IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Wednesday, March 21, 2012

At 2:15 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.  (Gavel)

We shall be led in prayer by the Senator Gregorio Ballesteros Honasan II.

PRAYER BY SENATOR HONASAN

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

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

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

Majority Floor Leader

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

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

THE SEARGENT-AT ARMS.  All 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.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 20, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, the March 20, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, is hereby approved.  (Gavel)

The Secretary will now please call the case.

THE SECRETARY.  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.  Mr. President, may we ask the respective counsels to make their appearances or enter their appearances.

REP. FARIÑAS.  Good afternoon, Mr. President, and the honourable Members of of Senate, sitting in impeachment.

Same appearances for the prosecution.  We are ready, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)  The defense.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Welocme back, counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I hope you have recovered from your vertigo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I would like to be given at least one minute, Your Honor, to extend my apologies to the honourable Court and to the Members of this honourable Court, Your Honor, for not being able …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Apologies unnecessary.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Unnecessary.  We realize that you had some problems.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That have entered into my mind, Your Honor, but as part of the courtesy due to this Court, Your Honor, I just want that to be made of record

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And I assure this Court that there was nothing intentional.  It was merely due to the ailments suffered by this representation, as in fact, I’m still wobbly, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sapagka’t tao lamang tayo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po, Kagalang-galang na Pangulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

For the Business for the Day, we will have the continuation of the examination of witness, Carmina Cruz, the Customer Relations Head of Alveo Land.  There were documents that were requested by the defense to be submitted, correspondence preceding Miss Cruz’s June 4 letter to Mrs. Corona concerning invitation to inspect defects found and other instances in which it relates to the acceptance and turnover of the unit, information related to the condominium corporation and Mrs. Corona’s acceptance of the unit, if any.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will just have her summoned, Your Honor, for only a couple of minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bring the witness in and let her take the witness stand under the same oath for cross examination.

The first witness is Carmina Cruz.

Trial is suspended for one minute to wait for Carmina.

It was 2:21 p.m.

At 2: 21 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.  Under the same oath, the prosecution may now cross examine the witness, Ms. Cruz.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I may.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, what is the pleasure of the gentleman from the defense?

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Mr. President, may please the court—we ended yesterday with a request to bring back Ms. Cruz because there were certain documents that she had not produced.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you want to have additional …

ATTY. ROY.  I would like to complete my direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … direct question.

ATTY. ROY.  A continuation of the direct, actually, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  All right, proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I don’t think the prosecution has any objection.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We have no objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Before I proceed, Your Honor, I wish also to publicly apologize to Ms. Crus, there was an unfortunate article that appeared in the Philippine Star, imputing some kind of relationship between myself and Ms. Cruz, and I want to make it of record that I am not in conformity with the publication, and I would like to give Ms. Cruz fair opportunity to deny …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that relationship?

ATTY. ROY.  There is some item, Your Honor, I apologize …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us forget about those things, anyway …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, I will proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We are adults, so …

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Ms. Cruz, yesterday, I asked you to bring documents preceding June 4, 2008.

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  Relating to the acceptance of Mrs. Corona.

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  I am sorry, to the inspection of the unit of Mrs. Corona.  Do you have them with you?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I have them with me.

ATTY. ROY.  Would you be so kind to us to show us the document?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Both counsels may proceed to scrutinize the document and agree that—agree if you can agree.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  Your Honor, the witness is showing us a document and the letterhead of the Community Innovations, which is the company that she works for, and it appears to be dated June 20th 2006.  I wish to inform the court as well as the prosecution that we do not have a copy of the original as well.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Show it the prosecution and if they have no question about its authenticity, so be it.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We cannot stipulate, Your Honor, because it is a photocopy and the signatory is not Ms. Cruz, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  At any rate, Ms. Cruz, can you please tell us where this document—where did you get this document from?

MS. CRUZ.  I got the document from the June 20, 2006 letter from our archives for all the copies of the notifications and acceptance for all the towers in Columns, Ayala Avenue.

ATTY. ROY.  Do you confirm, therefore, that this letter was an official letter from your company or your representative to Mrs. Corona?

MS. CRUZ.   Yes, I do confirm.

ATTY. ROY.  Do you confirm, therefore, that the records of your company contain this letter.

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I do confirm, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Do you confirm, therefore, that this the first letter inviting Mrs. Corona to inspect the unit?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I do confirm that this is the first letter that we sent out.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may we request that this be marked as defense’ Exhibit 220.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ROY.  And that the date June 20, 2006 be marked as defense Exhibit 220-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is another letter?

ATTY. ROY.  The same letter, Your Honor, just the date.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  June …

ATTY. ROY.  June 20, 2006.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What I have here is 4 June 2008.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  This document precisely precedes that exhibit and it was this letter now which was the basis for that letter that you are referring to, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are they identical in contents?

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They are linked.

ATTY. ROY.  They are linked, Your Honor.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You want to mark that as an exhibit?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, I just did, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What number is it?

ATTY. ROY.  Exhibit 220, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, mark it, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, can you please tell us, based on your communications with Mrs. Corona, if you what know what happened after she received that letter of June 20, 2006.

MS. CRUZ.  Based on our records, she was able to come to visit the site, the Columns Ayala Avenue, and then perform an inspection of the unit.

ATTY. ROY.  And can you tell us if there is any documentation, any record, regarding that inspection.

MS. CRUZ.  From the records we have found, there is a punch list.

ATTY. ROY.  Would you be so kind to explain to us what a punch list is.

MS. CRUZ.  A punch list is a recording of items found in the unit when an inspection is done.  It indicates things that need to be rectified, repaired or cleaned up inside the unit.

ATTY. ROY.  When you say things that need to be rectified, could this include defects, mistakes?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, that is possible.

ATTY. ROY.  Was there such a punch list relating to the inspection of Mrs. Corona?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, there is a punch list.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is the inspection in 2006?

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.  Do you have that punch list with you?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.  I have the form with me.

ATTY. ROY.  Would you be so kind as to present it.  May I invite counsel for the prosecution to look at the letter.  Your Honor, may we request that the punch list be marked as Exhibit 221 for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ROY.  And that the portion on the right hand section referring to leaks, repainting and removing wall stains and sealant be marked as 221-A, this whole sub-section.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why not just—-I am not trying to… but the document shows all the defects that were found.

ATTY. ROY.  Very well, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And there is no point in specifying them.  Anybody can read it.

ATTY. ROY.  It is quite detailed, Your Honor.  So, to bracket it would be easier to find.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Bracket them and mark them accordingly.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Now, after that, then you wrote the letter of June 4, 2008 which you testified to?

MS. CRUZ.  No,  We sent out another letter.

ATTY. ROY.  You sent out another letter.  Do you have that letter with you?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I have it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of that letter?

MS. CRUZ.  The date, Your Honor of this letter is October 17, 2006.  It is about the rectification the completion of the rectification.

ATTY. ROY.  May we know who sent this letter out?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That was October letter?

MS. CRUZ.  October 17, 2006.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    2006, the first letter in 2006 was, what date?

MS. CRUZ.  June 20, 2006, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    June 20 also, June. Okay.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may we know who wrote this letter, Ms. Cruz?

MS. CRUZ. It is me. I wrote the letter for—addressed to Cristina Corona.

ATTY. ROY.  For what purpose did you write the letter, Ms. Cruz?

MS. CRUZ.  It was to, sorry, to inform Mrs. Corona about the completion of the rectification of their unit.

ATTY. ROY. Alright. May we request that this letter dated October 17, 2006 be marked as defense’ Exh. 222.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ROY.  Did you receive a reply from Mrs. Corona following that letter?

MS. CRUZ.  In tacking on record, nothing that we can find regarding the response from Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. ROY. Do you recall having—that she replied to you in any way?

MS. CRUZ.  Not that I can recall.

ATTY. ROY.  And so, after that letter, am I correct in stating that the next communication was letter to her on June 4, 2008?

MS. CRUZ.  There was another letter in February 26, 2008.

ATTY. ROY. February 26, do you have that letter with you?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    January,  when?

MS. CRUZ.  February …

ATTY. ROY.  February 26.

MS. CRUZ.  … 26, 2008, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.    Your Honor, if I am not mistaken, this had been previously marked by the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    February 26?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Your Honor, February 26, 2008.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   2006?

MS. CRUZ.  2008.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    2008.

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  And may we know who wrote this letter, Ms. Cruz?

MS. CRUZ.  It was also written by me. It came from me.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, I have here the original of that letter. And may we request that the photocopy be marked as the exhibit for the defense and it be marked as Exh. 223.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ROY.  Previously marked by us.  (Talking to someone)  Alright.  Then, we withdraw the marking now.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You are withdrawing the marking.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, this letter because it has been previously marked as Exh. No. 48 according to the Secretariat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Then, state it into the record.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

This letter previously marked as Exh. 48 was written by whom?

MS. CRUZ.  By me, Your Honor. It was written by me.

ATTY. ROY.  After this, did you receive a reply from Mrs. Corona?

MS. CRUZ.  Not that I can recall of any reply, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  And the next communication was when between you and Mrs. Corona, if you recall?

MS. CRUZ.  It follows already the June 2008 letter.

ATTY. ROY.  To which we discussed and marked yesterday?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    In gist, what does that letter of Februay 19, 2008 says?

MS. CRUZ.  May I read, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Please, for the information of the court.

MS. CRUZ.  Okay. Yes.  Thank you, Your Honor.

It was about—“We have written as a notice from—based on the letter October 17, 2006 letter regarding the final re-inspection of your unit, we would like to inform you that the unit has been deemed delivered and accepted as of February 28, 2008 pursuant to Section 7 of the Contract to Sell.”  That was the main content of the letter, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Ms. Cruz.  Now, after your communication with Mrs. Corona in September 2008, I asked you yesterday if you conveyed to the homeowners’ association the information regarding the acceptance of Mrs. Corona. Did you convey this information in writing?

MS. CRUZ.  I have no record of the actual transmittal or any information given to the Condominium Corporation regarding the acceptance of the unit.

ATTY. ROY.  Do you confirm that this is the practice of your corporation to inform the homeowners’ association of the acceptance?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I do confirm that this is practice that the developer informs the Condominium Corporation of the accepted unit for that building.

ATTY. ROY.  What records do you have if any that there is such information conveyed or such information kept by you, your corporation, which is conveyed to the homeowners’ corporation?

MS. CRUZ. I just have a copy of the monitoring that we do internally.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Would you be so kind as to produce that for us?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

ATTY. BODEGON.  We are looking at an image, Your Honor.  Ms. Cruz, what is this image we are looking at?  Would you be so kind to explain?

MS. CRUZ.  It is an excel file, basically a tabulation of all the accepted units for all the towers in the Columns Ayala Avenue.

ATTY. BODEGON.  This file exists in the computer?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, it is.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Where you the one who extracted this file from the computer?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I was the one who extracted this file.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Where you the one who caused the printing of this image from the computer?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, for this specific file.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Where you the one who operated the computer?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I was the one who operated the computer.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And you where the one who accessed the file?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I was also the one who accessed the file.

ATTY. BODEGON.  All right, Your Honor, may we request that this be marked as defense exhibit no. 223.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you.  Now, Ms. Cruz, would you be so kind to show me—I asked you whether you had proof or you had information regarding the acceptance by Mrs. Corona, and whether that acceptance had been communicated to the condominium corporation.  Can you please show me from this image where I might find that information?

MS. CRUZ.  There is a tabulation here that indicates the dates of deemed the acceptance  and an acceptance dates.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Are you telling me that there are two entries?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

ATTY. BODEGON.  One is for…

MS. CRUZ.  For the deemed the acceptance.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And the other.

MS. CRUZ.  And for the acceptance date.

ATTY. BODEGON.  All right.  Would you be so kind as to read what the documents states on its face.

MS. CRUZ.  Okay.  For 31-B, Cristina Corona, for the acceptance date, it indicates August 12, 2009, the deemed the acceptance date is June 7, 2008.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And do you confirm that this information was relayed to the condominium corporation?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I do confirm.

ATTY. BODEGON.  All right.  Now, yesterday, Ms. Cruz–thank you.  Yesterday, Ms. Cruz, you informed me or you informed the court that there was a balance being collected from Mrs. Corona in the amount of P8,000 + pesos.  Am I correct?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I do recall that.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And can you please refresh our recollection what was that amount for?

MS. CRUZ.  The amount was for the real property tax in 2008.

ATTY. BODEGON.  All right.  And that demand was presented to Mrs. Corona.  Am I correct?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Can you please tell us if there is anything that appears in your records regarding the payment of that amount.

MS. CRUZ.  From the checking that has been done, there is no record of the payment from Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. BODEGON. In other words, she has not received the real estate tax declaration from you.

MS. CRUZ.  That, I am not sure,  if she was able to receive.

ATTY. BODEGON.  But the payment—what is the purpose of the amount?

MS. CRUZ.  It was a collection of their share on the real property tax for 2008.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And assuming that she would pay it, what would be your reaction or your response?

MS. CRUZ.  Based on the letters?

ATTY. BODEGON.  Based on your practice, if she paid that amount, what would you give to her in exchange?

MS. CRUZ.  The original tax declaration will be given to her.

ATTY. BODEGON.  So, as you testified, she has not paid for the amount, and therefore…

MS. CRUZ.  Probably, but I am not sure.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Therefore, according to your practice…

MS. CRUZ.  Therefore, according to our practice it may be still with the company, with the developer.

ATTY. BODEGON. That the tax declaration is still not with Mrs. Corona?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, it may be still with the developer.

ATTY. BODEGON.  That is all for this witness, Your Honor, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross-examination.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Consistent, Your Honor, with the prosecution’s position, Your Honor, that insofar as the columns property is concerned, the fact of actual delivery which the defense is trying to prove, Your Honor, is immaterial because as we have already put into evidence, deed of absolute sale has been executed, titles has been executed, and money or cash has already been paid for by the respondent and wife in 2003 and 2004.  So, we have no cross-examination on the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, the witness is….

ATTY. BODEGON.  Your Honor, before that, may I request—just to present the originals and that the photocopies that were submitted yesterday be confirmed and that the documents we presented be admitted under the best evidence rule.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You can show it to the prosecution and if they accept them as the original.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you, Your Honor. Request that the witness be discharged, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You do not need the witness anymore?  All right, the witness is discharged.

MS. CRUZ.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank  you.  Thank you, Mr. Cruz.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  While they are marking the continuation also of the cross-examination of another witness, Ms. Perlita Ele, is in order in the agenda.  She is the executive Clerk of Court, RTC, Quezon City.   There were documents to be submitted requested by the prosecution—notarial commission issued by Atty. Maynard Panela; monthly statements reports covering letters of all documents acknowledged by Atty. Panela including the year 2007.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ms. Ele was presented by the defense.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So she is going to be cross-examinationed by the prosecution.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.  She is already in the building, Your Honor.  She’s on her way to the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We will wait for her.  Trial is suspended for…

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before you suspend, we recognize Senator Escudero while we’re waiting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  While waiting for the witness, Mr. President, just a quick question on both sides just so that we know what we’re looking out for.  Justice Cuevas or any one from the defense panel.  Tama po ba na ang pagkakaintindi ko ang teyorya ninyo pag hindi pa nade-deliver, hindi pa lubusang pag-aari ni Chief Justice Corona at hindi kailangan ideklara sa SALN?  Iyon po ba ang teyoryang sinusunod ninyo?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That depends, Your Honor.  If what is involved is general delivery, then the law on delivery will apply.  But in cases of specific instances, then the very contract between the parties together with the exchange of communication will be very enlightening as to whether actual physical possession had already been delivered to the buyer, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So ang teyorya nga po ninyo, pinapatulan nyo yong iba’t-ibang  stages or klase ng delivery at kung hindi pa delivered, hindi pa kailangang ideklara o sa kabilang banda bagaman hindi rehistrado kapagka na-deliver na ay hindi na rin kailangan ideklara.  Yon po ba yong tamang pagkakaintindi?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No.  What is determinative  of whether a property should be entered into the SALN of the filer, Your Honor, is whether he already have the ownership and possession of the property.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ownership and possession.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  When you say ownership, it means reflected in official documents or government records?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  For example, Justice Cuevas, in this case, your position is it was not yet accepted and, therefore, no fully delivered and, therefore, need not be declared.  And also the name of the real property tax declaration is still in the name of the developer.  Would that be correct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is what our evidence show, Your Honor, because there was no actual physical delivery which allows the buyer to take possession of the property and exercise acts of ownership not until and unless the property had been delivered to her and the non-delivery, Your Honor, if caused by factors which is also admitted by the seller, then that exempts the buyer from making an entry with respect thereto in his SALN, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.    But on the reverse, Justice Cuevas, insofar as the Marikina property is concerned, if I’m not mistaken,  there was delivery but ownership was not yet fully vested in fact up to today in the person of Mr. Vicente.  Because I was thinking that your theory was delivery would consummate it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no parity of issues, Your Honor.  In the case of the Marikina properties, what we proved by our evidence is there was a sale.  Now,  whether there was a torrens certificate of title issued in favour of the buyer is immaterial as between the parties, Your Honor, because it is never a condition precedent to the validity of the sale that certificate of title had been issued in favour of  the buyer, more so if the buyer is not interested in the issuance thereof, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President, I will not engage in argument with Justice Cuevas or counsel for defense only that it is my wish that the legal theories and positions of the two sides, although of course they should sooth their respective clients and clientele I hope would be consistent insofar as all the items in the SALN is concerned so that we can catch the thread of the arguments.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of …

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Please, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no parity of facts between this Vicente case, Your Honor.  In this case, the Vicente case deals with an existing property.

In this particular instance, Your Honor, the contract to sell covers a property that is still have to be constructed, Your Honor.  It was not in existence.  So practically, it was a sale of a right, Your Honor.

Now, when the building was constructed, it was only in 2006, Your Honor.  So, it is our humble submission that notwithstanding the payment of the price for the property purchased way back earlier in 2006, there could be no transfer of possession, Your Honor, because no property actually exists.

In the Vicente case, Your Honor, the property was existing, and there is no necessity for the registration, thereof, by the buyer, if he doesn’t care to be issued a Torrens Certificate of Title.  The Torrens Certificate of Title, Your Honor, binds the property against the entire world.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But if I may interject, with the permission of the Gentleman from Sorsogon, the theory of the defense, there was no asset to be reported.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m sorry, Your Honor, I didn’t get the—With your pardon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, the theory of the defense is there is no rest or thing to be delivered and accepted.  There was no asset to be reported.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have not gone that far, Your Honor.  We were merely trying to solve the issue of whether he is already the owner, so much so that he is under obligation to report it in his SALN.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  I submit, Mr. President.  Thank you, Justice Cuevas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you through with the marking?  Where is the next witness, Miss Ele?  Is Miss Ele already inside?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  She was with us a little earlier in the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the witness in the building already?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  Very much.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial suspended for one minute.

It was 2:47 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 2:47 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  (Gavel)

MISS. ELE.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Defense counsel, under the same oath, witness will testify.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  With the permission of the honourable Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Miss witness, you were asked yesterday to bring certain documents for today’s hearing.  Did you bring these documents?

MISS ELE.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Will you produce it, please.

MISS ELE.  Yes, Sir, I will.

This is the appointment of notary public.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request the witness to identify, for the record, the documents that she is showing to the prosecution.

MISS ELE.  Yes, Sir.  I was asked to bring with me the appointment of the notary public, Maynard P. Panela.  I’m handing it over to the prosecution.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  May we please be given two or five minutes to inspect the documents before we proceed with our cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many minutes?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Five minutes, Your Honor.

SUSPENSION OF HEARING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Trial suspended for five minutes.  (Gavel)

It was 2:49 p.m.

At 2: 21 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.  Under the same oath, the prosecution may now cross examine the witness, Ms. Cruz.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I may.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, what is the pleasure of the gentleman from the defense?

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Mr. President, may please the court—we ended yesterday with a request to bring back Ms. Cruz because there were certain documents that she had not produced.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you want to have additional …

ATTY. ROY.  I would like to complete my direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … direct question.

ATTY. ROY.  A continuation of the direct, actually, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  All right, proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I don’t think the prosecution has any objection.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We have no objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Before I proceed, Your Honor, I wish also to publicly apologize to Ms. Crus, there was an unfortunate article that appeared in the Philippine Star, imputing some kind of relationship between myself and Ms. Cruz, and I want to make it of record that I am not in conformity with the publication, and I would like to give Ms. Cruz fair opportunity to deny …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that relationship?

ATTY. ROY.  There is some item, Your Honor, I apologize …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us forget about those things, anyway …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, I will proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We are adults, so …

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Ms. Cruz, yesterday, I asked you to bring documents preceding June 4, 2008.

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  Relating to the acceptance of Mrs. Corona.

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  I am sorry, to the inspection of the unit of Mrs. Corona.  Do you have them with you?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I have them with me.

ATTY. ROY.  Would you be so kind to us to show us the document?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Both counsels may proceed to scrutinize the document and agree that—agree if you can agree.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  Your Honor, the witness is showing us a document and the letterhead of the Community Innovations, which is the company that she works for, and it appears to be dated June 20th 2006.  I wish to inform the court as well as the prosecution that we do not have a copy of the original as well.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Show it the prosecution and if they have no question about its authenticity, so be it.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We cannot stipulate, Your Honor, because it is a photocopy and the signatory is not Ms. Cruz, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  At any rate, Ms. Cruz, can you please tell us where this document—where did you get this document from?

MS. CRUZ.  I got the document from the June 20, 2006

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you ready?

ATTY. MANALO.  We are waiting for the prosecution, Your Honor.

At 2:55 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we just ask from the prosecution if they have already returned the original folders to the witness?  They are in possession of the folders.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  May we put it on record that all the folders are returned to the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you now ready to cross-examine?

ATTY. MANALO.  Atty. Ele, are your files already complete?

MS. ELE.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Your Honor, we have gone through all of the documents that we have requested, we have inspected them and we have no cross-examination questions.  We will only mark the two documents that were presented yesterday, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you saw the commission of Atty. Meynard Panela as well as the monthly statements, reports covering letters of all documents acknowledged by Atty. Panela?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Including the year 2007.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, what is your pleasure with respect to this witness?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  We would like, Your Honor, that Exhibits 215 and 216 that were identified and brought by the witness yesterday be adopted as prosecution evidence and that we will be marking them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  May we request that Exhibit 215 be marked as Exhibit .11-E, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY,. CUSTODIO.  And Exhibit 216 be marked as our Exhibit 11-F, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  May we have sub-markings, Your Honor of 11-E, insofar as the date is concerned to be our 11-E-1.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  And the page 2, the second page of Exhibit 11-F be marked be marked as Exhibit 11-G, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  And in 11-G, Your Honor, we respectfully request a sub-marking of 11-G-1, pertaining to the date, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  Are you through with the witness?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, by way of re-direct examination, we just want also to mark in evidence …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But what is there to re-direct when there is no cross-examination.

ATTY. MANALO.  There was a cross-examination yesterday.  This is just a continuation, Your Honor, of the cross-examination.  And during the cross-examination yesterday, the witness was required to bring with her the copy of the commission of the notary public as well as the notarial register for the month included, Your Honor, where the declaration of trust and the special power of attorney were registered.  And by way of re-direct, Your Honor, we would just want to mark in evidence the documents …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just mark them.  You have no re-direct questions.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are just adopting those documents as your exhibits.  So, go ahead, mark them.

ATTY. MANALO.  We request, Your Honor, that the certification identified during the cross-examination by the witness certifying that Atty. Meynard P. Panela was commissioned a notary public for and in Quezon City for the term of April 6, 2006 up to December 31, 2007 be marked as our Exhibit 224.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  We also request that the certificate of notarial commission  issued by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in favour of Atty. Meynard P. Panela, dated April 7, 2006, be marked as our Exhibit 225.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  That will be all, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In effect, you have come into stipulation of fact. It would have been simpler if you just—both of you manifested, anyway, you are through with the witness?

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The witness is discharged.

MS. CRUZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Next witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you.  Mr. President, the next witness is again a continuation of the examination yesterday Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz III, Administrator of the Land Registration Authority. Both defense and the prosecution agreed yesterday that they will sort out the properties really owned by the Chief Justice. Again, I hope we can call on the witness now, Mr. President, because Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago has questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Have the two panels agreed on the number of assets that are in the form of real properties owned by the respondent Chief Justice?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

ATTY. LAZARO.  The Honorable Presiding Officer and the Honorable Members of the Impeachment Court. We have—I have met with the opposing counsel this morning and we have sorted out the list, the titles as contained in the list submitted by the LRA Administrator, Your Honor.  And we came up with stipulation, Your Honor, as to certain titles that are either cancelled or titles not under the name of Renato C. Corona or names of Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona but are also not cancelled, Your Honor, and we are ready, Your Honor,—I am ready to state for the record these titles.

 

 

 

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Did you have—did you enter into stipulation of facts.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We have entered into stipulation, Your Honor, as to the entries in the titles listed in the LRA letter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct. The court is just clarifying. You entered into stipulation of fact regarding titles.

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    In writing?

ATTY. LAZARO.  No, Your Honor.  We …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why don’t you reduce it in writing and submit it to the court formally? Can you not do that that for simplification?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Will it be a joint manifestation, Your Honor, or we have to comment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You can manifest it if you want.  You come an agreement.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We are ready to manifest that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alright. Manifest it.

ATTY. LAZARO.  It might take a little longer, Your Honor, and  I would beg the indulgence of the Honorable Court, TO permit me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes. You now make a manifestation and let’s hear the prosecution.

ATTY. LAZARO. I’l do so, Your Honor.  Thank you very much.

Of the 45 titles, Your Honor, contained in the list submitted by the LRA Administrator, Your Honor, in response to the request by Congressman Tupas, there are 17, 1-7, cancelled titles, Your Honor. And I am reading, Your Honor, and I would like to invite your attention to this January 10, 2012 communication by Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz, Administrator of the Land Registration Authority TO Congressman Niel C. Tupas Jr. In these numbered titles, Your Honor, the following are cancelled:  …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    And those are no longer material evidence in this proceeding?

ATTY  . LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Well, Your Honor, may I except, Your Honor, one of the properties the Ayala Heights Property which was sold only in 2010 insofar as the prosecution is concerned. That is still material for the years 2002 to 2009, Your Honor, and that is our Exh. GGG, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor please, insofar as this will prove our earlier stated purpose, Your Honor, that in fact, cancelled titles were included in the list to show or to make it appear that the Chief Justice still owns a number of properties that would be—this list, Your Honor, will still be material  to us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, you are stating that 17 titles ought to be subtracted from the 45 alleged titles,  the property represented thereby owned by the respondent Chief Justice.

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is a precise observation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Is that correct  from the prosecution side?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  That will be correct only for the year 2010, Your Honor, because as we have said, up to year 2009, the Ayala Heights  property, Your Honor, was still in the name of Chief Justice Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Only to that extent.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Only to that extent, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  These are the 17 cancelled titles, Your Honor.  I will mention the number first as appearing in the list, this is number 10 in the list, which is marked as exhibit 199 for the defense, the title no. is TCT No. N-85804, registered owners are Ma. Cristina R. Corona and Renato C. Corona, and this is the Marikina property, Your Honor.  This is actually the mother title of the sub-divided seven parcels of land testified on by the defense witness, Demetrio Vicente, Your Honor.  And during the testimony, witness claimed having already bought these parcels of land.

Next is number 16 in the list of the LRA Administrator, this is title TCT No. 19497 but in the list, Your Honor, it appears there that it is registered under the name of spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.  As an additional stipulation, Your Honor, the prosecution agrees that the list was wrong, because in the list, it appears there that the owners of this title are spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona, but, if we look at the title itself, it was registered under the name of Megaworld Corporation, Your Honor, because this is an originating title.

Next, Your Honor, is number 17 in the list, which is TCT No. 19651.  In the list, the registered names are spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.  This is again wrong, Your Honor, because looking at the tile, it will show that the registered owner was Megaworld Corporation.  There is also a stipulation to that effect, and the prosecution agreed with that observation.

Next, Your Honor, is number 18 in the list, which is TCT No. 19652, registered again in the list under spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.  This is again wrong because the title itself shows that it was registered under the name of Megaworld Corporation.  There was stipulation also in this regard.

Next is number 19 in the list, which is TCT No. 19653.  In the list it appears there that this title is registered under spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.   This is again wrong, Your Honor, because the title itself shows that it was registered under the name of Megaworld Corporation.

Next is number 20 in the list, Your Honor, which is TCT No. 8777.  In the list it says there that the title is registered under spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.   This is again wrong, Your Honor, because the title itself shows that it is registered under the name of Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation.

Next cancelled title, Your Honor, is number 21 in the list, which is TCT No. 989, this actually should be TCT No. 989-P/T-05-P, cancelled as originating title to number 22 which  is the McKinley property, Your Honor.

Next is number 24 in the list, marked as Exhibit 201 for the defense, this is TCT No. RT-7772516799 registered under Vicente Roco, Jr. married to Asuncion Basa.

Next cancelled title, Your Honor, is No. 25 in the list marked as Exhibit GGG for the prosecution.  This is TCT No. 85121 registered under the names of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona.  This is the Ayala Heights property, Your Honor, sold to the Rivera spouses.

Next cancelled title, Your Honor, is No. 28 in the list marked as Exhibit UU and  TCT No. N-254901 registered under the names of Cristina R. Corona and Renato Corona.  This is the La Vista property sold to Ma. Carla C. Castillo married to Constantino T. Castillo.

Next cancelled title, Your Honor, is No. 30 in the list marked as Exhibit 203 for the defense.  This is TCT No. N-154400 registered under the names of spouses Angelina T. Castillo and Constantino A. Castillo.

Next cancelled title, Your Honor, is No. 33 in the list marked as Exhibit 206 for the defense.  This is TCT No. RT-106747226256 registered under the name of National Housing Authority.

Another cancelled title, Your Honor, is No. 35 in the list premarked as Exhibit 207 for the defense.  This is CCT No. N-11168 under the name Burgundy Realty Corporation.  This is the originating title to the Burgundy property referred to in No. 34 of the list, Your Honor.

Another cancelled title is No. 38 in the list, Your Honor, marked as Exhibit YY for the prosecution.  This is TCT No. 125683 with registered owners Mirla Nelad Bajar and Generoso Bajar.

Another cancelled title appearing in the list is No. 40, Your Honor, marked as Exhibit CCC for the prosecution.  This is TCT No. RT-20758 registered under the name of Daniel Encina married to Domiciana Artrero.

Another cancelled title, Your Honor, is No. 42 in the list of the letter of the LRA administrator.  This was premarked as Exhibit 209 for the defense.  This is TCT No. RT-3190163659 registered under the name of Eugenia Coronado married to Juan M. Corona.

And lastly, Your Honor, the 17th cancelled title is No. 44 in the list, Your Honor, premarked as Exhibit 211 for the defense.  This is TCT No. 84241 registered under the names of Ismael A. Mathay Jr. et al.

So these are all the cancelled titles, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So as far as the defense is concerned, you are saying to the court that those 17 titles do not cover property na real estate property belonging to the Corona couple, the Chief Justice and his wife.  Is that it?

ATTY. LAZARO.  That’s the exact admission made in the stipulation this morning, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the position of the prosecution?

ATTY. GINEZ.  As we have said awhile ago, Your Honor, subject to the qualification that that—the title of the Ayala Heights property, although cancelled only in 2010, Your Honor.  So that, insofar as the prosecution is concerned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, that is your only reservation?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is still material for the years 2002 to 2009, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Subject to that reservation, we finish with the stipulation of fact …

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … as manifested by the defense counsel into the record.  So what is your pleasure?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please, there is another set of stipulation that we are able to make this morning, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just finish the first stipulation.

ATTY. LAZARO.  All right, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that correct?

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is perfectly correct, Your Honor, as far as the defense is concerned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Subject to the reservation.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Subject to reservation, Your Honor, which we will dwell at the proper time, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  What is the other stipulation?

ATTY. LAZARO.  The other point of stipulation, Your Honor, will be …

ATTY. GINEZ.  May we just request, Your Honor, sorry, if we could just make a written manifestation insofar as this …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us hear first the defense.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  The other set of stipulation, Your Honor, dwells on another set of titles appearing in the list, Your Honor.  This will …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Before you start that, what is your pleasure?

ATTY. GINEZ.  We request, Your Honor, that, to expedite the proceeding that it be done in a joint manifestation, Your Honor, insofar as this …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why don’t you file a joint, written manifestation signed by both of you?

ATTY. LAZARO.  That stipulation, Your Honor, will not take long, Your Honor.  It will only cover 12 titles, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Now, proceed.  (Gavel)  Second batch.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

We had a stipulation this morning where the prosecution agreed, Your Honor, that from the list of 45 titles and excluding the 17 cancelled titles, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There’s 28 left.  Twenty-eight.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Of the 28 titles left, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LAZARO.  … there are 12 titles not under the name of Renato Corona or under the names of Renato Corona and Christina Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that is accepted by the—this morning?

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is accepted during this morning’s stipulation, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  No, Your Honor, not entirely correct, Your Honor, because of these 12 titles that are still existing or still effective, Your Honor, it includes four titles in the names, Your Honor, of the children of the Chief Justice and wife of which the prosecution claims, Your Honor, that these belongs to the respondent and wife, Your Honor.  So out of these 12 titles, only 8 are we are willing to stipulate that they are not in the names of Renato Corona or Christina Corona or their children, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please, let me just be accurate, Your Honor.  This morning, the stipulation was that we looked at these titles as reflected or contained in the list, Your Honor.  And the titles themselves, Your Honor, show who are the registered owners, Your Honor.  The stipulation …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But they agree with you.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, there was an agreement, Your Honor.  I think the reservation was that, four of these titles are still subject to their dispute, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LAZARO.  But …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We talk about 12.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Twelve, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You state the 12 in the record and subject a counter-manifestation by the prosecution.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

These are the 12 titles not under the name of Renato Corona, but still not cancelled, Your Honor.  No. 1, —I’ll go by the listing, Your Honor, contained in lRA Administrator’s letter.  No. 2 in the list, Your Honor, pre-marked as Exhibit 198 for the defense, this is TCT No. 58643, registered under the names spouses Constantino L. Castillo and Rosenda A. Castillo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s already marked for the defense?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LAZARO.  No. 22 in the list, pre-marked as Exhibit GG for the prosecution, this is TCT No. 2093-P, Your Honor.  In the list, Your Honor, the name appearing as registered owner is Ma. Cristina R. Corona, Your Honor.  But looking at the title, the name indicated as the one who is the registered owner is actually that of Ma. Charina Corona.

I got a stipulation this morning, Your Honor, and may I just get a confirmation from the good counsel as well, Your Honor, if they are confirming that.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We confirm that, Your Honor, and that has been marked as our Exhibit GG, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you confirm that that is excluded from the assets allegedly owned by the Chief Justice and his wife.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Next, Your Honor, is number 23 in the list, pre-marked as Exhibit 200 for the defense.  This is TCT no. 004-20100000410, registered under the names Cristina R. Corona, et al.

Next, on the list, Your Honor, is number 26, pre-marked as Exhibit 186 for the defense, which is TCT no. 004-2010001387, registered under the names of spouses Rodel Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera.

Next title, not under the name of the Chief Justice, Your Honor, is no. 27 in the list, pre-marked as Exhibit 202 for the defense, this is TCT no. 004-2010007780, registered under the name of Erlinda S. Castillo.

Next on the list is, number 29, pre-marked as Exhibit XX for the prosecution.  This is TCT no. 004-2010010259, registered under the name of Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castllo III.

Next title not under the name of Chief Justice, Your Honor, is number 31 in the list, pre-marked as Exhibit 204 for the defense.  This is TCT no. N-239406, registered under the names of Constantino del Castillo, et al.

Next, Your Honor, is number 32 in the list, pre-marked as Exhibit 205 for the defense.  This is TCT no. N-239398, registered under the name of Constantino del Castillo.

Next, Your Honor, is number 36 in the list.  This is pre-marked as Exhibit 208 for the defense.  This is TCT no. RT-6266182917, registered under the name of Constantino L. Castillo, married to Felisa A. Castillo.

Next is, number 37 in the list, Your Honor, marked as Exhibit BBB for the prosecution.  This is TCT no. N-327732, registered under the name of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo.

Next is, number 39 in the list, marked as Exhibit FFF for the prosecution.  This is TCT N-260027, registered under the name of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Carla R. Corona.

Lastly, Your Honor, number 43 of the list, pre-marked as Exhibit 210 for the defense.  This is TCT no. 84242, registered under the name or names of spouses Constantino Castillo Jr. and Angelina T. Castillo.

These are all the 12 titles, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, as far as the defense is concerned, you are excluding 29 titles in that list issued by the Land Registration Authority.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Exactly, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the position of the prosecution with respect to these 12 titles?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Insofar as the 12 titles, Your Honor, defense admitted, Your Honor, that it includes four properties that the prosecution is claiming to be owned by the Chief Justice.  And I will enumerate them as well, Your Honor.  And these are: Number 22 in the list, Your Honor, TCT No. 2093-P, the McKinley Hill lot marked as Exhibit GG in the name of Maria Czarina R. Corona acquired in the amount of P9,159,940.00, Your Honor.  The second property, Your Honor, is item no. 29, title No. TCT No. 004-2010010259 in the name of Maria Carla Castillo marked as Exhibit XX and this is the La Vista property acquired by Maria Carla Castillo for P18 million from Mrs. Cristina Corona, Your Honor.  The third property claimed by the prosecution to be owned by the Chief Justice, Your Honor, is Number 37 in the list, and this is the TCT No. N-327732, the Cubao property which is in the name of Constantino Castillo III which he acquired, Your Honor, P15 million.  Constantino Castillo III is the husband of Maria Carla Castillo, Your Honor.  And Number 4, lastly, Your Honor, is Number 39 in the list, TCT No. N-260027, the Kalayaan property, Your Honor, registered in the name of Constantino Castillo III married to Maria Carla Castillo acquired in the amount of P10, 500,000.00  marked as Exhibit FFF of the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, of the first 17, you made a reservation on one title, correct?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  On the second batch of 12 titles, you made reservation on four titles.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And those are stated in the record.  Now, for purposes of clarity and accuracy, the court now instructs you to submit your respective memorandum on this issue, and justify your position, the position of the defense for the defense and the position of the prosecution for the prosecution with respect to the five titles over which you made a reservation okay?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, just a word for the record to correct the earlier statement that the price or consideration for the McKinley property, Your Honor …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The statement of whom?

ATTY. LAZARO.  The statement of the opposing counsel, Your Honor, that the price for the acquisition of this McKinley property, Your Honor, is P9 million.  This is contrary, Your Honor, to the existing record which is a deed of sale …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Treat that in your written memorandum.

ATTY. LAZARO.  All right, Your Honor.  But just to make this of record, Your Honor, instead of P 9 million, Your Honor, the price actually is P6,196,500.00, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there a deed of sale?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, please, Your Honor, and I am reading from the deed of sale, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the deed of sale proves that value of P6 million.

ATTY. LAZARO.  This is the value reflected in the deed of sale, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Well, treat that in your memorandum.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We will do so as advised, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  It is not, Your Honor.  It is P9 million.  Exhibit EE-15, Your Honor.  We will prove that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, this is a factual issue which you will have to treat in your respective memorandum.  Okay,.  All right.  Next witness.  I want to clarify, out of the 45 real estate assets, listed in the listing of the Land Registration Authority, originally submitted by that Authority to the prosecution for purposes of asking a subpoena duces tecum from this court, 16 remains as recognized real estate asset of the Corona family, am I correct?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Well, for the prosecution, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Twenty-nine minus—45 minus 29, 16, subject to the reservation of the prosecution as to five.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor  please, just to make the record straight, Your Honor please.   Based on the transfer certificate of title alone appearing in the list of the LRA—of the list submitted by the LRA Administrator,  there are 45 titles there, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We exclude the 17 cancelled titles that give us only 28 titles, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

ATTY. LAZARO.  And now, we also excluded 12 from the 28, Your Honor. That gives us 16, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That is your position.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, I am just stating, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But the prosecution has reservation.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Subject to the reservation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … reservation with respect to five titles.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We recognized that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Okay. So, I want you to put this down in writing in your respective memorandum and justify your position. Okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If it will not be asking too much, Your Honor, may I propose that this matter be the subject of evidence because this involved question of facts and merely of law, Your Honor, because while it is true that the property is registered not in the name of Chief Justice, Your Honor, but in another’s name, there is a claim by the prosecution that this belongs to Justice Corona and Mrs. Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That is only with respect to…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are four …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The 12 ..

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are four …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    And then one in the 17.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, there are four in the excluded list and another one, Your Honor, and I do not think that the Memorandum will solve the validity of the claim of each of the contending parties here.  So, if it will not be asking too much, may we humbly request, Your Honor, that evidence be required for purposes of enlightening the court as to the claim of both parties, Your Honor.  It is not merely …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   With respect to the four.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The five, the five.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.  Any …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because if I understood it correctly, I hope, with the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court, if I understood correctly, Your Honor, there is an admission on the part of the prosecution that these questioned titles, Your Honor, do not carry the name of Chief Justice Corona and Mrs. Corona as registered owners, but …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    They argue that even if these titles are not in the name of the respondent Chief Justice and his wife, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … still these properties are supposed to be his.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, there is where the issue of fact comes in.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.    So, are you saying that that is subject of proof?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE  PRESIDING JUSTICE. Alright. So ordered.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We agree, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  So, we are talking—we are talking here of twenty …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … one.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  Twenty-one, 21, isn’t it?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, may we call on the witness now.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino iyon?

SEN. SOTTO. Atty. Diaz.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We would like to manifest, Your Honor, that this is our turn to cross-examine and there is no cross-examination for the prosecution, Your Honor, insofar as the Administrator is concerned.

THEPRESIDING JUSTICE.   Is there a redicrect from the defense?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Since there is no cross, Your Honor, may I be allowed to say  …

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … that does not require, but may we be allowed to ask a couple of additional direct. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE. Granted. Bring the witness in?

SEN. SOTTO. Yes, Mr. President, and also there are a numbers of the court, Senator-Judges who wish to ask on the witness—to the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Where is the witness?

Session is suspended for one minute.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

It was 3:35 p.m.

At 3:36 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  Proceed.  Defense, you may now ask your questions.  Additional re-direct.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Additional direct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Additional direct.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Good afternoon, Atty. Diaz.

MR. DIAZ.  Good afternoon, Sir, good afternoon, Your Honors.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  In today’s proceedings, it was determined that 15 titles, it was TCT titles involving your certification, thus, cover properties that do not belong to the Chief Justice.  Am I right in understanding that?

MR. DIAZ.  What titles are those, Your Honor?

ATTY. CUEVAS.  They are namely:  TCT No. 19497, TCT No. 19651, TCT No. 19652, TCT No. 19653, and TCT No. 877.

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor, these titles will reflect the registered owner, Your Honor. so, I guess—I cannot recall it here, Your Honor, the best evidence probably, Your Honor, would be the title itself.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  I know, I know that and thank you for that information.  My question to you is, they do not carry the name Renato Corona and Mrs. Corona as the registered owners, kindly examine the documents in your possession before answering the question.  Mine is only clarificatory.

MR. DIAZ.  I understand that, Your Honor.

Your Honor, please, it is true that it might not be under their names but the transmittal letter that undersigned sent to that address, Your Honor, covers other names,  that is why there is a mention of Renato Corona, et al., Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  In the very titles?

MR. DIAZ.  In the transmittal letter, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Not in the title.

MR. DIAZ.  Not in the title, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  I see.  So, it is accurate for us to assume that these properties are not really registered in the name of Chief Justice Corona.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor, if the title says otherwise, Your Honor.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Yes, all right.  Now, likewise, there are other titles in here more particularly TCT No. RT-77725, TCT No. 85121, TCT No. N-254901, TCT No. 15400, TCT No. RT-106747, TCT No. N-11168, TCT No. 125683, TCT No. RT20758, TCT No. RT3190 and TCT No. 84241.  Examining the titles mentioned, we found out that the registered owner do not appear to be Chief Justice Corona and Mrs. Corona.  Is that right?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Your Honor, I hate to interrupt but these are actually the subject of the stipulations, Your Honor.  We were instructed precisely that these questions will not be propounded anymore by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will allow the question to get an explanation from the witness.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Okay, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The tendency of the question is to ask him why these were included in his list.

ATTY. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You may answer.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  While the title itself, Your Honor, does not show that the registered owners are the Corona’s et al, if you would trace, Your Honor, the cancelled documents for which these new titles are issued will have a bearing on the name search Corona et al, Your Honor.  So, for instance, Your Honor, you mentioned No. 24 that…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  154400.  Let’s have one example.  TCT No. N-154400 and the registered owners appeared to be spouses Angelina T. Castillo and Constantino A. Castillo.

MR. DIAZ.  This one, Your Honor, is from the search named Constantino Castillo, Your Honor.  It’s a name search, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  While it is true that there was an agreement that these titles do not appear to carry the name Justice Corona and Mrs. Corona, yet they were imputedly properties of Chief Justice Corona and his wife.  Is that the implication of your certification?

MR. DIAZ.  First of all, Your Honor, I did not issue a certification, Your Honor.  What we provided the prosecution team are certified copies and the letter transmittal that I used, Your Honor, for the prosecution mentions, can I read into the record, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Go ahead, please.

MR. DIAZ.  “Pursuant to your official request for information relative to the real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona et al.”, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So it is very clear that the request deals with the registered properties of Chief Justice Corona.

MR. DIAZ.  For information relative to the real estate properties.

JUSTICE. CUEVAS.  And you replied to this communication.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  This is the official transmittal, Your Honor, of the documents that I mentioned earlier.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.  And kindly tell the honourable court where did you get the facts stated in that transmittal that you made.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We object, Your Honor.  This has been asked and answered during the direct examination yesterday, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is the question and what is the answer?  Would you be kind enough to tell us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MR. DIAZ.  It’s a simple transmittal, Your Honor.  To the best of my knowledge, it covers all the information that the prosecution might need for them to study these titles, Your Honor.  It’s a research material, Your Honor, actually.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So it is not an affirmation or a confirmation that the titles, that the properties covered by the title in the name of other persons really belong to Mr. and Mrs. Corona.

MR. DIAZ.  Definitely, Your Honor.  These are materials for their study, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So it is the prosecution, did I understand you correctly that it is the prosecution’s job to study these matters that you extended to them?  Is that what I gathered from you?

MR. DIAZ.  I think, Your Honor, that I will not be in the best position to read their intentions, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No.

MR. DIAZ.    But the intention here is that, whatever printout that the computer will show I did not go over them one-by-one, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But we were made to believe that the inquiry is in connection with the impeachment case, Your Honor.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And you knew that it’s rather difficult and rather embarrassing if you made entries in any of your communication to them which is not true and correct.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  These are certified copies, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, I beg your indulgence.  Are you treating this witness as a hostile witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, I was about to  Your Honor, in connection only with this aspect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, you have to qualify him as a hostile witness so that the questions will be properly authorized.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right then.  I will just withdraw that—the question relative to that fact, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, kindly tell us whether you have a hand in the examination of the title covering the Burgundy property.

MR. DIAZ.  May I seek clarification of the term used, Your Honor.  You have a hand?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Participated or what is your participation?

MR. DIAZ.  I collated the certified copies that was forward to my office, Your Honor, and I formally transmitted this through a letter to the prosecution, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Forwarded to you by the Register of Deeds?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the particular place or property situated?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No more, no less?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  On the basis, thereof, it was made to appear that this property is owned by Burgundy Realty Corporation, per your communications sent to the inquirer—to the party inquiring?

MR. DIAZ.  What title, Your Honor?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  CCT No. N11168.  It’s only an example.

MR. DIAZ.  I just merely transmitted these documents, Your Honor, as they are, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  As they were reported to you by the …

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … corresponding Register of Deeds where the property subject matter of inquiry is located.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, you therefore cannot—That will be all, Your Honor.  That will be all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No more questions?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No more question?

SEN. SOTTO.  There are, Mr. President, from Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I’m asking the defense counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  I’m through with the witness and my additional direct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  No cross?

ATTY. GINEZ.  No cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  The Lady from—Who among the Judges—The Gentle Lady from Iloilo.  (Gavel)

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Thank you.

Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz III.  You’re a graduate of the Ateneo Law School and a registered lawyer.  Why am I not impressed?  What I mean is, by your testimony yesterday afternoon.

Let me see.  I’m going to ask you certain questions to test your credibility.  You were classmates with the President in grade school, is that correct?

MR. DIAZ.  Not in all the year, Your Honor.  Because we have several questions, Your Honor, but we are batchmates, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  In grade school?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  All right.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Then, you volunteered to work in his legal team when he ran for president, is that correct?

MR. DIAZ.  As a volunteer in the campaign, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  You’re a volunteer.  And then when he won, you served in his Senate staff.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  You’ve served here, actually, in the premises of this Philippine Senate.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  You were Director V on July 2, 2007 in the office of the then Senator, who is now the President.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, you were.  And then when he ran for President, you volunteered again for his legal team, is that so?

MR. DIAZ.  In campaign team, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, you did.  And in August 2010, you were appointed to the present position.

MR. DIAZ.  Present posi—Now, Your Honor?

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes.  When were you appointed to your present position?

MR. DIAZ.  August 4, 2010, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  August 2010.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  It is now almost a year from your appointment.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Who was the appointing authority?

MR. DIAZ.  The President, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I didn’t hear you correctly.  Who was your appointing authority?

MR. DIAZ.  The President, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  The President.  And you knew already when you issued that certification that he is the President of the Philippines whom you have served and support for many years who wants the Chief Justice to be impeached.  Answer yes or no.

MR. DIAZ.  It didn’t appear that way to me, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Ah, really?  What appeared to you then?

MR. DIAZ.  That there was a party, the prosecution team, who wanted some …

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I know.  But didn’t you ask since you are a lawyer and a registered one at that?  You’ve signed the roll of attorneys.  Didn’t you ask what they wanted it for?  You mean you were completely innocent of what the purpose was while asking for this list?

MR. DIAZ.  It appeared to me that they needed some materials for research, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Research.  Research for what?  Did you ask?

MR. DIAZ.  For information relative to the properties of the Chief Justice …

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, but didn’t you ask?

He couldn’t eve write you a formal letter which would normally be the venue for a remedy sought by a Senator or a Congressman.  He called you on the telephone.

ATTY. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  He called you on the telephone and on that basis, you printed out all the names of people named Renato Corona, including his wife Cristina and their children and in-laws, but in addition to that, the names of people whom they do not even know.  Because according to you, you are under the impression that they were asking for a trace back system, meaning to say, that for every title that they mentioned, the computer would show you how the original title was issued unto whom.  Is that a fair statement?

ATTY. DIAZ.  Yes, it is, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, it is, then, you submitted the list and you said, here is the list of titles that you requested from me, you did not even bother, according to your testimony to go over each name carefully, because you are a former Aquino employee or official and you knew already that President Aquino’s instruction to the House prosecution panel was to impeach the Chief Justice, yet you remained innocent of all these political developments.  You just sent a list that you knew would going to incriminate the Chief Justice, without going over its name carefully, which is what you should have done being an Ateneo Law graduate.

There were names there that are not related to the name Corona, yet you included them, under the argument that you are observing a trace back system.  That is what you are doing.  If you do not deny it, I will assume that you agree with what I am saying.

You have been in office since August 2011.  It is now almost a year from August 2011.  Couldn’t you have device, Atty. Diaz III, couldn’t you have device a computer system to filter information from your computer database?  You are using high terms—high tech terms like data warehousing, meaning to say, your data just sits there, that is the meaning of data warehousing.  Why couldn’t you have organized your data so that when you print out or when you type a name into your computer, it will print the real status of the title, so that if the title has been cancelled, it will immediately, by one character alone, signify whether a title has been cancelled or not, why didn’t you do that?

I have asked a computer expert, how long will it take to install an information filter system in the computer?  And she answered, it depends on the amount of data you are working on.  Even if it is national—on a national basis, if there are no conflicts among the inputs, then, you can do that in one day.  But otherwise, if there are issues, you have to do it within three to five days.

Why didn’t you do that, Atty. Diaz, for the one whole year that you have been administrator of the Land Registration Authority?

ATTY. DIAZ.  Your Honor, we do not normally do investigative work, Your Honor.  By practice, Your Honor, we use the database using the TCT as search engine, Your Honor.  But when I asked the technical guys if the computer is capable of a name-search, they said yes.  So, I instructed them to use it, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Iyon lang iyon.  Maskin sinong tao ang pumunta doon at maging administrator, tanungin niya, iyan ba ay—if I type-in a name, it will give me the transfer certificate of title number for it?  That could be answered by anybody.  Any clerk would say yes if he knows his computer.

And any head of office would immediately think of something better to mark his term of office with.  That is all you did?  You ask—didn’t you ask since this was already brewing into a political firestorm?  Didn’t you ask your people? Is there a way we can filter information so that I will be committed only to issuing the titles that are not yet—that have not been cancelled or which are still valid as of the day you print them.

ATTY. DIAZ.  That was not the intention of the request, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  What was the request then?

ATTY. DIAZ.  To get an information relative to the …

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Therefore, it was a dragnet.  Is that what you are trying to say?  Drag a net as widely as possible and then give me all the names related to this people?  That’s it?

ATTY. DIAZ.  I think that was the intention, Your Honor, for them to do as instructed, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Ngayon, lumilitaw na sinabi pala sa media ng prosecution, 45 ang properties nitong defendant na ito.  Hindi ba nakakahiya naman iyan, kadami-daming properties niyan, saan niya kinuha iyan, e di ninakaw niya.  Ganoon ang pinagsasabi nila. That was the implication that they sought to sow in the minds of their readers and viewers.  And now, it turns out that there are only maybe 21 or so.

O hindi mo ba naisip na magiging ganoon ang consequence niyan?  You are an Ateneo Law graduate and you are a lawyer.’

MR. DIAZ.  I just forwarded the documents as …

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  You were an automaton.  Sino ngayon ang may kasalanan?  Prosecution o ikaw?  Answer me.  Look at me.  Look me in the eye.

MR. DIAZ.  I have no fault here, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Wala ka, eh di sila.

MR. DIAZ.  I am not saying that either, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  You are not saying that.  All right, what are you saying?  Whose fault is it?  Someone is at fault here.

MR. DIAZ.  I wouldn’t know, Your Honor.  As far as I …

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  I commend your ignorance, Mr. Administrator.  As an example to all others, you should not be as ignorant as you are.  Let me read to you your violations of the Civil Code.  First, the provision on quasi delict in the Civil Code.  Article 2176.  “Whoever, by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.  Such fault or negligence is called a quasi-delict.”  You are guilty of negligence, not only of negligence but of gross negligence.  Either you or the prosecution, nobody else.  Since this is a physical world, I will not belong in the spiritual universe.  We will not accept that there are spiritual implications on that dimension in our universe.  Someone was guilty of negligence or gross negligence.  And let me read to you as a lawyer the jurisprudence onf negligence.  Said the Supreme Court in the case of George Baqui vs. Intermediate Appellate Court 1992.  “There is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation and there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.”  That is what you were doing.  You are in flagrant and palpable grossly negligent of your duty.  You knew that this was going to be used to try and destroy an incumbent public official, you should have been more, much more careful not to implicate other people or to rise the wrong suspicions in the mind of the neutral viewer or reader.  You did not do so.  You just asked for a printout and the moment it got into your possession, you just sent it out.  Were you so extremely busy that day that you cannot go line by line over these things and say to yourself, Gee whiz, some of these things don’t even have the Corona in it, the Corona name in it?  Why are they in this list?  And you did not even have any explanation in your letter of transmittal.  You did not say for example, this list was produced under the trace back system.  This will explain why their names there, which are not the name Corona, because we are using a system that traces back the original certificate of title to each original owner and all to whom it was passed until it came into the possession of the present owner.  You did not even say that.  You did not even say, please check this for accuracy.  Because we are working only with raw data.  You did not say anything.  We have your copy of your letter distributed to us.  Let me also tell you, as a lawyer, in the case of Jimenez Enterprises vs. Ombudsman, this 2011, “For an action to constitute gross inexcusable negligence, it is essential that the breach of duty borders on malice and is characterized by flagrant, palpable and wilful indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.  What do you have to say to that, Atty. Diaz?  Was that what you learned in your law school?  You knew it would affect adversely other people who have no relation whatsoever to this case, yet you issued a document that was highly incriminatory of those people.  I give you an opportunity to rebut me.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  First of all, Your Honor, I am not a party to this case.  I would have assisted also the defense team if they requested for some documents for their use or research.  I would have even presented to this honourable tribunal, Your Honor, if I was requested.  And it is that fact that I did not have to review these documents lest I be found bias to one party.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Ah.  You intended to review an official document and you abstained from reviewing because you might be accused of being bias?  Just checking for the facts.  Is that what you are trying to tell me?  Look at me, look at me straight in the eye.  That is what you are trying to tell me?  We are both graduates of law school and we are both registered lawyers and that is what you are trying to tell me?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is how it was, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  As I said, why am I not impressed by your answers, Mr. Diaz.  Let me tell you what the test is.  In a very, very old case, Picard vs. Pith (?), this is the test.  “Did the defendant”, meaning to say you, “in doing the alleged negligent act used that reasonable care and caution which are ordinarily prudent person would abuse in the same situation.  I addressed this to both panels and to my fellow colleagues in this Impeachment Court. Can we say that you used reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person caution would have used?  If not …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I beg the indulgence of the Lady-Judge, I will let her continue for another minute.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Thank you.  If not, then, he is guilty of negligence. The law here, in effect, adopts the standard supposed to be applied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet pater familias of Roman Law Surely, you are familiar with that doctrine of the fater familias, the father who takes care of his children.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO. Did you do that? You will answer, of course, in the affirmative because you already did just a few minutes ago, so, I will not be belaboured that anymore.  I will go on in view of the remarks of the Presiding Officer to the test of the Civil Code which I mentioned earlier. I was talking about quasi delict.

Now, let me talk about human relations.  Article 19, every person must, in the exercise of his right and the performance of his duties, act with justice, give every one his due and observe honesty and good faith. That’s what the Civil Code says and you become liable for damages when you violate that provision.  You’re liability as LRA Administrator will come from the Penal Code, particularly, under Art. 363, you were incriminating an innocent person, any person, who, by any act not constituting perjury shall directly incriminate or impute on innocent person the commission of a crime shall be punished so and so.  I believe as a judge that you are standing on the very brink of pushing the envelope.  You are right there on the cliff.  All I have to do is put one finger just all write down.  You’ve been trying to incriminate innocent person. In fact, in the case of Companano versus Dap-in, 207 as early as that, the Supreme Court said, the crime of incriminating innocent person consist, for example, of planting evidence.  Are you sure that you are not planting evidence with the issuance of that list? As for the liability of prosecutors, I ask you, Gentleman, to study your Canon of Judicial Conduct.  It is very clear from the jurisprudence on the basis of those canons that you are likewise in the same geographical position as your client, you are teetering on the brink of criminality. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize Senator Loren Legarda, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentle-Lady from Antique, Malabon and the Republic of the Philippines, Senator Legarda.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you, Mr. President. I simply wanted to follow up, Mr. President, my request, which I made yesterday if Mr. Diaz would remember. I wanted a more accurate list of the properties of the Chief Justice of Renato Coronado Corona and excluding the del Castillo properties, which were not even owned by the son-in-law Del Castillo, but also only a name sake of the brother-in-law. I believe that I requested and the Presiding Officer asked the witness to present such in today’s hearing. When I have the list, then, I will propound my questions later.

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor, when the request was made, I manifested that it will be a subject of stipulation by the parties today and so, I did not get the definite ruling whether or not such request will be premature, Your Honor, because the parties will have to discuss among themselves what properties are included from what will not be included, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  I think that my request was simple. I simply wanted the list of properties on Renato C. Corona and if members of the prosecution can do that, perhaps, Senator-Judges can do that, and all we wanted from the LRA was a Renato C. Corona listing based on the technology you have, the search engine, which you mentioned and you explained to Senator Joker Arroyo and I thought that you have thought that way. Because if you will recall, this letter containing the list of 45 properties in my interpellation yesterday, you mentioned that you merely put the name Renato Corona, which came up with this list of 45, which is totally inaccurate and you also admitted that you put the name of the wife of Corona, which is Cristina Corona. You also admitted that you punched in the name of the daughter as well as the son-in-law and the name of a name sake of the son-in-law is included in this 45.  It would be therefore very difficult for me as a Senator-judge to make a wise and enlightened judgment if I will be basing it on an inaccurate document.

MR. DIAZ.  First of all, Your Honor, the transmittal letter that is being used by some parties, Your Honor, includes the term “et al.,”, Your Honor, and it is in my humble opinion that the “et al.,” you cover even the namesake, Your Honor.  And so, it was included in the list, some of the namesake, Your Honor, a certified copies, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  I am not asking for a name with et al., my request was for the LRA to present a list of Renato Coronado Corona, or Renato C. Corona.  If you punch that, and perhaps, because that should be included in the SALN, including the properties of the wife, Cristina Corona, that would be in order.  I would assume that the witness could have done this morning, and brought the documents here.

MR. DIAZ.  I have a list, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Can you kindly present it to us.

MR. DIAZ.  It says here, “Cristina Corona married to Renato Corona”.  Is that, what Your Honor is asking for?

SEN. LEGARDA.  Perhaps, if it would be, so that we can have a basis or a comparison  with the list of the 45.

MR. DIAZ. I have it with me, Your Honor, but I don’t know if this would jive with the stipulation of the parties, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  It doesn’t matter whether it is stipulated by either of the two panels, it is of interest to us.  In short, sinimulan mo na po ng 45 na nagpaalaman po natin na base sa ating pag-uusap kahapon, na hindi po accurate.  Kaya gusto lang po naming na i-correct iyong impormasyon na nasa amin po para makita naming iyong tunay na properties na nasa pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona, hindi ba po?  Sa aking kaalaman ay ilang po yong inamin nyong walang koneksyon sa pamilyang Corona?  Iyong kapangalan lang ng son-in-law, ilan po sa 45 ang sinabi nyo kahapon?

MR. DIAZ.  I cannot readily recall, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  You even named number 27, just look at the list, there were three properties, I think, which in the name of Del Castillo, which you said…

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  …was a namesake of the son-in-law, but upon verification, did not belong to the son-in-law but belong to another person with the same name.  You said that.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Were these three properties?  Sabi mo number 27, it might—was it number 30…

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, number 27 is one, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And number 30?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  What else?  You read that into the record.

MR. DIAZ.  Number 31, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Number 27 which is…

MR. DIAZ.  Named Erlinda Castillo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Erlinda Castillo, and number 30, which is Angelina Castillo and Constantino Castillo…

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Ma’m.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And number 31 which is Constantino del Castillo.

MR. DIAZ.  Number 32, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And 32 also.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Constantino del Castillo.

MR. DIAZ.  Number 33, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And number 33, which is National Housing Authority.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  I simply wanted a list without those names because those have no relevance and materiality to what we are discussing now.  Because it was a by-product of what you said was just a search engine and it has no connection at all even to the son-in-law.  Right?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Okay.  That is all I wanted actually.

MR. DIAZ.  I’ll have it for you, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Please.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  How long does it take just for my—if you punch in the name Renato C. Corona, how long would it take you to generate this information?

MR. DIAZ.  Depends on the volume of  data in that particular RD, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Say it again, it would depend on the volume of data.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  In this case of 45 titles, how long did it take you to do it?

MR. DIAZ.  About two to three days, Your Honor, roughly.

SEN. LEGARDA. Two to three days?

MR. DIAZ. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Why did it take so long?

MR. DIAZ.  Because we are not used to doing…

SEN. LEGARDA.  There is no central database.

MR. DIAZ.  There is, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.   And it takes two to three days even if punch in the name, it does not go to one server?

MR. DIAZ.  What happened, Your Honor, is that I delegated this to our technical guys, and they fund it out to the different registries, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  How many register of deeds did you consult for this?

MR. DIAZ.  NCR, Your Honor.  NCR Register of Deeds.

SEN. LEGARDA.  The whole NCR.

MR. DIAZ.  Not all, Your Honor,  to be honest.

SEN. LEGARDA.  How did you determine which Register of Deeds you would assign per task this assignment to?

MR. DIAZ.  Well, we did not have a guide, Your Honor, we just tested Makati, Parañaque, Quezon City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why did you only search from the NCR?  Did you do that on your own…

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … or were you instructed by somebody to search only some properties in the National Capital Region?

MR. DIAZ.  No, Your Honor.  We deemed it best that we start with these agencies because we thought that in all probability there will be a hit  somewhere here, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, the Chief Justice comes from the province of Batangas.  Why did you not search for property in his name in Batangas?

MR. DIAZ.  Some areas in Batangas are not yet computerized, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Huh?

MR.DIAZ.  Some RDs in Batangas are not yet computerized, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  But if you were requested by somebody to search for property in the name of the Chief Justice, then did they state that only in NCR and not the entire country?

MR. DIAZ.  No, they did not, Your Honor.  They just asked for what information we can give them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So you took the initiative of searching only in Metro Manila?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the prosecution was satisfied with that?

MR. DIAZ.  Apparently, Your Honor, because when they requested the second time, they…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did they specify that you search only in Metro Manila?

MR. DIAZ.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why did you decide to search only in Metro Manila and not the entire country?

MR. DIAZ.  Well, the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Chief Justice is a national leader.

MR. DIAZ.  For accessibility, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Huh?

MR. DIAZ.  Basically for accessibility, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For expediency?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For speed?  For what?

MR. DIAZ.  Partly, yes, Your Honor, because these are accessible to our office in Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  The Lady may continue.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you.  I am, therefore, awaiting the  document that you promised, that I request, Your Honor.  And just, yes, while I’m waiting for that, may I know from Atty. Diaz, did you personally give this document to Congressman Tupas, the lead prosecutor?

MR. DIAZ.  Just by driver-messenger, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  I see.  I don’t think my memory fails me.  Did the lead prosecutor actually say that he did not receive this list from the LRA?  I cannot confirm.  I recall upon questioning of Senator Jinggoy Estrada or Senator Escudero, my colleagues who are there, the lead prosecutor said that he had nothing to do with the 45 properties some weeks ago?

REP. TUPAS.  You Honor, can I answer that.   Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the Gentleman?

REP. TUPAS.  There was a question or a clarificatory question from Senator Loren Legarda about the statement or a statement which I uttered.  Can I say something about it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

REP. TUPAS.  In answer to that query, I did not say that, Your Honor.   I did not say that I did not receive the letter from LRA.  Because I sent a messenger to receive this letter to the LRA on the same day, that’s January 10, Your Honor.  I did not say that I have nothing to do with the list nor did I say that I did not receive this list from LRA because I did.

SEN. LEGARDA.  You did receive it, yes.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, sir.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you for that clarification, Congressman Tupas.  I was  actually just seeking clarification because I do not exactly recall your response to that questioning of both Senators Estrada and Escudero when this item of 45 properties which is actually not 45, there is some confusion now based on the inaccuracy of the research done by the LRA.  So I will temporary terminate at this point, Mr. President.  I will read the list given by the LRA and continue later.  Thank you.

THEP RESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Marcos would like to be recognized then Senator Pia Cayetano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Bongbong Marcos.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I just have a few questions for the witness.

Atty. Diaz, if I remember from your testimony yesterday, you said that the search, the method rather of searching for the titles that you included in this letter to the prosecution that the method that you used, as you described it yesterday, was used for the first time upon the request of Congressman Tupas for these titles which you eventually gave him.  Is that correct?

MR. DIAZ.  It’s new, Your Honor.  It’s a new system.

SEN. MARCOS.  It was the first time that you used it, was for the …

MR. DIAZ.  Personally, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  … for the Corona search, if you would call it that.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  All right.  So, what happened was you used the new system, and the new system produced this list.  Your then put in—You then sent this list to the prosecution team, that’s a fair narrative.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Okay.  So, subsequent to that, if I’m not mistaken, your said yesterday that after you conducted the Corona search on your new system, you then did not use it anymore.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  In other words, it was the only time you used it.  Why did you discontinue using this method of computer searching after you had generated this list?

MR. DIAZ.  Because, Your Honor, we realize that we have to come up with some rules and regulations also for a name search.  Because if not, Your Honor, such information is very vital, and we do not want any person for that matter to be a subject of an inquiry that is not warranted.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, why did you suspect that that might be a possibility or that might be a weakness in the search system that you were using?

MR. DIAZ.  Because, Your Honor, we are also confronted by syndicates in the land titles.  And they could possibly use that system so that they can generate some information that can be used against all of us, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  And this kind of information would be misleading because it is too general, it is non-specific.  Is that the reason that you stopped using this new system?

MR. DIAZ.  No, it will not be fair, Your Honor, to some people because by then, it will send out some information that should not be given out, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, in your judgement, the system that you had been using was faulty, was flawed, was weak somehow, and that’s why you stopped using it?

MR. DIAZ.  No.  There were no rules, Your Honor.  The use of the computer, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Where there any rules when the prosecution team asked for—Where there any rules being applied when the prosecution team asked you for this list which is subsequently supplied them with?

MR. DIAZ.  There was a …

SEN. MARCOS.  There were no rules because that’s why you stopped using it, right?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, did you not feel that those rules should have been applied in the search for Justice Corona’s and his title search, or is it okay that there are no rules for the Corona search but we must apply new rules for any other search.  Why the distinction?

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor, it was requested by the prosecution team …

SEN. MARCOS.  But again, you, yourself, said that there were misgivings that no proper rules were in place that you should follow when conducting a title search.  That was you conclusion that’s why you stopped using that system.

MR. DIAZ.  Thereafter, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thereafter?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  But for you, it was perfectly acceptable that there were no rules when you did the Corona search.  That’s okay.  It’s okay to have no rules applied in the use of this computer search when it came to the Corona search, whereas, you were thinking, for other searches, those rules must be instituted, must be created and must be applied.  So, why the difference.

MR. DIAZ.  Because, Your Honor, this is an impeachment proceeding, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  And therefore?

MR. DIAZ.  And therefore, Your Honor, I must participate the best way I can.  If the defense team would have—I would have provided them too, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Okay, so if there is another impeachment trial down the road, in the future, and we ask you for a title search, you would revert back to this system of no rules when you conduct that title search?

MR. DIAZ.  I will provide you with copies, Your Honor, because then the …

SEN. MARCOS.  No, no, no.  Will you apply—Will you then go back to the same system that you used in the Corona search without applying the rules that you said are missing the rules (inaudible) of those searches.

MR. DIAZ.  The rules that I mentioned, Your Honor, will only provide the requester some degree of responsibility for them to be given certified copies, Your Honor, if the name search will be used.

SEN. MARCOS.  And so you feel that those rules are not necessary in the case of an impeachment trial?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Ah, so okay, fine.  Well, that sounds to me like a double standard, but never mind, let me proceed.  So, after you felt that the system that you were using, lot guidance, lot rules, lot rules, lot regulations, you stopped using the system.

MR. DIAZ.  We temporarily stopped using it because…

SEN. MARCOS.  Have you since then started to use it again?

MR. DIAZ.  No, Your Honor.l

SEN. MARCOS.  No.  So, so far, this is the only time that that search that you, by your own testimonies say, did not have proper rules applied to the conduct of that search, it was the only time that this system was used.

MR. DIAZ.  There were no need for rules at that time, Your Honor, because that was the first time that …

SEN. MARCOS.   So, there are no need for rules when the prosecution asked you in the Corona search, but there are rules for people who are asking you when they are syndicates or for other requests?  Why, why this one has no rules and the others need rules?

MR. DIAZ.  Because, Your Honor, this is an impeachment court.

SEN. MARCOS.  And so, if this is an impeachment court, there is no need for rules?

MR. DIAZ.  I will have to assist the court, Your Honor, out of respect.

SEN. MARCOS.  Never mind.  We can’t see what you are trying to get at.  Okay, when you found that the system might be faulty or flawed or weak in some way, did you communicate that conclusion to the prosecution teams, so as to guide them to say, you know, we did not apply these things which would have preferred to apply these rules, which we would have preferred to applied, did you say, maybe, we should have another look at it or you should look at the list that I gave you, carefully, because we did not apply certain rules which we think you should apply?

Did you warn the prosecution team that there may be weaknesses in the system that you use to generate this list?

MR. DIAZ.  There was a weakness in the system, Your Honor.  And there was no ..

SEN. MARCOS.  There was a weakness in the system.  So, why are you not using it?

MR. DIAZ.  We used it, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Yes, once, why are you not using it now?

MR. DIAZ.  Because …

SEN. MARCOS.  If it is perfect, if it is working so well.

MR. DIAZ.  The rules, Your Honor, does not apply to the system that we are using, but on the request that will be granted, Your Honor.

So, if anybody would—nobody, for no apparent reason will come to us and would like to search properties of a certain high profile person, Your Honor, I think, it is my duty also, to be fair to that person.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, these rules do not exist?  So, right now, there are no proper rules for an inquiry to the LRA?  You still have to draw them up that they do not exist thus far.

MR. DIAZ.  Well, so far, Your Honor, if it is made, if a person is making a request, it is vested with an authority of an office.  And he is making a request in his official capacity, then we might, we will provide him or her some documents, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  But you will not use that—the computer search that you used before.

MR. DIAZ.  We will, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  You will, but why—again, this is becoming a circular argument.

But so, you did not tell the prosecution that we have since stopped using this system, for these reasons, and perhaps these reasons may have an effect on the—I do not know—accuracy, veracity of the list that I have sent you.  You did not make that communication.

MR. DIAZ.  There was no need, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  There was no need.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  All right.  Well, so, you say that the product generated by a search—that system that you use to make that search that was subsequently—but subsequently, no longer use because there were some weaknesses in the system had no need—you did not feel any need to inform the prosecution—kaya napapasubo ang prosecution dito dahil ang binigay nyong listahan ay hindi maliwanag at mukhang hindi naman tama.  And for that, should you not have warned them so that they are not put in this position now where they have to explain why 45 titles were announced when in fact, so many should not have been included in the list?  Since you already had, as you say, misgivings about the system, should not have warned the prosecution?  I have misgivings about the system, be warned, mag-ingat kayo.  Tingnan natin mabuti, let us go over again, something like that.  Wala kayong pinag-usapang ganoon?

MR. DIAZ.  Wala po.

SEN. MARCOS.  Wala.  You did not.  So, this was the only time it was used, it is no longer being used because you feel there are weaknesses in the system.  You did not warn the prosecution that you had perceived some possible weaknesses in the system.

Atty. Diaz, you know, ayaw ko ng magdagdag ng sabon na inabot mo mula noong kagabi hanggang ngayon, but this is highly irregular, at the very least, and that worst, it is violative of the Civil Code, as Senator Miriam Santiago has demonstrated, so, you will understand why we are quite perplexed that the manner and, shall we say, the cavalier attitude you had to just printing out all kinds of titles which, in fact, were not double checked, you already had misgivings as to the product of your search, I cannot understand why.  If I were suspicious, mayroon bang nagsabi sa iyo, “’Di bale, ilagay mo na lang lahat diyan.  Padamihin na lang natin.  Mas maganda, mas marami.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I beg the indulgence of the Gentleman.  I will allow you to finish your questioning in one minute.

SEN. LEGARDA.  An interjection.  A thirty-second interjection related to Senator Marcos’s statement, Mr. President, with your permission.

SEN. MARCOS.  I yield to the Lady.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you.  This is very relevant to yours.  I am just really confused.  Because I was listening intently to Senator Santiago and the witness said that he did not know it was an impeachment proceeding and he simply gave the list.  However, listening to Senator Marcos, the witness says, when it is an impeachment he cooperated and if it is the defense who asks for documents he would also give the same documents and you have been discussing that for the past couple of minutes and he said because it is an impeachment.   This Representation, Mr. President, is, therefore, perplexed as to the statement of the LRA attorney, the administrator, saying ten minutes ago to Senator Santiago that he did not know that it is an impeachment.  And telling another Senator-Judge that it was an impeachment.  And there are no rules in the impeachment proceedings.  I am just confused.

SEN. MARCOS.  Perhaps we can direct the question to the witness.  Which is it, Atty. Diaz?  Did you know it was an impeachment trial or did you not know it?

MR. DIAZ.  Of course, it is subject of judicial notice, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, you misspoke when you answered Senator Santiago.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Categorical.  I just want to hear an answer categorically.  Sinabi  po ninyo kay Senator Santiago na hindi po ninyo alam na impeachment ang dahilan at gagamitin iyong mga dokumentong hinihingi po sa inyo.  Pero narinig ko po ngayon kay Senator Marcos, sabi po ninyo, dahil impeachment, kailangan po magbigay kayo at tumulong sa taumbayan.  Tama po iyong sagot ninyo.  Pero ano po sa dalawa dahil lihis po iyon at kaiba?

MR. DIAZ.  I knew, Your Honor, that they are for the prosecution, Your Honor, representing the House for the impeachment trial.  But how they will use this information …

SEN. LEGARDA.  I am not asking how.  And Senator Santiago did not ask you how.  And I heard very clearly.  And you said, I did not know what use it would be for.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  I did not know it was for an impeachment.  Even look at the transcript of records.  So, I am confused because I thought—you even said, Akala ko pang-research.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  So, I thought it was legislative research you were referring to.  In short, I would grant you your innocence and give you the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe you just need to enhance your communication skills.  But what I understood from Senator Santiago’s question, and your answer was that, you seemed not to know it was meant for an impeachment proceeding.  But very clearly, your answer to Senator Marcos was that, it was for impeachment.  And so, I just wanted clarification whether you actually knew it was going to be used for this or not.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang, para maklaro natin ito.  Nag-umpisa ito sa tawag ng chief prosecutor, hindi ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Si Congressman Tupas.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tumawag sa iyo sa telepono, hindi ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At sinabi niya, puwede bang tingnan ninyo ang mga lupain o mga real estate property ni Kagalang-galang na Mataas na Hukom ng Pilipinas, Renato Corona at ng kanyang maybahay at ng mga iba pang kamag-anak niya, iyon ba ang sinabi sa iyo?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, noong tinawagan ka ni Congressman Tupas ay nakasalang na dito sa Senado iyong articles of impeachment, hindi ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo iyon.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, alam mo rin na siya ay head ng prosecution panel sa impeachment, iyong articles of impeachment na isinampa ng House of Representatives sa Senado?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Konta kay Chief Justice.  So, alam mo na iyong tawag niya ay humihingi ng ebidensiya para— tungkol sa mga ari-arian ng nakasakdal na Mahistrado ng Pilipinas, ‘di ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor, information relative to the properties, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  ‘Yun, so alam mo iyon?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ito ba ay verbal lang?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Hindi sumulat sa iyo?

MR. DIAZ.  At that time, hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    At the time of the call?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kailan iyong call na iyon?

MR. DIAZ.  Prior to January 10, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ha?

MR. DIAZ.  Prior to January 10, Your Honor, because January 10, we transmitted the documents, Your Honor.onor, because

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Sabi mo prior to?

MR. DIAZ.  January 10, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    January 10.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Between the time they filed the Articles of Impeachment and January 10, ang tawag?

MR. DIAZ.  It was January, Your Honor.  It was around January 7 or 8, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    January 7 or 8?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ngayon, samakatuwid alam mo na hiling ni Congressman Tupas ay upang kumuha ng ebidensiya tungkol sa lupain o real estate na ari-arian ni Kagalang-galang na, Kataas-Taasang Hukom ng Pilipinas Renato C. Corona?

MR. DIAZ.  Et. Al, Your Honor, at saka iyong mga …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ha?

MR. DIAZ.  At iyong mga iba pa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    At iyong mga iba pa?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Na malapit sa kanya o kamag-anak niya?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alright.  Ngayon, ang tanong ko, yung ang—maliwanag iyon ha, maliwanag. Ngayon, alam mo ba na na si Chief Justice ay taga Batangas?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alam mo iyon?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Bilang abugado, alam mo na ang nakasakdal sa amin dito sa Senado ay taga-Batangas?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Hindi ba ang logical starting point ng inyong pagsusuri kung mayroon siyang mga lupain or real estate property ay doon sa kanyang probinsiya, sa bayan niya?

MR. DIAZ.  It didn’t appear, sir, that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Taga-Tanauan siya. Alam mo ba iyon?

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Hindi mo alam. Pero alam mo ang probinsiya niya?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ngayon, eh, bakit hindi mo inumpisahan iyong search doon sa Batangas?

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi pa computerize doon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Kahit na, hindi ba—ikaw ba ay ngayon lang naging—hindi ka ba naging Register of Deeds?

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor, to be …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   No, no, no, tinatanong ko.

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi pa po. Hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Hindi. Wala kang experience sa tungkol sa mga kaso ng lupa?

MR. DIAZ.  Mayroon po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Mayroon. So, alam mo na sa bawat probinsiya, may Register of Deeds, may libro iyan?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   At nandoon ang listahan ng mga titulo, ‘di ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Na hawak ng Register of Deeds mo sa bawat probinsiya at bawat lungsod ng Pilipinas, ‘di ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ngayon, at iyon, titingnan mo lang, alphabetical iyon, eh, ‘di ba?

MR. DIAZ.    Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, eh, bakit hindi mo inumpisahan sa Batangas?

MR. DIAZ.  Inumpisahan ko po sa mga areas na malapit na computerize, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bakit nga?

MR. DIAZ.  Para mas madali po sanang makakuha ng information, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Eh, kung may lupa siya sa Batangas, hindi mo napasa ma dito sa search mo? At alam mo ba na may lupa siya, wala siyang lupa sa Batangas?

MR. DIAZ.  Pinatanong ko po sa isang …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Tinatanong ko sa iyo kung alam mo?

MR. DIAZ.    Hindi po.  Dahil wala hong…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Hindi mo alam?

MR. DIAZ.  Sa Batangas, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oo.

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi pa ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Eh, bakit nga hindi mo inumpisahan doon? Iyon ang logical starting point, hindi ba? Bakit mo pinili ang Metro-Manila, izinero mo iyong search mo sa Metro-Manila?  Iyon ba ay sariling mong desisyon o may nagutos sa iyo?

MR. DIAZ.  Pinatakbo ko po iyong

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ang ..

MR. DIAZ.  … technical team ko.  Inutusan ko sila na i-find out po sa malalapit na register of deeds sa Metro-Manila para ho ma-search po iyong properties.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Dahil nga …

MR. DIAZ.  Malapit po sa central.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alam mo na na mayroon siyang condominium dito sa Metro-Manila?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor, sa Velagio property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyong Bellagio?

MR. DIAZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Kaya dito mo inumpisahan ang search.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bakit hindi mo ito itinuloy sa Batangas? Dahil alam mo na humihingi ng tulong sa iyo yong prosekyusyon kaya tinawagan ka upang malaman kung may ari-arian ang nasasakdal sa impeachment case na ito na hindi nya isinama sa kanyang SALN, di ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, e, bakit?

MR. DIAZ.  Meron ho akong inutusan doon, ang ini-report ho sa amin…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Inutusan.

MR. DIAZ.  Sa Batangas po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Inutusan saan?

MR. DIAZ.  Sa opisina ko po kasi hindi pa ho computerized doon, so there is no way…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya may inutusan ka sa Batangas.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor, isang RD naming doon at ang sabi sa amin po eh, on their record, wala po, doon sa isang lugar.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Wala sa Register of Deeds sa Batangas?

MR. DIAZ.  Sa Santo Tomas ata yon o Tanauan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

MR. DIAZ. Tanauan-Sto. Tomas, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  E, bakit hindi sa Kapitolyo?  Nandun ang Register of Deeds eh ng probinsiya.  Register of Deeds ng Lungsod ng Tanauan nadoon sa Tanauan, Register of Deeds ng Lungsod ng Batangas City nandoon sa Batangas City, bakit hindi  mo pinapuntahan iyon?  Kung sa Lipa, nandon sa Lipa, kung sa—ano pa ba ang mga siyudad sa Batangas—iyon lang.  Malvar, iyong mga ibang syudad don.  Bakit hindi pina-search doon.  Iyon lang ang gusto kong maliwanagan sa kaisipan ko eh.  Bakit dito ka nag-umpisa sa Maynila, hindi don sa kanyang probinsiya.

MR. DIAZ.  Probably, Your Honor, because it’s a convenience, Your Honor, of  generating titles to the computer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Gusto mo madalian na magkaroon ng ebidensya kontra sa nasasakdal ganon ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Actually, yong mga dokumento hong unang ini-release namin eh nasa opisina ko na ho.  Kasi po, even before that, humihingi na po ang mga kaibigan natin sa media pero hindi ho natin ni-release.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi nga, hindi yon ang isyong itinatanong ko sayo eh kung nasa iyo na yong mga dokumento.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Iyong ginawa mo na search, bakit hindi ka don nag-umpisa doon sa logical point of starting the search, iyong probinsiya ng nasasakadal na opisyal ng gobyerno.

MR. DIAZ.  Maybe I should have done, Your Honor, I should have done it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It never occurred to you.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Inumpisahan mo sa Manila sapagkat siguro sinabi nagmamadali kami, na kailangan namin ng ebidensiya ganon ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi naman po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

MR. DIAZ.  Available na po iyong mga ebidensya na yon, yong mga titulo po they were available when they requested.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Available na nong tinawagan ka ni Congressman Tupas?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Paano mo—bakit available?  Wala naman sa request sayo, available  na sa yong kamay.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor, because ang mga media ay humihingi na noon pa.  So, when they requested…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  A, teka muna, nag-search ka na nung hinihingi sayo  ng media, ganon ba?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Bakit?

MR. DIAZ.  Well, I thought it would the best preparation, Your Honor, because they are asking, so I had the register of deeds search….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo compañero medyo malabo itong istorya nntin eh kaya hindi kapani-paniwala na nasa iyong kamay iyong ebidensya na hinihingi ni Congressman Tupas na hindi pa naman humihingi sa yo ng ayuda o tulong.  Kaya iyon ang dahilan kung bakit nagtataka iyong mga kasama kong mga hukom dito, mga Senador sa iyong testimonya sa amin.  Kaya ipaliwanag mo lamang para sa ganoon maklaro iyan.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Dahil may kaugnayan yan sa kredibilidad ng iyong deklarasyon dito.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi ka paniniwalaan eh.

MR. DIAZ.  Previous to the request…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The floor is yours.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.

SEN. LEGARDA.  May I have a second interjection with the permission of the Presiding Officer and Senator Marcos.  Kasi po kanina po sa katanungan ko po, sabi po ng ating testigo tatlong araw nya trinabaho, ang sagot po nya kay Senate President ready na po sa kanyang kamay ang mga dokumento kaya nga lang po iba rin yong kanyang sagot.  Mr. President, he answered me that it took him 2 to 3 days to come up with a document, a 2-page document, using the search engine.  Now, he tells you that the documents were readily available because the media were asking for it.  So it just causes more perplexity and confusion.  That’s all.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you for that, Senator Legarda.  Sang-ayon ako kaya sang-ayon ako sa pananaw ng aming Senate President na, Atty. Diaz, medyo malabo yong istorya natin.  Kaya itatanong ko na, last question, siguro dalawang tanong na lang, hindi kaya noong paghanda nitong listahan na ito ay may nakabulong sa iyo.

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi naman po.

SEN. MARCOS.  Hindi pa ako tapos.  Meron ng nakabulong sa iyo na hindi bale mas malaki yong listahan, mas maganda yan pang-PR.  Kaya mas mahabang listahan mas maganda so basta’t habaan mo para mas magamit ng, ewan ko, mas magamit ng kung sino para pagandahin yong kaso kontra kay Chief Justice, at least in the press.

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi po.

SEN. MARCOS.  Wala naman?

MR. DIAZ.  Never po.

SEN. MARCOS.  Hindi mo naman naisip, dahil kaibigan mo ang mga taga administrasyon, e ikaw kasama ka sa executive e hindi mo kaya naisip para tulungan ko kasi yon ang ninanais ng administrasyon ay yon ang ninanais,  tulungan ko kaya, habaan ko yong listahan para mas maganda para sa kaso kontra kay Chief Justice na napakaraming ibabanggit na mga lupain.  Hindi mo naisip yon?

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi po.

SEN.  MARCOS.  Well, okay.  In that case, if that is your testimony here, that is all, Mr. Witness.  That is all, Mr. President.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Pia Cayetano finally, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gentlelady from Taguig.

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

Mr. Witness, earlier you were asked by Senator Miriam Santiago why did you not go over the names that appeared after you made your general search.  Ang sinagot nyo po ay you do not want to be accused of bias.  Tama ho ba yon?  That’s what you said ‘no?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Tama ho.  Bakit nyo ho naisip na maa-accuse kayo ng bias, did you have any discussion?  Did you offer to sift through that and to provide details pero or with your staff?  Did that come up na baka naman pagnilinis ko ito ay sabihin ay tumutulong ako sa defense?  Why would you think that you would be accused of bias?

MR. DIAZ.  Because I will be deciding what documents to include from what not to include, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  But, Mr. Witness, hindi ba ang search na hinihingi sa inyo is with respect, again I will read your letter, “information relative to real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona et al”.  Actually hindi ko talaga alam kung ano yong et al doon baka nga may Pia Cayetano dyan kasi I don’t have the letter of Congressman Tupas.   So et al, I don’t know who et al is but I’m assuming that that is the wife and the children.  May ganon kayong testimony yesterday ‘no?  Tama ho ba?

MR. DIAZ.  And the name search, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Of Renato Corona.

MR. DIAZ.  And the Coronado’s, well—and the other…

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Castillo and Del Castillo.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  So, Mr. Witness, it was your judgment call that any person with the name of Corona, any person na may Castillo kahit na Del Castillo married to another person should be included in that list and you did not think that instead of bias, you might be accused of gross negligence.

MR. DIAZ.  I consider this, Your Honor, as a transmittal letter of materials that should be used, Your Honor, and how they will use it, I leave it up to them, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Mr. Witness, I am not asking you if you know or if you thought of how they will use it.  I am asking you if as the head of an agency it does not occur to you that your job requires yong prudence na ginagamit nyo, yong care, yong diligence is that naaayon naman doon sa request na binigay sa inyo.  Paano naman ho naging kamag-anak ni Del Castillo married to another person yong Castillo na son-in-law ni Chief Justice?

MR. DIAZ.  Name search, Your Honor, general name search lang yon.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Mr. Witness, I submit kahit high school, kahit Grade VII they will be able to distinguish and I am not even asking you to put any statements there that would go beyond your natural call of duty, yong qualification lang.  I am as frustrated as my colleagues because you refused to acknowledge, you refused to see the effect of your statement.  I will show you what is the effect of your refusal to exercise diligence in conducting that search.  The result of that is that ABS-CBN, TV Patrol, Inquirer.net and Radyo Inquirer—and naiwan ko yung iPod ko don pero meron akong video copy ng, I think it was an ABS-CBN news report—all state here, show this document that was produced by your office.  And I will put on record, “Impeachment panel spokesman Niel Quimbo said that based on the records from the Land Registration Authority, Corona and his family have 45 properties, houses and condo units.”  This is the effect of your search which you refused to even qualify in any way just because you do not want to be accused of biased.  Ito po yung result non.

Further, “Quimbo says that in a letter to Iloilo Representative Neil Tupas,” I really do not want to comment on the merits but there are already the certificate of titles and condominium certificates referring again to the 45 properties.  That is the effect, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I point this out again because this goes down in our Journal.  This is how future impeachment cases will be conducted.

May I ask, Mr. President, to the witness, who, after you produced this letter—well, I suppose this letter was sent to the office of Congressman Tupas or it was picked up from your office?

MR. DIAZ.  I think it was delivered, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Delivered?

MR. DIAZ.  By my staff, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  To whom?  Would you know?

MR. DIAZ.  To the office of Congressman Tupas, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And to the spokespersons also?  Because I have to also put on record many times, the prosecutors who present themselves in court, hide behind the cloak of the—they differentiate themselves from the statements being made by the spokesperson.  And I for one, consider them one and the same.  But the truth of the matter is the records show that the spokesperson used the document that came from you.

And that is why I would like to see that you acknowledge the effect of the statements you made.  Because the statements you made here in court, the two opposing panels had easily, it appears to me, easily agreed that from 45, it is down to more than a half, more than a half of the documents you certified were thrown out.  Your could have easily done that.

Now, let me move to another point.  In response to Senator Marcos, ginagamit nyo pa ho yung computer.  Ang sagot nyo, you disabled it because wala pa hong rules and when you were asked what are these rules, you said that the rules would require some degree of responsibility from the requester para hindi maabuso.  Something to that effect.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  What about the responsibility of the issuer?  Don’t you think the rules should also govern the issuing agency?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, it should, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Well then, I think you can now start implementing that, because from your testimony, it does not seem to appear that you acknowledge that there is some sense of responsibility that must come from your office with respect to issuing …

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  … the certification.

MR. DIAZ.  That is why we’re coming up with the rules, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  That is not what you told Senator Marcos.  Your simply told Senator Marcos yung mga nagre-request.  Ang gusto rin niyang ma-illicit sa inyo is that meron ding basehan yung bakit din kayo naglalabas.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And I think this is my final question.

Mr. Pesident, you also—the witness also stated that the letter’s a result of a request and the letter is in fact dated January 10.  So, alam natin that impeachment had commenced, no.

So when this document was released in January 10, as far as you know, this is the only the time that the prosecution became aware of this properties.

MR. DIAZ.  I wouldn’t know, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  You wouldn’t know.  May I just ask, prosecution, would this be the first time that the prosecution had become aware of the supposedly 45 properties which is now stipulated in the …

REP. TUPAS.  The whole 45, that was the only time, but before that, Your Honor, we already have some documents with respect to the other properties.  In January 3, we released the Bellagio TCTs and other documents.  And at that time that that document, the 45 properties were released that document, we already have in our possession, some of the documents with respect to the other properties, condominiums …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With the permission of the Lady Senator from Taguig, may I ask this from the chief prosecution counsel.  When you made a call to Atty. Diaz, according to you, you made a call, did you specify to him the area where the search ought to be made regarding real estate property of the respondent, Chief Justice Corona and his wife?

REP. TUPAS.  I did not, Your Honor.  Our presumption is, it is the entire country.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The entire country.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, that was what I was thinking when I made that request.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And you did not specify that it was limited to Metro Manila?

REP. TUPAS.  We did not, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But, when he submitted his listing, you did not ask him to conduct further search out in the provinces, especially in his home province of Batangas?

REP. TUPAS.  No more, Your Honor, because as I said, our presumption is that it is a simple system.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You were satisfied already with the quantum of alleged titles of real estate found to be the property of the respondent Chief Justice.

REP. TUPAS.  With respect to the—I cannot answer that, Your Honor, but my presumption is that, it is already a nationwide search, because …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That was enough for the prosecution.

REP. TUPAS.  At that time, that was enough, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You were no longer interested if indeed he has amassed other properties located in his province of Batangas.

REP. TUPAS.  We were still interested, Your Honor, because on—subsequent to that, and it was testified on already by the witness, the prosecution wrote a letter, and this was signed by two members of the prosecution team.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But what was the result of that request of the other members of the prosecution?  Did they pursue that request after you got the number of 45 alleged real property of the respondent in Metro Manila?

REP. TUPAS.  This is the letter dated 12 January 2012, Your Honor, and the prosecution here signed by two members of the panel was just asking for certified true copies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Titles …

REP. TUPAS.  Only titles and there was no follow-up on the nationwide search.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And did they state where the search is ought to be made?

REP. TUPAS.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They did not say that it is confined to Metro Manila.

REP. TUPAS.  No, they did not.  We did not.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And when you received this 45 information, the list from the LRA, covering alleged 45 titles, you were satisfied already that that was enough, although you wanted to pin down the respondent with respect to assets not included in his SALN?

REP. TUPAS.  At that time, we were satisfied, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At that time.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about now?

REP. TUPAS.  Now …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you satisfied?

REP. TUPAS.  Now that we know that it is not nationwide, it is just confined to Metro Manila, then, we’re not satisfied.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you want to search further?  It is too late.  We are about to …

REP. TUPAS.  We know.  We know that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You already closed your evidence.

REP. TUPAS.  We know that.  We have already rested our case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you have any further question for this witness?

SEN. CAYETANO (P.). Mr. President, I would like to finish my questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please, I am sorry to interrupt

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  It is okay, Mr. President.  So, Mr. Witness, it appears now that you could also be accused of bias by the prosecution that you limited your search to Metro Manila when, in fact, there may be other properties elsewhere, is that not correct?

MR,. DIAZ.  They may.]

SEN. CAYETANO (P.)  Mr. Witness, I am simply trying to drive home my point.  That when you indicate the parameters of your search, such as the area of your search.  If there are any time lines, if there are any names that you specifically punched in, you are not bias.  You are simply diligent and that is what you are expected to be.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  I just wanted to be sure that my statement was noted.  Final question is as a follow up to the response of the prosecution.  So, when the letter of LRA Administrator was received on January 10, indicating the 45 properties, the prosecution, and for that matter, the Congressmen and Congresswomen who filed the impeachment complaint were not aware of these properties.  And I would assume that the awareness, my statement is directed to the prosecution, the prosecution and Congressmen who filed the impeachment were not aware of these properties and the information they had was simply as indicated in the complaint and my complaint is on the table, and I looked at it before I stood up, and it says, suspected of having certain properties.  And then there was the property identified in Taguig.  Nothing, by any imagination at the magnitude of the 45 properties indicated here.

REP. TUPAS.  On January 10, when we received that letter, we were not aware of all the properties listed, including the cancelled properties.  But we already have in our possession most of the properties that we introduced as evidence and admitted by this honourable tribunal.  Meaning the condominiums, the two properties sold in 2010, we already had documents in our possession on January 10.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Thank you.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is suspended for one minute.  Just one minute.

It was 4:57 p.m.

At 5:02 p.m., trial resumed.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Trial resumed.   The Gentleman from San Juan.  The Gentleman from San Juan has the floor, the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.

SEN. ESTRADA. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Witness, much has been said about the properties of Chief Justice.  Earlier, I heard that the prosecution and the defense has already agreed that out of the 45 properties that you transmitted, 17 of the titles were already cancelled, am I right?

MR. DIAZ.  I think that was the agreement, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  And out of the 45, 12 titles are not under the name of Chief Justice or his wife, Cristina?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  And out of it—five or I think, five of the titles I think under dispute by the prosecution panel, so, which makes a total of 21 titles, 21 titles which will, I think will be defended by the—will be proved by the defense, if indeed, Chief Justice Corona owns those particular properties.

Now, Mr. Witness, may I ask you, they have already agreed that 17 properties were not—were already cancelled and 12 has not been proven to be under the name of Chief Justice Corona, did you really make a mistake in transmitting that information to the prosecution? Or did you want to make it appear that you are in cahoots with the prosecution panel, to make it appear that Chief Justice Corona  owns 45 properties?

MR. DIAZ.  First, Your Honor, I will not accept that I am in cahoots with the prosecution team, Your Honor. But I cannot also readily accept that it was a mistake because from my point of view, Your Honor, these are documents that they may use for their research, Your Honor, and that was the tenor of my letter to them.

SEN. ESTRADA.  What research are you talking about?

MR. DIAZ.  For the properties, Your Honor.  It was never my obligation to tell them, Your Honor, what exactly the properties that you want to present. As I have said earlier, Your Honor, I merely instructed, there are—these in the nearby cities, to give me some, some materials that were being asked by the media people and to which, I responded, Your Honor, but two or three days after.  But then, in the meantime, we realized that it will not be fair for the Chief Justice.  If I will just release it to media for media purposes, Your Honor.  So, it was about two days after the day they made a request for these documents and it was already there so I forwarded it to them, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, you are one of those who released your letter or the information to the media.

MR. DIAZ.  I did not, Your Honor, that is why I have it in my office, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  All right.  Going back to your letter to Congressman Tupas dated January 10, 2012, and I repeat, “Pursuant to your official request for information relative to the real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona, et al., please find enclosed herewith certified true copies of titles registered in their names as follows, etc., etc.”, Did you really enclose the certified true copies in the transmittal letter that you provided the prosecution?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.   In the certified true copies of the titles registered under the names of CJ Corona and his wife, why did you include those titles that were already cancelled, or those titles not in the name of CJ Corona?  Why did you include it?

MR. DIAZ.  It was generated in the computer search, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, mali itong unang paragraph ng sulat mo kay Congressman Tupas, kasi nilagay mo rito, “relative to real estate properties registered”…nakalagay dtto registered in the name of Renato Corona et al.,” well, in fact, hindi naman pala naka-register sa pangalan nya.

MR. DIAZ.  But, I understand that the et al., Your Honor, means and others, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.   And others, yes, I know, sino yung and others, did they point to you sino yung and others?  Sister-in-law, son-in-law, anak, did they specifically point out that to you?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.   O, sino pa?

MR. DIAZ.   And others that were generated in the computer, Your Honor.  That is why I did not name it, Your Honor, because some of them maybe namesakes, and that is covered by the et al., Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.   Now, Senator Pia Cayetano has already articulated na itong sulat na ibinigay mo sa prosecution did a lot of damage.  Let’s just be fair enough.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  I want to be fair in far as my decision, in far as my judgment on the details, all right.  Binigyan naman natin ng patas na laban, dahil itong naging sulat mo kay Congressman tupas na ibinalandra ng spokespersons ng prosecution panel at sinabi inilahad na ni Senator Pia Cayetano doon sa ABS-CBN, doon sa Inquirer, na “Chief Justice owns 45 properties”, without even authenticating or verifying the properties if indeed those were under the name of Renato Corona.  And I know, kahit hindi mo inamin, ikaw ay nagkamali sa pagbigay ng impormasyon dito sa mga members ng prosecution panel sapagkat maliwanag na maliwanag nag-agree na sila 17 titles out of the 45 already cancelled, and 12 does not belong to the Chief Justice.  Ngayon, aminin mo o hindi iyon ang aking pananaw, iyon ang aking paniniwala, sana po ay respetuhin ninyo

MR. DIAZ.  I will respect it, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Now, Congressman Tupas.  Thank you.

When you received the letter coming from the LRA, that indeed, Chief Justice owned 45 properties, and then, I don’t know, I think it was you, or the  members of your media panel, who exposed to the media, before the media that eto we have 45 properties, maraming properties ang pagmamayari ni Chief Justice Corona, did you not verify it, Congressman Tupas?  Or if, indeed, you verified this titles why didn’t you correct or rectify it before the media?  Why did you make it appear that the respondent owned various properties here in Metro Manila?

REP. TUPAS.  After we received the letter dated January 10, 2012, what we did was, we filed a request for the issuance of subpoena on January 12, 2012, two days after,  we attached it.  The press conference I inquired, happened after the filing of the request for issuance of subpoena with the attached letter containing the 45 properties.  Yon po yong nangyari, Ginoong Pangulo.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So may I tell you to advise your spokesperson to rectify the error para bawiin yong sinabi sa media na indeed hindi 45 yong ari-arian ni Chief Justice Corona because I think the damage has already been done, it is already instilled into the minds of the public, the minds of the people or even in the minds of the court that Corona owns 45 properties.  And in fact hindi 45.  I’m showing you a copy of these cancelled transfers certificate of title.  Ito ang laki-laki o, cancelled, Mr. Diaz.  Hindi mo ba nakita ito, cancelled?  Inilagay mo pa rin sa iyong information, sa iyong listahan na ibinigay sa prosekusyon.  Cancelled na inilagay mo pa.  Ano ba naman?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    With the permission of Senator Estrada,…

SEN. ESTRADA.  That is why, Mr. President,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I just want to clarify this from the chief of the prosecution panel.  According to the story of Atty. Diaz, even before you called him, he already had the titles of this property in his possession.  He anticipated the required research on the property of Chief Justice Corona and his wife and his reason that he gave was because he was being asked by the media.  Now, how the media knew about that he and why  he became interested about the real estate assets of Chief Justice Corona, I do not know.  But the fact is, according to the statement of this witness under oath, even before you called him to ask for help to search for titles in the name of lands and other real estate properties in the name of Chief Justice Corona and Mrs. Corona, he already had these titles.  Did you know about that when you made the call to him, Mr. Prosecutor, counsel?

REP. TUPAS.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, you did not?

REP. TUPAS.  No, because, if I may explain, as was stated earlier, we already have the various documents referring to different properties allegedly owned by the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have already evidence of some of the properties.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, we already have at the time but we wanted number one, to confirm, and number two, we wanted to know whether there are other properties.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have already your evidence on the Bellagio property.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, we already have Bellagio.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the Column property.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And?

REP. TUPAS.  McKinley.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And McKinley property.

REP. TUPAS.  And the Spanish Bay Tower.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And you wanted to find out if there were additional properties.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   But the fact is, according to the witness, he stated under oath, that even before you asked his assistance, he already used his initiative to make a search and he had already the titles of these 45 alleged assets in the name of the Coronas.  Okay?  So, Senator Jinggoy, you can continue.

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes?

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor please, can I just make some corrections—that I did not do that on my initiative, Your Honor, because previously, the media people were already asking, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely I said that your reason was that the media were asking you and you made a search

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  I submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s what I said, I explained that.  Okay.   Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Ralph Recto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Recto.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Majority Leader.  Just very briefly, I would like to ask my questions to the prosecution and to the defense counsel, if possible.  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Based on your testimony, or rather the defense, what you said earlier, from 45 we’re talking now of 21 properties.  Is that correct?  Counsel for the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s correct, Your Honor.  Your Honor, the original number is 45.

SEN. RECTO.  It is now down to 21.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Even per admission by the prosecution.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct, correct.  Now, just to be a little more specific about it, those 21 properties, ilan ba yung parking lot ang pinag-uusapan natin?

REP. TUPAS.  Tatlo po.  Three.

SEN. RECTO.  Three?

REP. TUPAS.  Only three.

SEN. RECTO.  So, assuming we take that out from 21, that’s down to 18.

REP. TUPAS.  That’s correct.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Now, yung kay Vicente, yung Marikina, ilan po yon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Seven parcels, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Seven?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s correct.

SEN. RECTO.  So from 18 minus 7, you’re down to 11.  Is that correct?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor.  It’s a matter of mathematical computation.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Now these 11 are all in the name of the Chief Justice and his wife?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Not in the name of the Chief Justice but in the name of the seller, Christina.  You’re referring to the 7 parcels, Your Honor?

SEN. RECTO.  No, no.  I’m referring to the last 11.  So, ulitin natin, from 21, there are 3 parking lots.  So, we’re down to 18.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If I remember correctly, I think there were 5 parking lots.  Two for the Burgundy, hindi ba?

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi na po because ang Burgundy is already included in the condominium title.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Okay.

SEN. RECTO.  Ulitin lang natin.  From 21, so we’re talking about 3 parking lots in the 21?  Now we’re down to 18.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  The Marikina property which Vicente claims is his and not that of the Chief Justice, ilan yon?  Seven.  Eighteen, you’re down to 11, okay.  Of the 11, from what I recall, 2 are in the name of his children above 18 years old which should not be in the SALN.

ATTY. GINEZ.  No, Your Honor.  There are 4 properties …

SEN. RECTO.  In the name of the children?

ATTY. GINEZ.  In the name of the children, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  And they are all above 18 years old?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, but our claim, Your Honor, is that …

SEN. RECTO.  It is a simulated sale.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Simulated sale and that …

SEN. RECTO.  That has to be proven, that property.  Pero maliwanag, if your children are below 18, then you include it in your SALN.  But in this case, they’re above 18 years old.

So, from 11, 4, you’re down to 7?  Is that correct with the defense as well?  Is that number correc?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  From 9 …

SEN. RECTO.  From 11 minus 4, you’re down to 7.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.  Mathematically.

SEN. RECTO.  Mathematically.  The Chief Justice has 5.  So there’s a discrepancy of 2.  Which 2?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Eleven minus 2 lang ho.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Your Honor, if I may clarify, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Yes, please.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Out of these two properties, Your Honor, one property which has not been declared all throughout, Your Honor, is one of the Xavierville lots, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Ito yung katabi?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is the lot 6-A, Your Honor, acquired in 1993.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.  Okay.

ATTY. GINEZ.  The title of that, Your Honor, …

SEN. RECTO.  Kaya ang bilang ko ay anim lang ang pinag-uusapan e.  Five in the SALN of 2010 and 1, as you claim, that is not declared, na katabi, apparently

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  And in the SALN, all throughout, Your Honor, what was declared was the lot that was donated in 1971.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Very consistent, Your Honor, from 1992 to 2010, that lot was declared as a donated lot in 1971.

SEN. RECTO.  I understand and I’m with you on this.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  But the point now is, from 45, sa bilang ko, based on our discussion here also is anim.  I mean, assuming, hindi kailangan ilagay ni Chief Justice sa pangalan nya yung apat dahil sa pangalan ng anak niya above 18 years old, that’s one.  Two, the parking lots.  Assuming lang.  Three, the 7 Vicente lots which was testified on here.  Napuntahan ng media, nakita yung libu-libong bonsai, he seem to be a credible witness.  So, there is one other property that has not been declared in his SALN.  Now, could there be a listing of—so, you have the five in the SALN and that other La Vista lot, six.  Is there any other, Mr. Prosecutor?

ATTY. GINEZ. Out of the 21, Your Honor, there are none, insofar as the year 2010, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Because the position of the prosecution, Your Honor, this has to be considered on a year-to-year basis, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  I understand.

ATTY. GINEZ.  So, yearend, Your Honor, insofar as 2010 is concerned, that is correct, only one property, Your Honor, was not declared in 2010, but insofar as other years are concerned, in 2004, the Columns was not declared, in 2005, Bonifacio Ridge was not declared.  That is subsequently …

SEN. RECTO.  May you submit that memorandum to the impeachment court as well.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We will, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. RECTO.  There are no other questions or there are no more questions for the witness, Mr. President, we may discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.  Thank you, Atty. Diaz.

MR. DIAZ.  Thank you very much.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are informed that the defense will be presenting more witnesses tomorrow.  So, with that, we would like to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.

All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, there being no other Business for the Day, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Thursday, March 22, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two o’clock of Thursday, tomorrow, March 22, 2012.

It was 5:21 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