IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Tuesday, May 8, 2012

At 2:10 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile presiding.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of this impeachment trial of the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order.  We shall be led in prayer by Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.

The Majority Floor Leader.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-At-Arms will now make the proclamation.

SGT-AT-ARMS.  All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting on 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 May 7, 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 May 7, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court is hereby approved.

The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  Case No. 0022011..IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C.  CORONA.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we ask the parties and/or respective counsels to enter their appearances, prosecution and the defense.

REP. TUPAS.  Good afternoon, Mr. President, for the House of Representatives prosecution panel, same appearance, we are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  For the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance, we are also ready.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Before the Business for the Day, may we recognize Senator Edgardo Angara.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Aurora has the floor.

SEN. ANGARA.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, late yesterday afternoon, when we have a break in the session, I was handed a copy of a motion seeking my inhibition and I read it very carefully, Mr. President, and I wanted to stand up even then to reply point by point to the false allegations contained in that motion.  But, unfortunately, we didn’t go through with the session because the defense was unprepared.

But now, Mr. President, at the first occasion, I woke up this morning seeing the motion almost bannered by every newspaper and listen to the radio also bannering the story.  It eclipse, Mr. President, the family thrill at seeing my grandson, Edgardo Angara, seven years old, winning a tennis tournament at the Rizal Coliseum.  So, I would like you to read the Philippine Star, Sports, “Angara Pull Through in First Gen Opener”.  Well, Mr. President,  I am not an akin, but to me this is a source of thrill because my grandson, the son of Congressman Sonny Angara, is only seven years old, and yet, he joined a ten year and under competition, and so that is for the athletic skills of the Angaras.

Mr. President, when we were convened as an impeachment court, we did not expect, we did not seek this role, it was mandated by the Constitution that we shall sit as Senator-Judges, and therefore, it is a constitutional task assigned to us, Mr. President, and I consider it as a constitutional duty on my part to act as a judge and no argument, no persuasion can convince me that I should inhibit because this is a duty I will not abdicate.

Mr. President, I will not have a hand in choosing Sonny Angara, my son, to be a spokesperson for the House of Representatives, the two Houses are quite separate and distinct, co-equal, we honor their own respective processes.  So, I have no hand at all in telling anyone please choose Sonny Angara to be one of the spokesperson.  But the worst thing about this motion, President, is the insinuation or the suspicion that I will be unbiased and unprejudiced because of that relationship; and this, Mr. President, the malicious insinuation that political favors have been extended to my province of Aurora, in effect, insinuating that my vote has already been bought as a result, Mr. President.  They mentioned, Mr. President, three major projects that was just recently approved by the NEDA.  And of the three, Mr. President, only one really concerns and was for Aurora, and that is the Baler Kasiguran concreting project. Mr. President, that project is not going to be funded by Philippine money, not by savings and taxes of Filipinos.  It will be funded wholly by the Korean government, Mr. President.  I got that, Mr. President, three years ago during the past administration, not under this administration.  The only thing that happened during this administration is that it was approved by NEDA which is required for all foreign-funded projects.

The other two, Mr. President, is a project I think of a circumferential road in Samar.  I am very thankful and I am full of admiration for those  who were able to secure that because Samar is such an undeveloped province and putting a circumferential road like in Bohol would really make Samar a destination of investments and tourism.

The third project, Mr. President, is the bridge over Umiray River.  Umiray River,  Mr. President, for those who don’t know it is the river in Aurora located in Dingalan which supplies all the water for Metro Manila to Angat Dam and that project I thought I was the one who initiated but I did not, Mr. President.  It was the project of  Governor Suarez and Congressman Suarez funded again by the Japanese government not by our own government.  And yet, Mr. President, the petitioners have the gall and  the audacity to suggest that these are political favors for me.  So I reject that, Mr. President, and I reject it as an unthinking and illogical conclusion that serves no purpose at all except to malign and make, I do not want to say it, a diversionary tactic on their part because we just scolded them, Mr. President, yesterday for their unpreparedness but I won’t say that.

Mr. President, they also cited the application of the judicial rule, the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Mr. President, even a first year law student who knows how to read will immediately conclude that the Code of Judicial Conduct is not applicable to the Senate much less to the impeachment court.  We have our own set of rules and the only code or rules we adopted as suppletory are the rules of court, Mr. President.  So that is completely irrelevant and immaterial, Mr. President.

Then they say my son is a party litigant.  You see, even a first year student will know that a party litigant is one who will suffer or benefit from a decision made.  My son will not benefit from any decision either way.  The only one who will benefit or suffer is our Chief Justice and here are his lawyers who seem to devise a strategy of almost antagonizing half of this court, Mr. President.  First they want Senator Drilon to be inhibited then Senator Guingona, they are pointing to Senators Pangilinan and Recto because  they simply happen to be partymates of the President.  Mr. President, many of us are party members.  We are affiliated in one way or the other with one party or another and all of us except possibly one or two parties are all supportive of government reform, government program.  Does that mean that the entire impeachment court is biased and partial?  There is no other interpretation I can read into these actuations of the defense, Mr. President, except to destroy the credibility of this impeachment court.  I think that is the least that they ought to do because this would be the saving grace in our democracy.

If you destroy the one pillar of justice, the Senate, who can stand up even to the Supreme Court or the President, then you are really knocking down the very pillar that one day you may have to seek help and support from because you can stand up to any person or institution.

And to see how malicious this insinuation is, Mr. President, in their concluding paragraph they said, the only way Senator Angara can redeem himself is to vote for acquittal.

Mr. President, you know, I’ve been president of the UP, I’ve been president of the Integrated Bar, I’ve been president of the Asian Law Association, I’ve been honoured by all of these organizations in various ways, I’ve never seen legal logic like this.

And therefore, Mr. President, I take umbrage at this malicious paper.  My good friend, Joker, when I showed him the petition yesterday, he said, “Ed, don’t answer it.  It’s not worth it because you are doing a constitutional duty.  They don’t seem to appreciate that.”  And yet Joker is very sympathetic and I can share his feelings towards the cause of the defense.

So, you see, the — As of now.  But after this, maybe not anymore.  (Laughter)

So, Mr. President, I don’t know, one outstanding alumnus of the UP College of Law, very able, very skilful, very eloquent and can stand up an argument head to head with anyone, but he has one outstanding trait.  He seem he has a penchant for antagonizing the judge.  So, no client will ever—will now retain him because, what’s the use.  You may have a good cause, but if you antagonize the judge, your cause is lost.  No, I’m not comparing the defense panel to that one friend of mine who’s brilliant, knowledgeable, eloquent, but has a penchant for antagonizing the judge.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you, Senator Angara.

The Chair would like to state for the record that we respect the opinion of others regarding each one of us or all of us collectively.  But I assure you that none of you can sway us one way or the other.  And if you have any reason to believe that we are dishonest, say so candidly and openly, and we are ready, willing, able to defend ourselves.

So, let us forget about this sad incident.  Let’s proceed with the case.

Defense, present your evidence.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, with the kind permission of the court, Your Honor.  May I be allowed even one or more minutes, Your Honor, to make a little manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, there have been some insinuation yesterday that the defense have been trying to delay the proceedings in this case as evidenced by the fact that we have introduced quite a number of witnesses with no purpose and accomplishment whatsoever, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who was making the insinuation?  Was it from this court or from the—Let us be specific.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, that seem to be our impression, Your Honor, that apparently …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It was the court?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … the defense was trying to delay proceedings, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you suggesting that it was the court that created that impression?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, it came from the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, that’s the prosecution.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And we wanted to be heard in connection therewith.  Otherwise, we may be said to have a quist to that kind of a manifestation, Your Honor.

If the records will be read, Your Honor, we have introduced quite a number of witnesses in connection with our defense, Your Honor.  Some of them, they consist of three Register of Deeds, Your Honor, three City Assessors and Provincial Assessors, Your Honor.  Insofar as the register of deeds is concerned, we introduced them for the purpose of showing that there are no properties, aside from those mentioned in the SALN, Your Honor, of the honorable Chief Justice that belongs or were registered in his name.

We cannot lump up only one testimony or only one register of deeds because the properties are located in different places.  So, if we presented the register of deeds of Makati, of Manila and Quezon City, it was never our purpose, Your Honor, to gain time in order to delay the proceedings, Your Honor, not even the thought of it, Your Honor, but because we cannot do so.  The register of deeds of Makati will be highly incompetent, Your Honor, to testify in connection with the records of the office pertaining to Quezon City and Manila and vice versa.

That was our purpose, Your Honor.

And we also introduced the testimony of the administrator of the Land Registration office, from these statements obtained from them, Your Honor, on record, we were able to show convincingly, Your Honor, that the 45 real estate properties, allegedly referred to be registered and owned by Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor, does not all belong to him but only five of them.  Hence, it cannot be said that our purpose was merely to delay because apparently, we could read from the records that even the court was convinced that actually, there were only five or six properties that really belong to Chief Justice Corona.

Now, how about the testimony of the various representatives of the assessment office, Your Honor?  We introduced—we admit, Your Honor, we introduced three assessors, Your Honor, the city assessor of Makati, the city assessor of Manila and the city assessor of Quezon City, on the same ground, Your Honor, because we cannot make one of them testify for the entirety of the properties not located in the respective places.

So, if we presented three assessors, Your Honor, I hope, we will not be misunderstood as trying to delay the proceedings, but it because of our recognition that one is not competent to testify as to the other and vice versa, Your Honor.

Now, thereafter, we went further, Your Honor, we introduced in evidence the testimony of Ms. Arceli Bayuga, Your Honor, the finance officer of the Supreme Court, Your Honor, in order to belie and contradict the statement of on record that there was no statement of returns of income tax—income tax return, Your Honor, made by the honorable Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor, because from the testimony of the honorable Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Henares, Your Honor, for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010, Your Honor.  We were able to introduced the returns, Your Honor, identified by our witness, they were duly marked, we took note of the trouble of marking the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, we know all of that.  It is all in the record.  We are not accusing you of delaying.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  That was our impression, Your Honor, that we introduced these witnesses, simply because to gain time, Your Honor, that is why we are placing on record …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I must admit that yesterday, I said, you are wasting the time of the court by introducing someone to testify whether market fees are being collected from that market.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are not in conformity with that, Your Honor, but the plan of the other lawyers came up and we allowed him to take the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, then you better advice your other panel that those things are irrelevant.  We know what is an irrelevant evidence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We did, Your Honor.  In fact, I gave him a tongue lashing yesterday for the correction of all these matters that gave rise to the impression of the court.  That is our only purpose, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, to contradict that and so on.  Now, insofar as the land registration commissioner is concerned, Your Honor, we called him to the stand in order to testify on the various alleged properties belonging—which he ascribes to be belonging to the Chief Justice, and we were able to elicit admissions, Your Honor, to the effect that they were not properties registered in the name, specifically in the name …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is already given counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In fact, yesterday when Congressman Colmenares of the prosecution made a manifestation, the tendency of which was to reconsider the ruling of this Chair, on the claim that it will only prolong the proceedings, I denied it.  So, you can see that we are giving you all the time to defend the Chief Justice.  We know that you are entitled to defend the Chief Justice.  The impression or statement of the prosecution is their position.  But that is not the position of this court that you are delaying.  That is why we are asking you to wind up your manifestation so that we can proceed with the hearing.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you very much, Your Honor, for the opportunity for being allowed to bring all these matters into the record in order to straighten, at least, the impression that may have been created both public and upon the other parties involved in this case that we are trying to delay.  That was never our intention.  In connection, Your Honor, with the motion for inhibition, Your Honor, the motion was filed because of the feeling of the Chief Justice that at least he may not be able to obtain the called neutrality of a judge insofar as the subject of the motion is concerned.  Now, what we did was to file.  It is up for ..  We never stated that everything stated thereon are indubitably true, Your Honor.  What we wanted to express to give importance to the feeling of the Chief Justice, in order that if a decision is made one way or the other, there is no doubt as to the impartiality and lack of bias on the part of the deciding Members of the Senate, Your Honor.  Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, thank you for your manifestation.  We now proceed with the trial.  Do you have any witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, we have.  Your Honor please, may we ask for authority for Atty. Roy to conduct the direct examination of the witness on behalf of the defense panel, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. ROY.  Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honors.  May it please the Court.  During my presentation, I will present two witnesses who will testify, Your Honor on the decision pertaining to the ownership of the Basa Guidote Corporation.  I wish to state the relevance before we proceed because consistent with the mood of the court, I wish to request for admissions.  So, if you will allow me some leeway, I wish to point out that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, thank you, Your Honor.  The relevance of the ownership, of the actual ownership of the Basa Guidote pertains directly to matters stated in the SALN of the Chief Justice.  It involves the P11 million that was borrowed and repaid, and it may involve other acquisitions which may or may not have been drawn from the Basa Guidote funds.  That is why we need to present this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  May we call to the stand the Clerk of Court of Branch 216 of the RTC of Quezon City, Rosita Cristy, Your Honor.

(The witness was sworn to an oath by the Secretary)

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, on the part of the prosecution, may we ask permission that Atty. Cynthia Corazon Roxas be recognized to receive the testimony and later on to conduct cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

ATTY. ROY.  Before I proceed, Your Honor, I would like to invite the prosecution for an admission of the substance of the testimony of the witness, which incidentally, Your Honor, also constitutes the purpose for which the testimony is offered.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, you better propound the questions first.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If I were the lawyer from the other side, how can I …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … agree with you before you open your mouth to ask the question?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, precisely, so, if this witness will proceed with her testimony, first, she will testify that Criminal Cases No. Q96-68147 and Q96-68148 were heard before the RTC of Quezon City and these two cases are cases for libellous publication, entitled: People of the Philippines against Jose Maria Basa, et al., the uncle of Mrs. Cristina Corona. Second,  …

ATTY. ROXAS.  Just for the record, Your Honor, may I be excused, we will stipulate on that matter.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you.

Second, her testimony is offered to establish that a decision of conviction was arrived at in these two cases dated September 5, 2001.  May I have an admission.

ATTY. ROXAS.  We will stipulate on that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Those are matters of record. We can even take judicial notice of those things. Just present them.

ATTY. ROY.  If you will allow me, Your Honor, it is—will expedite because it appears that the opposing counsel is willing to stipulate anyway.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Precisely.

ATTY. ROY.  We would be very happy if you would allow us to put this on record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Okay.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Third, that a motion for reconsideration was resolved dated September 2 and that the same became final on October 12, both in the year of 2002 in both cases.

ATTY. ROXAS.  We will stipulate on that matter, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Fourth,  that a writ of execution for the said judgment was issued on April 23, 2003.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Again, we will stipulate on the matter, the matter being a matter of record.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, inasmuch as all the matters, all the important points to be testified to by this witness have been admitted by the prosecution, we ask that the witness be excused.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor please, may we be allowed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. ROXAS.  By way of counter stipulation, will the defense be willing to admit that insofar as the accused Jose Maria Basa is concerned, he died on August 29, 2002?

ATTY. ROY.  We have no knowledge, I am sorry.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Therefore, would the defense would be also willing to stipulate that during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration which was stated by the good counsel of the defense, there was a pending motion for reconsideration on the conviction as well as on the civil award in favor of the private complainant?

ATTY. ROY.  I am confused.  There was a motion for reconsideration …

ATTY. ROXAS.  You said that the motion for reconsideration was …

ATTY. ROY.  Resolved.

ATTY. ROXAS. … ruled upon.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Resolved.

ATTY. ROY.  And then, went final on 12 October 2002.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Yes, but it is during this period and we are going to prove that that on August 29, 2002, the accused Jose Maria Basa died.

ATTY. ROY.  I am not aware of the …

ATTY. ROXAS.  If the accused is not willing to stipulate on this matter, Mr. President, I am afraid that we should allow the defense to present this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What …

ATTY. ROY.  Let me just verify.  Am I aware of Mr. Basa’s death, personally, I do not …

ATTY. ROXAS.  But this is borne of the records.

ATTY. ROY.  Is it on the record?

ATTY. ROXAS.  It is part of cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. ROY. We stipulate that he passed on August 29, did you say?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I thought you have no knowledge.

ATTY. ROY.  No, personal, she said it is on the record, I’ll take her word from it. Anyway, the records are here, Clerk of Court is here.

ATTY. ROXAS. Madam Witness, will be willing to make it of record that indeed this notice of death was given to and submitted as part of the record of the case?

ATTY. ROY. May I—if you will allow me, I am on direct still, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROXAS.  No, but we are trying to expedite the proceedings.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes. I’ll ask first the question. I’ll ask her the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, respect this court.

ATTY. ROY.  With the permission of the Honorable Court. I want to establish the veracity of the proposition made by the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. ROY.  Madam Witness, can you please tell us whether or not there is anything in the records that attest to the death or establishes the date of death of the defendant Jose M. Basa?

MS. CRISTY.  Wala po.

ATTY. ROY.  And so, I cannot stipulate  on …

MS. CRISTY.  Wala pong notice of death.

ATTY. ROXAS.  In which case if there are no further questions on direct, may we be allowed to go directly to cross?

ATTY. ROY.  On what, Your Honor?

ATTY. ROXAS.  Because the witness is supposed to be here to testify on pertinent records pertaining to this case and while we did admit the existence of several documents which were—which transpired during the proceedings in this case, there are also several details which are indirect matters which have an importance in the proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Perhaps…

ATTY. ROY.  You can—If I may, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Perhaps the counsel would be kind enough to request for a stipulation likewise.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Okay.  May we request…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The court has ordered.  You cannot stipulate, proceed to direct the questions to the witness.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Would you like to stipulate…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are directed to proceed with your direct examination.

ATTY. ROY.  Very well, Your Honor.  Thank you, Your Honor.  With the permission of the Honorable Court.

Madam witness, can you please state for the record your personal circumstances, name and personal circumstances.

MS. WITNESS.  I am Lucita Masangcay Cristi, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of Valenzuela City.  I am the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 216, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.

ATTY. ROY.  How long have you been the Clerk of Court of Branch 216, Madam witness?

MS. CRISTI.  Since October 1999, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Alright, now, during your time as the clerk of court, are you still the current clerk of court?

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  As clerk of court, Madam witness, can you tell us whether or not you are familiar with Criminal Case Nos. Q-9668147 and Q-9668148?

MS. CRISTI.  I am familiar, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you please tell us, what is the title of these cases?

MS. CRISTI.  This is People of the Philippines—actually, there are two cases.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

MS. CRISTI.  People of the Philippines vs. Jose Maria Basa, Raymond Basa, Felix Carlos Besintillo, Virgilio Macabenta, Cecilia Basa, Bessie Basa, and… can I look at my record?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may we request that the witness be allowed to refer to the record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

MS. CRISTI.  And Flor Maria Guidote-Basa.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, Madam witness, can you please tell the honourable court what was the charge or the nature of the criminal cases, if I recall correctly this should appear on the face of the pleading.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor, please, we already admitted that this is a libel case, so there is no need for that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may I proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Please, go ahead.

MS. CRISTI.  The case says, wherefore, libel.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you please tell us whether or not, and when, if any, a decision was rendered in these cases.

MS. CRISTI.  A decision was rendered on September 5, 2001, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  How many decisions were rendered because you told me earlier that there were two cases.

MS. CRISTI.  Only one decision, Sir, because the two cases were consolidated.

ATTY. ROY.  Does that mean that they were heard jointly?

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Alright.  Now, what was the decision of the—do you have a copy of that decision with you?

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the decision has been previously marked.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor, please, we would like to manifest that the defense has already caused the marking of the same exhibit and this is exhibit 176 for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, noted.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you tell us, Madam witness, what is the dispositive portion of the decision stated, can you please attest to the outcome of the decision.

ATTY. ROXAS.  We have already admitted, Your Honor, on the same that there was a conviction.

ATTY ROY.  Your Honor, I am little perplexed. I thought that there had been no admission, precisely why I have been directed to proceed.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor, we have made several stipulations already on the matters, perhaps, counsel here would be able to propound questions on those matters which we have not stipulated on the past.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I said disregard the stipulation, let it be…

ATTY. ROXAS.  We will submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  …let it be–direct the questions and subject to the objections of the prosecution.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  May I just therefore request that the clerk of court who is here to certify the decision and to attest to its authenticity, anyway, read the dispositive portion for the benefit of the record and all concerned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  The witness may read of the decision.

MS. CRISTI.  “Wherefore, in Criminal Case No. Q-9668147, the court finds accused, Jose Ma. Basa III, Raymunda Gorospe Basa and Virgilio Macabenta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the information for libel and the court sentences them to suffer the penalty of four months and 21 days as minimum to one year, eight months and 21 days as maximum, ordering them to pay jointly and solidarily, Cristina Basa Roco Corona the sum of P200,000 moral damages and P50,000 for attorney’s fees.  Accused Cecilia Henson Basa, Betsy Basa del Chaves and Flor Maria Guidote Basa are hereby acquitted.

In criminal case No. Q-96-68148 the court finds accused, Jose Ma. Basa III, Raymunda Gorospe Basa and Virgilio Macabenta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the information for libel and the court sentences them to suffer the penalty of four months and 21 days as minimum to one year, eight months and 21 days as maximum, ordering them to pay jointly and solidarily Cristina Basa Roco Corona the sum of P200,000 for moral damages and P50,000 for attorney’s fees.  Accused Cecilia  Henson Basa, Betsy Basa del Chaves and Flor Maria Guidote Basa are hereby acquitted.  Let warrant of arrest issue for the apprehension of accused Felix Carlos Vicentillo(?).  So ordered.  Quezon City, Metro Manila, September 5, 2001.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Madam Witness.  Your Honor, I would like to manifest that the decisions in both cases, I mean the dispositive portions for both dockets are virtually identical and that the total civil indemnity of P500,000 was part of the judgment.  Now, you mentioned a…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I only heard P200,000 plus P20,000 and P200,000 plus P50,000.  Why P500?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may we ask the witness to clarify.

MS. CRISTY.  Your Honor, in the first case P200,000 as moral damages plus P50,000 as attorney’s fees.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I thought you said P20,000.

MS. CRISTY.  P200,000, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, the attorney’s fees, P50,000.

MS. CRISTY.  P50,000, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the first case.

MS. CRISTY.  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that’s also in the second case.

MS. CRISTY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, I stand corrected.  So that’s half a million.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Now, you mentioned that the decision includes an order for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, is that correct?

MS. CRISTY.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Now, can you please tell us if anything appears on the record, what did the defendants who were convicted do after the judgment was rendered by the court, the decision was rendered by the court, what did the defendants do, the accused?

MS. CRISTY.  Actually, sir, they did not appear in the promulgation of the decision.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  What else did they do?  Was there anything else they did?

MS. CRISTY.  They filed a motion for reconsideration.

ATTY. ROY.  They filed a motion for reconsideration and if I recall correctly that was dated September 2, 2002, am I correct?

MS. CRISTY.  No, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  When was it filed?  What was the date of the motion for reconsideration?

MS. CRISTY.  October 9, 2001 but filed before our court on October 18, 2001.

ATTY. ROY.  Filed.  The date was filed on October?

MS. CRISTY.  The motion was dated October 9, 2001 but the court received said motion on October 18, 2001.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you.  Now, can you tell us what did the court do with these motions for reconsideration—one  motion for reconsideration or two?

MS. CRISTY.  One motion, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  What did the court do with this motion for reconsideration?

MS. CRISTY.  The motion for reconsideration was set for hearing.

ATTY. ROY.  What else, what was the resolution of the court in the motion for reconsideration?

MS. CRISTY.  The motion for reconsideration was denied.

ATTY. ROY.  When was this denied?

MS. CRISTY.  On September 2, 2002, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Do you have proof of the denial?

MS. CRISTY.  The order, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Is there an order to that effect?

MS. CRISTY.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you please produce the order, Madam Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute, Counsel.  What is the relevance of this with respect to the impeachment?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, as I was pointing out earlier, this will result in the acquisition of the shares of the Basa Guidote Corporation because of the civil indemnity.  There is a levy on execution.  But before that, I have to establish the finality of the judgement, Your Honor.

Afterwards, we will show you that the shares of the corporation have been acquired by an individual.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Acquired by Mrs. Corona?

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor.  By someone else.  And that has a direct bearing on the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

So, you told me that it was resolved by order of the court on what date, Madam Witness?

MS. CRISTI.  On September 2, 2002, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  And what was the resolution of the court on the order?

MS. CRISTI.  The dispositive portion, Sir?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, I think so.

MS. CRISTI.  Wherefore, finding no cogent reason to deserve or modify the decision, dated September 5, 2001, the instant motion for reconsideration is denied.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may we request that the order denying the motion for reconsideration dated September 2, 2002 be marked as defense Exhibit 249.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor, please, may the prosecution be allowed to likewise adopt the same as Exhibit 11-O

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Correction, 11-P, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  P?  Is that 11-P?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Granted with that correction.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you tell us, Madam Witness, what is the status of that order denying the motion for reconsideration?

MS. CRISTI.  Sir, status?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.  What is the status?

MS. CRISTI.  Of the order denying the motion for …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, of the denial.  What happened after the denial?

MS. CRISTI.  The prosecution filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Did the accuse file anything?

MS. CRISTI.  No, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Did the accuse oppose?

MS. CRISTI.  No, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Did the accuse file another—an appeal or anything of the sort?

MS. CRISTI.  There was no appeal, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  In other words, what is the status now of the denial of the motion for reconsideration?

MS. CRISTI.  It is already final.

ATTY. ROY.  Final.  As of when?

MS. CRISTI.  As of—Fifteen days from receipt.

ATTY. ROY.  And according to your records, what date is that, Madam Witness?  What is the date of the receipt by the accused, Madam Witness?

MS. CRISTI.  Actually, the counsel received the order of denial, Sir, on September 26, 2002.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may we make of record that the witness is showing me what appear to be registry receipt return cards which indicate that they were received on September 26, 2002, and I invite opposing counsel to peruse them.

This was received by counsel, Madam Witness, am I correct?

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Your Honor, may we request that the cards which appear to be registry receipts, acknowledging receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration be marked as defense Exhibit 250.

ATTY. ROXAS.  We manifest that we join—we confirm.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But, you know, counsel, …

ATTY. ROY.  I’m sorry, Your Honor, I stand corrected.  These have been previously marked as 177-A—To be marked today as 177-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Mark it accordingly.

But, counsel, go direct to the point.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This decision against Jose Basa et al became final and executory.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Was it executed?

ATTY. ROY.  The next question is precisely that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your are too verbous. Go direct to the point.

ATTY. ROY.  Was a writ of execution issued by the court?

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  When?

MS. CRISTI.  On April 24, 2003, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  No further questions on the direct.  We will just have to mark the writ of execution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Executed against what?

ATTY. ROY.  I am sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That decision was executed for against what?

ATTY. ROY.  Against the defendants, Your Honor, who were convicted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what was the effect of the execution?

ATTY. ROY.  That will be testified to by the sheriff, Your Honor, who is the next witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor, please, we would like to manifest …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross.

ATTY. ROXAS.  No, the defense already had these document marked as Exhibit—the writ of execution as 178, may we be allowed to have the same marked for the prosecution as Exhibit 11Q.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly for the prosecution.

ATTY. ROY.  No further questions on direct, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Any cross?

ATTY. ROXAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Now, Madam Witness, sinabi niyo kanina na kayo ay nag-umpisa bilang branch clerk of court noong 1999 hanggang sa ngayon, tama po ba?

MS. CRISTI.  Opo.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Therefore, alam niyo po bilang taga-ingat ng lahat ng dokumento sa hukumang ito—sa hukumang branch 216, mayroon po kayong kaalaman or nasa kustodiya niyo ito?

MS. CRISTI.  Opo.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Pagkatapos na mag-file ng motion for reconsideration, tama po ba na bago maibigay o bago maibigay ng korte ang writ of execution, nagkaroon po dito ng notice of withdrawal ang counsel ng akusado na si Jose Maria Basa, at mayroon pleading na isinabmit sa korte.  Tama po ba?

MS. CRISTI.  May nabasa po ako based on records.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Pwede niyo po bang tingnan sa inyong mga records exactly kung nasaan po ang dokumentong ito?

Your Honor, please, just to help the witness, we have a copy of the motion to withdraw filed by the counsel for the accused.  May we be allowed to show the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  Who was the counsel for the accused?

ATTY. ROXAS.  In this particular case, Your Honor, the counsel for the accused was the law office of Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar.  This is dated December 20, 2002, do you confirm this, Madam Witness?

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Ma’am.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Now, this is a certified true Xerox copy, mayroon po ditong nakalagay sa ilalim, certified true Xerox copy, Attorney Lucita D. Masangakay-Cristi.  Kilala niyo po kung sino ito?

MS. CRISTI.  Ako po iyan.

ATTY. ROXAS.  So, pinatotohanan niyo poi tong motion to withdraw.

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Ma’am.

ATTY. ROXAS.  May we ask, Your Honor, please, that this document be marked as Exhibit 11R for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  Was that withdrawal prior to the judgment?

ATTY. ROXAS.  This was prior to the submission of a motion for issuance of the writ of execution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Now, Madam Witness, maari niyo po bang tingnan ang lahat ng mga dokumentong kalakip dito sa motion to withdraw na ito.  Tama po ba na sa kahuli-hulihang pahina ng motion nito ay mayroon isang sulat na may petsa ng November 26, 2002, at ang pumirma dito ay isang Anna Basa.  Kinukumpirma niyo po ba ito?

MS. CRISTI.  Opo.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Now, ito po, dito po sa dokumentong ito, sinabi po ni Atty. Fortun na siya po ay hindi na ang magiging abogado ng akusado.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, with all due respect …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the lawyer finish first.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Can you read Madam Witness, maaari po bang basahin ninyo ang unang talata ng sulat na in-attached para kay Atty. Raymund Fortun.

MS. CRISTI.  One of the things that we had to go through after Dad’s passing, aside from the emotional vacuum that he left, was to make decisions on matters and concerns that he left unfinished.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Sa inyo pong pagkakaintindi, Madam Witness, ano po ang ibig sabihin ng Dad’s passing?

ATTY. ROY.  Objection, Your Honor.  Speculative.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor, this is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Denied.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Ano po ang pagkakaintindi ninyo po dito sa talatang ito na lalo na na sinabi niya na Dad’s passing?  Ano po ang iyong pagkakaintindi doon?

MS. CRISTY.  Na ang kanya pong ama ay namatay na.

ATTY. ROXAS.  So, therefore, noong November 26, 2002, as of that date, namatay na po si Jose Maria Basa.

MS. CRISTY.  Opo.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Ayon kay Ana Basa na anak ng akusadong si Jose Maria Basa.

MS. CRISTY.  Yes, Ma’am.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Your Honor please, may we ask that this particular paragraph be marked as Exhibit 11-R-1.  Sabi ninyo, Madam Witness, na ito po ay, alam ninyo na ito ay isang libel case.  Alam ninyo po ba kung sino-sino ang mga partido sa kasong ito?

MS. CRISTY.  Alam ko po.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Alam ninyo po kung ano ang kanilang relasyon sa isa’t isa?

MS. CRISTY.  Nabasa ko po sa pleadings.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Ang private complainant po sa kasong ito ay si Cristina Corona.  Alam ninyo po ba kung ano ang kanyang relasyon sa namatay na Jose Maria Basa?

MS. CRISTY.  Nabasa ko po na uncle.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Uncle niya.  Okay.  Dito po, nakita natin na si Atty. Fortun dinikit ang letter ni Ana Basa kung saan sinabi niya na namatay.  Ang private complainant po ba rito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona sinabi po ba niya na ang kanyang uncle o tiyo ay namatay?

MS. CRISTY.  Wala po akong nabasang ganoon.

ATTY. ROXAS.   Sapagka’t sa ibang kaso, marami po kasing kaso ang mga Basa.  At sa isang kaso, mayroon pong sinubmit si Mrs. Cristina Corona na kung saan sinabi niya na si Jose Maria Basa ay namatay noong August 2002.

ATTY. ROY.  Objection, Your Honor.  This is not part of the records that the witness …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Allow the witness to answer.  Counsel, I warn you once more.  Do not interrupt the counsel while asking the question.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It is improper.

ATTY. ROY.  I apologize, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROXAS.  I would apologize.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Unethical.

ATTY. ROY.  I apologize, Your Honor.

MS. CRISTY.  ..I am showing to you, Madam Witness, isang manifestation na kung saan ang petitioners ay si Asuncion Basa Roco at si Cristina Roco Corona.  At ito ay ibinigay sa ibang korte.  At dito sa paragraph 1 dito, maaari po bang basahin ninyo?

MS. CRISTY.  It has come to the knowledge of petitioners that oppositor, Jose Maria Basa III passed away in Carson City, Nevada, United States of America in August, 2002.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Kasama po diyan kasi sa mga dokumentong iyan ay isang death certificate ni Jose Maria Basa sa Carson City.  By the way, ang dokumento pong iyan ay may petsang 11 October 2002.  Now, Your Honor please, may we request that this manifestation and motion be provisionally marked for the prosecution as Exhibit 11-S and the first paragraph as Exhibit 11-S-1.  It consists of 5 pages.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may we request that the document be similarly marked for the defense as Exhibit 250, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Now, Madam Witness, klaro dito na hindi lang sinabi ng abogado ng akusado na siya ay nag-withdraw.  Sinabi niya rito na base sa impormasyon ng kanyang anak, namatay ang kanyang ama.  Pagkatapos noon, just a few days after that, si Mrs. Corona mismo, nag-notify sa ibang kaso na ang kanyang tiyo ay namatay sometime in August 2002, tama po?

MS. CRISTY.  Tama po.

ATTY. ROY.  Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the ground of the objection?

ATTY. ROY.  The objection, Your Honor, is, it is immaterial.  It has nothing to do with the competency of the witness.  She is the Branch Clerk of Quezon City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Already answered Your Honor please, that there was actual notice given not only by the accused and counsel, but also by the private complainant herself, Mrs. Cristina Roco-Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The actual death.

ATTY. ROXAS.    The actual death of the accused, Jose Maria Basa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Happeed when?

ATTY. ROXAS.  On August 29, 2002, Your Honor, in Carson City, Nevada.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Okay.

ATTY. ROXAS.    Now, Mr. Witness—Madam Witness, I am sorry, sinabi ninyo na nagkaroon ng writ of execution.

MS. CRISTY.  Yes, ma’am.

ATTY. ROXAS.    Nagtataka lang po ako kasi kung may notice na po ang korte  at mismong ang private complainant dito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona ay alam na ang akusado mismo ay patay na, papaano ho magkakaroon ng iba pang proseso laban sa akusadong is Jose Maria Basa?

ATTY. ROY.  Objection, Your Honor, the question is misleading because …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MS. CRISTY.  Pwede pong pakiulit ang tanong?

ATTY. ROXAS.  Ibalik lang natin, Madam Witness, para mas klaro. Iyong motion for reconsideration natin, ang petsa ay—ang motion for reconsideration natin …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ang motion for reconsideration …

ATTY. ROXAS.   … ay October 9, 2001. Okay. Ang order granting the writ of execution based on the motion for issuance of writ is April 24, 2003. In the middle of all these things, sa gitna ng mga pangyayaring ito, bago nagkaroon ng issuance ng writ of execution, nagkaroon ng notice of death—ang akusado dito ay patay na and under the Revised Penal Code, once there is—once the death of the accused happens, then, both the criminal as well as civil liability is extinguished, tama po ba?

MS. CRISTY.  Tama po.

ATTY. ROXAS.   Then, kung ang notice of death ay ibinigay na sa korte, papaano po nangyari na nagkaroon pa ng writ of execution?  Hindi po ba dapat under the Rules of Court, ang dapat pong mangyari, ang private prosecution, for example, dapat na mag-submit ng separate action para sa civil indemnity na P500,000, nangyari po ba iyon sa kasong ito? Nagkaroon ba ng filing ng separate case dahil sa pagkamatay ni Jose Maria Basa?

MS. CRISTY.  Wala po.

ATTY. ROXAS.    Wala at actually ang nangyari na-issue ang writ of execution na noong April under the order dated April 24, 2003.  At, actually, namatay si Jose Maria Basa during the pendency of the Motion for Reconsideration because he died actually on August 29, 2002. Iyon lang po ang material dito, August 29, 2002 namatay si Jose Basa at alam iyon ni Cristina Corona, pero, nag-file pa rin po sila ng motion for issuance of writ of execution against the accused Jose Maria Basa and his wife Randy Basa kaya nagkaroon ng writ of execution dated April 28, 2003, tama po ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the court.

MS. CRISTY.  Tama po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question, Your Honor, should have been addressed to the judge of record and she is merely a clerk of court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Well, she is

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  She is merely implementing … Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She is under cross-examination, if she knows, the answer.

ATTY. ROXAS.    She already answered, Justice Cuevas, and also I just like to point out that the witness in this case is not an ordinary witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct.

ATTY. ROXAS.    She is a lawyer, she is a branch clerk of court of Branch 216, Quezon City, therefore, not only does she have custody of the records of this case, she would also know the basic rules not only of the Penal Code …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

ATTY. ROXAS. … but also of the Rules of Court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we reply, Your Honor, with the kind permission of the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That may be correct, Your Honor, but being merely a clerk of court, she has no power nor any authority to prevent the judge from acting one way or another either denying or granting it. There is a decision in this case, there was a motion for reconsideration. It was denied and therefore, it became—the decision became final

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You are questioning the competence of the witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Insofar as the issue of why the execution continued, Your Honor, because that is not within her control, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROXAS.  But she is your own witness, Mr. Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The question is only asking for facts.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is why…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Whether there was a writ of execution issued after death.  That is a factual issue.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is not the question, Your Honor, with due respect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What was the question?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question was, why was there a writ of execution issued even after the death of the accused, Your Honor, because apparently, they are of the theory that the moment the accused died…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer if she knows.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Already answered.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano answer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What was the answer?

ATTY. ROXAS.  She answered, yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes?  Yes, what?

MS. CRISTI.  Tama po na inisyu ang writ of execution.

ATTY. ROXAS.  After the death.

Now, one final point, just to make things very clear.

Madam Witness, you said awhile ago that the motion for reconsideration was denied and this is in the order of the court dated September 2, 2002, tama po?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Admitted, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Admitted.  Now, kanina, sinabi nyo rin na—nagbigay ako sa inyo ng mga dokumento na nagsabi si Anna Basa sinabi ang tatay niya namatay, at sinabi rin mismo ito ni Cristina Corona na ang uncle nya ay namatay.  These dates, this date is on August 29, 2002, I think the last question I will pose on you is very, very simple.  Does the date of August 29, 2002 come before the date of September 2, 2002 which is the date when the order of the motion for reconsideration was issued.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is a matter of judicial notice, Your Honor, please, that is a matter of judicial notice.

ATTY. ROXAS.  This is a very simple question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MS. CRISTI.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Then, we have no further questions for this witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Re-cross.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, redirect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ah, redirect, okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No more questions?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No redirect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, the witness is discharged.

ATTY. ROXAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next witness.

ATTY. ROY.  We call our next witness to stand, Your Honor, Mr. Joseph Bisnar, Sheriff of Branch 216 of the RTC of Quezon City.

Mr. President, may I request for a one-minute suspension to fetch the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you.

It was 3:17 p.m.

Resumption of Trial

3:19 p.m.

THE SECRETARY.  Mr. Witness, please raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. WITNESS.  I do.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

ATTY. TUPAS.  Your Honor, on the part of the prosecution, may we be allowed to call on Atty. Ginez to receive the testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, again, I would like to present Mr. Bisnar in order to establish the execution of the decision testified to by the previous witness.  And again, I would like to in the course of stating the purpose for which we are offering his testimony, invite the prosecution to admit the same if they are so inclined.  The testimony of this witness is being offered for the purpose of establishing that a writ of execution was issued in criminal cases Q-9668147 and Q-9668148 by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216.

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

ATTY. GINEZ.  We admit, Your Honor, but subject to cross-examination on the implementation of the writ of execution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROY.  Secondly, his testimony is offered to establish that he was the one who executed the writ of execution in these said cases.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We admit, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Third, that the execution did in fact take place on September 30, 2003.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We admit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROY.  And that in fact in the course of the execution, a total of 4,729 shares of the Basa, Guidote Enterprises…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How much?

ATTY. ROY.  4,729, Your Honor, shares of the Basa, Guidote Enteprises Inc. were sold for the amount of P25,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sold for the price of P25,000.

ATTY. ROY.  At public auction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  What is the total capitalization recorded?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I’m not mistaken the authorized capital stock is 10,000 shares with…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All issued and outstanding?

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor.  Only about 5,325 were issued.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who were the stockholders of the corporation?

ATTY. ROY.  They are all members of the Basa, Guidote Enteprises Inc.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you kindly—if you  know—state them into the record.

ATTY. ROY.  I do not have the list with me right now, Your Honor, but may I be allowed to submit them through a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Your Honor, the second…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who were the registered owners of these 4,729 shares against which the writ of execution was…

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the 4,729  shares belong to the defendant, Jose Basa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All of it?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  And in addition, another 110 shares were also executed against the co-accused or co-defendant, Raymundo Basa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So out of 5,325, the balance is…

ATTY. ROY.  4,839, Your Honor.  110 shares to Raymundo Basa.  So 4,839 shares were auction off for a total amount of P28,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If you subtract 4,729 shares from 5,325, what is the balance?

ATTY. ROY.  486, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  486.  And who are the owners of this 486.

ATTY. ROY.  I think Sister Flory Basa would be one of them though I am not certain as to the remainder.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  And that these 4,729 shares and the 110 shares that were auctioned off by Sheriff Bisnar…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  4,729 plus…

ATTY. ROY.  And 110 belonging to Raymundo Basa, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was he a respondent in the case?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, he was convicted as well, Mr. President, and that total, that sum of shares was sold at public auction for P28,000 to one Carla Corona Castillo, the daughter of the Chief Justice.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We admit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROY.  In that case, Your Honor, I can dispense with the direct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And this is the owner of the property that was sold to—?

ATTY. ROY.  To the City of Manila, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To the City of Manila?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For P34.7 million?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That was the asset of the corporation?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  And the purpose for establishing these facts is to demonstrate to the court that whatever it is was done with the so-called Basa Guidote funds will in effect be capable of ratification by the purchaser of these shares as the virtually the sole stockholder.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And when was the sale to the City of Manila?

ATTY. ROY.  That was in 2001, if I’m not mistaken, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2001.  And the acquisition of the shares by Carla Corona?

ATTY. ROY.  2003, Your Honor, September 30.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the shares were only sold for P25,000?

ATTY. ROY.  P28,000 in all, Your Honor.  In public auction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For a corporation that has an asset of P34 point …

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead.

ATTY. ROY.  So, I want to know if the opposing counsel is willing to stipulate.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We stipulated already on the fact of the sale, Your Honor.  On the fact of the issuance of the certificate of sale in favour of Carla Castillo, Your Honor.  Subject to cross, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  We also—Your Honor, then …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … for the information of this court, this is a peripheral issue, but nonetheless, since you connect it with the impeachment case, what was the percentage of this 4,839 to the totality of the shares of stock of the corporation?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, mathematically, that amounts to 90.87%

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  90.87%.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  3% was the minority.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did the minority got paid for their shares?

ATTY. ROY.  Not yet, Your Honor.  The remaining shares of 485 or 486 have not been acquired by either the Chief Justice or his daughter.  They remain in the hands of the, if I’m not mistaken, some of the siblings of Mrs.  …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the corporation liquidated?

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor, it has not been liquidated.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the board of directors constituted?

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor.  It is not an operational corporation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When the property of the corporation was sold to the City of Manila, was there a stockholders’ meeting to authorize the sale of all or substantially all of the …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  There was a valid and legitimate board authorization issued by the board of directors by the stockholders previously.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was there an actual transfer of the shares of stock to the buyer?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, there appears to be a problem with respect to the certificate of sale is construed as the transfer of shares of stock.  The registration of the sale, Your Honor, has not been completed because up to this time, the stock and transfer book has neither been located nor reconstituted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then who voted—Who are the stockholders who voted to authorize the sale of all or substantially all of the shares of the corporation?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the sale of the shares was by virtue of public auction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no.  I’m talking about the sale of the land.

ATTY. ROY.  O, the property?  The property, Your Honor, had been previously authorized, even before the corporation seized operations.  A power of attorney was issued in favour of Christina Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By whom?

ATTY. ROY.  By the stockholders and the persons in control of the corporation, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Just for the record, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.  I think we can refer to the records.  The authority of Christina Corona was issued by the board of directors, not by the stockholders.  It is the board of directors.  A 14-year-old authorization by the board of directors, not the stockholders, Mr. President.  Just for the record.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your  Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  So it is not the stockholders per se?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, you are all great corporation lawyers.  You better study this angle ha.

ATTY. ROY.  Well, Your Honor, that is correct.  The board of directors who issued that authorization were also the stockholders of the corporation.  At any rate, it was not a stockholders meeting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Even then, even then.

ATTY. ROY.  Anyway, that is the point of the witness, Your Honor, to establish that the bulk of the shares of the Basa-Guidote Corporation are now owned by Carla Corona Castillo, the daughter of the Chief Justice.  And if …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And so the money went to—the proceeds of the sale of the property of Basa-Guidote, P34.7 million went to Carla Corona?

ATTY. ROY.  That is not quite how it happened, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why not if she is the owner of the corporation?

ATTY. ROY.  In fact, we will establish later on, this was entrusted to its current custodians.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what?

ATTY. ROY.  It is a matter between family members, Your Honor, and we will show that she entrusted the management of the funds.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, we will come to that but I tell you, my understanding of Corporation Law is all the proceeds of the corporation property, if sold will go to the stockholders.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not to anyone else.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Mr. President.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We will proceed with our cross, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, just a few questions with the Sheriff, if you do not mind.

Mr. Witness, good afternoon.  Please speak into the microphone.  Now, you were the one who executed the writ of execution, am I correct?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you please—pwede niyo bang sabihin sa amin, ano po ang ginagawa niyo kapag ipinapatupad niyo po—noong ipinatupad niyo po itong writ of execution na pinag-uusapan po rito.

MR. BISNAR.  Noong una po ay nagpa-receive po ako ng kopya ng writ of execution, sa case po na ito, isinabay ko na po ang pag-serve ng writ of execution saka notice of garnishment po.

ATTY. ROY.  Mayroon pa po ba kayong ibang ginagawa sa pagpapatupad po nitong mga writ of execution?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.  Kapag natanggap na po iyong writ of execution saka notice of garnishment at mayroon pong makukuha—mayroon po silang ibinigay na—in this case po, may stocks sila na ibinibigay na pwedeng i-garnish, sinet ko po for auction sale iyong shares of stocks.

ATTY. ROY.  Paano niyo po ipinapaalam itong pag-set for auction sale na sinasabi niyo?  Paano niyo po inaanunsyo itong auction sale?

MR. BISNAR.  On the day of the auction sale po.

ATTY. ROY.  Pakisalaysay lahat noong paraan kung paano niyo po ina-anunsyo iyong auction sale, although alam naman natin iyan e.  Paano niyo ba ginagawa iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Kapag na-receive na po iyong notice of Sheriff sale, ise-set po ang sale for auction, in this case po, sinet po ng September 30 …

ATTY. ROY.  Oo nga ho.  Paano niyo ho inannunsyo sa publiko?

MR. BISNAR.  Sa publiko, sa takdang oras po ay tinatanong ko kung mayroong interesado.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi ba—sandali lang, hindi ba mayroong publication iyan sa peryodiko?

MR. BISNAR.  In this case po wala po dahil …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bakit?

MR. BISNAR.  Posting lang po ito.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

MR. BISNAR.  Ang publication po yata ay sa real property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige.  Kung shares of stock, walang publication?

MR. BISNAR.  Sa pagkakaalam ko po, wala na po, posting lang po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige.

ATTY. ROY.  Ito po ba ay ginawa niyo?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. ROY.  Saan niyo po ipinost itong sinasabi niyong paalala?

MR. BISNAR.  Sa bulletin board po ng court room ng branch 216.

ATTY. ROY.  Ito po ba ay pangkaraniwang gawain?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. ROY.  Sa madaling salita, ipinost niyo doon sa bulletin board at ang petsang nakatakda para sa auction ay ano po?

MR. BISNAR.  September 30 po, 2003.

ATTY. ROY.  September 30, 2003.

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. ROY.  Ngayon, noong araw na iyon, ano po ang ginawa niyo para ipatupad ito pong writ of execution matapos niyo pong i-post iyong notice doon sa bulletin board?

MR. BISAR.  Noong September 30 nga po, noong bandang bago mag ika-sampu pa ng umaga, bumaba ho ako sa lobby ng hall of justice at doon po ay itinanong ko kung mayroong mga interesadong magbid doon sa shares of stock.

ATTY. ROY.  Mayroon po bang sumagot?

MR. BISNAR.  Ang sumagot po ay isang tao lamang.

ATTY. ROY.  Sino po, kung natatandaan ninyo?

MR. BISNAR.  Si Carla Castillo po.

ATTY. ROY.  Mayroon pa po bang ibang tao na dumalo doon sa auction?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala po maliban po kay Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. ROY.  Mayroon pa po bang iba?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala na po.  Iyong abogado po nila.

ATTY. ROY.  Iyong mga abogado.  So, samakatuwid po, iyong naroroon, noong ipatupad ninyo itong auction, ay si Carla Castillo, Mrs. Corona at …

MR. BISNAR.  Iyong lawyer ho nila.

ATTY. ROY.  At siyempre kayo.

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. ROY.  Ano ho ngayon ang nangyari noong nandoon na sila lahat, sino ho ang nagsabing interesado siya doon sa binebenta ninyong mga shares of stock?

MR. BISNAR.  Si Carla Castillo po.

ATTY. ROY.  Carla Castillo.  Ano po ang ginawa ninyo noong nagsabi siya na siya ay interesado?

MR. BISNAR.  Isinigaw ko nga po na kung may interested na bidders ay wala pong ibang sumasagot, ay sinimulan ko na po iyong auction sale.  Pagkatapos po noon, nagbid na nga po si Carla Castillo.

ATTY. ROY.  Ano po ang bid niya, kung inyong natatandaan?

MR. BISNAR.  Ang bid po niya sa total shares ay P28,000.00 po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Magkano, magkano?

MR. BISNAR.  P28,000.00 po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano ang par value ng shares?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko alam po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does counsel know the par value of the shares?

ATTY. ROY.  I am sorry.  Your Honor, actually I have the articles of incorporation here but I am not sure whether it is stated, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ten pesos, one hundred pesos.

ATTY. ROY.  One hundred pesos each, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are talking here of 4,839 shares, that means you have P483,900.00 worth of shares at par value.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And given the value of the property at the time of the sale, this was sold at P34,700,000.00, the fair value of the share is a lot, lot, lot, more than the par value.

ATTY. ROY.  That appears to be the case, Your Honor.  Although may I point out that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, we are just trying to establish that as a fact.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  Well, Your Honor, I am sorry, while that is the par value, the shares were merely subscribed I think at that time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But nevertheless, the value, the kind, those shares are at least P34.7 million.

ATTY. ROY.  Insofar as the property is concerned, Your Honor, yes.  So, if I may proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  So, Mr. Witness, sabi ninyo po na nag bid nga po ng P28,000.00.  Ano po ang ginawa ninyo?

MR. BISNAR.  Nong nag bid po ng P28,000.00, wala naman pong ibang bidders na, in-award na ho sa kanya iyong shares of stock.

ATTY. ROY.  Kanino po?  Sino po siya?

MR. BISNAR.  Carla Castillo.

ATTY. ROY.  In-award ninyo iyong shares of stock na in-auction.

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Si Mrs. Corona ba hindi nag bid?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pero siya ang inatasan na magbenta noong lupa, hindi ba?

ATTY. ROY.  He would not know, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I am asking, kung alam niya.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi mo alam.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko po alam ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, go ahead.

ATTY. ROY.  Pagkatapos pong na-award sa kanya, ano po ang ginawa ninyo?

MR. BISNAR.  Nag-issue po ako ng receipt on behalf of Mrs. Corona, iyon nga po, ginawa ko ang resibo tapos pinirmahan ni Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. ROY.  Maaari ninyo bang ipaliwanag sa amin, ano ho ba ang ibig sabihin noong receipt na in-issue ninyo?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Look, look.  May I just  ang bumili ng shares of stock anak ni Mrs. Corona?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo, Carla Castillo po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ang tumanggap noong pera doon sa anak na bumili noong shares of stocks ang nanay si Mrs. Corona, ‘di ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Sang-ayon sa mga dokumento na nandito na sa impeachment court, Mrs. Corona ay ahente noong korporasyon upang ipagbili ang lupa. Samakatuwid alam niya ang presyo noong lupa na pinagbibili niya?

MR. BISNAR.  (answer inaudible)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  So, nag-issue po kayo ng receipt mula kay Mrs. Corona katibayan ng pagbayad po noong shares, tama po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. ROY. Tapos, mayroon pa po ba kayong ginawa? Ano pang dokumento ang in-issue ninyo sa kanila?

MR. BISNAR.  Pagkatapos po noon, makukuha ko na iyong certificate of sale.

ATTY. ROY.  Nag nagsasabing—ano po ang laman ng iyong certificate of sale, kung naaalala ninyo?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Submit the certificate of sale, that will be the best evidence.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, actually, it has been marked but may I request that the receipt that was mentioned earlier by the Sheriff be adopted as defense Exhibit No. 251.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    I don’t think there is any question about the payment of that consideration for the …

ATTY. ROY.  Just for the record, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Is there any?  Are you questioning that Carla Corona paid that X amount for the 4,839 shares with the par value of P100 each?

ATTY. GINEZ.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No question.

ATTY. ROY.  Very well, Your Honor. In which case, I am done with my direct examination.

Your Honor, may I request, anyway, that the receipt, nonetheless, be marked, anyway, there appears to be no objection from the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  With that, Your Honor, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Cross.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor. Magandang hapo po, Mr. Sheriff Bisnar.

MR. BISNAR.  Magandang hapon po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sabi ninyo kayo ay Sheriff ng Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 216?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ilang taon na po kayong Sheriff ng nasabing Korte?

MR. BISNAR.  Mula po ng 1994.

ATTY. GINEZ.  1994. So, masasabi po natin na kayo ay nasa mga 16 years nang sheriff sa korteng ito, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Pwede na po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Salamat po. Maaari rin natin pong sabihin at kayo ay sasang-ayon sa akin na sa loob ng 16 years ng pagiging sheriff po ninyo, kayo ay bihasa at alam na alam na ninyo ang mga alituntunin at patakaran ng pagpapa-implement ng writ of execution, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi naman pong bihasang-bihasa, pero, marunong na po siguro.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ito pong pinag-uusapan natin ay ang Rule 39 ng Rules of Court, ‘di po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ito pong writ of execution, mayroon po bang kopya ng writ of execution marked as Exh.  178 of the defendant—of the respondent?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Eto pong writ of execution na pinirmahan noong judge ng korteng ito ay kayo ay inaatasan na ito ay i-implement particularly ang award of civil damages sa dalawang kasong ito na ang total ay P500,000, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Now, Sheriff, tama rin po bang sabihin na bago ninyo i-implement ang writ of execution ay kailangan ninyong i-familiarize at alamin ang mga nangyarin bago ma-issue iyong writ of execution sa records ng korte, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Sa akin po kung ano po iyong inaatas sa akin ng writ of execution n iyon, iyon lang po ang importante.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Kanina po sa isang testigo ay inilabas ng prosekusyon ang isang motion to withdraw na ipinayl ng dating abugado ni Jose Maria Basa III at iyong kalakip doon sa motion to withdraw ay ang sulat ni Ana Basa sa abugado na—ng Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar. Ipapakita ko po sa inyo, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  We admit the existence of the document, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Tama po bang sabihin Sheriff na nalaman ninyo at…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang, ano ang answer ng witness?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala pa hong…

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ipinapakita ko pa lang, I will ask the question now, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, go ahead.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Tama po bang sabihin Sheriff na nalaman ninyo na ang pagkaka-file nitong motion to withdraw at ang kalakip na sulat ni Anna Basa sa korte na nagsasabi na ang kanyang tatay, isa sa mga akusado, na ang ipinagbabayad dito sa korteng ito ng P500,000.00 ay patay na, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Ngayon ko pa lang po nalaman.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sheriff, kayo, sabi nyo kanina kayo ay pamilyar sa alituntunin natin sa pag-iimplement ng writ of execution.  Alam po ba ninyo ang Section 7, Rule XXXIX ng Rules of Court regarding execution in case of death of party?  Eto po, babasahin ko sa inyo particularly po iyong Section paragraph d- – “In case of death of the judgment obligor against his executor or administrator or success or in interest, if the judgement be for the recovery of real or personal property or for the enforcement of a lien thereon”.  Ala po ba ninyo ito?

MR. BISNAR.  Nabasa ko na ho minsan.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ibig sabihin Sheriff na ‘pag meron na kayong writ of execution at napagalaman ninyo na ang akusado sa kasong ito ay namatay na, depende ang gagawin ninyo o kung ang inuutos ng korte ay recovery of real property or personal property or for pinagbabayad siya ng sum of money, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi po ba Sheriff alam din ninyo na ‘pag ang utos ng korte sa writ of execution ay pinagbabayad siya ng pera kagaya sa korteng ito, P500,000.00, hindi po ba pag patay na ang akusado hindi na pupuwedeng i-implement and writ of execution?

MR. BISNAR.  In this case po hindi ko alam na patay na.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Pero alam po ba ninyo na ang ipinag-uutos ng batas, ng Rule XXXIX, at ng Section 5, Rule 86 ng Rules of Court na ‘pag ang utos, sabi ko nga sa inyo, pinagbabayad ng sum of money, ang writ of execution sa isang patay na ay hindi na dapat ginagawa, hindi po ba, alam po ninyo iyan.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ho ako masyadong pamilyar doon.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Akala ko po kanina Sheriff sabi ninyo hindi kayo bihasa pero sabi ninyo marunong at nabasa ninyo naman na ang Rules of Court.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, I think counsel is arguing with the witness.  The Sheriff answered he did not know.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko nga ho alam iyong tungkol ho sa rule na iyon.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi ho ninyo alam.  Wala po bang pagkakataon na kayo ay naisyuhan ng writ of execution na ang isang party ay patay na?

MR. BISNAR.  Pagkakatanda ko po wala po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ito ang unang pagkakataon ngayon nalaman nyo na na si Jose Maria Basa III ay patay na bago ma-isyu iyong writ of execution.  Ito ang unang pagkakataon?

MR. BISNAR.  Ngayon ko pa lang po nalaman.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ngayon, itong Rules of Court po natin ay mayron ding specific na Section kung paano natin i-implement ang isang tinatawag na judgment for money at ito ay nakalagay sa Section 9, di po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Bago po tayo pumunta diyan, hindi po ba Sheriff kayo po ay nag-isyu ng Sheriff’s Report sa mga ginawa po ninyo?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  At ito po ay dated March 16, 2012.

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Kailan po ba ninyo ginawa iyong auction sale dito?

MR. BISNAR.  2003 po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  2003 at kayo ay nagbigay ng Sheriff’s Report 2012.  Ilang taon po ang nakaraan bago kayo nakagawa ng Sheriff’s Report?

MR. BISNAR.  Siyam po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ipapakita ko po sa inyo ang Sheriff’s Report, certified true xerox copy ni Atty. Lucita D. Masangcay Cristi.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, we admit the Sheriff’s Report, we admit the date as well.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We request that it be marked as our exhibit 11-T, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  May we likewise adopt the exhibit as defense Exhibit 252, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sheriff, hindi po ba nakalagay dito sa ating rules of court, ito po kasi ang ating kung baga tawagin nating bibliya nating mga abogado at mga sheriff, hindi po ba nakalagay po dito sa rules of court natin at babasahin ko po para sa inyong benefit, “Section 14, Return of Writ of Execution. The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full.”  Hindi po ba ang itinatakda at ang iniuutos sa inyo ng rules of court natin sa binasa ko ay immediately whether partial or full ang satisfaction?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ang siyam na taon po ba ay immediate, sheriff?

MR. BISNAR. Kung pwede po akong magpaliwanag, may…

ATTY. GINEZ.  Katungkulan po yan ng abogado ng depensa para kayo ay magpaliwanag.  Salamat po, sheriff.

MR. BISNAR.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Now, sheriff, hindi po ba dito sa ating rules of court pag meron kayong mga hindi ginawa na hindi ayon sa ating rules of court, kayo ay pwedeng makasuhan o mapagbayad?  Ito po ay babasahin ko, tatanungin ko lang po sa inyo kung alam nyo ito.  Ito po ay ang “Section 17, Penalty for Selling Without Notice or Removing or Debasing Notice.  An officer selling without the notice prescribed by Section 15 of this rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in the amount of P5,000 to any person injured thereby in addition to his actual damages both to be recovered by motion in the same action.”  Ngayon, sheriff, in connection dito sa binasa ko, sabi ninyo sa pamamagitan at sa pagsagot sa tanong ng abogado ng depensa kayo ay nag-posting.

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sheriff, hindi po ba tama na sabihin natin na ang lahat ng ating mga ginawa sa execution di po dapat iyan ay nakalagay sa ating sheriff’s report?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Dapat lahat anumang detalye dahil ito ay itinatakda ng ating revised rules of court at ito ay napakaimportante dahil ang sinasabi ng mga desisyon ay dapat mandatorily  complied all requirements of execution in order that the said execution and substitute sale shall be valid.  Hindi po ba dapat nandyan lahat sa inyong sheriff’s report, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Dapat po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Pakibasa nga po ninyo, dalawang pahina ninyo na sheriff’s report, pakibasa po ninyo, tignan po ninyo ang sheriff’s report.  Nandyan po ibinigay ko po sa inyo iyong certified true copy.

MR. BISNAR.  Meron po ako.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi po ba, sheriff, basahin po ninyong maigi, line by line, wala kayong sinasabi dyan sa sheriff’s report na kayo ay nag-posting ng notice of sheriff’s sale ng mga nasabing shares of stocks?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko nga ho inilagay.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Salamat po.  Pinapaalalahanan ko pa po kayo na kayo ay pwedeng maging liable ng punitive damages ng P5,000, an actual damages sa ginawa po ninyong pagbebenta na walang notice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At this juncture, Your Honor, with the kind permission of the honourable court, may we be referred most specifically with the section involved.  We are trying to locate that any and all things that took place must be recorded in the sheriff’s report.  Incidentally enough we had been teaching the subject.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The counsel may do so.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano ho bang seksyon yon?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Section 17, we cited Section 17 insofar as the punitive and actual damages, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Rule 39?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Rule 39, Your Honor, insofar as all matters taken up in the execution should be stated in the sheriff’s report and that is…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the permission of the court, where is that particular statement that the sheriff…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The counsel said Rule 39, Section 17 JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  We were trying to inform ourselves again of this Section 17.  We see nothing to that effect.  That’s the basis of our observation.  That the Sherriff must include any and all acts performed by him.  For instance, the posting of the notice, and everything which must be made immediately.

We do not see that—May we be allowed to read Section 17, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  “Penalty for selling without notice, or removing or defacing notice.”  They are entirely a different subject matter, Your Honor.

“SEC. 17. Penalty for selling without notice, or removing or defacing notice.—An officer selling without the notice prescribed by section 15 of this Rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in the amount of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured thereby, in addition to his actual damages, both to be recovered by motion in the same action; and a person willfully removing or defacing the notice posted, if done before the sale, or before the satisfaction of the judgment if it be satisfied before the sale, shall be liable to pay five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured by reason thereof, in addition to his actual damages, to be recovered x x x”

So, there is nothing mentioned in here that the Sherriff is under legal obligation to place it in the Sherriff return all the proceeding and the action taken by him.  And that is our point of observation, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.  He is under cross.  (Gavel)

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.  I’ll go to another point actually, Your Honor.

Sherriff, hindi ba tinanong ko kayo kanina na ang utos sa inyo ng korte, ng Branch 216, ay pagbayarin si Jose Maria Basa at yung mga kasama niyang mga akusado ng Limang daang piso?

And you will agree with me na ito po ay isang judgement for money.  Hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  At ito po ay covered ng Section 9, Rule 39 ng Rules of Court.  Hindi po ba, Sherriff?  Natatandaan nyo po bay an?

MR. BISNAR.  Section 9 po, hindi ko na po matandaan.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ang paragraph A po nyan ay nakalagay dito immediate payment on demand.  Babasahin ko po para sa inyong kapakinabangan.

“The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the lawful amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees.”

Sherriff, hindi po ba sinabi nyo kanina sa pagtatanong ng abogado ng depensa na ang ginawa po ninyo ay isinerve po ninyo yung writ of execution noong—At tama po bang sabihin na noong araw ding yon ay isinerve nyo ang notice of garnishment?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  So, hindi po ninyo—Magsasang-ayon po ba kayo sa akin na hindi nyo po tinupad ang sinasabi nung paragraph A ng Section 9 na kailangan muna na kayo ay mag-demand na bayaran nung kung sinomang akusado ang nakalagay sa writ of execution?  Wala po kayong ginawa na ganoon?  Hindi po ba, Sherriff?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala po kasi wala ho yung akusado e.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Wala nga po dahil patay na siya, di ba?

MR. BISNAR.  At that time hindi ko alam.  Ang kwan don ay yung caretaker nila.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Okay.  Now, in fact, Sherriff, sa korte, nakalagay naman doon kung ano ang mga address ng akusado, sila Raymunda at sila Mario Basa, hindi ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  At ang kanilang address po Libis, Quezon City, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Opo.  E yung writ of execution po ninyo at ang notice of garnishment ay sinerve po ninyo sa 901 Lepanto Street, Sampaloc, Manila.  Tama ho ba iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Tama po.  Kasi po sa mga returns po ng mga order ng court saka mga notices and returns po don ay unknown na yung mga akusado sa lugar na yon.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Maitanong ko po, Sherriff, sino po ba ang nagsabi sa inyo na ang Basa Guidote Enterprises na ito ay nasa 901 Lepanto Street, Sampaloc, Manila?  Ang private complainant po ba dito si Christina Corona?

MR. BISNAR.  Ang sabi ho yata yung lawyers nila.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ah, ang lawyers ni Cristina Corona.  Natatandaan niyo po, ito, tandang tanda n’yo.  At ito po, Sheriff, ay tinanggap n’yo na ha hookline and sinker kumbaga, iyon nga ba ang—iyon ba ang ibig niyong sabihin?

MR. BISNAR.  Ang alin po?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Na ang Basa-Guidote Enterprises ay nasa 901 Lepanto St. Sampaloc, Manila.

MR. BISNAR.  Dahil iyon po ang ibinigay noong information nila.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi na po kayo nagsiyasat sa ating Securities and Exchange Commission kung saan nga ba talaga itong sinasabi nilang Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi na po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi niyo po nalaman na ang Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. ay nasa 903 Lepanto St. Sampaloc, Manila.  Hindi niyo nalaman na iyan.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko na ho …

ATTY. GINEZ.  Dahil hindi na kayo nagsiyasat sa SEC, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Kayo ay naniwala na sa mga abogado ni Cristina Corona.

MR. BISNAR.  Opo at saka po nagbigay naman po ng kwan e—sumagot po doon sa notice of garnishment ko iyong Assistant Corporate Secretary noong Basa-Guidote.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ito po ay si Cristina Corona.

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sinabi niya sa inyo na siya ay Assistant Corporate Secretary.

MR. BISNAR.  Ang sabi po …

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sabi niya.

MR. BISNAR.  Sa records po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi niyo na rin ito inalam sa SEC na totoo nga ba kaya siya ay Assistant Corporate Secretary.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko na po inalam.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Again, you accepted it hookline and sinker kung ano ang sinabi sa inyo ni Ginang Corona.

MR. BISNAR.  Dahil …

ATTY. GINEZ.  Opo, ano ang sagot po niyo, Sir?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo dahil iyon ang isinabmit niya pong records sa office.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ngayon, nang nagpunta po kayo dito sa sinasabing Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc., 901 Lepanto St. Sampaloc, Manila, sasang-ayon po kayo sa akin na ito po ay hindi opisina, ‘di ho ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi—matagal na po iyon, pero iyon nga ho, parang lumang bahay siya.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Lumang bahay.  Hindi niyo po ba napag-alam o sinabi man lang sa inyo ni Ginang Corona na iyong 901 Lepanto St. Sampaloc, Manila ay iyon ang bahay, lumang bahay o ancestral house noong kanyang mga magulang.  Hindi po ba niya sinabi sa inyo iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi niya po sinabi.

ATTY. GINEZ.  So, pagdating niyo po doon sa lumang bahay, sa 901 Lepanto St., wala kayong nakita doon na karatula na Basa-Guidote Enterprises.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko na ho matandaan kung mayroon o wala.

ATTY. GINEZ.  So, wala rin kayong mga nakitang mga empleyado doon o mga office workers doon, ‘di ho ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Ang lumabas lang po nga ho, iyong caretaker po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Caretaker.  Ito po ba ay si Celebrada C. Pardines?

MR. BISNAR.  Iyon ho ang pakilala niya sa akin.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Pakilala niya.  At hindi niya kilala kung sino man—kung sino si Jose Maria Basa III, ‘di ho ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Sa pagkatanda ko po, ang sabi ho niya ay bihira ng pumunta doon, parang ganoon.

ATTY. GINEZ.  At hindi taga-doon si Jose Maria Basa, sinabi niya sa inyo.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi niya ho sinabi iyon.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sheriff, hindi po ba, kapag ang sinasabi ng ating revised rules of court na kapag shares of stocks ang ating ii-implement or ang ating iga-garnish ay dapat susundin natin ang Rule 57, Section 7, paragraph C, basahin ko po sa inyo dahil baka hindi po niyo naaalala.

Stocks or shares or an interest—basahin ko po muna ito—Section 7.  Attachment of Real and Personal Property Recording thereof.  Real and personal property shall be attached by the sheriff executing the writ in the following manner, letter C, stocks or shares or an interest in stocks or shares or any corporation or company by leaving with the president or managing agent thereof, a copy of the writ and a notice stating that the stock or interest of the party against whom the attachment is issued is attached in pursuant of such writ.

Ang tanong ko muna, preliminary, Sheriff, hindi po ito ang unang pagkakataon na kayo po ay nag-ga-garnish ng isang shares of stocks o nagle-levy ng isang shares of stocks, ‘di po ba?

ATTY. ROY.  Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the basis?

ATTY. ROY.  Misleading, Your Honor, the rule pertains to attachment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the misleading?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the rule cited by counsel is the rule on attachment.  The Sheriff is testifying on execution.  These are two entirely different rules.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Your Honor, the revised rules of court provides that if the property to be levied is a personal property or a share of stock, Your Honor, it specifically says that it will be attached in accordance with the same rule that provides for the preliminary attachment.  I can cite a rule.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Objection overruled.

ATTY. GINEZ.  So, may tanong po ako, Sheriff.  Hindi ito ang unang pagkakataon na kayo po ay nag-levy ng shares of stocks ng isang kompanya sa loob ng inyong 16 years bilang isang sheriff.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question is vague.  Levy under what, levy under execution or levy under attachment.

ATTY. GINEZ.  I will clarify again.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kindly clarify.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request the counsel to let the question to be finished.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  I will clarify.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi po ito ang unang pagkakataon, Sheriff, na kayo ay nay-levy by execution ng shares of stock ng isang kompanya, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Sa pagkakatanda ko ho, ito ho ang first time na shares of stock.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sa loob po ng 16 na taon, ito po ang unang pagkakataon, Sheriff?

MR. BISNAR.  Sa pagkakatanda ko po, ganoon nga po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sa pagkakatanda ninyo.  Maaaring may nangyari na in the past pero hindi ninyo na natatandaan, tama po ba iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala ho akong matandaan.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Wala kayong matandaan.  Now, ang sinasabi po dito sa binasa ko kanina, paragraph C of Section 7 Rule 57, na ang levying ng shares of stock ay dapat iniiwan po ninyo sa presidente or managing agent ng kompanya.  Dito ba sa inyong notice of garnishment, kanino po ba ninyo iniwan ang notice of garnishment?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Again, with the kind indulgence of this honourable court, Your Honor.  We have objected to this question because the provision of law cited is levy under attachment.  This is not an attachment.  This is levy under execution, Your Honor.  And, therefore, it is governed by Rule 39, Your Honor.  There is entirely a lot of difference, Your Honor.  In attachment, it is preventive.  In levy under execution …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the prosecution answer that observation.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, I will cite the rule, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  To buttress, if Your Honor please, may we go a little further, with the kind permission of the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, may we invite the attention of the honourable court, Your Honor, that Rule 57 is strictly applicable only in cases of preliminary attachment.  The formalities therein referred to refer to attachment.  And what we have in question now is not an attachment but a levy under execution.  So the formalities required under Rule 57 do not apply in cases of execution, Your Honor.  That is our point, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is why I am asking the counsel to answer you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  It is found, Your Honor, in Section 9.  Execution of Judgments for Money, How Enforced.  And this is under paragraph B, Satisfaction by Levy, Your Honor.  And I direct, Your Honor, the attention of the esteemed counsel of the defendant on subparagraph 4, Your Honor, at this stage I am reading for the record.  “Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits and other personal property or any interest in either real or personal property may be levied upon in like manner and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. GINEZ. So, maybe, Justice Cuevas forgotten his rules, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I have been teaching the subject for no less than three decades, Your Honor, and the law  is very—together with the jurisprudence on the point is very specific.  You do not apply the rule on attachment. What the law simply means by the levy could be effected similar to that of attachment is merely an analogy of the process that will have to be undertaken but definitely, the rules on attachment does not apply in execution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    At any rate, this will be evaluated by the Court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but we …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    What is material here is he is testing the credibility of this witness because even the court is interested to find out whether indeed there was machination in the—to be frank about it, whether there was machination in the sale of the shares.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, we are very appreciative for the court going that far.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   That is the understanding of this Chair with the tendency of the questions.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But if the court will notice, Your Honor, and with the kind indulgence of the Court, the question before was predicated on Rule 57 not on this particular rule that he is now citing, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Anyway, let us not wrangle on this. We are all intelligent people. We will take that into account, let the witness answer.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is the question now?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, Sheriff, ay iyong notice of garnishment po ninyo na naka-address po doon sa Basa Guidote Enterprises ay hindi po nai-serve sa presidente o sa managing agent nito, hindi po ba? And so, at ang totoo, ay sa isang, ang sabi ninyo, care taker lamang ng bahay na iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo, pero,

ATTY. GINEZ.    Salamat po.

MR. BISNAR.  May sumagot po na taga—officer ng Basa Guidote.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Iyon, pupunta po tayo doon. Pupunta po tayo doon, Sheriff.  So, pagkatapos po ninyong mai-serve ang notice of garnishment, ang sabi po ninyo ay may sumagot na “officer “ ng Basa Guidote?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ito po ay si Cristina Roco-Corona, Assistant Corporate Secretary sa pamamagitan ng isang sulat na ibinigay sa inyo and this was marked by the defense, Your Honor, as Exh. 179?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Salamat po.  At hindi po ba, Sheriff, na si—at alam ninyo na si Cristina Roco-Corona ay siya rin ang private complainant sa kasong ito?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ. Siya rin ang inuutos ng korte, ng Branch 216, na babayaran kung sakaling mare-recover ninyo iyong P500,000, hindi po ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ngayon, Sheriff, dito sa reply ni Ginang Corona ang sinasabi sa inyo and I would like to quote it for the record, Your Honor, if I will be allowed. “In reply to the notice of garnishment dated May 14, 2003, please be informed that based on records submitted by the accused in Court, the stockholdings claim by Jose Basa III and Raymundo G. Basa in Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc. are as follows: stockholder, Raymunda Basa; number of shares, 110; amount P11,000; Jose Maria Basa III; number of shares, 4,729; amount, P472,900 or a total of 4,839 shares in the amount of P483,900.  Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, Sheriff, noong ibinigay po ito ni Ginang Corona, ito po ay tinanggap ninyo na as gospel truth?

MR. BISNAR.  Dahil wala naman—sila hong title noong, title niya doon sa corporation, eh, wala namang dahilan para hindi paniwalaan ho.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi po kayo nagpunta sa Securities and Exchange Commission?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sheriff, hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Ginang Cristina Corona na siya ay nag-file ng isang petition sa korte, sa probate court, na ang sinasabi niya sa korte na iyon ang nagmamay-ari ng shares of stocks or about 87% ng shares of stocks ng Basa Guidote Enterprises ay ang kanyang lola, si Asuncion Roco, hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ito?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be allowed—before the witness answer, may he be see(?) a copy of the alleged pleading, Your Honor, the alleged statement of fact appearing in a pleading, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If the…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Its premise.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If the prosecution has, you show the pleading.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We reserve, Your Honor, that the voluminous records that we have, unfortunately, we did not bring the petition for probate that it is a fact, Your Honor, that there was a probate.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of the court, therefore, we will move to strike out the question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let it stay in the record.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Lacson.

SEN. LACSON.  I am sorry to interject, Mr. President, interesado lang po ako, ito po bang mga kapanahunan na pinaguusapan natin kung alam ng counsel ng prosecution o ng defense, may katungkulan po bas a gobyerno si Chief Justice Corona?  Siya po ba ay private citizen or kung may katungkulan man, ano po ba ang katungkulan nya?  Itong mga panahon na ating dini-discuss sa ngayon.

ATTY. ROY.  Mayroon na pong katungkulan.

SEN. LACSON.  Ano po iyon?

ATTY. ROY.  Noon pong 2001 ay naging Assistant Presidential Legal Counsel po kung hindi ako nagkakamali.

SEN. LACSON.  Ito pong panahon na mayroong writ of execution, ano po ang katungkulan nya?

ATTY. ROY.  A, ang katungkulan po nya, siya po ay isa ng Associate Justice ng Supreme Court po.

SEN. LACSON.  Maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, Sheriff…

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noon bang nalaman ninyo na iyong nangangatawan ng korporasyong Basa-Guidote ay isang babaeng nangangalang Cristina Corona.  Alam ba ninyo kung ano ang kanyang relasyon sa Justice Renato Corona ng Korte Suprema?

MR. BISNAR.  Iyong panahon na po iyon hindi ko po alam, nung panahon na yon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  A, hindi mo alam nung panahon na yon.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi pa po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, sige.

ATTY. GINEZ.  The defense, Your Honor, is asking for a copy of the Petition in the matter of the probate of the will of Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa, petitioners Asuncion Basa-Rocco, and Cristina Rocco-Corona, especial proceeding no. 95-76331 and raffled to and assign to Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi po ako—with, Your Honor, please, with the kind indulgence of the honourable court.  I am not asking for a copy.  Since the cross-examination question is predicated on an alleged pleading, it is our stand, Your Honor, that in accordance with the Rules of Evidence, the document must first be shown to the witness allowing him to read before he answers, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor, we will now allow the witness to—So, Ginoong Sheriff…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution…

ATTY. GINEZ.  …ipinapakita ko po sa inyo itong petition…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  …is instructed to show the document to the witness.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Ang tanong ko po sa inyo kanina hindi po ba sinabi ni Ginang Corona na siya ay nag-file ng petition na ito sa regional trial court of Manila, and in that petition, she claimed that Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa is the owner, and I would like to quote, Your Honor, paragraph 3 of the petition—“The estate of that testatrix consist of personal properties in the form of 4,665 shares of stocks in the corporation registered as Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. of which only 70 shares were disposed of as legacies in her will and the household furniture in her residence.”

The date of the petition is November 29, 1995.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At this juncture, Your Honor, we will most humbly request that the question be simplified, it is loaded with several subjects.  Hindi ho ba sinabi sa inyo ni Mrs. Corona, then, several other subjects, it cannot be answered by plain yes or no, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Reform your questions, counsel, so that there will be no further objection.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Cristina Corona na sya ay nag-file ng petisyon sa Regional Trial Court, Branch 12?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala po syang nabanggit sa akin.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Hindi po ba nya sinabi sa inyo, Ginoong Sheriff, na sa petisyon po na iyon ay sinabi nya sa korte at pinanumpaan nya bilang petitioner na ang nagmamay-ari ng 4,665 shares noong Basa, Guidote Enteprises Inc. ay ang kanyang lola na si Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa?  Hindi ba nya sinabi sa inyo iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala po syang nabanggit.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Sheriff, mayroon akong ipapakita sa inyo sa page 3 hanggang page 8 ng certified true copy ng petisyon na ito at pakitingnan nyo nga po, sheriff, pakibasa nga po ninyo, sheriff, kung ano po ang nakalagay diyan?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I know what the document is all about?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Petition.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For?

ATTY. GINEZ.  A petition for the probate.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And what is the question now?  Your Honor please, what is the question now?

ATTY. GINEZ.  If he knows what is written on the peitition, Your Honor, if he can read.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ho mabasa dito.  Hindi ko mabasa.  Hindi ho maliwanag.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi mo mabasa?

MR. BISNAR.  Medyo malabo po.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  We would like, Your Honor, to manifest that on pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this page, of the top page, Your Honor, it appears to me that this is a facsimile copy, Your Honor, but it is certified true copy by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 and it came from the office of Secretary R. C. Corona, Your Honor.  We would like to mark, Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What does it say?

ATTY. GINEZ.  It is a fax document, Your Honor, a copy of the petition and it came from the office of Sec. R. C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So if the defense if they will…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But what is it, Your Honor, and what is the question now?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the document be shown to you first and then…

ATTY. GINEZ.  Your Honor, may we request for…

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes?

SEN. SOTTO.  While they are looking over the documents, I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutets.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Session is suspended for 15 minutes.

It was 4:23 p.m.

 RESUMPTION OF HEARING

At 4:55 p.m., the hearing was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is resumed.  (Gavel)

Majority Floor Leader, what is the status of the case?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we have the continuation on the document that was being shown by the prosecution to the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The defense.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the counsel for prosecution was asking us to admit that the document he was holding or presented contain certain words appearing to be the sender of a facsimile.

We have no quarrel over the letter of those words.  We are curious, however, what is the point, well, why, first place, this is a mere photocopy.  It is not the facsimile itself.  But we’re also curious why he wants us to introduce this into the case at this point.  The pleading has no relevance to the SALN or to the issues conveyed to us by the court yesterday.

Secondly, it is not clear where this document came from and to whom it was sent.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution may reply.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

First, Your Honor, this is—Where it came from, this is a certified true copy, Your Honor, by the regional trial court, and this is signed by the clerk of court of the said branch, Your Honor, dated March 21, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It’s a part of a court record?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, part of a court record, Your Honor.  And as for the purpose, Your Honor, we are presenting them and marking—We will make the formal offer when the time comes, Your Honor.

So, may we request, Your Honor, that this petition, Your Honor, be marked as our Exhibit 11-U, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, before the court grants the request, may we know from which RTC branch the counsel is referring to?  And may we know if this is exactly a reproduction of the document that appears on the file of the RTC or a mere certification that this a copy of the contents of the pleading.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Same copy, Your Honor.  This is a certified true copy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, why don’t you examine the document.

ATTY. ROY.  I have, Your Honor.  The document appears to be a photocopy of a facsimile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct, but did you check the, first of all, the title of the document in the case.

ATTY. ROY.  My point, Your Honor,—Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then the court where it is pending.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.  But, I would like …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you know all of that?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  But what I would like to know is if he is telling us that the certification pertains to the alleged address of the facsimile sender.  Because he is saying that this is a certified document, but he is asking me to admit that it was faxed from a certain fax machine.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Since you know the court where the case is pending, my God, this is simple for you to examine the records there and then determine whether that the original of that document exists.

ATTY. ROY.  Precisely, Your Honor.  I just want to know what it is he claims being certified by the court of origin, the facsimile address that you asked us to attest to or to agree to.

ATTY. GINEZ.  This is a certified true copy, Your Honor, by the clerk of court, an ex officio Sherriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.  This case is pending before …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What branch?

ATTY. GINEZ.  The Regional Trial Court Branch 12, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, see.

ATTY. GINEZ.  They have to verify if they …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Sherriff, nabanggit nyo po kanina at nung tanong ng abogado ng depensa na pagkatapos po ninyong maibenta ang shares of stocks from Rosario Guidote Basa to other shares and eventually when it ended to Mr. Jose Ma. Basa.  And yet, Your Honor, in this execution sale, she reported allegedly as the assistant corporate secretary that it belongs to Jose Ma. Basa.  What we would like to point out on record, Your Honor, is that Cristina Corona is assuming inconsistent statements whenever it suits her favour, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor please, it was Mr. Basa who claimed to be the owner of the shares that’s why they were levied on.  If we did not claim them, they would not be levied on.  Correct, she challenged them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Yes, but compañero,…

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … you are a lawyer, I don’t have to teach you that assets of a real estate belong to the estate until they are vested by order of the court to the heirs.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the claim of the heir will not matter.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, Mr. Basa did not claim them as inheritance but he claim them ownership by acquisition, not inheritance, Your Honor.  That was the dispute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Then it was a disputed claim.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  So that could have been settled in the estate but anyway, proceed.  The court will take all of these things in consideration.

SEN. DRILON.  Ginoong Testigo, uulitin ko, magkano exactly ang binayad po dito sa 4,839 shares?  Sarado bang P28,000?

MR. BISNAR.  P28,000.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.  Now, ordinarily, hindi po ba sa auction sale iyong proceeds ng auction ay binabayad sa sheriff?

MR. BISNAR.  Ordinary po, oo.

SEN. DRILON.  Ordinarily ganoon po ang nangyayari.  Hindi ba?  Hindi ganoon?  Ganoon iyon hindi ba?

MR. BISNAR.  Ganoon po pero sa case po na ito kasi…

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.  Pagkatapos na magbayad makukuha mo iyong proceeds ng share ito po ay dini-deliver mo doon sa whoever is entitled to.  Hindi po ba tama iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Ngayon, hindi ba may sheriff’s fee iyan?

MR. BISNAR.  Posible meron po.

SEN. DRILON.  Opo.  Supposedly magkano ang sheriff’s fee ordinarily in terms of percentage?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko kabisado iyong…

SEN. DRILON.  O ikaw naman o.  Eh sheriff ka hindi mo kabisado kung magkano ang sheriff’s fee.  Ikaw naman.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po, honestly po, hindi ko po iyon alam.

SEN. DRILON.  17 taon ka ng sheriff hindi mo alam kung magkano ang sheriff’s fee?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi naman po iyon sa practice po namin…

SEN. DRILON.  O sige.  Hindi ko sinasabi iyong hindi legal, iyong legal.

MR. BISNAR.  Oo nga po.

SEN. DRILON.  Ha?  Hindi mo alam?

MR. BISNAR.  Iyong 4% po.

SEN. DRILON.  Ah 4%.  So 4% ng proceeds ay sheriff’s fee.

MR. BISNAR.  Supposedly, Your Honor, oo.

SEN. DRILON.  Is that correct?

MR. BISNAR.  Usually po ganoon po.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  Dito sa  transaksyon na ito, iyong P28,000 ay in cash ibinayad ng Carla Corona Castillo sa nanay niya, Cristina Corona.  Tama po ba iyon?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  At sabi mo kanina silang dalawa na ang nag-usap at ibinigay ng Carla Corona Castillo ang cash kay Cristina Corona.

MR. BISNAR.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, hindi ka ba kumuha ng fee mo roon?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po, your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Bakit?

MR. BISNAR.  Eh usually naman po…

SEN. DRILON.  Binigyan ka na lang, hindi?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po.

SEN. DRILON.  Ah hindi ka rin binigyan.  Hindi ka rin binigyan ng fee?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po.

SEN. DRILON.  Bakit?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala po.  Hindi ko na naisip …

SEN. DRILON.  Huh?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko na naisip na ganoon po.

SEN. DRILON.  Doon sa ibang transaksyon naiisip mo ba iyan?

MR. BISNAR.  Voluntary na lang po.

SEN. DRILON.  Ah voluntary na lang kung sakali.

MR. BISNAR.  Iyong expenses lang po.

SEN. DRILON.  Mga ano?

MR. BISNAR.  Actual expenses.

SEN. DRILON.  E iyong komisyon na 4% hindi mo na kinukuha?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi na ho.

SEN. DRILON.  Sa ibang transaksyon na hawak mo?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi rin ho.

SEN. DRILON.  Hindi ka talaga kumukuha ng komisyon.

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi po.

SEN. DRILON.  Alam mo irekomenda kita sa Civil Service bigyan ka ng dangal ng—very  good employee.  Ngayon, hindi ba under the Judiciary ka?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  At hindi mo alam—Kilala mo ba yung panahon na yon si Associate Justice Renato Corona?

MR. BISNAR.  At that time po, hindi ko ho sigurado kung Justice na po siya noon e.

SEN. DRILON.  Hindi ka sigurado.  Pero naririnig mo?

MR. BISNAR.  Naririnig ko ho.

SEN. DRILON.  Ano ang narinig mo?  Na siya po ay Justice na?

MR. BISNAR.  Naalam ko ho na Justice after the auction sale po.  Don ko lang na—

SEN. DRILON.  After the auction sale?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Bago mag-auction sale, hindi mo narinig?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko ho sigurado e.

SEN. DRILON.  A ganon.  Alam mo po ba na si Renato Corona ay Associate Justice mula pa nung Abril 2002, hindi mo alam?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko po alam.  Hindi ko sigurado ho.

SEN. DRILON.  Ibig mong sabihin, nung nangyari ang auction sale nung September 30, 2003, mahigit nang isang taon at kalahati na Associate Justice si Renato Corona, hindi mo pa rin alam na siya ay Associate Justice?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko po sigurado.

SEN. DRILON.  Ano’ng ibig sabihing hindi ka sigurado?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi ko ho—Hindi ko talagang—kung Justice na nga siya non.

SEN. DRILON.  Pero ikaw ay nasa ilalim ng Judiciary?

MR. BISNAR.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Hindi mo alam kung sino yung mga Justices?

MR. BISNAR.  Hindi naman po mame-memorize na po.

SEN. DRILON.  Sige.  Ganon na lang at mahirap—Marami kang hindi alam.

Salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any further questions?

The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Just a clarification of the facts, both counsels of both parties may care to comment.

The sale of the property, the Basa Guidote property, was done in June of 2001.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Okay.  The writ—Jose Basa died in August of 2002.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  The writ of execution was in April of 2003.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  To include the auction sale.  April of 2003.

ATTY. GINEZ.  The auction sale is September 30, 2003.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Sorry.  The writ was issued in April of 2003.  In September of 2003, the sale of 90.7% of the Basa Guidote shares happened no.  So, that’s September 2003 in a public auction, Carla Castillo pays P28,000, and this is received by Christina Corona.

ATTY. GINEZY.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  And then sometime between September to December of 2003, Justice Corona receives a P11 million cash advance from Basa Guidote.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  No, no.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.  The cash advance occurred between September 5 and September 30, 2003.  Because at the time the cash advance was drawn, the shares had not been sold to Carla Corona.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Okay.  So that’s the …

ATTY. ROY.  That is the connection …

SEN. PANGILINAN.  For the entry.

ATTY. ROY.  That is the reason why the P11,000 is reported in the SALN.  After September 30, the facts of the case of change because the shares are now owned by a different person.  The corporation is now controlled by a different person, Carla Castillo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, Mr. Sherriff, how did you transfer the shares of stock of Basa Guidote to the buyer?

MR. BISNAR.  Through the certificate of sale lang po, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Certificate of sale?

MR. BISNAR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Signed by you?

MR. BISNAR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The shares of stock were not around when you sold the shares?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi nakalagay don ang number of certificate representing those shares?

MR. BISNAR.  Pakiulit lang po, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi nakalagay don ang certificate number don sa Deed of Sale?

MR. BISNAR.  Wala po, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Basta nakalagay lang number of shares?

MR. BISNAR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi mo alam kung totoo yon o hindi?  Basta sinabi sayo ganon ang share ni Jose Basa?

MR. BISNAR.  Oho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O yon.  Sige.

ATTY. ROY.  May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, in light of the many questions asked to the Sheriff, and the fact that it appears he has clarified the key issues that the defense has sought to adduce answers to the key issues that the defense has sought to address, I have no redirect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you are now discharging him.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, if you have no further need for him, we request that he be discharged.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness is discharged.

ATTY. ROY.  Maraming salamat po, Sheriff.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Sheriff.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are there other witness?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, before we proceed, may I be given a minute, there is an important matter that I would like to address to the honorable court and its members.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that?

ATTY. ROY.  Well, the matter appears on page 57 of the Journal—52, I am sorry.  Anyway, Your Honor, on page 52, I was referring to, Your Honor, the mention of the $10 million, and from Senator Estrada, I believe, is on page 52 or paragraph 1, is it there?  I am sorry, my copy has mysteriously disappeared.

At any rate, Your Honor, I draw your attention to the $10 million that was mentioned by Senator Estrada, and as he put it, gentle recommendation, for the Chief Justice to testify in this connection.

Now, I wish to draw attention to the fact that this document is not a matter within the complaint.  Be that as it may, Your Honor, the defense is not going to skirt from this issue, if the honorable court is inclined that we should address this issue, if the honorable court is inclined to consider this matter in its deliberation, if the honorable court is inclined to make this form part of the basis of any verdict rendered here, we will willingly confront the issue.  For this reason, Mr. President, we have prepared a request for subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum against—I mean, we request that this be issued to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Against whom?

ATTY. ROY.  … a certain Mr. Harvey Keh, a certain Ruperto Allerosa, a certain Gibby Gorres, a certain Rissa Hontiveros, former Representative Rissa Hontiveros, a certain Albert Concepcion, Congressman Walden Bello, a certain Ernest Calayag, a certain Moses Albiento, a certain Tristan Zinampan, and a certain Emmanuel Tiu-Santos.

In addition, Mr. President, we also request that a subpoena for similar purposes be issued to the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Put that down in writing.

ATTY. ROY.  We are filing the motion as we speak, Your Honor.  Now, the purpose, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What did you say?

ATTY. ROY.  We are filing the request now as long as the court will assure me that it is interested in this matter, we will make the request for the subpoena.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, we will.

ATTY. ROY.  But if the court should declare now that this is not part of this impeachment, then we will not bother, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, it is—we are not categorizing any asset as a illegally acquired asset, but it is still an asset that must be included in the SALN if it exist.

ATTY. ROY.  Precisely, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, the issue of whether it is legal or illegal is of the moment, the question is, does this asset exists, and if it does exists, was it included in the SALN.

ATTY. ROY.  Precisely, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And if it was not included in the SALN then ergo, it will be a violation of Article XVII, first sentence.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I may …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  ‘Di ba?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I may …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I am asking you as a lawyer.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  If the omission if malicious and fraudulent …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, there is no qualification in that sentence.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, very well.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are interpreting it … I am using it as literally as I could.

ATTY. ROY.  Very well, Your Honor.  We do not argue over what the law says.  I just wish to point out that the matter of the $10 million has never been raised in the proceedings.  And this is an extraneous matter.  That is why …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.

ATTY. ROY.  … I would like to be guided whether or not …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  Please respect this court.

ATTY. ROY.  Of course, Your Honor.  Always.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, you are not doing it because while this Chair is speaking, your voice is very high.

ATTY. ROY.  My apologies, Your Honor.  I was just trying to make sure that I could be heard audibly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I can hear you very well.  I am not (?)

ATTY. ROY.  I apologize, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You understand?  I know your grandfather was Ilocano.

ATTY. ROY.  I apologize, Mr. President.  I did not mean to raise my voice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I would like to tell you frankly that any asset not included regardless of its characterization, whether it was legally obtained or illegally obtained is a function of the SALN.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And it must be included.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, if there is ten million and it is proven to be there or one dollar and not included, then it is a function of this court to interpret whether it constitutes a violation of Section 17’s first sentence of Article XI.

ATTY. ROY.  I concur, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you very much. With that, I take it that the court will entertain our request and act on it in due course.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  Very well, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Submit the request and we will issue the subpoena.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, further, I would like to put on record now, that once these witnesses have put on record what they have to state under oath, we will present evidence to contradict, deny and rebut them through the testimony of the Chief Justice.  Now, we request that the subpoena be issued forthwith and that all the witnesses be heard first in order to avoid the staggered appearance on the part of the Chief Magistrate.  I am not certain, Your Honor, how quickly the honourable court can respond, but in light of this development, and by the way, Your Honor, I am also in receipt of a motion and request on the part of the prosecution asking that you be allowed to receive or certain documents be delivered to you.  I believe they are with respect to this matter.  I raised this up only to show the honourable court that we are ready to meet this issue head-on.  So, I would ask, Your Honor, if we could be given a continuance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the …

ATTY. ROY.  We could be given a continuance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the matters presented here earlier about PS Bank.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, when the Chief Justice testifies, I believe these questions can be propounded at that time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROY.  I do not think there is any purpose of evasion on his part.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I am just asking a question.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, yes.  I wish to assure you of the forthright intention of the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I know that.  I know that.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We are happy that you are now cooperating with us.

ATTY. ROY.  It has always been our intention, Mr. President.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  Let him finish.  Are you through?

ATTY. ROY.  Well, Your Honor, in view of that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Make the proper motion and I assure you, I will issue the subpoena tomorrow.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  But we move for a continuance in order to prepare also because it is a fairly sudden development.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have no more witness for today.

ATTY. ROY.  None, none for today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from San Juan?

ATTY. ROY.  A forty-eight hour continuance, Mr. President.  There is not enough time, this is a considerable list of witnesses.  As soon as the subpoenas have been issued, we will proceed quickly, Mr. President.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Mr. President, if I may have the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. Counsel, is my impression correct, is the Chief Justice going to appear—is willing to appear before this Court if and when this Court grants your request to subpoena this certain persons that you mentioned?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, while his statement is not to testify, is not conditional. I wish to make that clear, but he, himself, has also assessed the evidence against him and unless this particular matter is not raised formally under oath, he feels there will be really no need to testify to address the other issues, but if this particular matter is raised, then, he will be compelled to confront it directly also under oath.

SEN. ESTRADA.  My name was mentioned a while ago when I was inside the lounge that I mentioned regarding the alleged $10 million deposit.  Yes, it is true that I mentioned this alleged $10 million deposit when I appealed to the prosecution panel to let the respondent appear before this impeachment court.

Iyong $10 million na nailathala sa dyaryo, nasabi sa mga radio, na-T.V., kaya ko sinabi iyon if the Chief Justice can voluntarily answer the alleged—the allegations against this $10 million deposit. Ngayon, kung, if he is willing to answer this allegation regarding this deposit, then, if he can clear the issue, he can clear the air regarding this particular $10 million deposit, but I am not telling him to clarify it right away. Kung voluntary niyang sasabihin, ‘di mas madadali ang magiging desisyon nitong korteng ito.

ATTY. ROY. Iyon nga po ang mga instruction sa akin na ipaabot sa akin, na iyong ginagawa po sa kanyang pambabatikos sa labas, ay gusto niya pong harapin under oath.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Para po …

ATTY. ROY.  Haharap po sa inyo kung total iyong hong pagkabanggit ko sa inyo was in the best light possible at nanonood naman po siya noong time na iyon.

SEN. ESTRADA.  We can assure the Chief Justice if and when he appears before this impeachment court, we can assure you that he will be treated properly and deputing(?) his position as the Chief Justice of this country.

ATTY. ROY.  We do not doubt, but thank you very much , Mr. Senator.

SEN. ESTRADA.  And I know the Senate President will not allow him to be disrespected in this Court.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you very much, Mr. Senator, Mr. President.

May I also manifest, Your Honor, that the Chief Justice has issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over him but not jurisdiction of this Court that is why he is willing to testify here rather than engage in a World War or submit to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright. Let me clarify ha, you are going to ask this named persons by you to be subpoenad to be your witnesses.

ATTY. ROY.  As hostile witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  As hostile witnesses. Okay. Including the Ombudsman.

ATTY. ROY.   Including the Honorable Ombudsman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

ATTY. ROY.   Who appears to have knowledge of the $10 million.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright . Alright.  Ten million and other accounts.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alright.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, whatever allegation…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Other accounts, peso or dollar accounts pertaining to the respondent.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Now, why do you include a member of the House like Mr. Walden Bello?

ATTY. ROY.  We understand, Your Honor, that he is the complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman and so, we suppose or we presume he has knowledge about this dollar accounts or whatever allegations he is making, so we would like to know.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    He is the only member of the House …

ATTY. ROY.  To my knowledge, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … that—complainant.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    While we have been respecting the inter-parliamentary relation between the House and this House, between the House of Representatives and the Senate, I am willing to sign a subpoena to include him to appear here if he wants to appear as your witness …

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … in connection with this dollar account. Now, after the testimony of these persons as your witnesses, then, you will present the Chief Justice?

ATTY. ROY.  He will be one of the other witnesses.  We may present other witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes,

ATTY. ROY. But we will present the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will present the Chief Justice.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. ROY.  Definitely.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Continuance is granted.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you very much.

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

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

REP. TUPAS.  With respect to—we just want to state three things for the prosecution.  First, is the request for—the request that will be filed by the defense as manifested this afternoon that some of the complainants or all the complainants in that Ombudsman case filed with the Ombudsman be subpoenaed and including the honourable Ombudsman herself which we reserve our right to follow  our comment on that.  But we are happy with that manifestation made by the defense today.

Second, the defense has mentioned about the motion requests filed by the prosecution today, and according to the defense it is a motion for us to allow the presiding officer to receive some documents—we just want to correct that, Your Honor, that as of this afternoon, we filed this motion and request, it is actually a motion that we are praying that we be furnished a copy of the letter of Mr. Harvey Kent(?) and attached documents as submitted to the presiding officer.  We just want to clarify that that is the motion filed by the prosecution, and it is not a motion asking the Senate President to receive the documents.

And lastly,

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will respond.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Since the documents that were submitted to me were handed in a sealed envelope in my office, and I am not sure of the source of these documents, if you know the people who submitted them to me then you require them to furnish you with copies of the documents because I do not want to be a party to an  illegal act.  Alright.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

REP. TUPAS.  Actually, Mr. President, it is in our motion that it is based on the report, the media report that came from Mr. Harvey Kent.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If there is an illegality, a violation of the foreign currency deposit law, then, this Chair is not willing to be a participant to that.

REP. TUPAS.  We submit to the honourable presiding officer.

And lastly…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, since you know who are the people who brought that envelope to my office, then, they are being subpoenaed, I am going to issue the subpoena and we will compel them to submit a copy of the documents that they submitted to my office.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you very much, Your Honor.

Lastly, if I heard it correctly, counsel for the defense has pointed out or has moved for a continuance for 48 hours, is that correct?

ATTY. ROY.  This has been granted, Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  No, no, we haven’t heard it was granted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I granted it.  Are you asking for a reconsideration?

REP. TUPAS.  We are asking for a reconsideration.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is your reason?

REP. TUPAS.  If it is within 48 hours, meaning there will be no hearing tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, there are pending witnesses who were already issued subpoena by this honourable court, and this matter that was brought off by the defense is different matter consisting of different witnesses, a set of witnesses who were already issued subpoena, and we can count, Your Honor, that there are at least three or four witnesses who were already issued subpoena by this honourable court and we would like to continue tomorrow…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who are those.

REP. TUPAS.  Well, Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima…

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why don’t we hear…

REP. TUPAS.  COA, from the Commission on Audit; La Vila, a certain La Vila…

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor…

REP. TUPAS.  From Ateneo, seller of Cubao property, certain Encina; and Atty. Pineda, the Clerk of Court, RTC, Makati.  They were all subpoenaed already, Your Honor, we would like to for the prosecution to continue tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, wait a minute.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the relative importance of these witnesses failed in comparison to the urgency…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, but you still have to present them.

ATTY. ROY.  We may not even bother to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute, let me finish.

REP. TUPAS.  If a…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let me finish first.  You have a panel of defense.  There are several lawyers in your panel.  My God!  Cannot one-half of you attend to the preparation of the subpoena that you are asking and interview all the witnesses that you want to present so that we can use up the—I agree with the proposal of the prosecution.

ATTY. ROY.  May I respond, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. President, we may not even need to present the other witnesses.  We feel that we can dispense with them if given a chance to assess our position again.  In view of the sentiments expressed yesterday…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When are you going to present the—are you going to present the Secretary of Justice?

ATTY. ROY.  Actually we may not even…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then why not make a decision so that we can forego that.

ATTY. ROY.  We need to have a little time, Mr. President.  Yesterday’s events rushed us into a need to bring this matter forward regarding the $10 million, the issue of the $10 million so we are just requesting for the kind indulgence of the court.  After all, we are very willing to confront all the issues.  Now, if it’s just a matter of the remaining witnesses, Your Honor, I believe that this is more important.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Forty-eight- hour of continuance is granted and we will lengthen the period of the trial next week.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before I move to adjourn, may we recognize Senator Franklin Drilon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.

SEN. DRILON.  Well, the counsel for the prosecution is trying to raise his hand.  We are willing to yield the floor.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you very much, Senator Drilon.  We just want to clarify that ruling, Mr. Presiding Officer—48 hours, meaning do we resume on Thursday or Monday?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We will resume on Monday.

REP. TUPAS.  So that’s next week, Monday next week.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because we are supposed to have sessions tomorrow and  Thursday so we are foregoing two session days.  We will have our session on Monday.

REP. TUPAS. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.  Thank you, Senator Drilon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s understood by the defense?

ATTY. ROY.  Very clearly, Mr. President.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. DRILON.  Just a few clarificatory questions, Mr. President, on Atty. Roy.

This is in relation to the PS Bank dollar account.  In the Journal of February 13, 2012, you confirmed that this bank account will be opened by the Chief Justice.

ATTY. ROY.  I believe, if I recall correctly, Senator, what I confirmed was that the Chief Justice  instructed us to make the statement that he would “speak up or open up”.

SEN. DRILON.  That is correct.  So, yes, you confirmed that the Chief Justice instructed you to open this bank account.

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  There are five dollar accounts in the PS Bank.  That is admitted and established on the record.

ATTY. ROY.  I am unaware that it is admitted, Mr. Senator.

SEN. DRILON.  In fact that was presented here in this court by the president of PS Bank except that the amounts were covered.

ATTY. ROY.  I believe, Mr. Senator, to be precise, that was his testimony.  I do not believe that the defense admitted the fact.  The court admitted the evidence if that is what you mean or received his testimony before the TRO was issued.

SEN. DRILON.  It’s on record that these accounts exist?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

SEN. DRILON.  This on record that these accounts exist.

ATTY. ROY.  It is on record that that was the testimony of the president, Senator.

I’m sorry, Senator, I really do not know if they exist or not.  But I do agree with you that that was what the witness say.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, these dollar accounts were not opened.  And therefore, because of the TRO of the Supreme Court, we do not know the amounts there.  At least it is not on record.  Is that correct?

ATTY. ROY.  I suppose, Mr. Senator, yes.

SEN. DRILON.  Is it your position that since the amounts appearing in these accounts cannot, as of this time, be pried open, there is no obligation on the part of the Chief Justice to report this asset?

ATTY. ROY.  It is my position, Mr. Senator, …

SEN. DRILON.  No, can you answer me?  Is it your position that the Chief Justice does not have to report this asset in his SALN?

ATTY. ROY.  It is my position that Republic Act 6426 provides for the confidentiality.  It is also my position, Mr. Senator, not to be evasive, that if you ask this question to the Chief Justice, and he favors you with an answer, then that will be that.

SEN. DRILON.  Can you state categorically whether or not there is a dollar account in PSBank?

ATTY. ROY.  I cannot, Senator.  To tell you honestly, I do not know the truth of the matter.  To tell you honestly.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  Assuming that there is that account, without you admitting it, assuming that there is that dollar account, and since it is covered by the confidentiality of the Bank Secrecy Deposit Law, is it your position that the Chief Justice is exempted from reporting this asset?

ATTY. ROY.  Based on my understanding of the law, Mr. Senator, anybody would be exempted from disclosing the dollar accounts.  That is my reading of the law.

Now, if, that it appears plain in the letter of the law that there is no qualification, anyone—That is my position.

SEN. DRILON.  That’s correct.  Yes.  It is your position and you equate confidentiality with non-disclosure.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.  In order for the protection of the law to be complete—by the owner, by the owner.

SEN. DRILON.  By the owner.  And, can you cite to me which particular provision of the Constitution or the law requiring the filing of the statement of assets and liabilities and net worth, which would justify this position that because of this confidentiality, you need not report an asset in the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Senator.  I would cite you Republic Act 6426.

SEN. DRILON.  Which is?

ATTY. ROY.  The law regarding the secrecy of foreign currency deposits.

SEN. DRILON.  The law on the secrecy of foreign deposits would exempt …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

SEN. DRILON.  … a government employee …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

SEN. DRILON.  … from revealing …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  … the dollar account?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

SEN. DRILON.  In the SALN?

ATTY. ROY.  In the SALN as well.

SEN. DRILON.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Mr. President, this is just an administrative matter.

If I’m not mistaken, yesterday or the other day, the Senate President had publicly stated his desire to extend the hours of our proceedings so that we can, hopefully, terminate the proceedings before we go on sine die adjournment.  In fact, there was a proposal to have …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not later than the 31st of this month.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes.  In fact, there was a proposal to have marathon hearings up to 10 in the evening.

Yesterday, Mr. President, we went through hearings until around before five o’clock.  And today, we will be ending in a few minutes, before six/six-thirty, and tomorrow we won’t be convening, and Thursday we won’t be convening.

So, my concerned, Mr. President, is perhaps this should be discussed in caucus in view of the development, and that we are now losing rather than gaining in terms of trial hours, that we adjust for next week and come up with a timetable that will make up for lost time, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We will have a caucus on Monday.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, the Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. President.

On February 13, if I am not mistaken, this court issued a resolution to respect the TRO of the Supreme Court dated February 9, 2012, in connection with the petition filed by PS Bank against the Senate sitting as impeachment court.  And the majority vote to respect was 13, 13 versus 10, and in light of this development, that you know, the dollar account of the Chief Justice are being discussed in the media, defense counsel has raised the possibility of the Chief Justice himself confronting the issue head on, so, I believe, Mr. President, and my colleagues, that it is time for us also now to really confront this issue of the dollar accounts, and since I premised my vote in that resolution on the reasoning that I want to give the Supreme Court time to correct itself, I said, I exercised Senatorial statesmanship, hoping that the Supreme Court will exercise Judicial statesmanship by withdrawing the TRO, but I think, a long period of time has passed and the Supreme Court has not acted on the TRO or lifted the TRO on the petition of the PS Bank.  Is that correct?

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. Senator, may I respond.  If I comprehend the tenor of what you are saying, you are going to ask the honorable court to reconsider its position on the TRO.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Right.

ATTY. ROY.  May I request that if there are any complications regarding the TRO, and any information is going to fall within the ambit of the TRO, let it be by waiver rather than by rejection.  Perhaps, that might be a more palatable turn of events, Mr. Senator.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, but you know, it is my personal opinion, so, I also premised my vote on that ground, it is a temporary vote to—as far as I am concerned, to respect the TRO issued by Supreme Court.  Hence, I am informing the Senate President and my colleagues that I am reconsidering my vote, and it is from 13-10, it should now be counted as 12-11.  I am now voting in favour of enforcing our order for PS Bank and the other banks to now divulge to the impeachment court all data and information regarding the foreign currency accounts of the respondent, but it is still a minority decision.  And then, Your Honor, if possible, if we could revisit the resolution dated February 13 in a caucus on Monday.

I so move.

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. President, may I just …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.

ATTY. ROY.  Just a short statement, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, there is a promise here that the Chief Justice is coming to this court to testify.  And at that point, I assume, given his stature and the necessity, the importance of his credence as a magistrate to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, and he hears this statement ever so often, when he presides over the proceedings of the Supreme Court, then, we may ask him at that point to motu propio tell, instruct the bank to release his bank accounts—the foreign currency bank accounts.  So, we will wait until that time.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize Senator Lacson, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cavite.

SEN. LACSON.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Since the defense panel team is here, I would like to ask you if the Chief Justice would be willing to, in effect, sign a waiver.

ATTY. ROY.  We did not go that far, Mr. Senator.

SEN. LACSON.  If he takes the witness stand and he will just invoke RA 6426, then we will go back to zero.

ATTY. ROY.  If I may, Mr. Senator, let us give him an opportunity to …

SEN. LACSON.  I am just asking the counsel.  Is there a possibility for you to convince the Chief Justice that when he takes the witness stand, he will, in effect, sign a waiver of his rights under RA 6426.?

ATTY. ROY.  There is a very strong possibility that he will disclose everything, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  That is good enough for me, Mr. Counsel.  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTON.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  We take note of the motion filed by Senator Pimentel and the manifestation although we do not have a voting called, but nevertheless, we can take it up on Monday during the caucus.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Before we adjourn, I just want to find out if your purpose is really to make a full disclosure, and this is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, of the bank accounts of the Chief Justice, why don’t you select just a few of those you mentioned to be subpoenaed to be presented as witnesses, who can substantiate the contents of the documents that they submitted to my office, so that we will shorten the hours of examining witnesses.

ATTY. ROY.  Precisely, Mr. President.  We intend to put to very good use the time you have granted us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Evaluate the witnesses.  You may not need the 11 people.

ATTY. ROY.  We request anyway that the subpoena be issued and we will make the according evaluation.  If they are merely corroborative, then obviously there will be no need.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, with that understanding.

SEN. SOTTO.  So, with that, Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make an announcement.

THE SGT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.  All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 14, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The motion to adjourn at the time and hour and date stated by the motion of the Majority Floor Leader is hereby approved.

HEARING ADJOURNED AT 6:08 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