MS. TIONGSON.  Not from me, Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga.  Ikaw mismo tinatanong ko.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi?

MS. TIONGSON.  No.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino ang humarap don sa mga auditor nung in-audit yung Katipunan Branch?

MS. TIONGSON.  They made the audit in the head office, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Head office sa Ayala?

MS. TIONGSON.  Makati.  Paseo de Roxas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Paseo de Roxas.  Alam mo kung sino humarap sa mga auditor?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Walang tinanong sa inyo doon sa Katipunan Branch don sa audit na yon?

MS. TIONGSON.  May I ask from my lawyer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi, tinatanong kita bilang manager of the branch.

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay.  I remember that there was an email from our compliance to get certain records, but I was not the person who handled it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Email from your compliance officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  About certain records?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo ba kung ano yung mga records na hinihingi?

MS. TIONGSON.  Sir, Your Honor, I was not privy to it because they went straight to the office, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pwede bang magsalita ka ng klaro?

MS. TIONGSON.  I have a sore throat, Your Honor.  I’m sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sore throat?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Dahan-dahan.

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay.  I was …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi ikaw ang tinanong nung compliance officer ng bangko nung mga records na gusto niya?

MS. TIONGSON.  Hindi ako, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino’ng tinanong?

MS. TIONGSON.  The officer at that time, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who is the officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  At that time, it was Susan Colteros, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anong posisyon nya don sa bangko?

MS. TIONGSON.  She is the branch Service and Control Officer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Branch …

MS. TIONGSON.  Service and control officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She is a part of the Katipunan branch?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor, but she is no longer with the bank, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I am not asking that.  He is—do not anticipate my question, because otherwise, I will say you are a nervous witness.  Just relax ka lang.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just answer my question.

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is this branch control officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  Branch service and control officer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Branch service and control officer, this is the same person who was in charge of the vault.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wala na ngayon siya doon?

MS. TIONGSON.  No more, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kailan umalis?

MS. TIONGSON.  Last year, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Last year, what time last year?

MS. TIONGSON.  Exact month, I do not recall, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  December last year?

MS. TIONGSON.  First half of the year, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  First half of the year.  After the audit?  After the audit …

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  I want to put in perspective, all of these events—ngayon, wala—hindi ka tinanong as branch manager about that audit?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Everything was answered by the president of the bank.

MS. TIONGSON.  I am not sure if he was the one who really answered, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But everything was answered by the head office.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  None was answered by the Katipunan branch.

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Were other records of Katipunan branch taken during the audit and examined?

MS. TIONGSON.  I cannot say, Your Honor.  I have no personal knowledge.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You cannot say.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was the audit only for a specific account from your branch or was the audit for the entire Philippine Savings Bank?

MS. TIONGSON.  Entire, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Entire savings bank.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And all the records of the branches were brought to the head office for examination by the auditors or they were merely asking questions?

MS. TIONGSON.  I am not so sure, Your Honor.  I am sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why was the email—anong pangalan noong rank noong official na nag-email?

MS. TIONGSON.  Compliance officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why was the email of the compliance officer directed to your bank controller service officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  Because they are in charge of operations, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They are in charge of operation …

MS. TIONGSON.  The BSCO.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … of the records.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And they were investigating the records of depositors of the bank.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All the depositors

MS. TIONGSON.  I am not so sure.  I think, random.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

MS. TIONGSON.  Random.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ah, random.

MS. TIONGSON.  Random.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Random.  Random.  Okay.  I want the president of the bank to take the witness stand, I will excuse you first.

But before I proceed, I will just take a personal matter outside and suspend the trial.

It was 3:09 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 3:13 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. SOTTO.  Before we excuse Ms. Tiongson, the branch manager, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady from Iloilo is recognized.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  I am told by counsel she is in the bathroom and will be coming momentarily.

Ms. Witness, you are testifying under the same oath to tell the the truth.

MS.TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Please do not be nervous, I am very, very practiced with a sense who come to court for the very first time.  I strongly suggest that you take a sip of water which is what we do when the witness is disturbed. And please do not think that I am going to try and trap you with a clever question. I will not do that with you since you are, in effect, an impartial witness.

I want to reveal you to the public in all your duty and in all your—and in the full glory of your college education. I am your friend.

It appears from your narration recently that you were deeply disturbed by the visit of Mr. Banal, is that a correct impression?

MS. TIONGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  You are so disturbed that you went on a round of talks from one superior officer of the bank to another, isn’t that so?

MS. TIONGSON.   Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  And you have reason to be because I think even, only subconsciously you remembered that you and he were talking about a foreign currency deposit.  You are talking about a foreign currency deposit that did not belong to him. Is that why you were disturbed?

MS. TIONGSON. I was disturbed, Your Honor, because, apparently, this person was holding what seemed like a bank document, which was supposed to be confidential.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Absolutely confidential, yes. So, you are putting it in another way but, more or less, we have reached the same conclusion and maybe when only in your subconscious, you remembered, maybe during your seminar, or orientation as a bank manager that under the law called “Instituting a Foreign Currency Deposit System in the Philippines,”  Section 8, which is entitled: Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits, provides that:  All foreign currency deposit, et cetera, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance, shall foreign currency deposit be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,”  I think that, as a college graduate, it was impressed in your mind that even if a person merely asked a question about a foreign currency deposit that does not belong to him is already violating the law, would you say that?

MS. TIONGSON.   Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Yes because the law is very, very strict. It says, Section 8, Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits, “These deposits are of an absolutely confidential in nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance.xxx”  That is the law speaking “in no instance shall foreign currency deposit be examined, inquired into.”  “Inquired into”, the law prohibits any person from asking any question. “Inquired into or looked into” by any person, government official, bureau, office, et cetera.  So, the prohibition is absolute even any ordinary person without showing any motive or fraudulent intention, the minute he walks into a bank and ask you about a foreign currency deposit from the branch manager, the branch manager’s head, should already be resound with bells and whistles because the law prohibits you, not only from giving information, but even the person or the visitor from asking about it. I think that was the reason for your unease after the departure of your guess and you were correct because under Section 10, penal provisions, “Any wilful violation of this Act or any regulation by the Monetary Board, shall subject the offender, upon conviction to imprisonment of not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years or a fine.”  So, I have raised this question with you just to assure you, since you look so miserable there in the witness stand, that what you are doing was completely correct, you are acting pursuant, exactly, to the language of the law, unlike a lawmaker, who, although a lawmaker was already a lawbreaker. I have not wished for you to answer this question. That is my personal view as a lawyer and as a judge here in this court.  Perhaps, people should read the law more carefully, particularly, when they are entrusted with making the law.  And may I say, there is a similar provision with the Domestic Currency Deposit Law.

Now, I am no longer going to ask you a question. I will just make a manifestation, no longer talking to you. I would like to manifest to my honorable distinguished colleagues of the impeachment court, according to timeline, I have tried to draw, Mr. Banal, received a copy, an anonymous copy of the signature card on January 30.  He has no clue where it came from.  On February 2, Representative Reynaldo Umali received an envelope purporting to contain also the same document with signature cards and he has no clue where it came from.  What is a judge to make of this situation?  The judge will, of course, turn to the rules of evidence, particularly Rule 131, Section 3, entitled Disputable Presumptions.  The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence, a, b, c, etc.  Letter (j).  That a person found in possession of a thing taken during the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act.  Let me repeat.  Disputable Presumption.  That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.  If a person is found in possession of signature cards relating to a foreign currency deposit which the law declares to be absolutely confidential except for the written consent of the depositor, if he is found to have it in his possession, he cannot say without more evidence, for to allege is not to prove.  He cannot say without more evidence that he does not know how it came to his possession.  Then the law steps in and raises the disputable presumption that he was the thief of that signature card.  That is the presumption in our rules of court.  Of course he can overcome by substantial evidence depending on the judgment of this court.  Let me also go on since I’m citing the disputable presumptions.

Letter (y).  Another disputable presumption.  That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.  Again, that is a disputable presumption.  Normally, short ladies, short, long, tall, white, broad, etc., do not give us documents unless we know her or if she is anonymous, then we stop her.  I have done that many times when I stepped out of session hall.  I always stop the person and say what is your name, where are you from, what is this about.  I will then turn to my aide and say will you please take care of this and I turn to the visitor and say you may follow it up with her.  That is normally what a politician does.  We don’t just accept pieces of paper.  In my case, for example, because of threats to my life in a prior position and in a prior life, I’m careful to identify the person who is giving me something especially if it is in the form of a package which I cannot visibly see from outside.

So we have to presume that things have happened according to the ordinary course of life.  Lumalabas ka, sukat ka na binigyan ng envelope, wala kang pakialam.  Saka mo na lang binuksan tapos voila, there is a presumably illegally obtained document inside the envelope.  Ngayon sasabihin mo hindi ko intindi bakit nakarating sa akin iyan.  There is the law.  The law says, pag hindi mo naipaliwanag iyan, ang ibig sabihin ikaw ang nagnakaw niyan.  Kung pickpocket ka at nasa bus ka pagkatapos may nawalang pitaka at ikaw ang may hawak, sasabihin ng pulis ikaw pala ang magnanakaw e.  Ano ang paliwanag mo?  Ganoon din iyon sa ating kaso ngayon.  That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.

The other Congressman said, I was driving into my house.  In the driveway, I found attached to the gate or in a situation, more or less, similar an envelope and when I opened it, voila, there’s the signature card and there’s no other further explanation.  Is that an ordinary habit of life to walk to your gate and find envelopes stuck there?  Don’t you  have a mailbox?  Don’t you have a househelper who can be trusted to receive mail in your absence?  So I just raised these questions because, Ms. Witness, it appears to me that your behaviour was exemplary.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.

MS. TIONGSON.  Thank you, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I continue.  I just want to ask a last question to this witness.

The Articles of Impeachment was filed 12 December 2011.  Is this correct Madam Clerk of Court.  Yes, 2011.

Your meeting at the Red Garlic Restaurant happened in January?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  January 31st 2012?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And at that time, you said that all the members of the Katipunan Branch of PS Bank were present in that meeting, correct?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Including the Control Bank Service Officer?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, but you said that he is no longer with your bank, and I asked you, when did he separate himself from the bank?  And If I remember correctly, you answered it was in June 2011.

MS. TIONGSON.  That was the former Branch Service and Control Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not the—That’s a different Control …

MS. TIONGSON.  This one’s a different one but with the same position.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This was the one that received the email from the officer of your bank in connection with the audit?

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, it’s clear that we are talking of the same position but two different persons at two different times.

MS. TIONGSON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  May I now ask the president of the bank to …

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, just one final question for Miss Tiongson from Senator Lito Lapid, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please.  The Gentleman from—Anyway, we can recall her later because I’m just discharging her.  Afterwards, —and to ask questions from the bank president.

Go ahead, Mr. Senator from Pampanga.

SEN. LAPID.  Maraming salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo.

Miss Witness, yun bang vault nyo sa bangko merong camera?

MS. TIONGSON.  Outside, Your Honor.

SEN. LAPID.  Sa loob, wala?

MS. TIONGSON.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. LAPID.  Wala.  Isang tanong pa, pagod ka na ba?  Pagod ka na?

MS. TIONGSON.  Okay lang po.

SEN. LAPID.  Kasi si Mrs. Dizon napanganak na e.  Nang una kang umupo diyan, …

MS. TIONGSON.  Pagod na po’ng boses ko.

SEN. LAPID.  … tawa ka ng tawa.  Ang ganda-ganda mo.  E ngayon, parang haggard na haggard ka na.  Sana sabihin mo na kaagad.  Isang tanong ha, isang sagot.  Yung bang pinakita ni Congressman Umali fake o hindi?

MS. TIONGSON.  It was different from our records, Your Honor.

SEN. LAPID.  Yes or no lang.  Yes or no?  Hindi, si Congressman Umali muna.  Pupunta ko don.  Isang tanong lang.  Yes or no?

MS. TIONGSON.  In banking parlance, if it’s different from the original …

SEN. LAPID.  E yung ke Congressman Banal?  Ikaw ba’ng nagbigay o hindi?

MS. TIONGSON.  It’s different, Your Honor.  No, I did not give it, Your Honor.

SEN. LAPID.  Baka maiyak ka.  Sige, salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, Madam Witness, pwede ba bumaba ka muna at gusto kong makausap yung president.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we excuse the witness.  May we now call on the bank president, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  President Garcia, I know that you’re a very experienced banker and, in fact, you are a candidate for a higher position in your organization.

Now, you heard the questions and answers between the Chair and the manager of your Katipunan Branch.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And she said that at six o’clock, January 31st 2012, you met the entire personnel of the Katipunan Branch at Red Garlic Restaurant.  Is that correct?

MR. GARCIA.  That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why did you meet them there and not in your bank?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, the branch actually has operations for the day and they normally close the branch at a particular time of the day.  When this information was …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is this information?

MR. GARCIA.  This information about the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Be precise.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  The information about the visit of a Congressman there was related to me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who relayed this to you?

MR. GARCIA.  My executive vice president, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is his name?

MR. GARCIA.  His name is Jose Vicente Aldo, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did you ask him where he got the information?

MR. GARCIA.  He—yes, Your Honor, and he mentioned that he got it from our branch banking group head, and he did make a call to the branch manager, Ms. Tiongson, to confirm it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And indeed, the event that caused you to meet your full compliment in the Katipunan branch of your bank was decided.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And when you met them, according to your branch manager, Ms. Tiongson, at six o’clock in the evening of the 31st day of January 2012, what did you tell them first?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, I wanted to get more details about the particular incident, the same information was provided to me, you know, such things as the paper being covered and inquiry—I understood that there was no particular inquiry about balances.  It was something about the form.

Ms. Tiongson expressed to me her concern that the form seem to be similar to our forms.  So, I took the opportunity to reiterate to everyone there, and my executive vice president and my branch banking group head was there at that time, we reiterated to them that this whole information on deposits are confidential, and we made that reiteration to all of them.  And then, I decided to have the documents brought to head office for better control.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You ordered the records of this specific bank depositor to be placed under your control in the head office.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why him only?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, because of the incident, Your Honor.  So, I was concerned that there would be, probably, maybe, possibly, other incidents or other inquiries, it was something in the newspapers, you know, everybody would be interested.  The account, I was made to understand was already—it was no longer necessary to maintain it there because there were—the accounts had been terminated.  The peso accounts had been terminated.

So, I decided to control the documents because, as I told my senior officers, this could possibly be the subject of inquiry from the courts, so we need to control it better and we need to be able to respond quickly if it would happen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At that time, when you issued that order to gather all the records of this bank depositor, in the possession of your Katipunan Branch, and to be transferred to your office, in the central office of this bank—of your bank, you were aware already that in articles of impeachment was already filed with this court, with the Senate by the House of Representatives.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  I was aware that it had been filed, probably, about a month earlier, what I was—I mean, I was aware, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And if were not for the information that some members of Congress were asking questions about that account, you would have not ordered the movement of these records to your central office.

MR. GARCIA.  Possibly, no, Your Honor, because I  …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What do you mean by possibly no?

MR. GARCIA.  We did not see the need at that time, so, we did not.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And you saw the need because of the effort of a Member of the House of Representatives to gather information about that specific bank account.

MR. GARCIA.  There was an inquiry about a document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just answer my question.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   If that is so or not.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Very simple.  I am trying to make as clear as possible as I can the question that I am asking to you.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Okay.  Then, why did you not take the records on that particular time and date on January when you talked to your people in the Katipunan branch at Red Garlic Restaurant?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, we had a meeting there and a dinner, it was late, the branch was already closed …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The branch was closed.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   So, you ordered that all the records will be transferred to the central office the following day.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And you sent somebody to retrieve the bank records from the branch?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Did you designate somebody?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Who was that?

MR. GARCIA.  This was Mr. Ismael Reyes, our branch banking group head, he was present in that particular meeting, I requested him to personally pick up the documents the next morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   As a matter of practice of your bank, when an event like this when records from a branch of your bank is ordered to be transferred to the central office, do you inventory the records that are contained in the file to be transferred?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   And where is the inventory to be made?

MR. GARCIA.  At the branch, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At the branch.

MR. GARCIA.  The branch,Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   And the receiving officer from the central office will issue a receipt, the detailing, and listing in detail the documents to be transferred?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Including the file number if there is a number.

MR. GARCIA.  I am not so certain about those particular detail but yes, there are details, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Now, when this record was transferred to your central office, was it delivered to you personally or was it delivered to someone?

MR. GARCIA.  It was delivered to me personally, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   And you checked it against the receipt issued by your receiving officer when it got it from the branch.

MR. GARCIA.  I do not recall having done so, no, Your Honor, I do not recall.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   You did not.  What did you do with this bunch of records or a file or paper after you received it?

MR. GARCIA. After I received it, I was in my room with my executive vice president, I immediately put the documents on my personal cabinet sealed with lock and key I, put it there and then I locked it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   And it stayed there until today.

MR. GARCIA.  It stayed there, Your Honor, until the matter of we heard documents from the bank are going to be subpoenaed.  So, when I—it stayed there until that time, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   And no one had any access in that depository or vault if it is a vault.

MR. GARCIA.  No one, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Except you.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   You have the complete control of the place where the record was deposited.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   And then after the subpoena duces tecum was issued, it was transferred back to the branch office?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, as soon as we heard, I think, it was one afternoon that these documents are going to be subpoenaed, I asked my executive vice president about it and he reminded me about it that it is under control of two officers, two senior officers

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  While this record was moved from the Katipunan Branch to your office and you received it there, from that time of your receipt up to the time it stayed in the vault, the entire file was never opened or scrutinized.

MR. GARCIA.  It was never opened, Your Honor, because it was under my personal control.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It was—no one, no one in your head office except the one that received it from the Katipunan Branch ever had accessed or has seen any of the contents of that file.

MR. GARCIA.  No one, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Now, I understand that from your Branch Manager of Katipunan Branch that there was an audit done by the Bangko Sentral along with AMLA of your bank. Is this correct?

MR. GARCIA.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When was this?

MR. GARCIA.  The last audit that we have as a bank, because we are audited regularly by the Bangko Sentral, Your Honor, was sometime 2010, I believe it started sometime September and then, sometime, probably, October, November.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  September of 2010?

MR. GARCIA.  2010, Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And how long did the audit take place?

MR. GARCIA. It took around, I believe, about two months, Your Honor.  This is a bank-wide audit.  They do this regularly, and do an audit of the bank for, you know, loans and other processes, but they do not—the Bangko Sentral, does not audit deposit accounts, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In this particular audit, Katipunan Branch was included?

MR. GARCIA.  Not the branch per se, Your Honor.  For certain accounts, they sample different accounts across the whole bank and some of these banks could be in one branch or the other.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was there a sample used by the Bangko Sentral in this particular audit from Katipunan Branch?

MR. GARCIA.  By the Bangko Sentral, Your Honor, no, because the Bangko Sentral does not sample deposit accounts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who samples?

MR. GARCIA.  It is only the AMLA that is authorized to do so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Now, in this particular audit, was AMLA a part of the auditing agency?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. And in this particular audit, was any account, deposit account, from your Katipunan Branch targeted for examination in this audit?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, do you recall what deposit account or deposit accounts from the Katipunan Branch were targeted for scrutiny and examination during this combined audit by Bangko Sentral and AMLA?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe the AMLA, actually, looked at a few accounts which are what you would classify as accounts that are need to be reported and I believe that one of these accounts, actually, was an account from Katipunan. I am not sure if there were any other accounts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you know the account from Katipunan that was included?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor,

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Which one?

MR. GARCIA.  This is the account of Chief Justice Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is it normal in your experience as a banker and as president of the Philippine Savings Bank for AMLA to join an audit of the Bangko Sentral?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor, it is.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Since the enactment of the AMLA Law …

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … in every Bangko Sentral audit, the AMLA is always a part?

MR. GARCIA.  They visit the bank, actually to verify that we are adopting the processes that they require, Your Honor.  Because they require certain reporting processes to the AMLC like transactions…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who are they that require?

MR. GARCIA.  The Anti-Money Laundering Council actually requires all banks to report all transactions that are P500,000 and up.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  And in this particular case, the same procedure was done?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Now, in cases of an audit like this, when records are required by the auditing team of the Bangko Sentral and AMLC for examination, are these records presented to the auditing team of the Bangko Sentral and AMLC?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are they surrendered to the auditing team and left with them for examination?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, they are always in control of the bank.  But they may be shown.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the auditing team would be authorized to go over the records piece by piece, account by account.

MR. GARCIA.  Only for certain records, Your Honor.  We do not provide them with account balances, Your Honor.  But for certain records which are required to be so –called classified like—there is this new requirement on AMLC which requires classification of so-called personalities as politically expose persons.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then what happened?

MR. GARCIA.  So the bank is required to classify any account that is held by a politically expose person.  Meaning, I am sorry, Your Honor, but, for example, if a Senator-Judge account is in the bank, it will have to be classified as politically expose person because they are elected publicly.  So elected public officials, appointed senior officials.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was the account of Chief Justice Corona denominated as an account of a politically expose person?

MR. GARCIA.  Upon receipt of the instructions from the AMLC, we classified all of the accounts in our system so that any particular transaction is classified as a PEP transaction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, at the time of the audit, this procedure of classifying people either as not politically exposed person or politically exposed person was current.

MR. GARCIA.  I am sorry, Your Honor, current?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Current meaning already being done, being in use.

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Now, when this audit that we are discussing by the Bangko Sentral and AMLC happened, the records of respondent Chief Justice Corona was included among those examined by the Bangko Sentral and AMLC?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You’re sure?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, I verified the records.  It was one of those that had a so-called exception comment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, in an examination of an account like the account of respondent Chief Justice Corona, are the agents or assigned personnel of the auditing team of Bangko Sentral and AMLC authorized to copy or gather or to copy these documents?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not sure, Your Honor.  I really don’t know.  But I don’t believe so.  They just review the documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are they authorized to make any photocopies of these documents?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not certain, Your Honor, because the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why are you not certain?  You have been in the banking system for a long time?

MR. GARCIA.  Because I’m not personally involved ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is this the first time that Philippine Savings Bank was involved in audit like this?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, for this particular process, I believe so, Your Honor, because it was 2010 and that’s about that time.  Because, Your Honor, in the previous …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When the Bangko Sentral and AMLC team asked for records of certain bank accounts which are denominated politically exposed people, does the bank concerned, like you, in this case, require the team to sign a receipt for the records that they require?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not certain, Your Honor, because I believe all the records that we provide to the Bangko Sentral is acknowledged by them.  But in this particular case, the Bangko Sentral was not inquiring about the—because they will never do …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I’m talking of the AMLC.

MR. GARCIA.  AMLC, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because AMLC is involved precisely to look at deposits.

MR. GARCIA.  We have no record, Your Honor, of the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But do they issue an acknowledge receipt for the documents that they received?

MR. GARCIA.  We have no record of having turned over the documents, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I’ll clarify my question.  In this particular case of the bank records of Chief Justice Corona in the Katipunan Branch, when they were required by the audit team of Bangko Sentral and AMLC for examination, did they issue—did the team issue an acknowledge receipt that they received these records for examination?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you sure?

MR. GARCIA.  At least from the records that I have reviewed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your office did not require?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, because we only show the required information like the signature card and we do not provided, unless it is required, which is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did not the team require the presentation of the folder that was given to you?

MR. GARCIA.  We do not have it in our record, Your Honor, about acknowledgement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You do not have any record?  What records in that folder, if you remember, were required by the Bangko Sentral and AMLC audit team to be submitted to you for examination?

MR. GARCIA.  I can only—Based on the information that we have, there were about six accounts that were …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I’m talking to you about what they required.  I do not care about how many accounts.  They were examining only for this particular case.

MR. GARCIA.  I have no information about that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did they require you to submit a record of his bank deposits, local currency deposit, as well as foreign currency deposits in your bank?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot say right now, Your Honor.  We will have to check our records, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why not?.

MR. GARCIA.  Because all they did was review the overall findings.  There is separate finding for the Bangko Sentral and separate for the AMLC.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, but you told me that in this particular audit, they asked for the recordsFROM— straight from the Katipunan Branch.

MR. GARCIA.  From our head office, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  From you.

MR. GARCIA.  Not from me, from our compliance officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The compliance officer was the one asked to provide the records for examination.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, I believe so.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who was the compliance officer of the Philippine Savings Bank at that time this special audit was—was it a special audit?

MR. GARCIA.  It was a regular audit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

MR. GARCIA.  Regular audit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is this regular audit where the bank account of the Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Supreme Court, was included among the accounts to be examined at random?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, it was a regular audit of the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who was the …

MR. GARCIA.  Our chief compliance officer at that time …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your compliance officer, yes.

MR. GARCIA.  … was Ms. Grace Dela Cruz, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is she still with you?

MR. GARCIA.  No longer, Your Honor.  She migrated already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Migrated to where?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not sure, Your Honor, if it is the U.S. or Canada, I am not sure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do they make a listing of the people to be—from each bank to examine—do the audit team make a listing of the accounts to be examined when they request records from your compliance officer?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not certain, Your Honor.  I will have to check and ask the people involved—who handled this.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you not familiar with the examination procedures of the Bangko Sentral?

MR. GARCIA.  This was not a Bangko Sentral process, Your Honor.  This is an AMLA process, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  AMLA, so, maybe, it is right to ask the AMLA people.  Do you remember the AMLA people that were parts of the audit team?

MR. GARCIA.  I do not recall, Your Honor, because it is just on the report.  We can try to find out, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, is it possible that the record in question now before us, which your bank manager of Katipunan said to be fake was accessed by the audit team of the Bangko Sentral and AMLA, in this particular audit that was done sometime in September to November, if I remember your period, 2010?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe, from the nature of the comments indicated in the—at least saw, either the specimen signature card or a copy of it.  Because there was a comment that the specimen signature card did not have the classification PEP, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What do you mean, it was not accessed by the team or was it accessed by the team?

MR. GARCIA.  Just from the information that I saw on the examination, I believe, they saw the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who are they that saw?

MR. GARCIA.  The AMLA examiner, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They saw what?

MR. GARCIA.  Just one person.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They saw what?

MR. GARCIA.  That the specimen signature card did not have the tagging, PEP.  Because we were being …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The tagging PEP.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In what account?

MR. GARCIA.  On the specimen signature card of the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They did not see the tagging of PEP in that signature card of Chief Justice Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, the audit team of Bangko Sentral and AMLA that did the audit, sometime in September to November of 2010, actually examined the records of Chief Justice Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  I believe, as far as the signature card is concerned, Your Honor, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, and that is precisely the document that is in question now a supposed copy of which is attached to the supplemental request of the prosecution to this court for a subpoena duces tecum.

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot certainly say that, Your Honor, because I was not there, but based on the nature, the comment,  they, at least, saw a signature card and that was the exception..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There is the question.  The one, the original document that has been requested by some members of this court to be produced by you here for a comparison with the alleged document from your bank attached to the supplemental request for a subpoena duces tecum, is the signature card of respondent Chief Justice Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Now, can you submit to this court the signature card of Chief Justice Renato Corona that, according to you, you submitted to the audit team of the Bangko Sentral and AMLA, when they conducted that audit done between the period of September to November for comparison with the document attached to the supplemental request for a subpoena duces tecum filed by the prosecution.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The Chair  is ordering you to do that.  Wait a minute, counsel you address this Chair before you approach the witness.  Otherwise, I let you be escorted out of this court.

ATTY. PUNO.  My apologies, Your Honor.  May I—he was just asking because the documents are with me, Your Honor.  May I confer with my client.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   If they are with you and they are in this court?

COUNSEL OF MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, as directed by the Honorable Court in last week’s …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   then, I am ordering you to produce …

COUNSEL OF MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For purposes of comparison.

COUNSEL OF MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, please,  if the Honorable Chair will recall, the bank was directed to present the signature cards with the  references and entries with respect to foreign currency deposits blocked off.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

COUNSEL OF MR. GARCIA. That is a …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You can do that.  All I am asking is that that document …

COUNSEL OF MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  ..whether a blocked off the foreign currency items that was submitted to the audit team of the Bangko Sentral and the AMLA be submitted to this court for comparison with the document attached to the supplemental request for a subpoena filed by the prosecutor to this court.

ATTY. PUNO.  Just for clarification, Your Honor, what was submitted possibly to the AMLA in 2010 will not be reflective of what is being submitted to the court today …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   No.  We want that one submitted in 2010.  The Chair at least wants it.

ATTY. PUNO.  May I confer with my client, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

I’ll tell you very frankly the reason for this so that the people will not misunderstand the questioning of this Chair.

There are many people who handle the records of the respondent Chief Justice from the Katipunan Branch.  The people in the Katipunan Branch, the president of the bank central office, none other that could—none other could possibly have brought out those documents like the one attached to the supplemental request for subpoena. The only thing that is not scrutinized is the document coming from the account—records of the account of the respondent Chief Justice Corona in the Katipunan Branch that was submitted to the AMLA and Bangko Sentral audit team that conducted the audit between September and November of 2010.

SUSPENSION OF THE TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will give you a chance to confer with your client.  Trial suspended for one minute.

It was 4:06 p.m.

The trial was resumed at 4:36 p.m.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The trial is resumed.  Majority Floor Leader.  May we request the bank president…

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, yes,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Before I end my examination, I would like to ask a last question from the bank president.  During that audit that we were discussing by the Bangko Sentral and AMLC on the PS Bank, including your Katipunan branch, you said that you submitted certain records bearing on the bank accounts of the respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona to this team of Bangko Sentral and AMLA during their audit between the months of September and November of 2010.  Can you please make an inventory for the court of the documents from the Philippine Savings Bank related to the bank accounts of the respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona that were submitted, shown and examined by the audit team of Bangko Sentral and AMLC and also submit to us if you recall the names of the specific officials of Bangko Sentral and AMLC who participated in that audit and who handled the bank records from your Katipunan branch of the bank accounts of the respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.  Mr. President.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the meantime, I want you to get the record of your office, the genuine record of your office from the Katipunan branch bearing the data purportedly contained in the document attached to the supplemental request for subpoena filed by the prosecution for purposes of comparison with instruction that you block out all details regarding foreign currency deposits.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, we have that today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not you current record, but the one that you submitted for the examination of AMLC, you understand?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, but if I may just clarify, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  There are transactions after that time that are already noted in this particular document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Which particular document?

MR. GARCIA.  Because from the audit by the AMLC, that was about late 2010, there was at least, if I can recall, one other transaction that is included in our document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In your document now?

MR. GARCIA.  That document now, because we update it every time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, but we want both.  The one you submitted to AMLC in that audit examination and your record now, okay?

MR. GARCIA.  We will look at our records and provide it if we have them, Your Honor, that one.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I’m sure you must have it in your records, you put in your computer all of these records aren’t you?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Or maybe you have them in microfilms.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  We would like to ask that Senator Joker Arroyo be recognized.  Afterwards, Senator Drilon and then Senator Marcos, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I just want to emphasize that my instruction to the Philippine Savings Bank president is to safeguard the integrity and secrecy of foreign currency deposit because that is covered by the TRO issued by the Supreme Court which the majority of this court recognized.  And all others not related to foreign currency deposits, and especially related to local currency deposits where, expressly, impeachment is considered an exception, then bear it out in the records that we are requiring you to produce, okay?

So order.  (Gavel)  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before Senator Arroyo starts, we would just like to place on record the fact that we are already in receipt of PS Bank’s compliance, submitting among others the logbooks containing information on who accessed the vault in years 2009 to 2011.  We distributed copies already and other pertinent documents that we asked of them the last time around.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Would this logbook include records of those who accessed these records during the examination of the Bangko Sentral and AMLC?

MR. GARCIA.  The logbook …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Of Katipunan Branch.

MR. GARCIA.  The logbook, Your Honor, is a logbook of all entrances and exits from the vault, and if anyone did go to the vault from the Bangko Sentral or the AMLC, it would so indicate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Thank you.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Estrada would like to ask an additional information from the logbook.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Regarding the logbook, I think the logbook that was submitted to the court was during the duration of 2009 up to 2011.  May I request the bank president to submit the logbook, from January of 2012 up to February 15.  That is all, Mr. President.

MR. GARCIA.  We will so submit, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Sen. Arroyo, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol

SEN. ARROYO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

My presentation will be both manifestation and question, so that I will follow strictly the two-minute rule.  The manifestation should not be counted against my two minutes.

I think it is very elating that the witness mentioned about AMLA, because there is pending before the Senate and before the House, amendments to AMLA, precisely to relax more AMLA, the provisions, and to allow it more leeway, in fact, without even caught intervention, they can inquire into the bank deposits.  Now, that is pending before both the Senate and the House.

Way back in 2003, when the original AMLA was enacted, the Senate divided the House, whether we will relax the power to open bank deposits, and the vote was 12-8-1, that is why I brought my records.

Twelve Senators voted not to relax the restrictions, namely:  Senator Angara; Aquino-Oreta; Arroyo; Biazon; Estrada; Honasan; Lacson; Legarda; Osmeña, John, Pimentel; Sotto; and Villar.

The principal reason why they voted against it was that the power that would be granted to AMLA might be used for political vendetta and persecution.  The President then was President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  So, it was not relaxed.

Now, Mr. Garcia, you said that the AMLA, inquired into whatever, about the record of Chief Justice Corona, what month was that if you can recall?

MR. GARCIA.  If I can recall correctly, Your Honor, it started sometime September 2010 and ended sometime November 2010.

SEN. ARROYO.  So, almost two months.

MR. GARCIA.  That was the whole examination process,  …

SEN. ARROYO.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  … but the particular, I am not sure.

SEN. ARROYO.  But you said that this was the first time that AMLA make that kind of an examination, and is my recollection correct?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, this is the first time that I can recall that there were specific comments associated about the AMLA process.

SEN. ARROYO.  All right.  Did I hear you also correctly say that insofar as PEP, what is that, politically exposed persons?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ARROYO.  Insofar as that is concerned, it was only—the only PEP inquired into was Chief Justice Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.  There were other accounts also looked into, and one of the accounts was that of the Chief Justice.

SEN. ARROYO.  I am talking about PEP, not other accounts which do not involve PEP.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ARROYO.  What is yes?

MR. GARCIA.  There were other accounts that were reviewed about accounts that are classified as PEP.

SEN. ARROYO.  As PEP.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ARROYO.  All right.  So, in other words, from September to November, there was an investigation that included Chief Justice Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  I do not know if it is an investigation, Your Honor, but it was an inquiry …

SEN. ARROYO.  An inquiry.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor

SEN. ARROYO.  An inquiry, which I raised this question because I find it strange that as far back as September to November 2010, there was already an inquiry about Chief Justice Corona, then, followed by the impeachment which is now being undertaken at this moment, then, followed by the investigation by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  In short, three investigations  have been conducted against the Chief Justice.

Now, I raised this point, Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, that what we worry about is that if those years are already held by government agencies against us, even among the Senators, we worry about that because at the moment we are acting as judges, what we do not know this is that those years are also being gathered against us.  This is the impression that I gathered from the testimony which I have to repeat.  As of now it is Chief Justice Coronoa, and then tomorrow it is one—if we offend Malacañang, if we do not follow Malacañang, they can proceed against us for the information gathered through AMLA.  It is a disturbing thought.

Thank you Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  The Gentleman …

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Drilon, Mr. President, and then Senator Marcos, and then Senator Guingona wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, just like Senator Arroyo, I hope that the timer does not count as part of my minutes of my manifestation.

Let us go to some other points first before we go back to this signature card.  During the last hearing, you mentioned that there were two other accounts of Chief Justice Corona and you promise to bring these accounts.   Do you have these accounts?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  All right, can you bring it before this court.  Just for the record, these are peso accounts.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor it is a peso accounts.

SEN. DRILON.  Can you describe it to this court on the basis of the bank records.

MR. GARCIA.  On the basis of our records, Your Honor, there is a peso account under the name of Renato C. Coron,a with account number 089121014573, a peso-time deposit  that was opened in April 3, 2008 for eight hundred thousand pesos.  And on the basis of the order of the court, we also stipulate that the closing date was October 2, 2008.

SEN. DRILON.  October 2, 2008.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.   Any other?  The second one.

MR. GARCIA.  The second account, Your Honor, account number 089101005094…

SEN. DRILON.  Can you do it slowly, please, I am sorry.

MR. GARCIA.  I am sorry, Your Honor, the account number is 089101005094, also under the name of Renator Coronado Corona, it is a checking account that was opened on July 27, 2011.

SEN. DRILON.  July?

MR. GARCIA.  July 27, 2011, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.  How much was the opening balance?

MR. GARCIA.  For this account, Your Honor, it was opened without a particular balance because it is a checking account.  And it is opened for use of the client, actually, for deposits or withdrawals at any time.

SEN. DRILON.    Were there deposits made to that particular account?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, there were.

SEN. DRILON.  How much?

MR. GARCIA.  May I refer to our record.

SEN. DRILON. Yes please.

ATTY. PUNO.  Your Honor, may I approach my client to hand over the document that he is referring to.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

MR. GARCIA.  There were three deposits by way of credit memos, which were basically transfers of maturities of other accounts to this current account on December 12, 2011.  Shall I  …

SEN. DRILON.    Please, proceed. Continue, sir.

MR. GARCIA.  The first credit was the amount of P7,397,566.36.   This was a transfer from a time deposit account to this account.

SEN. DRILON.    Okay.

MS. GARCIA. Another amount was P12,988,951.36, which is also a transfer from a time deposit account.  And the last one, actually, was for the amount of P17,270,654.97.  This was done on October—I am sorry, December 12, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  So, this was also a transfer from a credit memo?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Transferring this from …

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  So, in other words, the three accounts which were closed on December 12, 2011 were all deposited in 089101005094?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And that is where the funds flowed as you have mentioned in your previous testimony?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.   This account of P800,000 is a completely new account which you have previously testified on?

MR. GARCIA.  This is another account because the last subpoena that we received, Your Honor, was for us to disclose all accounts. On that particular basis, we disclose this, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And on your oath, you have disclosed all the peso accounts?

MR. GARCIA.  For Renato C. Corona, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  As an individual, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, what about Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona?

MR. GARCIA.  On the basis of the order of this court last hearing, we have a disclosure to make on the basis of the order to disclose the accounts also of Cristina Corona, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Can you disclose it now?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  On various opening dates, there is a total of six accounts opened in various opening dates in the name of Renato C. Corona or Ma. Cristina Roco Corona.

SEN. DRILON.  Please describe them.

MR. GARCIA.  For Account No. 089-121012666, a peso time deposit opened in August 9, 2007 with an opening balance of P66, 674.86.

SEN. DRILON.  Alright.

MR. GARCIA.  The closing date was October 2, 2008.

SEN. DRILON.  Can you say it again.  October 2…

MR. GARCIA.  2008, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.

MR. GARCIA.  The next account, 089-121012713 also under the name of Renato C. Corona or Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, a peso time deposit opened on August 17, 2007 with an opening balance of P44,449.85 which was closed on September 19, 2007.  The third account, Your Honor, 089-121012882 also under the name of Renato C. Corona or Ma. Cristina Roco Corona was a peso time deposit opened on September 19, 2007 with an opening balance of P94,589.59 and this was closed on September 18, 2008.  The fourth account, Your Honor, with Account No. 089-121020133 under the name of Renato Coronado Corona or Ma. Cristina Roco Corona or a third party which we were not ordered to disclose is a peso time deposit with an opening date of March 4, 2010 with the amount of P7, 280,000 which was subsequently closed on May 24, 2010

SEN. DRILON.  Can you repeat that, I didn’t get the account number.  Can you repeat it.

MR. GARCIA.  The Account No., Your Honor, is 089-121020133.

SEN. DRILON.  Alright.  And it was a peso time deposit opened on March 4, 2010.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And the amount of the opening…

MR. GARCIA.  The amount is P7,280,000.  And this was closed on May 24, 2010.

SEN. DRILON.  Alright.

MR. GARCIA.  The fifth account is Account No. 089-111019584 also in the name of Renato C. Corona or Ma. Cristina Corona.  It is a peso savings account that was opened on September 12, 2007 with an opening balance of P50,000 and was closed on February 27, 2008.

SEN. DRILON.  I’m sorry, February…

MR. GARCIA.  February 27, 2008, Your Honor.  The last account with Account No. 089-111019787 also under the name of Renato Corona or Ma. Cristina Corona was also a peso savings account which was opened on October 30, 2007 with an opening balance of P50,000 that was closed on October 2, 2008.

SEN. DRILON.  October?

MR. GARCIA.  October 2, 2008, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, can I have a copy.

of the original signature card which the witness has brought before this court?  Can we have an opportunity to examine it?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If the president has it.

MR. GARCIA.  We have it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the Gentleman from Iloilo look at it, subject to the condition that the foreign currency accounts are blocked.

ATTY. PUNO.  Your Honor, may we be allowed to address the Chair.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Proceed.

ATTY. PUNO.  Your Honor, this is pursuant to the instructions of the court.  Since this is an original card and the tape may, you know, by handling, may be removed or may be damaged or—We are presenting it, Your Honor, but as well also with certified true copies.  If we can just request that PS Bank can be assured about the handling, so if it is possible that we present both the original and the certified true copy be compared by the Senate Impeachment Court staff, just to ensure the integrity—that there will be no damage done to the card, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will that be amenable to the Gentleman from Iloilo?

SEN. DRILON.  Certainly, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  Let the Clerk of Court perform the requested treatment of the document.

ATTY. CRUZ.  Senator Drilon, the original presented by PS Bank is a faithful—the photocopy presented by—the certified true copy presented by PS Bank is a faithful reproduction of the original.  And I will be handling to you the certified true copy.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  We’ll accept that, Your Honor.

SEN.  PIMENTEL.  Mr. President, with the permission of Senator Drilon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Can the Senator-Judges be given the opportunity also to look at the original?  But we will return it.  Tingnan din namin.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are Judges.  You have a right to look at it.  It’s not being offered yet for evidence but …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The accounts now being examined, Your Honor, is being televised already, and in all the probability this will go into the press conference this afternoon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I ask the members of the media to please not expose this document.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We wanted—Because definitely, they will touch on this in the press conference.  Even during now, even during this trial, Your Honor.  And more so after the trial this afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request all participants in this trial to observe the rules of this court regarding exposure of an offered document—which are going to be offered as evidence for the parties.  Otherwise, we will be compelled to exercise disciplinary action.

So ordered.

SEN. DRILON.  Can we ask for a one-minute suspension, so our other colleagues can look at the document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, but …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It seems that they are through already, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request that this is not exposed to any, but the members of the court, …

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … so that we will maintain fairness and impartiality to the respondent.  There is a point where we will make a judgment—to j udge him, but I think, fairness suggests that we must be very circumspect in exposing unoffered evidence to other people other than those who will make the judgment.

SEN. DRILON.  So, can we proceed to the questions?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, Mr. Garcia, we were presented here with a certified true copy of a signature card of Renato C. Corona, this is Renato Coronado Corona, and we compared this with annex A of the–which was attached as the document to the supplemental request for subpoena for the prosecution.

You previously mentioned, in response to the questions of the Senate President, that, in the question of the Senate President, that the annex A is the signature card of Corona, you said, you believe so.

Do you confirm that?

MR. GARCIA.  That the annex A is the signature card, Your Honor?

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, I do not confirm that.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  But the photocopy of the original that you just handed to me, you would confirm that they—compared to annex A, they would resemble each other.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.  In terms of form, yes, the form is similar, but there are significant differences.

SEN. DRILON.  What are these differences?

MR. GARCIA.  If I may, Your Honor, …

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, please.

MR. GARCIA.  First of all, when you photocopy an original document, there is nothing in the photocopy that will show up that is not in the original.

SEN. DRILON.  All right …

MR. GARCIA.  In the differences, Your Honor, the year of the date indicated, at the uppermost right box of the original is clear, 2008, in the bank’s original document, compared to the annex A which was a blurred last digit, that appears to be either a six or an eight, with appearance that indicates that the digits may be superimposed. The capitalized hand-printed account name is the second upper most left most box:  Corona, Renato Coronado, in our original document has not underline compared to Annex “A” which is underlined.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.

MR. GARCIA.  The box portion of the specimen signature in the bank’s original document has not marking of the letters: T-E-P  …

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.

MR. GARCIA.  .. without any highlights shade compared to the Annex which has a T-E-P mark highlighted or shaded.  There are pre-numbering for lines where specimen signatures should be written and these numbers are one, two and three.  At the box portion of the specimen signature in the bank’s original document, when compared to Annex “A”, Annex “A” has no such number one, two or three.

SEN. DRILON.  There are numbers, there are numbers one, two and three.

MR. GARCIA.  That is if we photocopy our original, Your Honor.  But if you refer to Annex A, which was part of this, there are no numbers.

SEN. DRILON.  There are numbers, I can see it, Annex A.

MR. GARCIA.  The document, I think, you are referring to is the photocopy that we have provided you.

SEN DRILON.  No, no, I am looking at Annex “A”, it has one, two, and three.

MR. GARCIA.  It was not …

SEN. DRILON.  Annex A.  And what you submitted to this court also has one, two and three.

ATTY. PUNO.  May I approach, Your Honor, to point it out.

SEN. DRILON.  It is blurred, but, it is clear in Annex A, one, two and three.

MR. GARCIA.  But if you will compare it, Your Honor, to the certified true copy that we have provided, of a photocopy of the original, it is very, very clear, one, two and three.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, except for that one is clear, one is not very clear, there is one two and three numbers

MR. GARCIA.  It is not apparent in the Annex A that we see, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  I can see from my copy.

MR. GARCIA.  Well, probably, may be a ….

SEN. DRILON.  Anyway …

MR. GARCIA.  I f I may go on, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  There are lines that correspond to the pre-numbering beside the numbers one, two, and three, in the box portion of the specimen signature in the bank’s original document, but compared to the Annex A”, the annex A has no such line that correspond to the three numbers.

The three specimen signatures in the bank’s original document are written with a fluid stroke indicating a spontaneous and natural execution, and they are likewise thicker indicating use of a sign pen.  Compare to the Annex A where each of the three signatures has visible tremors indicating inconsistent pressure and possible tracing, and the lines are thinner indicating a use of a ball point pen.

SEN. DRILON.  These are your conclusions, you are not a hand-writing expert.

MR. GARCIA.  I am not, Your Honor.  This is the reason why we are.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, yes.

MR. GARCIA.  It can be submitted for separate analysis, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. Witness.

MR. GARCIA.  There are …

SEN. DRILON.  I am sorry.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, we have a  42 points of differences that we would like to submit to the court for your …

SEN. DRILON.  Okay, submit it to the court.

Now, I also notice that there are number of signatures on the document that you submitted.  But it is possibly that these transactions were entered after Annex A was xeroxed.

MR. GARCIA.  I honestly do not know how Annex A was xeroxed at that time.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  You said that it was updated, the signature card was updated from time to time.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, there is a transaction indicated in our card sometime in June 2011 which does not appear in Annex A.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  And there are signatures of other officer that are in our document which are likewise not in Annex A.

SEN. DRILON.  Because they could have been entered in different times.  That is possible?

MR. GARCIA.  I would not want to speculate, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Now, let’s go to the signatures.  On time deposit, peso time deposit ending 358, the approving officer is Ma. Cecilia Sumiya.  Is that correct?

MR. GARCIA.  This January 26, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  That is correct.

MR. GARCIA.  We are submitting, actually, to the court certifications on the signature card.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, you have submitted.  You have submitted to court. And that is what I am referring to. If the signature appearing opposite account number 358, is Ma. Cecilla Sumiya on the basis of the document you submitted?

MR. GARCIA.  Similar but we note different even on the stroke, you know, …

SEN. DRILON.  You are—no—handwriting expert, can you just say if it is similar, it’s completely different?

MR. GARCIA.  It is similar, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Alright. Similarly, the authorized closing officer for account number ending 358, the peso account is Susan D. Cuarteros as you have submitted and the signature appearing on the column “approved by” after the date closed on account number ending 358. And the signature that you have—specimen signature you submitted could be similar?

ATTY. PUNO.  If Your Honor please.

SEN. DRILON.  Can I ask for a two minutes extension?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes please.

ATTY. PUNO.  May I, from time to time, approach my client when documents are referred to so I can just assist him in pointing them out.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. PUNO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  So, the signature of Susan D. Cuarteros appearing in Annex A and the specimen signature you submitted could be similar?

MR. GARCIA.  Similar, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Similar.  Alright. In the peso account ending 593, the signature of Mary Grace Dizon Muñoz, the approving account officer appearing in Annex A and in the compliance you submitted would be similar?

MR. GARCIA.  It seems different, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  What is a difference?   I can see it well.  Alright. Anyway, in your view it is different.  In my view, it’s almost the same.  In any case, let’s go to the next. Account No. … 444, I repeat that, the last four digits is 1444, Susan Cuarteros is a signature that appears across this account. There is in Annex A and also in what you submitted, they appear to be similar. Is that a correct observation?

MR. GARCIA. They appear to be similar, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Alright. And in many respects, Annex A and what you just submitted would have similarities?

MR. GARCIA.  As far as information, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  As far as information.  And this information can only come from your bank.

MR. GARCIA.  Not necessarily, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Where else could it come from?

MR. GARCIA.  This information, for example, is the address of Mr. Corona where he is at which is the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the company address is Padre Faura, Manila, the name of his spouse, his birth date, his place of birth, his civil status, the account numbers indicated are…

SEN. DRILON.  What?

MR. GARCIA.  The account numbers are similar, the same.

SEN. DRILON.  The account numbers are the same.

MR. GARCIA.  The same.

SEN. DRILON.  These are the same as appearing in your bank records.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, they are the same.

SEN. DRILON.  In fact, in your bank records is also a passport of Renato C. Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And the number appearing here in Annex A is an exact copy of the passport number appearing in your files.

MR. GARCIA.  I’m sorry, Your Honor, but I have not personally checked those numbers.  We will verify them.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, when you were making comparisons earlier, you appeared to be reading from a prepared document.  What document is that?

MR. GARCIA.  This document is a summary of the various differences that we noted between Annex A and our original document.

SEN. DRILON.  Who made that document?

MR. GARCIA.  We did, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Who is “we”?

MR. GARCIA.  Our chief audit officer.

SEN. DRILON.  Your chief audit officer, not you.

MR. GARCIA.  I did also look at them just to satisfy myself.

SEN. DRILON.  But it was your chief audit officer who prepared that.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, together with some other people.

SEN. DRILON.  Together with some other people.  Who are these some other people?

MR. GARCIA.  They are chief risk officer, our head of our legal unit.

SEN. DRILON.  And you were reading from that?

MR. GARCIA.  For this purpose, Your Honor, yes, but for purposes of comparing them, I personally…

SEN. DRILON.  Just answer my question, please.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, sir.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.  I think that will be all for the witness.  Thank you very much, Mr. President, for giving me this time.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Marcos, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

SEN. MARCOS.  Mr. President, I would like to direct my questions to Mr. Garcia.  Mr. Garcia, mabalikan lang natin ng konti iyong audit ng BSP at noong AMLC.  Am I right in understanding from your previous testimony, Mr. Garcia, that the BSP audit team does not look into personal accounts.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  In other words, they do not take deposit samples.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, they do not.

SEN. MARCOS.  Only the AMLC audit team does that.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Okay.  The question is whether or not the AMLC audit team or examiner is allowed to photocopy, reproduce, fax, whatever documents or records of the deposit samples that they look at.

MR. GARCIA.  I do not have personal knowledge of that but they are authorized by law to look into it.

SEN. MARCOS.  To look but are they allowed to take photocopies?

MR. GARCIA.  It was part of an audit process.  It is oftentimes necessary for them to get copies of this and based on our examination report, we did check that documents were provided to them.

SEN. MARCOS.  So they did in fact made copies, photocopies of deposit samples during 2010.

MR. GARCIA.  We provided to them as required, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So kayo na ang nagkopya tapos iyong hiningi nila kayo ang nagkopya at ibinigay nyo ngayon doon sa AMLC examiners.  That’s what happened.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Okay.  Pagkatapos noong kanilang audit, noong kanilang examination, ibinigay ba sa inyo iyong resulta noong kanilang audit, kung may problema, kung maayos naman?  Did they at any point come back to you?  You said they finished around November 2010. Pagkatapos nilang natapos, they examined all the documents, binalikan ba’ng bangko para sabihin, “O, wag na kayong mag-alala dahil mukha namang maayos” or, the opposite, “Mukhang may problema tayo dito.”

Did they ever give you an inkling or given indication as to what was the result of their examination?

MR. GARCIA.  Yesterday, Your Honor.  They came back and indicated to us that our signature cards did not have the notation PEP.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, as a result of their examination, the only conclusion that they arrived at, that needed—that was a problem or not needed fixing or not needed your attention was the fact the PEP, the designation PEP was not included in the signature card?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, because during the review, they check on whether the bank does follow the AMLC process which is either reporting and 500,000 and up or this classification.

SEN. MARCOS.  So should there be a violation, they would have told you that as well?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor,

SEN. MARCOS.  You can assume that the fact that they only talked about the lack of the PEP designation in the signature card means that that was the only remarkable thing that they found as far as their examination was concerned?

MR. GARCIA.  As far as I can recall, …

SEN. MARCOS.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With the permission of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.  In other words, the original did not contain the marking PEP?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But this annexed document now contains that marking PEP?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How can you explain why your original does not have a PEP and the Annex A contains a PEP?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who would have placed that if your bank did not place it?

MR. GACIA.  Your Honor, we do not know the source of these annexed documents, Your Honor.  We cannot comment.  We cannot—We don’t know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But the only one who had a copy of your original submission to the audit team of Bangko Sentral and AMLC is the audit team which, I assume that the one you submitted did not contain PEP.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then, who else would be the source of a document that would be altered to contain the word PEP?

MR. GARCIA.  I don’t really know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Heave?  Hell?  Or where?

MR. GARCIA.  Perhaps the source, the small lady could probably answer that question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Which one?  The little lady?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, I understand that these documents that were submitted came from a lady so she would probably know the source of the documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not just a lady.  It was modified as a little lady.  So, thank you, Senator Marcos.

SEN. MARCOS.  Mr. Garcia, I also note that in the original or the copy of the original signature card that you gave us, walang PEP ang nakalagay.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Don sa …

MR. GARCIA.  Signature box.

SEN. MARCOS.  … signature box.  Oo, walang nakalagay na PEP.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, the Annex A has the PEP, and it is even been highlighted, and that is not the bank’s notation?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  That is all, actually, Mr. President.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I just want to ask this question.  If the examination was intended to deal with PEP marked accounts, and in your original document of the respondent, Chief Justice Corona, did not contain the PEP, how come that, if you know, that Bangko Sentral and AMLC included him in the examination in September up to November of 2010 if indeed there was no PEP in your original document,  and how come that later on, in the annex A, that signal of PEP, politically exposed …

SEN. SOTTO.  Person.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … person is imprinted in the annex A of the supplemental request for subpoena.

MR. GARCIA.  I do not know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Anyway …

SEN. SOTTO.  Sen. Guingona, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sen. Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Garcia, good afternoon.  Sinabi po ninyo na ang nag-audit, AMLC?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Can you be very, very sure, because I think—are you sure that it is the AMLC that audited you—remember, you can verify this by just a phone call at your branch, can you tell me categorically that it was the Anti-Money Laundering—the AMLC that was auditing you.

MR. GARCIA.  Well, I can just recall from the examination findings, and I can tell you this, the Bangko Sentral does not really look at deposits.

SEN. GUINGONA.  No, no, no, that is not my question about the Bangko Sentral.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Ang tinatanong ko lang, are you very sure, it was the AMLC that audited your bank, and I would like to say that, sana you verify this muna before you answer—just a quick call, you could verify from the people who actually face those people who audited your bank-.

MR. GARCIA.  We can do that, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  When can you give that answer to us?

MR. GARCIA.  We can certify that …

SEN. GUINGONA.  Can you give it in a few minutes?  Can you call?

MR. GARCIA.  As far as we can determine, it was a regular BSP audit, but AMLA was included.

SEN. GUINGONA.  AMLA was included.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  You are very categorical about that.

MR. GARCIA.  That is as far as we can–from our documents, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Okay.  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Osmeña, Mr. President and then Senator Legarda.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cebu, Senator Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon, Mr. Garcia.

MR. GARCIA.  Good afternoon.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  At the previous hearing, you said that you would tell us or inform us on the tenor of that P17 million deposit which was opened in June 20011 and closed on December 12, 2011, but what was the original tenor on that, the length of time for the time deposit?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, if I may just refer to our documents.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Yes, please.

PS BANK’S COUNSEL.  May I likewise approach, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  You may approach your client anytime, considering the sensitivity of the matter under discussion.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, you are referring to the account number with the ending digits 3848?

SEN. OSMEÑA.  That is correct.

MR. GARCIA.  The amount of P17 million, this was originally transacted in June 29, 2011.  This was subsequently renewed.  The last renewal was done on December 2, 2011 for—at that time, for a tenor of 31 days, with an original maturity date of January 2, 2012.  This particular account was paid out on December 12, 2011.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So, therefore, would you—what type of penalty would the depositor have to pay?  Would there be a reduction …

MR. GARCIA.  I believe

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Would there be a reduction in the interest?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, because it says pre-termination.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Pre-termination charge, all right.  Does the bank have any accounts in the name of Cristina Corona, alone?

MR. GARCIA.  I think we reported earlier all the accounts under the name of Cristina Corona.  We do not have any record of any account under her name alone.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you.  If a customer were to walk in PS Bank and gave PS Bank P10 million , and ask PS Bank to buy our office in his behalf, would PS Bank refer him to Metrobank?

MR. GARCIA.   Yes, Your Honor, if such an inquiry is made.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  And would you receive a referral fee from Metrobank?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  You mean Metrobank will not pay you anything for that referral?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, we just let them know that we are not engage in those kind of transactions, but of course…

SEN. OSMEÑA.  But of course you know the rule, you know how it works since you are going to be the next president of Metrobank, you know already how these things go.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, I have publicly stated that if ever offered that position, I will decline it, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  But the mere fact that they would be thinking offering it to you they know you are qualified to be president of Metrobank.

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot speak for them, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  Now, tell me something.  If Metrobank—this is hypothetical, but, you are qualified to answer this.  If Metrobank were to take an order from a customer, and by ROPs are dollar denominated Philippine government bonds, would this be booked as a liability by the bank or  it would be an off-balance sheet item?

MR. GARCIA. It would be an off-balance sheet item.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So this would not be a deposit?

MR. GARCIA. It would not be a deposit unless the transaction was deposited into an FCDU account from which the purchase was made.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  But how could you book?  So, an FCDU account may be maintained and the bank instructed to use the dollars to buy ROPs.

MR. GARCIA.  It is possible, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  It’s probable.  In other words, it is done.

MR. GARCIA.  I am sorry, Your Honor, but I cannot speak for other banks, but I know it is done.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  Now, if the FCDU deposits are used to buy bonds, would the bonds, then, be used to secure the FCDE deposits because you going to need one hundred percent dollar cover, right?

MR. GARCIA.  The bonds, Your Honor, would not be registered and assets of the bank, and therefore, would not be eligible for that because if …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  But under the FCDU law, you supposed to have one hundred percent cover for any FCDU deposit, correct?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So, how could you have an off-balance sheet item covering for a balance sheet item.  In other words, this would be a liability of the bank if it is an FCDU.

MR. GARCIA.  If it is for the account of the customer, Your Honor, then, it would become an off-balance sheet item because technically the customer actually owns the bond.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  That is correct.

MR. GARCIA.  For the bank, like the PS Bank, we have a dollar deposits we buy ROP bonds …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  But the moment it is remove from the dollar deposit, it does not anymore become a liability of the bank.  In other words, it will not even be covered by PDIC.

MR. GARCIA.  Are we speaking for a customer transaction, Your Honor?

SEN. OSMEÑA.  I am talking about a customer who open an FCDU account, and asked you to use the dollar in his FCDU to buy ROPs.

MR. GARCIA.  The dollar deposit account will be withdrawn in which case the funds will be use to purchase …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  It’s closed.  It’s ceases to be a liability of the bank.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Therefore, it is not a deposit any longer.

MR. GARCIA.  No longer a deposit.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So, therefore, any such ROP account – – how would you call that?  What would the bank call that account?  It is not an FCDU, what would you call the account?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot categorically state, Your Honor, because we do not engage in those transaction for customer accounts.  For PS Bank, we only buy ROPs for the account of the bank.  Other, probably other banks do those kind of transactions, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Yes, other banks do and Metrobank does, right?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, but I cannot really speak for what their practices.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  But, definitely, it is not covered by PDIC, so, it is not a liability any longer of the bank?

MR. GARCIA.  Once the purchase is made, the deposit was done, it is no longer a liability, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Alright.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Would they be transfer to your trust account?

MR. GARCIA.  The dollar deposit, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  Well, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   For management purposes?

SEN. OSMEÑA.  If the trust department engages in dollar transactions, it’s possible, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Legarda, Mr. President, before the defense, is seeking the recognition, Mr. President.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you, Mr. President. The intention of my questions, Mr. Garcia, is simply to wrap up and to summarize the more than four hours of interpellations, to be very simple, you don’t even have to consult your lawyer.

You said in your testimony that in September to November 2010, both AMLA and the BSP were conducting an internal audit of your bank, which is PSBank, is that correct?

MR. GARCIA.   That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  You also said that politically exposed persons and you defined what PEPs are, did you do that where part of this investigation in the two months of 2010, which included Chief Justice Corona, is that correct?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, it was not the only account. There were other accounts.

SEN. LEGARDA.    It was not the only account.  There were other so-called PEPs. Just for the record very briefly, could you define what a PEP is?

MR. GARCIA.  PEP is politically exposed person. Under the AMLA rules, we are required to classify those that are elected officials and the high-appointed officials as politically exposed persons.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes. Thank you, you defined that earlier. I just want it to be clarified.  So, in those two months of September, October, November of 2010, the routine internal audit of the BSP and the AMLA jointly were doing that internal audit of PSBank which included an investigation into PEPs were deposits in PSBank including the account of Chief Justice Corona but not the only account, is that correct?

MR. GARCIA.  That is correct, Your Honor, but the inquiry is done by AMLA,  not the …

SEN. LEGARDA.  The BSP did not inquire into the Corona account, but AMLA did that?

MR. GARCIA.  No.

SEN. LEGARDA.    Was it customary in the annual internal audit that the AMLA would be jointly investigating with the BSP?

MR. GARCIA.  I think the AMLA under the law is allowed to deputize the BSP.

SEN. LEGARDA.    Yes.

MR. GARCIA. Yes.

SEN. LEGARDA.    If there is a court order.  Was there a court order when the investigation of the AMLA from September, October and November of 2010 was conducted in PSBank?

MR. GARCIA.  I don’t believe we have such a court order, You Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.    So, you allowed the investigation, the joint investigation between BSP and AMLA, even in the absence of a court order?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot be certain about that, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Well, that is okay.  And you said there were other PEPs were being investigated apart from CJ Corona, are you at liberty to tell us who were other politically exposed persons who were being investigated?

MR. GARCIA.  I don’t recall their names right now, Your Honor, but there were a few of them.

SEN. LEGARDA.    And you also mentioned in your earlier testimony that photocopies of Chief Justice Corona’s accounts and/or the signature cards were given to both the BSP and AMLA, am I correct?

MR. GARCIA.  As far as our—the records of our examination, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.   And, I think, the Senate Presiding, the Presiding Officer requested already AMLA to submit what you just mentioned, the signature cards.

Based on the differences that we see from Annex A, and the documents, which came from your bank, there are clearly differences, which you cited earlier?

MR. GARCIA.  Very clear, ‘yan.

SEN. LEGARDA.    Yes, there are differences.

MR. GARCIA.  But quite a number.

SEN. LEGARDA.    Quite a number, yes. On the signatures, annex A, just for the record, came from prosecution, but it had the same number of accounts and the same account numbers as those on the original document which—the photocopy of which I am holding now.

MR. GARCIA.  That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  The name of the account is the same, the address which you said can be access publicly based on any public record.  However, the information, the account numbers and the signatures of your staff, who did their signatures beside the account numbers are the same personnel, right?

MR. GARCIA.  Similar, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Similar.  No, the same names, similar signatures but there are modifications, alterations.

MR. GARCIA.  We believe so, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  However, is the information on the account numbers accurate?

MR. GARCIA.  It is accurate, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Is there any one number in any account number that is different?

MR. GARCIA.  Not that we have noted, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  So the only differences would be signatures and what is very clear as a very blatant, obvious difference would the P-E-P or the PEP?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  The pen used is thicker and our records in the

Annex A is thinner.  Even the presentation of the account numbers is slightly different.  If it will be submitted to our technical analysis, it would show that it is different and the presentation has slight differences from one point to the other.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  Apart from that, the word PEP is not in the PS Bank document but is in the Annex A document.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is a very glaring difference

SEN. LEGARDA.  There is no PEP in what I’m holding.  But in the Annex A document, there is a PEP on top and there is no PEP in the document for a copy at least given to me by your legal counsel from the bank.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes, that is a marked difference.  Could it be possible, Mr. Garcia, that the source of Annex A could still have come from your bank.  However, there were alterations or modifications made because probably both the BSP and the AMLC were studying these documents since you said the AMLC was involved in the investigation.  In short, because you gave photocopies to both BSP and AMLC.  Based on their own investigations, they were doing notes and they could have had those modifications.  They could have written on those documents.

MR. GARCIA.  If we get a photocopy of the original, Your Honor, there are items that are in the photocopy that are not in the original and so what we’re saying actually, the other items that we have indicated even the signatures, what we are saying is, this particular Annex A cannot be a photocopy of the document that we hold.

SEN. LEGARDA.  You are saying that Annex A cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be a photocopy of your document or could it possibly be that it is a photocopy of a document which was based on the source document which is from the bank but with modifications because the people who had custody of that document were studying it and did notes adding PEP, adding underlines and having signatures.

MR. GARCIA.  The only thing that we can declare, Your Honor, it is not a photocopy of our document.

SEN. LEGARDA.  It is clearly not a photocopy because it had a PEP on top and yours did not have and that is not my question.  My only question is, of course, when you have an original document which is photocopied and I write on the photocopied document, it will not be a photocopy of the original because I already put notes and modifications on that.  So it is not a faithful reproduction of the original but it is still a reproduction initially but I put notes because I was studying that document.  All I’m saying is that, is there a possibility that the source document still could have come from your bank, not a leak, but because you gave the BSP and the AMLC a copy of the original document?  They had it, they were studying it and, therefore, there were modifications but the account numbers are accurate and those accounts actually exist and have been testified on.

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot answer that, Your Honor, because we can only look at the original documents.  What are possibilities actually are just, you know,—we do not want to speculate on how this Annex A was completed or anything of that sort.  We’re just saying actually that the Annex A is not a photocopy of our document.

As a matter of fact, I personally find strange that were certain things in the Annex A which are different from the photocopy, like for example, in our document, Manila is MLA, in the photocopy there are periods between M, L and A.

In our original document and a photocopy of our document, you will see very clearly Filipino being F, I, L.  In this Annex A, it looks like it’s F, I, I.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  So, you know …

SEN. LEGARDA.  There are many differences.

MR. GARCIA.  There’s a significant number of differences.\

SEN. LEGARDA.  May we know whether the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court had requested you to submit a memo on all the differences between the Annex A and you photocopied document—in your original document?

MR. GARCIA.  We were not specifically requested to but we would be prepared for …

SEN. LEGARDA.  With the permission of my colleagues in the Impeachment Court and the Presiding Officer, everything that he is saying now, apart from the fact that he has testified on that so that it is clear, could you give us a matrix on the differences between the bank document and Annex A, so that we will have a clear view of how—what are the main differences?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  I personally went out of my way, actually, to even test.  I got a photocopy of our original, I photocopied it, the photocopy, I then had a photocopy of that photocopy, and a photocopy of that photocopy done.  In no way could it come anywhere what this Annex is.

SEN. LEGARDA.  But the information on the bank account numbers, …

MR. GARCIA.  They’re accurate, Your Honor

SEN. LEGARDA.  They’re all accurate?  There is no single number that is out of place that is different?

MR. GARCIA.  Not that I know of.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the …

SEN. LEGARDA.  My request, yes, Mr. President,—My request was for the bank to provide us a technical description of their document as opposed to Annex A, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection from the court regarding the request of the Gentle Lady from Antique?  (Silence)  Hearing none, the mark is ordered to comply.  (Gavel)

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  That is all and my last question which I didn’t expect you to be able to competently answer was, could it be at all possible that your original document was given to be as AMLC and modified because of investigations being conducted, but you are of course, you are not competent to say that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Just a few questions, very quick questions to the witness.

Mr. Witness, good afternoon.

MR. GARCIA.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  I noticed in the certified true copy of the document that you submitted, there is a stamp marked closed.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Does that mean that all the peso accounts have been closed?  All the accounts have been closed?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Okay.  We cannot touch on the dollar accounts.  Earlier, Mr. Witness, there is a Renato C. Corona and Ma. Christina Corona accounts, there were six.  Just on the two accounts, 089121020133, opening March 4, 2010, P7,280,000.  Then it was closed on May 24, 2010.  Would you have the data as to the closing amount in 2010, May 24?  Closing balance?

MR. GARCIA.  The closing balance at that was P7,332,505.16, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  And on the 089121012882, September 19, 2007, and closed in 2008, September, one year later.

MR. GARCIA.  The closing balance at the time of closure was P98,373.17, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  And—well, no other question, Mr. President.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who else?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we move on by the cross examination …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think the Gentleman from Cavite was raising his hand.

SEN. LACSON.  No, Mr. President, I do not wish to belabour this issue.  We should move on to the next witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, but there was a cross examination reserved by the defense, Mr. President.  May we allow it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  The defense may now proceed with the cross examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor, but before proceeding with my cross examination, Your Honor, may I be permitted to make a short manifestation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind indulgence of this honorable court, this morning, a news item appeared in a daily, Your Honor, which states that the prosecution have established beyond reasonable doubt, their charges in the impeachment complaint, Your Honor.  If that news is read by a member of the Bar, or a lawyer for that matter, then, he will not immediately accept the truth of that assertion.  But if it goes into the hands of somebody who had not taken up law, it may appear to be credible, and it may blacken the real situation obtaining before this impeachment court.  Why?  Because the basis of the pronouncement is allegedly because there were bank accounts that were ordered opened, they were marked, but they were never yet presented in evidence, much less, admitted by this honorable court.

In short, when we refer to that documentary exhibit, Your Honor, or evidence, it must first be identified, then, marked, and then finally offered.  And the adverse party is given the opportunity to admit or to object to the admission thereof.  If it is admitted, then, it shall be considered evidence in the case, but if it is not and it is rejected, it will then attain only its statute as a mere piece of paper, Your Honor.

It is along those lines that we made this manifestation, in order to correct that information or that news which had no truth whatsoever, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, let the manifestation of the gentleman be stated into the record.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, may I now proceed with my cross examination with Mr. Garcia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Mr. Garcia, I heard—good afternoon, Mr. Garcia.

MR. GARCIA.  Good evening, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ah, good evening na ba?

MR. GARCIA.  Good evening na.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry.  I heard you state in the examination conducted awhile ago, that the AMLA authorities can just conduct investigation on their own will and volition, is that an accurate assessment of your statement?

MR. GARCIA.  Not accurate, Your Honor, in the sense that by law, they are authorized to—the AMLA Law, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no question about their being authorized, but is that all?  I understand that there is a necessity for a court order for them to conduct investigation, pursuant to law, and I am referring to Section 11 of the AMLA Law, which for purposes of clarity, may I be allowed to read that into the records, Your Honor, “Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments involved are in any way related to any activity, defined in Section 3 thereof or money laundering offense”.

So, the way I understood it, there is a necessity for a court order allowing the AMLA authorities to conduct an investigation of the deposit of a certain individual.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What Section 3 of …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Section 11, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Section 3.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Section 3, Your Honor, under exceptions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Under exceptions.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, and they are in cases of kidnapping with ransom, in cases of violation of the Anti-Drug Law, Your Honor, and in other crimes considered as offenses wherein notwithstanding the fact, that there may be no court order, the examination or investigation may be conducted by the AMLA authorities, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Because of this so-called “predicate crimes”.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor.

MR. GARCIA.  If it is a formal investigation, Sir, I believe so, yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, you agree with me that insofar as formal investigation is concerned, a called authority is necessary.  That was the law requires.

MR. GARCIA.  Well, in the investigation of the balances of the account, etc., yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In this particular instance, was there any court order?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot recall, Your Honor, but in this particular instance, what I can say is that there were no inquiries on balances.  It is just the process of the bank whether we were classifying the accounts properly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I thought investigation conducted by AMLA had something to do with ill-gotten wealth or violation of the anti-graft law.  Is it not?

MR. GARCIA.  Personally, Your Honor, this did not appear to be an investigation, it was just an audit of the process.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, it was a casual audit, you mean.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the idea or the purpose that to determine whether the respondent Chief Justice had committed any violation.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.  That is very clear.

MR. GARCIA.  It is just a process whether we had tag the account …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is very clear to you.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It was a routine examination.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It can happen to anyone whose deposit may be the object of a casual examination.

MR. GARCIA.  No, not the deposit per se, Your Honor, because no balances, no informations provided.  It is just that, you know, the specimen signature card, has it been, you know, properly classified, are transactions properly classified.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, in investigation or inquiry of this sort, is there a necessity for notifying or informing the person affected, or whose accounts are being the object of examination or audit?

MR. GARCIA.   If it is an investigation, Your Honor, I believe that there being a court order, then, the party involved must be …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Must be notified.  And in the cases that you mentioned, wherein it may be an ordinary casual audit, no notification is necessary.

MR. GARCIA.  It is a review of the process of the bank not about the deposits of the client.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but you are not answering my question.  My question to you, in instances mentioned by you wherein there is no court order, there is no necessity of notifying the bank depositor, is that what you wanted to tell the court?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe so, Your Honor, because it is just the process of the bank that looks into.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   All right.  How about the bank officials?  My understanding is the person authority of the bank to be notified is the bank branch manager where the deposit is made.  Am I right?

MR. GARCIA.  It is not the bank branch manager, Your Honor, because they will look at some accounts, some sampled accounts.  So, it could be in different branches.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, in this particular case where the amounts involved are allegedly deposits in the Katipunan branch, you mean there is no necessity of notifying the highest official of that branch of the causal examination being conducted.

MR. GARCIA.  They did not go to the branch as far as we could determine, Your Honor, based even on the logbook that we have.  It was just an inquiry in the process of our head offices.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Now, your knowledge of this alleged investigation is through information only by the members of your bank?

MR. GARCIA.  I would not classify it as an investigation, Your Honor. It was just a routine audit on the process.

ATTY. CUEVAS.   I see. So, there is no, report, formal at that, which was prepared?

MR. GARCIA.  There was as far as that we had not classified the specimen signature card as a PEP.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Do you have a copy of that report?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, with the permission of the defense counsel, how many branches of PSBank were involved in this routine examination?

MR. GARCIA.  I would estimate just a couple, Your Honor, because the number of accounts covered were not many.  They were quite—we have 201 branches, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When you say “couple”, which branches?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot reply to that because I will need to verify our records…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you inform us, inform the court?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  We can.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed, counsel.

ATTY. CUEVAS. Now, this AMLA that you were referring all thru your direct examination is housed at Malacañang under the Office of the President?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.  As far as I know, the AMLA Committee, actually, is comprised of three independent—and the AMLA offices are, probably, the SEC Chairman, the SEC Chairman, the Chairman of the Insurance Commission, and the Governor of the Bangko Sentral.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Under our governmental set up, it is an Executive office because it is not legislative neither is it judicial, am I right?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not competent to answer that, Your Honor.  I really don’t know.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  But considering the functions that are known to you, is it a judicial body?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not competent to answer that, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Is it a legislative body?

MR. GARCIA.  I am certainly not competent to answer that, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Now, when you say you are not competent, is it because you have not gone deeper to examine the functions of the AMLA?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  I see.  Now, if, as you stated, passing upon the ordinary examination rather was made of the accounts of the Chief Justice, were there other officials whose account were casually examined also as his, in the inquiry that you mentioned?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot say that right now, Your Honor, because I will have to verify versus the …

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Because you were not—you do not know, you do not know that fact personally but it was only on the basis of report submitted or made to you by your subordinates, is that correct?

MR. GARCIA.  I have seen the list of names, I think, there were about quite just a few, I do not recall that there was any, for that matter, someone on this court included in that.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Yes, but are they ordinary individuals or they are people belonging to high class in society?

MR. GARCIA.  They would have to be politically exposed.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  And Justice Corona is one of them?

MR. GARCIA. I believe, yes, sir.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Per your classification or per designation by the Executive Branch of the government?

MR. GARCIA.  By the classification that we are required to do under the AMLA.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Now, you mentioned about several deposits covered by the documents you identified. My understanding is, you have no participation whatsoever in connection with said deposits?

MR. GARCIA.  None, whatsoever.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  And your knowledge is based only on the documents existing in your bank, is that right?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  And at that time, who was the branch manager of your Katipunan Branch?

MR. GARCIA.  There would have been different branch managers.  Ms. Tiongson assumed the stewardship of the branch, I think sometime in 2010 if I am not mistaken.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  But there prior to that, who was the branch manager of that branch?

MR. GARCIA.  There were other branch manager.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Do you know the persons responsible for making entries into documents similarly identified by you awhile ago?

MR. GARCIA.  They would have been branch officers of branch.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  But you do not know them personally?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor,

ATTY. CUEVAS.  You have never been with them in the exercise of their functions?

MR. GARCIA.  Actually, in the functions in this particular case, no.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  So, you have no enough basis to state whether the entries made in the documents you mentioned were correct entries made by them because you do not even know them?

MR. GARCIA. Well, as far as the entries that they wrote down, I would not have been…

ATTY. CUEVAS.  And you would not know either whether they were accuratel entries made in those documents?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, only they can specific …

ATTY. CUEVAS.  So, your only knowledge with respect to this account was what appears in the document?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  You do not know when these documents were executed, by whom and when?

MR. GARCIA.  There are dates indicated in the documents.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Without the date, would you be able to tell the honorable Court?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  So, all your information is only the basis of what appears on those documents?

MR. GARCIA.  And the documents on our records, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Yes. And you cannot vouch for the accuracy and truthfulness of all those statements?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, as far as the balances that we have provided and the other information, I can vouch for what we have certified to this court.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  No, I am not asking you about your certification, about what your personnel entered into those documents?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor, they would have been the one.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Thank you, that is all with the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any other question?

The Gentleman from Bukidnon.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Garcia, you said that it was an audit by the AMLA.  But, Mr. Garcia, are you aware that AMLC does not do regular audits on banks?  It does not.  It only visits a bank, number one, upon a court order; number two, upon existence of a predicate crime.  You mean PS Bank is regularly audited by the AMLC?

MR. GARCIA.  Only as far as I know, Your Honor, it’s only at this particular…

SEN. GUINGONA.  Mr. Garcia, you’re under oath.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please let the witness answer.

MR. GARCIA.  As far as I know and I have reviewed at least as far as the last examination is concerned, there were AMLC findings that…

SEN. GUINGONA.  Mr. Garcia, in the AMLC Law, there is a provision or I think it’s in the IRR that the BSP is authorized to routinely audit banks just to ensure that they are complying with the AMLC laws.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  For example, the reportorial requirements.  And in those regular audits by the BSP they have what they call an AMLC specialists.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Opo.  And those AMLC specialists are members of the BSP and not members of the AMLC.  I am not asking you, I’m telling you.

MR. GARCIA.  It’s possible, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  And so is it possible that you are confused, that this is not upon the existence of a predicate crime, upon the existence of a court order, it is just a regular BSP audit and it so happens there is what you call an AMLC specialist just to make sure that the AMLC laws are being complied with.

MR. GARCIA.  That is precisely what was the case, Your Honor, and I responded, it’s just an audit of the process.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Of the Bangko Sentral and not the AMLC.

MR. GARCIA.  I will have to verify from the records and the BSP whether it can be classified—but within the Bangko Sentral auditors.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yes.  I think an answer from you is very, very necessary because it does not make sense that the AMLC will regularly audit banks.  The BSP, yes, and as I said, there is somebody there who just make sure that banks when they are audited are complying with the AMLC..

MR. GARCIA.  They may be designated as examiner for AMLC.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Well, Mr. Garcia, during the break, I did call AMLC and they categorically denied that they did audit you.  So I am just stating that, let’s not argue, I’m just stating that.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  Thank you, Your Honor, for clarifying.

SEN. GUINGONA.  So I would appreciate it very much if you talk to your compliance officer and really find out what’s what.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, we will do so.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Okay.  And when was the audit conducted, Mr. Garcia?

MR. GARCIA.  I think it’s for the period September to November…

SEN. GUINGONA.  What year, sir?

MR. GARCIA.  2010, sir.

SEN. GUINGONA.  2010.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  2010.  And so that was, more or less, one year before the impeachment was filed.

MR. GARCIA.  A little more than a year, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  One year ago, one year before the impeachment.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  So noong na-audit kayo ng BSP wala pang usapang impeachment.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  I see.  Tapos, Mr. Garcia, iyong cards ninyo, ilan po ang original niyan,iyong ipinakita ninyong mga cards na may signature.

MR. GARCIA.  Only two, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Dalawa lang.

MR. GARCIA.  Dalawa.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Some of my Senator-Judges are saying it’s three.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, yes, the owner could maintain a copy of his for his records, yes, but the bank would have two.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Two.  So it’s possible that three.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Ah it’s possible.

MR. GARCIA.  It’s possible but as far as the bank is concerned, Your Honor, we only have two.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Okay.  And are you sure you secured all those copies?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, we have provided our own account of everything that goes with the branch.  You can see just even from the use of the pen, it’s different.  This signature is a fake.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Okay, Mr. Garcia.  I just wanted a yes or no.

MR. GARCIA.  Sorry, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  All right.  It’s all right.  Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Arroyo wishes to be recognized for a manifestation, and then Senator Marcos, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gentleman from Makati and Bicol.  (Gavel)

SEN. ARROYO.  Mr. President, somebody just texted me which reads, “Section 16 of Republic Act 9160”, that is the AMLA Law, “This Act shall not be used for political persecution or harassment.”  That is in line with what I said that I fear, alarmed that the AMLA is being, might be or is being used for political vendetta.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Senator from Ilocos Norte is recognized.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I just want to clear up—I got a little confused again between the examination of BSP and the AMLC.

Mr. Garcia, nung tinanong ko sa inyo na nag-report sa inyo ang AMLC examiner, at ang kanyang report na may problema dahil walang designation na PEP …

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  … yung kay Chief Justice na signature card, is that correct?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, including some others.

SEN. MARCOS.  Okay.  Yung BSP ba tumitingin ng signature card?

MR. GARCIA.  BSP audit per se, no, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, the only person who could see the signature card is the AMLC examiner?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Therefore, the AMLC examiner clearly must have seen—is the only person who could have seen the signature card of the Chief Justice?

MR. GARCIA.  I would assume that right now, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Because the BSP examiner does not look at the signature card.

MR. GARCIA.  No, they don’t look into …

SEN. MARCOS.  Therefore, for them to be able to say the PEP designation was absent, they must have seen the signature card.  If they have seen the signature card, they must have been an AMLC examiner, not a BSP examiner, would that be correct?

MR. GARCIA.  I think for classification purposes, that would be accurate.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, there was an examination by an AMLC examiner of the personal account of Chief Justice Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  Either an AMLC examiner of a designated examiner for AMLC.

SEN. MARCOS.  For AMLC?

MR. GARCIA.  For AMLC process.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, for the AMLC process.  So the AMLC designated and the examiner in the BSP to examine for AMLC.

MR. GARCIA.  I think, it’s …

SEN. MARCOS.  Okay.  But it was under the auspices of the AMLC examination, because otherwise, they would not look at signature cards, is that correct?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With the permission of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.  What’s the pleasure of the lawyer for Philippine Savings Bank?

ATTY. PUNO.  Mr. President, actually the answer to your question was provided by bank officers and I would just like to relay to Mr. Garcia to respond properly to your questions, Sir.

SEN. MARCOS.  Sige, please.  Yes, Attorney Puno.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, in answer to your particular question and based on the information that has been provided to me, there was an AMLC specialist who was designated, and …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who designated them?

MR. GARCIA.  I think it’s the BSP audit, Your Honor.  And you asked earlier, Your Honor, the name of the examiner.  His name is Mr. Gerry Leal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is he an AMLC employee?

MR. GARCIA.  I would not really know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, the name you just mentioned, could you just mentioned, could you tell us again?

MR. GARCIA.  Mr. Jerry Leal, per our records, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, Mr. Jerry Leal, conducted an examination of the personal accounts of Chief Justice Corona, under the auspices of AMLA.

MR. GARCIA.  Not the balances, no—nothing on that, sir.

SEN. MARCOS.  Nothing on that, but …

MR. GARCIA.  Just the classification, whether they are properly classified as PEP and so forth.

SEN. MARCOS.  Yes, but to do that, do you have to look at the personal records of the depositor—of one particular account, or rather one particular depositor, I am sorry.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, if I may clarify, they looked at these particular records, there is no information about balances or transactions, so, they cannot see them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With the permission of Senator Marcos, you mentioned that an AMLA representative or designated person was included in the team to see whether signatures were properly classified.  Incidentally, in the report to you, with respect to bank depositors in your branch, were there other signature cards that were considered to be improperly classified, other than the signature card of the respondent, Chief Justice Renato Corona?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There were ..

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many?

MR. GARCIA.  If I can recall, Your Honor, based on my reading of report, I think, eight.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Eight of them.

MR. GARCIA.  Eight of them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Proceed.

SEN. MARCOS.  No, thank you, Mr. President.  Great minds think alike.  Naitanong nyo po ang itatanong ko.

Maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you very much.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you.  Mr. President, Senator Estrada.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Maraming salamat, Ginoong Pangulo.  Ito ay isang obserbasyon lamang, Ginoong Pangulo, ako po ay unti-unting naniniwala o nakukumbinsi na mukha naman yatang hindi yata PS Bank ang nag-leak nitong mga dokumentong ito na nakaabot sa prosecution, dahil base sa mga deliberation, base sa mga diskusyon kanina, at ako naman ay taimtim na nakikinig, mukha yatang noong ini-audit ng AMLA o ng BSP, iyong mga accounts, at nakita nga, merong PEP, siguro, isa sa mga opisyal o iyong officer ng AMLC, mukhang isinerox itong signature card ni Chief Justice Corona at itinago at nang pumutok ang impeachment trial, saka na lang siguro inabot sa mga miyembro ng prosecution panel.

Ngunit, ako po ay—pinaninidigan ko pa rin ang aking sinabi noong nakaraang araw, na ito po ay hindi fake sapagkat nasasabi ko pong hindi fake, unang-una, kung ikukumpara nyo po yong annex A saka itong original na dokumento na ibinigay, isinumite ng PS Bank, ay pare-pareho ang sulat, ngunit, kulang ang mga entries.  Itong annex A na isinubmit ng prosecution, na naging basehan ng mai-subpoena itong mga bank accounts, kulang-kulang po.  At itong original na sinubmit ng PS Bank, marami na hong entries after they had investigated or they had audited the clients of PS Bank, dahil kung nakikita nyo po, dito sa original documents na sinubmit ng PS Bank, marami pa hong entries noong taong 2011.

So, ako po ay naniniwala na hindi po peke ito, at palagay ko, meron hong nagtago nitong—nag-Xerox nitong dokumento ni Ginoong Corona, at inilabas na lang noong pumutok itong impeachment trial.

Maraming Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Garcia, you mentioned earlier that you maintain two copies of the customer identification and specimen signature cards?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  And you showed us one of them?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, there is another one?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  And that other one is also filled up with the accounts of the depositor?

MR. GARCIA.    Only some, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Only some.  Okay, why is the difference?  Why in the copy you brought here that is filled up, while the other original is not filled up?

MR. GARCIA.  Because the other original is kept at our head office for business recovery or disaster purposes.  The subsequent transactions are done at the branch and are indicated by the branch on some of the records, which is not done at the head office.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Okay. So, two originals, one maintained at the branch, one maintained at the head office.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL. But the two originals were initially accomplished at the branch.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  When the depositor was opening his or her account.

MR. GARCIA.    Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Okay.  I’ll take your word for that.  But if you are required to bring that other original you can bring it.

MR. GARCIA.    Yes, we can bring it.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  And it will appear as you have described it.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, the copy that you brought has been stamped “CLOSED”.  So, this means that all the accounts listed on the signature card would already be closed.  But does that mean that the depositor is no longer banking with you?  That does not follow di ba?

MR. GARCIA.   For this particular accounts, it is closed only pertinent to this accounts, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, there may be a new customer identification and specimen signature card for still existing account of the same customer, pwede po ba iyon?

MR. GARCIA.  That is possible, Your Honor, but when this was stamped “Closed”, all of the accounts were closed at that time.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Okay.  So, let us say, doon tayo sa scenario na meron pa siyang account and since puno na itong form eh, so you use another form.  Let us say, ganoon tayo sa scenario na iyon, iyong customer number ba ni account holder ay pareho?  So, let us say mayroong ibang customer identification and specimen signature card si Corono Renato Coronadao, ang customer number ba niya doon ay 334346 pa rin?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, it will be retained, no.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Opo.  Siguro tatanungin ko na lang kayo ng diretso.  Meron pa bang ibang customer identification and specimen signature card sa pangalan po ni Corona, Renator Coronado?

MR. GARCIA.   For the accounts that we certified with Mrs. Corona, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Okay, but that is for the two names in the account name.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Hindi kasi kaya kami nagtaka dito ni Senator Kiko, kasi mayroon kang checking account na binanggit na doon nga inilipat iyong tatlo, di ba, may tatlong 30 million something, kanino bang pangalan iyon?  Two account names ba iyon o kay Renato Coronado Corona iyon?

MR. GARCIA.   Renato Coronado Corona, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Solo?

MR. GARCIA.  Solo.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  O, e wala po siya rito sa list of accounts—peso iyon eh…

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.   Wala po siya rito sa listahan po ng accounts dito po sa original na dinala ninyo, so it means na reflected siguro iyon sa isa pang card.

MR. GARCIA.    We normally use just one specimen card for our transactions.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Opo.  Pero how do you explain it Mr. Bank president na iyong account number po ng checking account na iyon ay hindi po nakalista rito.

MR. GARCIA.  Well, the account number served was open only in 2011, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  And the document that was presented in Annex A only had accounts opened up to 2010, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  No, I know, I know, kasi meron ka nga rito sa original na ibinigay mo, meron kang date opened 6-29-11. so mayroon ka ring, may account din na open noong 2011?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Then, iyong—doon lang kami nagtataka para lang maintindihan.  Mayroong isang checking account na pinaglipatan noong P30 milyon plus bakit po siya hindi po siya reflected dito po sa original na binigay po ninyo?  So, does it mean na reflected siya sa ibang signature cards?

MR. GARCIA.  It’s possible, Your Honor, but I will have to go verify that.

SEN. GUINGONA.  If you confirm that there is another specimen signature card containing this peso account  and maybe other accounts, will you be able to also furnish us a copy of this other card? So, that, just to complete the picture po.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.  It is—for peso accounts.

SEN. GUINGONA.  And with the same caveat, with the same right for you to cover if there are foreign currency deposit accounts reflected on the same card?

MR. GARCIA.  Certainly, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  So, Mr. President, maybe just for that purpose, just to complete the picture, if he could bring and no longer testify on this, just a submission to the court if there exist another customer identification specimen signature card for Corona Renato Coronado.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from …

SEN. LACSON. Mr. President, to settle this …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that related to the

SEN. LACSON.  Yes, Mr. President.  To settle this issue once and for all.  I would like to suggest because this is now a questioned document.  Iyong authenticity, kinu-question natin, but we are all speculating. So, ang suggestion ko po, my humble suggestion is that, magpakuha lang tayo ng 10 standard handwriting specimens ni CJ  Corona. Madaling makakuha niyan kasi public official iyan, eh. And then, we compare, we submit the questioned document alongside the standard handwriting specimen. Sampu po ang kailangan dito.  Kung gusto ninyo po, ako na magpapakuha, Mr. President, at ipadala natin sa PNP Crime Laboratory or sa NBI, doon sa Forensic nila para ma-determine natin kung ito ba ay peke o authentic. Iyon po ang aking suggestion, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think, that the function of the prosecution.

SEN. LACSON.  But, hindi po tayo magkamayaw, Mr. President, that’s why I’m giving that suggestion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, that the defense will have the right to cross-examine.  This is an adversarial proceeding and we have to follow that system.

SEN. LACSON.  Mr. President, I’d like to clarify that.  I am not being partial to the prosecution.  I just want this court to get to the bottom of this issue. Because, right now, as I said, we are all speculating. And lahat tayo nagiging handwriting expert, which we are not, so, that is the reason I submitted that proposition, Mr.  President.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I would suggest that we discuss this in caucus because, then, the question again will be raised if we have an handwriting expert who will examine the documents. And then, he will be presented here, he will stand here to testify whose witness will that be and are the parties entitled to cross-examine and whether maybe affected by the testimony of the witness?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. SOTTO. The Prosecution …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No. There is a pending matter that are requested by the Gentleman from Misamis Oriental, may I request the Gentleman from Misamis Oriental to restate his request.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yes, Mr. President.  The witness testified that there is a possibility that there still exist another customer identification and specimen signature card in the name of Corona Renato Coronado, my request is for him to submit to the court such a card if he confirms its existence subject to the same caveat that he can cover foreign currency deposit accounts information.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection? (Silence)  Hearing none, so ordered.

SEN. SOTTO.  The prosecution wants a floor, Mr. President, hopefully, they will accept the suggestion of Senator Lacson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution has the floor

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  We have no questions on what already had been brought out by the Senator-Judges.  We would just like to take this opportunity, Your Honor, to mark the documents that have been indentified and brought to court by this witness, Mr. President.  May we approach the witness for…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you making this witness your witness?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Yes, Your Honor, insofar as the additional bank accounts are concerned, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I cannot see, Your Honor, how could that be.  Your witness cannot be half for the prosecution and half for the defense, Your Honor.  Ngayon lang po ako nakarinig ng ganyang pangyayari.  I was in the academe for almost four decades, Your Honor, and I will be happy to be…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Half for the prosecution and half for the…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Same witness, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Half for the…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Defense, Your Honor.  And probably the remaining portion to the court, Your Honor.  That is revolutionizing the law on evidence and procedure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you kindly explain.  Why is it half for the defense and  half for the prosecution.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  That’s his announcement, Your Honor.  He is only adopting the testimony of the witness only insofar as the checks identified in his later testimony.  Now, how about the previous—we were made to understand he is a witness for the prosecution, Your Honor.

THEP PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  They cannot disown him now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He was presented as…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  As a witness for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  a witness for the prosecution.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  May I explain, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  It was correct to say that this witness was our witness when we presented him on direct and cross and redirect but we had already discharged him, Mr. President.  Insofar as that is concerned, he no longer becomes our witness.  Let me finish, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But he was recalled.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  When this witness…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  Correct, you discharged him but still he is a part of the record as a witness for the prosecution.  You discharged him because you finish your direct examination and redirect.  But nonetheless he remains your witness when he was recalled by the court.  He cannot be any other witness.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  We have authority…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And now you are adopting precisely his testimony in relation to the document that you are marking.  How can it be that he is not your witness?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  We find no inconsistency, Mr. President.  As we stated earlier…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, this Presiding Officer finds it inconsistent, strange.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Your Honor, we have authority to the effect that when a witness is called by the court and examined by the court, he is neither the witness for the defense or the prosecution.  And that is our basis, Your Honor, for simply saying…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But is the situation of this witness in pari passu with the supposed jurisprudence that you represent?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Yes, Your Honor, because as we said earlier, we had already discharged this witness insofar as his main testimony is concerned and, therefore, when he was called by the tribunal and questioned by the tribunal the authority says that he is neither our witness nor the witness for the defense.  And it is only in relation to the documents that he had identified by the questioning conducted by the honourable tribunal that we adopt those particular evidence, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Subject to the submission of a memorandum from you to justify this position…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But if Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of the—you conducted additional direct, Your Honor, and we were objecting at that time.  So if the witness is not his, how can he conduct a redirect question and additional direct, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s true.  Will you explain to us.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  We did not conduct additional direct, Your Honor.  We in fact discharged this witness and the records will bear us out.  It was this honourable tribunal that called back this witness and it was this court also that questioned that witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are many incidents of this nature that will take place in these proceedings, Your Honor.  I beg the indulgence of this honourable court.  Because many a times a witness is examined by a member Senator of this court, Your Honor.  We cannot object.  We cannot comment.  We cannot even contradict the statement being elicited from the witness.

Although our examination of Rules of Procedure on Impeachment of this honourable court state in Section 17 that the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, this is the situation wherein you did not produce that evidence.  You submitted to support our supplemental request for the subpoena a document which the witness disowned.

Now, you want to use that document to contradict the document that you used …

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … as a supplement.  Well, this will be contradictory because you’re bound by the document that you used to request the subpoena from this court.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  May I clarify, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  We do not mark in evidence and we are not adopting the signature card that this witness was presenting.  In fact, insofar as that is concerned, that is not our evidence.  We never marked that, Your Honor.

My only manifestation earlier is that because he is now the court’s witness that identified documents particularly those pertaining to the accounts, not the signature card, Your Honor, be marked in evidence for the prosecution.

That is all, Your Honor.  It is not the signature card.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What part of the documents are you going to mark as your exhibits?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  The bank certification pertaining to the four accounts that were brought out during those proceedings, Your Honor.  The two additional accounts that were brought out upon questioning by one of the Senator-Judges and the six other joint accounts by Mr. Renator Corona and Christina Corona, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That will be unfair to the defense, Your Honor, because while he is being examined by a Member of this court, the defense is not entitled to make any objection, Your Honor.  In fact, we will be ruled out of order, Your Honor.  We have already co-existed with that provision under Section 17, Your Honor.

Now, the moment something is produced through the examination of a Member of this court, they will now adopt.  Will that not be the height of unfairness, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Chair will defer a resolution of this issue and for further study by the court itself.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  In the meantime, Your Honor, subject to whatever resolution will come out, now that the witness is here with the documents, may we have a marking of these documents, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely, that is what we’re objecting, Your Honor, because marking is preliminary to offer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The ruling of this Chair is not to mark this and we will do it when we shall have resolved the issue.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Besides, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. SOTTO.  In the meantime, Mr. President, may we excuse the witness now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is excused.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we received a letter from the Supreme Court, Clerk of Court and the Deputy Clerk of Court that in compliance with the subpoena issued, they attended the session of the Impeachment Court of February 13 and 14, 2012, and they have not been called to testify.  Owing to the voluminous and pressing work in the Office of the Clerk of Court, they request that they be given a specific date when to appear before the honourable Impeachment Court, so moved.  We find merit in their request, Mr. President, so I move that the House panel of prosecutors be directed to inform the witnesses on the specific date they will appear and testify before the Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The motion of the Majority Floor Leader is approved.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  You may submit that by tomorrow, Mr. Lead Counsel.  Inform your witnesses on when.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  Yes, thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you.  Mr. President, the counsel of Chief Justice Corona filed la memorandum on the issue of transfer of ownership pursuant to instructions from the court on February 2, 2012, I move that said compliance be noted by the court, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, so noted.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  We are also are in receipt of the explanation of vote of Senator Loren Legarda to be included in the records of the impeachment court.  This is regarding the TRO vote, Mr. President.

I so move.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  The motion of the Majority Floor Leader is approved.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  May we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement.

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.

ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 21, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  The trial of this impeachment case is hereby adjourned until two o’clock in of Tuesday, February 21, 2012.

It was 6:50 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