IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Monday, May 14, 2012

At 2:14 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 Sergio R. Osmeña III.

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 23 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 in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the May 8, 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 8, 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.  Appearances, 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.  Good afternoon, Your Honor, 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.  Mr. President, we have received a letter from the Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio-Morales, requesting the she be allowed to testify ahead of all other witnesses during today’s hearing, in view of heavy volume of work and equally urgent professional work that needs her immediate attention.  So I move, Mr. President,  that this matter be submitted to the presiding officer.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please, we wanted to accommodate the request, Your Honor, but we assure the honourable Ombudsman that we will call her today, only that we be permitted to call ahead of her other witnesses whom we have subpoenaed for today’s hearing, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Walden Bello is not here.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have Noli Manuel Santos, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But, whatever these witnesses will say in this court will still be dependent upon the findings of the Ombudsman if indeed she conducted an investigation of the complaint of these witnesses that were subpoenaed who were complainants before that office, so,  why not hear the Ombudsman first and if there is a need to ask the other witnesses to corroborate her, then, so be it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay, then, subject to the we yield to the discretion of the honourable court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I would suggest that we hear the Ombudsman first because if there is no need to present these other witnesses and the Ombudsman has made a substantial presentation or no presentation at all, then even if we do not hear these witnesses, this court will already be given an opportunity to see the tendency of the evidence being presented to it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay then, Your Honor, we submit to the discretion of the court.  We’ve made known our option but if it does not meet the conformity of the court, we submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, this Chair feels that given the fact that we are calling one of the highest functionaries of the government, she is no less than the Ombudsman with power to investigate cases in the entire government from top to bottom, then I think we should hear first if indeed there is any evidence at all that is available from her against the respondent.  So let the order of presentation start with the Ombudsman.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Yes, the Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  Before we proceed, earlier today also, we received a letter from Ms. Risa Hontiveros Baraquel requesting clarification as to the purpose and expected content of the testimony she is directed to provide considering that she has not made any allegation or reference to foreign denominated accounts amounting to $10 million belonging to Chief Justice Corona in her letter request to the Ombudsman or in any other form, may I move that the Presiding Officer also rule on the request.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, while we respect the position of the subpoenaed witness, Madam Baraquel, the court is not in a position to determine what the defense will be asking from her, that depends upon the defense so I don’t think it is  proper for us to control the defense in this respect.  Under the rules of evidence, a witness when called has a duty  to answer questions propounded by the producing party if she or he  takes the witness stand so the request is hereby not granted.

SEN. SOTTO.  And finally, Mr. President, one more item.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Just for the information of the court and the parties, we are in receipt of an E-mail from Representative Walden Bello informing the court that he is currently abroad on official travel to attend and lecture in conferences as authorized by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr..  Representative Bello is requesting that his presence in the impeachment trial be deferred until after his return to the country on May 18.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, I don’t think we have any control over that matter so we will wait for his return to appear before this court.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President, Senator Drilon agrees.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If there’s any need for him to testify, then we will require him to appear here when he comes back.  So ordered.

SEN. SOTTO.  So may we now call on the defense, Mr. President, for the continuation of the presentation of evidence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In compliance with the statement made by the honourable President Judge, Your Honor, may we call the Ombudsman to the stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The honourable Ombudsman, is she around already?  Yes?  Please bring her in and swear her.  One minute recess to wait for them also.

It was 2:24 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF HEARING

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The session is resumed.  (Gavel)

THE SECRETARY.  Honorable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, I do.

THE SECRETARY.  So help you God.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Counsel, proceed.

REP. TUPAS.  Mr. Presiding Officer, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, what is the pleasure of the prosecution?

REP. TUPAS.  On the part of the prosecution, Mr. President, may we ask permission that our lead private lawyer be recognized—be allowed to receive the testimony of the Ombudsman, and two, conduct the cross, if necessary.  Atty. Mario Bautista, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The request of the prosecution is granted.  (Gavel)

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The counsel referred to may now take the podium and take care of the case for the prosecution.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of the honourable court, will you kindly state your name and other personal circumstances, for the record, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Conchita Carpio-Morales, 71 years old going—No, 70 years old going 72—No, I’m just kidding you.  I’m 70.  I’m going 71.  I am the present Ombudsman.  What else?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your residence, please.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Residence.  Number 9, Carpio Compound, Soldiers Hills, Muntinlupa.  Married.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be allowed to proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have the floor.  You can proceed, counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

Madam Ombudsman is being presented, Your Honor, first, to prove that she has an interest against Chief Justice Corona, the respondent in this case.  To show that the honourable Ombudsman is currently conducting an investigation against Chief Justice Corona, especially with respect to his alleged foreign-dominated bank accounts in the aggregate value of $10 million.  To prove further, that there is no evidence or basis whatsoever for the imputation that CJ Corona has foreign-denominated bank accounts in the aggregate amount of $10 million.  And to prove that the honourable Ombudsman’s investigation is illegal, baseless and not in accordance with the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, you are considering this witness as a hostile witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then comply with Section 12 of Rule 132.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, the fact that the witness, Your Honor, had made statements both in the TV and the radio castigating or commenting on the propriety of the Ombudsman—on the propriety of the Chief Justice, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, wait.  I’m not trying to hurry you up, but whatever was said outside this court is not evidence.

I will read to you the Rule.  “A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his/her adverse interest unjustified reluctance to testify or his/her having mislead to party into calling him/her to the witness stand.”

So, please comply with that requirement.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are two kinds in our humble submission, Your Honor, of hostile witnesses.  First is one who is introduced right from the beginning is a hostile interest because of the interest he has in connection with the subject matter of the complaint, together with the person of the respondent.  And secondly, a witness who have been presented as an ordinary witness, but who turned hostile in the course of the proceedings.  In which case, we may ask for a ruling on the part of the court that she is a hostile witness in view of the statements made by her.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  My understanding of the Rules of Evidence are the classes of witnesses, willing witness, unwilling witness, hostile witness, adverse with a party as a witness.  So, can you cite to me the rule that you are using to justify in considering the Ombudsman immediately as a hostile witness, she is not an adverse party to this case.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, but …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The presumption is the party producing a witness is producing the witness as a friendly witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, that is our impression also, Your Honor, but a deeper analysis of the situation involved in hostile witnesses should two different occasions whereby a witness can be considered hostile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But precisely, Section 12 requires you to lay the basis.  Qualify your witness in the way that you want that witness to be treated on the witness stand and let the court do make the ruling.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Very well, Your Honor, we will proceed as directed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, you are—Madam Witness, you are familiar with the De Castro case before the Supreme Court in connection with the qualification of the honorable Chief Justice Corona.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And that involves the validity of his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And I understand from the records of the case that you were the lone dissenter insofar as the validity of the appointment is concerned.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It is right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your contention then at that time, that the Supreme Court has no authority, much less, any power to rule that the former or outgoing President of the Republic of the Philippines may appoint a Chief Justice to the position after a declaration—two days after the election, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In a motion for reconsideration, you likewise sustained your stand as objecting to the power of the President to appoint a Chief Justice, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In that motion for reconsideration, you cling to the view that GMA or the Honorable ex-President Macapagal-Arroyo has no authority to make the appointment, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor, I always clung to my earlier decision if I thought that my decision for the first time was correct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But knowing that the Supreme Court acts as a collegiate court, the Majority did not sustain you, am I right?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor, and that is …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the majority opinion declares that the President, in this particular case can appoint even notwithstanding the holding of an election and the determination of a winner in that election.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And it is a time-honored practice that what governs the resolution on issues involved in the case is the majority opinion.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  So, there is no further question as to the validity of the appointment of the appointing power belonging to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  You are asking me?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, that is the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court, so we have to abide by the decision of the majority.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct and you will agree with me that there is no power on earth that can modify, reverse or much less, set aside the decision of the Supreme Court.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  The members who wrote the majority can always change their mind, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but that is not my question to you, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, there is no power.  You said, on earth who can reverse or change the decision of the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct.

OMBUDSMAN CARIO-MORALES.  And I said, the power emanates from those who want to change their mind.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because judicial power belongs only to the Supreme Court.

OMBUDSMAN CARIO-MORALES.  That is a fact, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, notwithstanding that pronouncement made by the Supreme Court at that time, the President do not appear to be comfortable in accepting that kind of an official action.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Which President?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The present President.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  I am not competent to answer that, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but you must have read in the papers, together with the speeches over the radio and the television, or you are not aware of that.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  I read them, but whether or not that is true, sometimes, you know, reports get into the papers, but they are not exactly accurate.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Mr. President, may I raise an objection, please.  Counsel for the prosecution.

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

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The defense counsel has been requested by the Chair to qualify the witness as a hostile witness so that the Chair in turn may declare the witness as such.  The mere fact that the witness was the sole dissenter in the De Castro case, does not qualify her as a hostile witness.  As the Chair correctly ruled, a hostile witness is one who is, number one, an adverse party; number two, an adverse party witness; number three, someone who is reluctant or does not want to testify; and number four, someone who is established to have an adverse interest to the accused.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry, Your Honor.  Sorry.  Sorry.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  All of those situations are not present so that it is premature for the counsel of the defense to start impeaching the witness before she has been qualified as a hostile witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am just starting …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I have to sustain the objection, Counsel.  The first rule is, a party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his own witness.  So, objection sustained.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, I am not impeaching the witness.  I am laying the basis to show hostility and attitude on the part of the witness that qualifies her to be a hostile witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then reform the question, please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I am not asking you about the truth of what President Aquino have stated that he does not like the honourable Justice Corona to be occupying the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  But my question to you is limited to the fact whether you are acquainted with those news spread over the TV.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, I have read those news.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  And you also must have heard the fact that there was a statement by the honourable President Aquino now that he is not willing to take his oath of office as a President before the honourable Chief Justice.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And as in fact, he made mention of the fact that he would rather take his oath before a barrio captain.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORELES.  That is right, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor please, these questions are really irrelevant to the adverse interest of the witness.  They have nothing to do at all with the qualification of the witness as a hostile witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Qualifying the witness, Your Honor, is not borne out by one and only question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the Ombudsman, who is a very intelligent witness, answer the question.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  He said that early on he said he wanted to take his oath before a barangay captain.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And there was also statements m

ade by him that he will try his level best not to allow Chief Justice Corona to continue occupying the position to which he was illegally appointed.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  That I do not know.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You have not read it in the papers?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  I could not recall reading that.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You do not recall also having heard it over the radio?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  I seldom listen to the radio.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, may I suggest that you go direct to the point.  Find out direct questions regarding the hostility of the witness towards the respondent.  She is the Ombudsman.  She is investigating the respondent.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay then, thank you, Your Honor.  Now, in fact, he took his oath before the honourable Ombudsman now.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  That is a fact, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  And that notwithstanding, Chief Justice Corona attended the oath-taking, is it not?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right, Your Honor.  He was there.  He was there.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, in the course of a certain event, like the Criminal Justice Summit, Your Honor, you must have read over the papers also as reported that statements made by the President against the Chief Justice.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Your Honor please, may I object again, may I raise a continuing objection to this line of questioning. I do not see the point in establishing any hostility there may be between the President and the Chief Justice. We have a witness here as the Ombudsman.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  What is the connection between the Ombudsman and the President?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, the Ombudsman—at that time, Your Honor, we wanted to show how hostile the President was in having acted that way led to the filing of this complaint for impeachment, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  That is totally irrelevant, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We submit, Your Honor.  We are only in the process of …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Let the witness answer. We will be very liberal. Let us see the defense …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I think I was abroad at that time but eventually, I was told about it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I notice that in your—I am aware of the fact that before your appointment as Ombudsman …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Ombudsman.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  … there is necessity that nomination be made by the Judicial and Bar Council.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That is right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And you are aware of the proceedings in that Body?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I just knew about it through others …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And you came to know that one of those who did not vote for your nomination is the Chief Justice.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I eventually came to know when they invited my intention through the internet data showing the results of the voting.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Chief Justice at not one among those who voted by your nomination?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes. That is right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He was opposed to your nomination, is that …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Whether he is opposed …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Do I understand …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  … to my nomination, I do not know what is a fact that he did not vote for me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I intervene, counsel. I would like to be very liberal but may I request you to go direct to the point by showing the adverse interest of the witness with respect to your client, the respondent. What is the adverse interest of the witness such that if that is established, then, she will be considered as a hostile witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’ll go to that direction, Your Honor, but I was trying to deal with it little by little.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We hope …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    I do not want to control you, but I think—why don’t you ask her if she is the one—she has investigated the case of the respondent.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.   Now, may I go to a letter dated April 20, 2012 purportedly addressed to one Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Manila, consisting of five pages and direct your attention to a signature appearing over the typewritten name Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ombudsman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    I would suggest that the counsel will show that letter …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … to the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. … which we request, Your Honor, to be marked as exhibit. Witness examining the same, Your Honor.

THE OMBUDSMAN. This appears to be a photocopy of my letter.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I request first for purposes of identification, Your Honor, as we prayed before as Exh. 252(?), consisting of five pages.  A little earlier I was asking you to go over the signature appearing over the typewritten name Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ombudsman.  That is your signature.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, there are three complaints involved in this investigation…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, why don’t you ask the Ombudsman why she wrote that letter to the respondent?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, I  adopt the question.  Will you kindly tell us why this letter was written or addressed to the honourable Chief Justice Corona.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Yes, Your Honor.  After we received the complaint from—it is difficult to memorize the first mentioned complainant, but, one of them is Riza Hontiveros.  I went over it because I had an advance copy, and I first sought the  information from agencies, and then, I referred the complaints to the anti-money laundering council because I thought that the charges included some matters that were within the jurisdiction of the AMLC, and then later, I constituted a panel of investigators, and eventually, I wrote the AMLC seeking assistance towards the determination of the truth of the charges, and then, I got an initial report from the special panel recommending, among other things,  that we should write the Chief Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, in this letter, you are asking the Chief to Justice explain in writing…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  ….may I read the particular portion, Your Honor.  “Accordingly, consistent with the provision of Section 15, 22, and 26, you are hereby requested within 72 hours from receipt hereof a written answer to the complaints and to the above-stated information respecting your alleged several bank accounts in several banks.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I understand that in this kind of investigation by your office, the respondent is akin to an accused in a criminal case.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Your Honor, please, those questions are leading, and up to now the witness has not been qualified nor established declared by the court as a hostile witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   Well, that is a direct question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, why don’t you reform your question?  Ask the Ombudsman if by that letter she was actually investigating the Chief Justice.  That would be the adverse interest.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay, then, Your Honor.  Now, when you stated in this letter that the Chief Justice being requested to submit within 72 hours from receipt, a written answer to the complaint, my understanding is that he is being already investigated by your office, am I right?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  We were doing a case build up, in other words, it was a fact-finding investigation, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All the while I thought that the complaint, per your letter, is on the basis—this letter rather, is on the basis of the three complaints.  One, by the group of Ruperto Allorosa(?) second by Walden Bello, and the third one by Emmanuel T. Santos, right?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  Whenever we received a complaint, we determine first if it merits docketing, so, we docketed it for purposes of factual investigation or case build up.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright.  When you asked him to file an answer, the answer that you wanted to be made by him is in connection with the allegation or this strictly confidential resolution.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Your Honor, may I invite your attention to the second to the last paragraph of page 4.  It says here, “Furthermore, we received information that there are several bank accounts in PSB and several other banks in your name including those denominated in US dollars, the aggregate value of which amounts to at least 10,000 US$.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, Madam Ombudsman, when you wrote that letter you were already initiating an investigation of the respondent Chief Justice.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  That is right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that in effect, you are taking an adverse position with respect  to the subject of your investigation.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  We wanted him to enlighten us, Your Honor, because as I said early on, I had sought the help of another agency for purposes of determining whether there was indeed unexplained wealth or things to that effect which would be violative of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.

SEN. DRILON.  I’m sorry for the intervention but the Ombudsman mentioned $10,000.  Is that what is reflected in…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I’m sorry, $10 million, sorry, as again as I said I’m not used to millions so I always say thousands.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, the Office of the Ombudsman was already conducting an investigation of the Chief Justice so much so that you have to write the respondent Chief Justice to appear in 72 hours to explain his side.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  But your testimony here would be, if you have any finding at all in the course of that investigation, will be against or in favour of the respondent Chief Justice, we do not know that.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor please…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, counsel, please proceed along that line so that we can finish this.  This is only to lay the basis whether this party is a hostile witness or a friendly witness to you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  We will do so, Your Honor, as directed.

Now, you mentioned in here $10 million.  Now, you must have been informed about impeachment proceedings going on before this honorable body by then.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  My question to you, is there any mention or evidence of this $10 million of the evidence presented before this honourable court?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Objection, Your Honor.  Up to now, the witness has nothing qualified.  With due respect, the mere fact that the Ombudsman…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel for the prosecution is correct.  Just to help him, this is a preliminary matter.  Madam Ombudsman, you are conducting an investigation of this case against the respondent, am I correct?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.  Fact-finding investigation, Your Honor, case build up as oppose to preliminary investigation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Have you made any findings at all?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  About?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Against the respondent.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Well, I was able to get data showing that at least…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You obtained data material to…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Material and relevant to the complaints filed by the complainants, yes,  at least from the first two complainants.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And of those materials adverse to the respondent.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Well, it appeared so, Your Honor, because these are the documents that I sourced…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So that whatever testimony you will give here in this court would have the tendency to be adverse to the respondent.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  It appears so, Your Honor, and that is the reason…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Counsel, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In which case, Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If you want to make a motion, then make a motion.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we move, Your Honor, that the witness be declared as a hostile witness, Your Honor, because  her interest as Ombudsman investigating the case is already  adverse to that of the respondent, the honourable Chief Justice, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Your Honor, that is my mandate.  If I am mandated by law to investigate and I investigate the respondent, that does not make me an adverse person so I have to discharge my mandate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s correct.  That’s a constitutional mandate.

In fact, the Ombudsman can investigate with or without complaint.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That’s right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you may proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor, please, the defense has moved for the qualification of the witness as a hostile witness.  May I object that the mere fact the Ombudsman is conducting an investigation does not render her as an adverse witness.  In fact, she has merely written the Chief Justice to explain if there’s any truth to the allegation that he has $10 million.

There has been no adverse finding by the Ombudsman.  She is merely performing her mandate and task under the Constitution and the Ombudsman’s Law.  That is not evidence of any adverse interest.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We do not question that there is an investigation, that the investigation is allegedly being conducted by the honourable Ombudsman, Your Honor, pursuant to law.

What we wanted to lay down is the fact that there is already allegedly a finding made by her adverse to that of the Chief Justice.

How can she be expected to be neutral, to be unbiased and to be impartial, Your Honor, …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If I may please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … in the dealing with the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The Ombudsman has not said she has made a findings.  She merely said she has gathered or received data.  She has not made any findings.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely.  The gathering of data do not appear to be in consonance with the impartial investigation of the case, Your Honor, because there are complainants in here.  This is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I’d like to cut short this discussion.  Unless I am traversed by the impeachment court.  Given the fact that the Ombudsman, and according to the question of the counsel for the defense has shown some disagreement with the respondent, and the fact that she is the one investigating the respondent by virtue of her office, this court would consider her as a hostile witness, and so declared that she is hostile witness.  (Gavel)

You may examine her as a hostile witness.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, being a respondent in your case, his position may be akin to that of an accused in a criminal case.  Am I right?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I said, Your Honor, we’re still in the fact-finding investigation.  He was a mere respondent.  You become an accused only when you are indicted in court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am not saying he is an accused.  He may be likened to an accused in a criminal case.  There is no similarity whatsoever.  Is that your point?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, as I said, it’s merely fact-finding.  There is no determination yet of probable cause because he has to undergo preliminary investigation.  If we wind up our fact-finding investigation, and we believe that there ought to be preliminary investigation, then we set the case for …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But, why necessity of compelling him to submit or to file an answer?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is the law says, Your Honor, Section 26.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But, this is practically compelling him to be a witness which is proscribed by the Constitution under Article III, Section 17, …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Are you assailing …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … that no person may be compelled to be witness again.  Because the moment he answers, necessarily he has to state his reason …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Are you assailing the constitutionality of Section 26?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m raising it right now because …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Objection, Your Honor, please.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It does not follow, Your Honor, that he refuses to answer then …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)  Counsel, please propound your question.  Do not argue with the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is a pending question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, precisely.  Ask your question whether leading or direct question.  You are now entitled to ask but don’t argue with the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m not, Your Honor.  I’m asking her, Your Honor, whether the position of the Chief Justice, as a respondent or a party being investigated in her office may be compared to that of an accused in a criminal case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are asking an opinion.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  She is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is a legal characterization.  We are dealing with facts here.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But she is very much in a position to answer that, Your Honor, with due respect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Ombudsman may answer if she wishes to answer.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I have already answered, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  And in accordance with the Constitution, the law say under Article III, Section 17, “No person may be compelled to be a witness against himself.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I did not compel him, Your Honor.  I said, I was just following the mandate of the law.  That was his lookout if he did not like to answer.  He could waive answering if he likes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but that …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  But again, as I am saying, Your Honor, you are assailing the constitutionality of Section 26?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am showing that that practice is not in accordance with the Constitution.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It is not a practice, Your Honor, it is a provision of law, Section 26 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but—that nullifies—I am sorry, I am sorry, Your Honor, and I apologize—now, furthermore, may I direct your attention to this portion of letter …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Sorry, let me correct my answer, it is Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act not the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, may I remind you that the time to raise the non-incrimination clause of the Bill of Rights is when a question is addressed to the respondent.  She was only asked to appear for …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  To answer, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  To answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To answer within 72 hours.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  72 hours, that is the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He can answer but he does not want to give an answer because it might tend to incriminate him, that is the prerogative of the party.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, with the kind indulgence of the court, Your Honor, what we are invoking is a right which is fundamental and enshrined under our Constitution, Your Honor, and it is the right of a person not to be compelled to testify against himself.

Here, it is our humble submission, if Your Honor, please, that the moment he is compelled to answer, he will state all his defences and everything, and that is practically compelling him to answer.  It is a definite violation of that particular law, not merely from being saved from the trouble of incriminating himself but the right not to be compelled by a witness against himself, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If I may make a counter submission, Your Honor, please …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  All right.  Again, I sound like a broken record, Justice Cuevas, Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act requires the Ombudsman to direct the respondent in the event there is reason or ground to investigate further to answer within 72 hours.  So, I sent that letter requesting him, I want to emphasize the word, “requesting him”, and so the meager reaction was, “oh, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over this, that is a phony data and all that”.  Now, you are invoking the Bill of Rights?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am just stating for the record, Your Honor, the right, the constitutional right of the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Already answered.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I have examined the various affidavits of the different complainants in this case, and I have not find any statement to the effect that they are levelling an accusation against Chief Justice Corona for the amassing of this $10 million.  Do you agree with me?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Objection, Your Honor, the question is misleading.  The witness has never stated that the basis for the $10 million accusation charge is the three complaints.  She has never said that.  In fact, I do agree with you that if you examine the three complaints, there is no mention of the $10 million.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank youl.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  What she said is that the $10 million was gathered from information and evidence she got from AMLC.  So, the question is misleading, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Objection sustained.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, may I go back to the different complaints, will you kindly tell the honorable court whether you have examined any of the complainants in connection with the contents of their complaints?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, I have not.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Not even any one of them.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There were statements by this complainant that they have nothing to do with the alleged $10 thousand …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  $10 million.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry, I am not accustomed to million also.  Good lang ako sa ten pesos.  And they mentioned that they have nothing to do with that.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Do you contradict that or you are not in conformity with that.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  That is correct, they did not mention anything about ten million dollars.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And insofar as their complaint is concerned, nothing touched on the ten million dollars.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Ten million dollars, no, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, this AMLC that you mentioned awhile ago, would you like us to believe that there was already a court proceeding involving the AMLC?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  No, Your Honor.  I just asked for assistance if they have any document that have a bearing to the financial transactions and related transactions of the Chief Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But that will require an investigation, isn’t it?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Investigation by …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  By the AMLC, otherwise their statement to you in reply to your query may not be accurate and true.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  No.  I think the AMLC law requires that if a deposit of P500,000.00 plus is received by the bank, they are mandated to report to the AMLC these transactions.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But there is no statement here with respect to the AMLC coming in and that the transaction is one covered by the AMLC, am I right?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  No.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Misleading, Your Honor.  The witness already stated that she requested the AMLC for assistance.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is a different question now.  She is talking about the assistance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sustained.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, I am sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Reform the question.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  My question to you is, there is nothing on record nor in the complaints of the complainant here dealing with that AMLC intervention.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  No, Your Honor.  There is none.  Precisely, I asked the assistance of the AMLC because I wanted to know if there are documents in the possession of the AMLC that have a bearing on the complaints.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Would you like us to understand then that the AMLC can just come in upon the request of any …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, may I read to you the Constitution.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Powers of the Ombudsman.  Paragraph 5.  “Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities and to examine if necessary pertinent records and documents.”  So, it is a constitutional law.  The Supreme Law of the land directs, gives that power to the Ombudsman and we are wasting our time on this particular point.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  My point, Your Honor, is, not withstanding the grant of the powers, that power must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.  I am conversant, Your Honor.  I hope the Court pardons me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.  No, I am not asking you to articulate your position but I am just reminding you of the constitutional mandate given to the Ombudsman.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I proceed now, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But insofar as the AMLC is concerned, and in the exercise of its powers, there must a procedure to be adopted.  And that there must be an application before the court and the court must have granted the application, and that is the exercise of the power.  The grant of the power is constitutional but the procedure …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Ombudsman, being an intelligent witness, may answer.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  You must be referring to the freezing of assets.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am referring to the general exercise of the power of the AMLC, Your Honor.  My point is this, the AMLC cannot just, in response to any query, conduct an investigation, submit a report and on the basis … that is my point.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor please, the point made by defense counsel is irrelevant.  He earlier stated in the proffer of testimony, and if you examine the request for subpoena, which they themselves submitted, they only offered two purposes for the subpoena of the Ombudsman.  Number one, in order to prove that Chief Justice Corona does not have foreign denominated accounts amounting to ten million dollars.  That is the first purpose. The second purpose is, and for them to explain why an investigation is being conducted on matters already within the jurisdiction of this honourable impeachment court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have no quarrel …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The validity or invalidity of the actions of the Ombudsman with respect to the investigation being conducted over the Chief Justice, that is irrelevant here, Your Honor.  In fact, those are legal conclusions which have no room in a trial.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We do not question the validity of the exercise of the power.  We made that clear, Your Honor, but our point is that power although constitutional in character must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down by jurisprudence and the law. That is our point. If the court …

ATTY. BAUTISTA. What do you want to establish is that …

JUSTICE CUEVAS. … if the court sustains …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Wait a minute.  All that the Ombudsman had already stated that she sought the assistance of the AMLAC. How the AMLAC performed its function, I do not know if the Ombudsman is competent to testify on that and she already answered the question she sought the assistance of the AMLAC. How the AMLAC got records that if there are records that she got—he got and delivered to the Ombudsman, I do not know whether we can—you can ask her. The witness is competent to testify on that if she knows how the AMLAC performed its function.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, I was just asking her whether the report …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We presumed the regularity of the official conduct …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor. I fully agree with that, but as I have articulated, Your Honor, I have a point and that the validity of this alleged assistance made by the AMLAC without complying with the provisions of the law on the matter, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then, that will be the function of appreciation of the evidence by this court. If there is any violation by the AMLAC, that is another issue altogether he will answer … So, please, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, going back to the complaints filed with your office more particularly one by the Honorable Noli or Emmanuel Tiu Santos. Did you notice that, practically, the entirety of the allegations therein mentioned are merely based on newspaper accounts?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Asking for opinion and conclusion, Your Honor, and it is irrelevant.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Why—I am asking her.

ATTY. BAUTISTA. If Your Honor please, I do not …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    May answer.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Based on newspaper accounts?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE OMBUDSMAN. Is that your conclusion?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No. Did you notice that what you stated what you stated there is based on …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Under the assumption that I always read all newspaper accounts?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No. No. I have a definite question. I have gone over the affidavit …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … of Noli Tiu-Santos.

THE OMBUDSMAN. Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And I notice that all when you stated in there are practically coming from newspaper or newspaper account.  My question to you  …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  You noticed it. You noticed it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes and my question to you is, did you notice that?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Well, he attached to his complaint newspaper clippings.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And you will agree with me that newspaper clippings have no probative value whatsoever especially so in this particular case where the subject to be investigated is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Irrelevant, Your Honor. I cannot understand the line of questioning because it was the defense panel who, themselves, asked to subpoena the Ombudsman and produce documents relating to the 10 million dollar account.  That is all and we have already stipulated that the complaints do not mention the 10 million dollar account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Let the witness answer.  She is a very intelligent witness.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Well, as I said, Your Honor, he attached to the complaint newspaper clippings, but let me—let me emphasize that before I invoke the assistance of the AMLAC, I first asked the AMLAC—I first furnished copies of the complaints to the AMLAC thinking that the charges might have to do with matters within its jurisdiction and then, when I ask—I wrote the AMLAC again, I only received yet the first complaint. In other words, the first and second complaints including that of Mr. Santos have not yet been with the Ombudsman.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Madam Ombudsman. I propounded that question, Your Honor, Madam Ombudsman, in the light of what appears in this request that you sent to the Chief Justice.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I read for the record, “While you may only be removed from office through impeachment proceedings, this office, as reflected  earlier has the power and duty to investigate you for any serious misconduct in the office for purposes of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It was on this account that this office conducted an initial evaluation of the complaints.  I’m lead by that statement of yours that it was on the account made by the complainant-affiants that you conducted the initial investigation of the complaints.  Am I right?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.   On account of the complaints.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But there is nothing in the complaint relative to what you wanted to be investigated and that is the ten million dollar account.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Precisely, Your Honor, again, I sound like a broken record.  I said, furthermore, we received a report that the Chief Justice has ten million dollars.  And that report was based on the report that was given to me by the AMLC, and these are the documents given to me by the AMLC.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, you totally disregarded the affidavit-complaint of Noli Santos.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Not disregarded, not disregarded.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In what sense or what value did you give to that complaint?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, there were three complaints…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, I am referring to—I am sorry, Your Honor.  I am merely referring to Noli Santos.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  But why should you drop the other complainants?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Because they have essentially almost the same complaints.  They were complaining against acquisition of unexplained wealth.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, I am just asking a question.  May we request most respectfully that the witness be admonished not to argue with this Representation.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I am not arguing, I was just explaining.  Your Honor, I was just explaining.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The witness is explaining to the counsel that she did not—the ten million was obtained from a report to her by the AMLC.  She initially referred the complaint submitted to her by private parties, if I recollect her former statement, to the AMLC, and there was a report returned by the AMLC to her, and in that report was a statement about a ten-million dollar account supposedly of the respondent.  Am I correct on this, Madam witness?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, so, that is the situation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright.  The way we understood you…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  The way we understood you, you received that report from the AMLC.  Was it prior or after your letter of April 20 to the Chief Justice?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Prior, Your Honor, because I could not have told the Chief Justice that we received report about ten million dollars if I had not gathered it from the AMLC data that was…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, will you be kind enough to tell us why you did not incorporate that as a statement, so that at least the Chief Justice will be able to answer intelligently and correctly.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  What statement, Your Honor?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That according to you, based from the papers coming from the AMLC, there was this alleged then million dollars deposit.  That was not stated in your ….

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, but I said report, we received report.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but even that does not appear in your letter request of April 20, 2012.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I thought it was not necessary.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, why you did not consider that necessary when you are practically accusing a person of illegally acquired wealth, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I thought it was not necessary to mention the source.   After all he said that the account did not exist, so why should you know.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But that was—when he said that that account did not exist, it was only after your letter of April 20.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, but it was not necessary, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is your evaluation…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Yes, to mention that it came from AMLC.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but in order the witness or the Chief Justice Corona maybe allowed to explain well his position, why was it not necessary, what made you think that that was not necessary, ten million dollars is not necessary.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That was data gathered by the AMLC…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but my point is this, Madam Witness, you wrote the Chief Justice Renato Corona a letter dated April 20,2012…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  …it is said “strictly confidential”.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Yes, that is right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Why all the statement that you made in here is in connection with the ten million dollar account?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Strictly confidential, meaning, the contents of the letter were strictly confidential.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely.  Why was there no mention in order that he made defend himself.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   I thought it was not necessary, Your Honor

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … why did you not mention it.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I thought it was not necessary.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I be allowed to finish the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness has already answered.  She felt it was not necessary so that’s her position.  Am I correct in this, Madam…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She already answered.  We are arguing on a,  on this point, the witness said that she found it not necessary to give that information in her letter.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But my point is this, Your Honor—if that was so stated, any request to answer is made then the party to whom it is addressed may be able to intelligently reply to the request.  That’s my point.  I’m not questioning the opinion of the witness, Your Honor, I’m just bringing out facts, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you kindly direct your question to the witness so that you will understand each other.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Your Honor, you were saying so that the respondent would probably have been able to answer intelligibly to the…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And correctly, Your Honor.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  You could have asked for a bill of particulars.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  You could have asked where did you get this information.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But this is not a prosecution in court.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Well, in any event, even if it were not a bill of particulars, he could have said that, can I be enlightened where you got the information?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is precisely why we came to this court, open up this matter because we feel that there is no truth or any legal basis for this assertion.  That is the point of the defendant, your Honor.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  There is no truth to my assertion that I received report that he has US$10 million in transactional accounts?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no statement to that effect.  What I’m limiting myself is your statement, furthermore, we received information that there are several bank accounts in PS Bank and several other banks in your name including those denominated in US dollars the aggregate  value of which amounts to at least $10 million.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, you knew if this is in dollar, this is highly confidential, protected by the Foreign Currency Deposit, Republic Act No. 6426.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I did not source it from the bank, Your Honor.  I sourced it from the AMLC.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but wherever it is sourced, you mean to say if the source is different it can be or in currency deposit may now be inquired?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  You are saying, Your Honor, that these accounts exist because you are saying these are confidential?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, I ‘m not saying, I’m not saying that it is your answer that there are reports to this effect.  My question is, why was this not incorporated in the report?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  It was incorporated, I just didn’t mention the source, $10 million.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but source.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, AMLC.  Here, 17-page document.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Where in your report?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  No, I did not mention—we  sound like a broken record, both you and I.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I said I thought it was unnecessary.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, the witness has already answered.  That the basis of the $10 million is a report.  She did not include it in her letter.  That’s her answer.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  We wanted to emphasize, Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have already overly emphasized it to this court.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Mr. President, if I may.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo.  Pasensya na ho kayo at bigla po akong tumayo.  Kanina po merong hawak-hawak si Ombudsman na mga papeles, report yata ng AMLC yon.  Sana ho ay makakuha kaming mga kopya, kopya  para sa mga Senador para ho mabasa din po namin.  Kung pupwede lang po.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  And can the prosecution panel likewise be given a copy of that.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  If directed by the Presiding Senate President.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Can we get hold of the copies, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To be fair to the respondent, let the process be done.  The prosecution knows what to do and it’s their turn to ask questions from this witness because she will be subject to cross-examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, counsel for the defense, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   Now, this report that you were telling us is a report that came into your possession after the filing of the impeachment complaint in this case, am I right?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  That’s right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And I suppose you must have read the entirety of the impeachment complaint in this case, is it not?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And there is nothing in this impeachment complaint that deals with this $10 million account.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Objection, Your Honor.  At the last hearing, the defense expressly assured the entire nation, this Senate, that they were going to face the $10 million issue squarely.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is the basis of …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  That is what they said.  And on that basis of that assurance, there were given a recess of 48 hours.  They were given the right to subpoena the Ombudsman and five other witnesses.  And now you’re going to question it?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we know …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.  (Gavel)  What was your question counsel?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is not one of those covered by the impeachment complaint in this impeachment proceedings, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  You are referring to the $10 million dollars?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I don’t know if the alleged $700,000 in PSBank is included in this $10 million.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So you are not sure about that?  What you are telling us is merely your opinion about the matter.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Opinion on the basis of how I analyzed the 17-page data coming from the AMLC.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But that is not my question to you.  My question to you is this, this letter is dated April 20, 2012.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At that time, there was already an impeachment proceedings before this court.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That’s right.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Already answered.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is nothing in that impeachment complaint which deals with this $10 million account that you mentioned.  Am I right?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I am not supposed to remember all those Articles of Impeachment.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am not asking you to remember.  All I’m asking you is since you are familiar with the impeachment proceedings, …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … I am asking you for a fact, not whether you are familiar or what.  Did you notice that it is not included in any of the impeachment articles?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I did not nit-pick the impeachment articles, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So if I tell you now that it is not one of those charges embodied in any articles of impeachment, you’re not in a position to deny or contradict this representation.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  If it is not, with more reason I should conduct further investigation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.  And the idea is for impeachment also?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Possibly for impeachment in December.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  On the basis of your investigation?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  If it’s not covered.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So if it’s—But you do not fully agree with me that it’s not embodied in this impeachment complaint.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, I don’t recall.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, we have read this articles of impeachment.  There’s no mention of $10 million.  So we know that.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There’s no point in belabouring that issue.  We deal with the allegations of the complaint.  That is a detail that is required by the counsel.  But there’s no mention of an amount.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And we are guided by the fact, Your Honor, that elementary rule of procedure in evidence debar any evidence being presented to a matter that is not proved alleged in the complaint.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If that is so, Your Honor, then why did you subpoena the witness and to bring with her documents regarding the $10 million if you are saying it is irrelevant?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Is he entitled to question me, Your Honor?  I will yield if he is entitled, but he has no authority.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Counter manifestation, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)  Propound your question to the witness and let’s finish this.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay.  Now, I understand that your investigation …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There’s no question that there is no mention of $10 million in the articles of impeachment, but the issue is inclusion and non-inclusion of assets, liabilities and net worth.  That is the main issue in Article II.

Whether the amount included this one billion, one peso, the issue is inclusion and non-inclusion.  The amount is immaterial.

So, reform your question.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I have no pending question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The proceed to ask another question.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, this $10 million, is this an amount embodied already in the other amounts discussed in this impeachment court which is the subject of evidence by the prosecution?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, I think, we have been going around in circles on this issue.  Let me just read the Journal of May 8, 2012, the manifestation of one of the counsels for the defense, Mr. Roy, and let me quote that, Mr. President.  The Journal reads, “I was referring to, Your Honor, the mention of $10 million from Senator Estrada.  I believe, it is on page 52, paragraph 1, is it there?  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 to the Chief Justice to testify in this connection.  Now, I wish to draw attention to the fact that this 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 this 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.”

This was already settled as early as May 8, 2012.  I believe, Mr. President, that enough time has been debated to this debate.  Can we go now to this point?”  This has already settled before by counsel of the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We want to be liberal in this court, but the time that we have is limited.  So, may I request the indulgence of both sides to—we do not want to control you in the way you ask your question, in the way you will handle your cases, but all of us are lawyers, and I think that you understand my position, direct the question to the witness and let the witness answer so that we can move on.  Because if you are going to argue a certain point back and forth with the witness, we will never finish this case.  So, Mr. Counsel for the defense, proceed to ask your question from the witness so that we could finish.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In view of the admissions made on record by the witness, Your Honor, in connection with my previous questions, I have no further direct examination question, Your Honor.  I am through with my direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are through with the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, cross.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam Ombudsman, you earlier mentioned that the AMLC gave you a report.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Do you have a copy of the report with you?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, I have my copy.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  For the record, counsel is being given a copy of the AMLC report.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  17 pages and there are also 4 pages separate from the …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  For the record, Your Honor, the document consists of—the first page is entitled transaction codes legend but it is not paginated.  There are 17 pages which indicate at the top page of each one, the name of the account holder, the account number, the transaction date, the transaction code, the peso amounts, the currency denomination, whether it is US dollar or peso, the foreign exchange amount and the name of the financial institution, in other words, the bank.

On its phase, there appears to be 705 accounts entered here.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  705 accounts?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  705 …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Entries, transactions

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Entries or transactions Sorry.  In addition to this report, Madam Ombudsman, was there any other report submitted by any party with respect to the AMLC report?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  This one, have you already invited the attention of the court respecting this four-paged document?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Where did you get this, Madam Ombudsman?

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  It came with this same 17-paged document.  I think this reflects the summary of the peso and dollar accounts.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you.  For the record, may we request that the transaction list be marked as Exhibit 11W for the prosecution and …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the marking?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  11W.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  And the attachment which is simply entitled Strictly Confidential subject Renato Coronado Corona which appears to be a summation or a summary of the transaction list consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4 pages, be marked as Exhibit 11X.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  What is the pleasure?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Before any question is propounded on this alleged report, may we be allowed to examine the same so that we will know the contents thereof.  We have not been furnished a copy.  It just surfaced today, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel for the prosecution, will you kindly show the, to be fair, documents to the defense counsel.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If I may respectfully suggest, Your Honor, can we have a 20-minute recess so that we can photocopy the documents for the Senator-Judges and for us to examine the documents because this is the first time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How long?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Half an hour.  Thirty minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, motion granted.  The session is recessed for 20 minutes.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Your Honor, excuse me.  Puwede ba ito ang kopyahin ninyo?  I am sorry, may I beg the indulgence of the Presiding Justice.  That is my personal copy, Your Honor.  I made some annotations.  So, can I request that the other copy which bears the initial of the one who prepared, be the one to be photocopied.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  If the documents are the same in all lrespects except the notes of the Ombudsman.  So ordered.

Hearing was suspended at 3:37 p.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is resumed.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, the copies have already been distributed, but the members of the court do not have a copy yet.  We are told that they will instead come up with a PowerPoint presentation so that it will facilitate the distribution of papers or the documents to the members of the court while it is being processed.  So, we may continue, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness, the honourable Ombudsman, will please take the witness stand.

We are in the stage of cross-examination.  The prosecution may proceed.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Honorable Ombudsman, did you advice the Senate that you are prepared with the PowerPoint presentation?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  So, you earlier testified that on the basis of the information you received from AMLC, you concluded that there are several bank accounts, and I’m quoting from your letter to the Chief Justice, “There are several bank accounts in PSBank and several other banks in your name, including those denominated in US dollars to adjudicate value of which amounts to at least ten million dollars. Do you confirm that?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you please explain to us, honourable Ombudsman, how you arrive at the figure of $10 million.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, sir.  First, I listed all the different accounts.   I  classified them under one column and then after grouping different accounts under one column, I got  the dates, the transactions occured then I got the amounts, the transaction occurred but since I noticed that there were some accounts which were deposited in let us say, A account, but let us say, $100,000, example only, but on the same day the $100,000 were withdrawn in three tranches and transferred to three different accounts— X, Y, Z.   I had a bit having difficulty trying to analyze so I came up with some significant observations and I put them into writing.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you please show to us these significant observations you’ve made in writing.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, sir.  That the Chief Justice has at least $10 million in transactional balances.  He has 82 US dollar accounts in five banks.  There were significant  deposits and withdrawals on very significant dates including the 2004 and 2007 elections as well as the week he was impeached, specifically for December 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 22, 2011.  The significant transactions are as follows:  On December 12, 2011 the date Corona was impeached, the following bank  transactions were made—there was a time deposit for  termination of  $418,193.32.  This amount was added to a BPI San Francisco Del Monte Account No. ____ and then from this, $417,978.80 was deducted from this account and placed in a regular trust fund contribution placement.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes?

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At this juncture, Your Honor, we noticed that the testimony of the witness is being in narrative form.  May we request, Your Honor, that questions be directed to her so that we can properly object when the time so demands, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The question calls for an explanation, Your Honor please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but irrespective of what you want to tell…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is an answer I think to a question.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, and we noticed that the answer is being made in narrative form.  It’s practically a story we can no longer object, Your Honor.  That’s why I am requesting that the testimony from the witness be adduced by question and answer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  In order to be fair, will you kindly slice your question in segments, Mr. Counsel for the prosecution.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  We will try to do that, Your Honor, but the difficulty is I just got this a few seconds ago but I will try.

Honorable Ombudsman, you were already testifying on how much were the withdrawals made by the Chief Justice from the date of his impeachment on December 12, 2011 forward.   Do you have the total amount of dollars the Chief Justice withdrew after the date of his impeachment from his bank accounts?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We object, Your Honor, because the witness may be cross-examined only on matters directly taken up in the direct examination.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Your Honor please, the witness has been subpoenaed by the defense specifically for the purpose of addressing the $10 million and now they are trying to limit her testimony.   I think we should put it on record, Your Honor, that the defense has repeatedly misrepresented the supposed intent of the Chief Justice to open his dollar accounts.  As early as February 12, 2011, this honourable court already ruled that the PS Bank accounts should have been opened But it relented to the TRO in particular because of the representation of the Chief Justice that he will open his account.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Up to now he has not done that.  And now they are trying to block the testimony of the Ombudsman regarding transactions and documents which they specifically subpoenaed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)  The Rule says, and I’ll read to you the Rule of Evidence involved, Section 12, Rule 132, “The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or a witness who is an adverse party may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party except by evidence of his bad character.”

Now the rule now involved in this discussion is this, “He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party,” which is the prosecution.  Now, “But such cross-examination must only be on the subject of his examination in chief.”

So, I’ll have to sustain the motion.  (Gavel)

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor, please.  May I ask for a reconsideration.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The defense has already waived its right for the prosecution to cross-examine on the $10 million accounts.  They expressly waived that, Your Honor, by making the representations they made last Tuesday, and on the basis of the subpoena request they made.  They already waived that, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If I may be allowed to answer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There could be no waiver , Your Honor, because our objection now is predicated on the Rule of Evidence.  We are not preventing my learned colleague from cross-examining her.  But the cross-examination being a hostile witness, Your Honor, must be only on matters taken up on the direct.

Did we touch on the withdrawals?  The answer is no.  Did we ask her to testify?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, motion to reconsider is denied.  (Gavel)  Next question.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Honorable Ombudsman, who gave you this report from the AMLC?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  You are referring to a particular person?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  The executive director.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Who is he?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Vicente Aquino.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I notice, honourable Ombudsman, that there are initials.  There is one initial on every page of both exhibits pertaining to the reports of the AMLC.  Do you know whose initial this is?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  One of the officials of AMLC or Central Bank who is a bank analyst.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  You earlier mentioned that you arrived at the conclusion that there were $10 million.  Did you ask—did you request anyone to assist you in evaluating …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  After my initial evaluation, I had to seek the assistance of the COA.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Who in particular, ma’am, in the COA?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  The Chair, Grace Tan.  And then, eventually, I later requested Heidi Mendoza.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  What was the response to your request for assistance?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, they came up with their analysis of dollar accounts.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Did they come up with a report on their analysis of the dollar accounts?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, before the honourable Ombudsman answers.  May we go on record, Your Honor, as again objecting to this—These matters had not been taken up in the direct examination, Your Honor.  And if we have to be …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Which one?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The alleged report, the examination by the COA and so on.  And nothing had been mentioned about that in the direct examination.

So following the previous …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually, counsel, the documents have been waived by the witness during her examination in chief, ‘di ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, but the question now …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pinakita niya e.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, but …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And it was solicited by virtue of a question from the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So the witness is now explain who helped her because that was the question of the cross-examining counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, the witness may answer.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I request for the reconsideration, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The matters being sought to be elicited on cross-examination, Your Honor, are matters not taken up in the direct examination.  And the witness does not cease to be a hostile witness.  The rules under Rule 132, Section 13, if I recall correctly, allows cross examination and we are not denying them the right to cross examine, but my point is, the cross examination must be limited only to matters taken up in the direct examination.

Now, the question now centers on the alleged examination by the COA on the report and on the examination, our point is, this had never been touched in our direct examination and I appeal to the records to buttress our argument on the point.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If, Your Honor, please …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But don’t you think the question to the Ombudsman is because of the document that was presented to this court by virtue of the examination in chief.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, what the documents …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She is explaining what happened, how that document was prepared, evaluated by her, and she said, she sought the assistance of other people.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But anyway, okay, just to give you all the leeway to defend your client, counsel for the prosecution, reform your questions.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor.  May I just point out that in the request for subpoena of the defense, I quote, that the Honorable Ombudsman bring with her the original and certified true copies of documents of the complaint against Chief Justice before the Office of the Ombudsman as well as original and certified true copies of the documents on which they based their accusations, that Chief Justice Corona has foreign denominated accounts in an aggregate value of $10 million.

These are the words of the defense when they asked for the subpoena, and now, they are trying to prevent the witness from testifying on the very documents they subpoenaed just because they now know that the contents are adverse to them.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are afraid, Your Honor, that we had been misunderstood.  We never have referred to any subpoena, much less, to any subpoena duces tecum that had not been part of the direct examination on the witness.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Therefore, he directly examined her on the basis of matters that were not subject of the subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What we are objecting is the question propounded to the witness which covers subject matter that had not been taken up in direct examination, and that is very clear.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, counsel for the prosecution, please reform your questions so that we will not go into this lengthy discussion.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor.  You earlier said, Madam Ombudsman, that you are prepared to present a PowerPoint …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you do that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir, if the Impeachment Court will allow me, Your Honors.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Unless, I am reversed by—yes, what is the pleasure of …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is not part of our direct examination.  And secondly, Your Honor …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If, Your Honor, please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Allow me to continue.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I vehemently disagree with the statement that it was not part of the direct examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The Journal will bear me out.  They asked questions regarding the basis of the $10 million.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right.  Where is the PowerPoint?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Now that the evidence is adverse to them, they are trying to suppress it.  May I point out the presumption in the Rules of Court, that when evidence is suppressed, it is presumed to be adverse to the party suppressing such evidence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You are misquoting a wrong law.  That does not apply in this particular case.  Do we have a right to object?  Our answer is yes.  It is addressed to the honorable court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did you not ask a question about the basis of the charge that the Chief Justice has $10 million?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We did not discuss on that on the direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did you asked that question?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I do not recall, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us go to the record.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  My question is what is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us not discuss this.  I want to see the record, if indeed, the defense counsel did not ask anything about the basis of the $10 million that was the subject matter of the examination in chief.

What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Taguig?

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Mr. President, just to save time and to support the earlier ruling of the Chair, during the direct examination, tinanong po ng counsel, bakit hindi mo inilagay  sa sulat iyong basehan?  At ano iyong basehan?  At sagot po ng honourable Ombudsman, ang basehan niya iyong dokumento sa AMLC.  Natandaan ko po ito kasi apat na beses na po niyang winagayway, anyway, she held it up and waved it and we were teasing Senator Jinggoy na kumuha na tayo ng kopya baka mawala.  And paulit-ulit po iyong Ombudsman in saying na para tayong sirang plaka.  Hindi ko isinama ito sa letter sapagka’t she did not think it was needed na ilagay sa letter.  Therefore, Mr. Chair, to support the Presiding Officer, winagayway na niya iyong ano, kanina pa niya wine-wave iyon and secondly, Your Honor, not to debate with you, kasi kung bubuksan pa natin iyong record hahaba pa, or kung iyong pronunciation ko sa Tagalog aayusin ko, hahaba pa, so excuse me for that mistake. . But the defense was the one who brought up the AMLC records.  Ang ginagawa lang ng prosecution ngayon, nag-e-elaborate or hinihimay and the PowerPoint is para tulungan na ihimay.  So, I’ll stop there but I am supporting the ruling of the Chair that it is proper in cross because it was brought up in fact by the defense.  Except, hindi ninyo hinimay o hindi ninyo na tinanong iyong Ombudsman kung ano iyong laman.  But the fact na mayroon pong papeles na galing po sa AMLC, nanggaling po iyon sa tanong ng defense.  And I am afraid na hahaba po at tatagal po tayo today kung babalik pa tayo sa records and every single question kasi po, pagkatapos ninyo po, magtatanong din kaming Senator-Judges at hawak na po namin ang  kopya namin, magtatanong din kami.  So, without interfering with the way you will defend your client, and I understand you have to do this, these questions will come out, Sir, and I just like to put on record that I am supporting the Senate President’s stand that this was brought up.  And I hope maging smooth iyong pagtatanong natin dito.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Mr. Senator.  What we are objecting to is the utilization of PowerPoint, Your Honor.  True, there was a statement to the effect that this came from the AMLA.  I recall having questioned the cross-examined witness, Your Honor, on several matters regarding the AMLA, and the net effect is that she is not in a position to testify on matters properly within the confines or jurisdiction of the AMLA, that is why I stopped in there.  I did not insist that Your Honor, that she should be examined in connection with how the matter was brought to the AMLA.  What investigation was conducted by the AMLA.  Why it is confidential.  Why there is no predicate crime and yet there was an information supplied to.  I totally withdrew all my statements relative to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the gentle Lady from Antique.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Isang maliit na kahilingan lang po.  Na sana po ay bigyan natin ng pagkakataon na si Ombudsman Morales ay makapagsalita na dahil tatlong oras na po tayong nakaupo rito, gusto po nating marinig ang kanyang pahayag dahil mayroon na po tayong kopya ng 17 na pahina dito.  Pero mahirap intindihin dahil puro numero po at mga codes.  Iyon lang po ang hinihiling ko.  Pakinggan natin siya with minimum interruption at iyong mga abogado dito at saka doon po, with all due respect, mamaya po magtanong.  Puwede pong mag re-direct siguro namn po ang defense, puwedeng magtanong siguro sa tamang pamamaraan ang prosecution, kasi kami bibigyan po ng pagkakataon kung kailangan pa.  Pero paano po tayo magkakaintindihan?  Bigyan po natin ng pagkakataon para maipaliwanag iyong mga numerong napakaraming hindi naming maintindihan.  Salamat, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. With due respect, Your Honor.  I think with the least fear of contradiction, we are agreed that this alleged report came from the AMLA.  As to who prepared the same in particular, whether he is under oath, whether we can cross-examine him on the veracity of the entries herein appearing, whether  they are authentic or not, we are already helpless, Your Honor.  And what …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your Honor, the document was testified to by the Ombudsman.  It is a part of the testimony.  You know that that is a rule in evidence.  And the document presented to witness and used by her in the course of her testimony in this case is a part of the testimony of that witness which could be the subject matter of a cross-examination.  Now, you are objecting and you say that you did not touch upon that matter in your examination in chief. I agree with you that the COA was never mentioned by the Ombudsman but, precisely, she was asked—the way I understood the question of the prosecution is that the prosecution asked the Ombudsman whether that document was prepared by her and my recollection of her answer was that she—we asked the help of some other people including the COA if I understood her correctly. So, that is in answer to the question of the prosecution but …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … just to satisfy the objection and to be sure that we are not guessing here, I am, as Presiding Officer, I want to check the record because my recollection of the record is that you, the defense, really touched this matter in their examination in chief.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. My point of objecting—if I may be allowed to continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes, please, go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  My point of objection is not only whether it was not touched in the direct or not, but whether the witness will be incompetent insofar as AMLAC figures are concerned.

ATTY. BAUTISTA. We will establish that, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is being presented now is an AMLA  report usigned …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That will be a proper subject of a recross or a redirect …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, maybe, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   … a redirect because you—in your redirect, you can actually cross-examine the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, but …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    We have already declared her to be a hostile witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are very appreciative of that, Your Honor, but our point is, apparently, there is no competency on the part of the witness to discuss this report …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Inspect …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … she is never a party, then, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … then, show that in the course of your recross …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, but …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   … or redirect.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  My objection—our observation …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Are you objecting on the ground that the Ombudsman is incompetent to testify on this matter?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  On the AMLA report in addition to our previous objection, Your Honor, …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Your Honor please, we have not yet …

JUSTICE CUEVAS. … because it is not shown yet whether she is a party to the preparation thereof, whether she is privy to the entries therein appearing and whether he had talked to the person who made the entries, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  And so …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This will be a paper presentation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Correct, but she is simply reading from the report.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  PowerPoint presentation, this will include interpretation, Your Honor, of figures stated in there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Well, if you do not want a PowerPoint presentation, then, I will submit this to the Body for a decision if you are objecting.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is my point, Your Honor, and I made clear our position our position on the matter, Your Honor.  We are heavily thankful to the Court for allowing us to say our piece on this particular and specific matter.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor please, just for the record. I have not seen these documents and the mention of the PowerPoint presentation, I heard it for the first time from the Honorable Senator Sotto. And I thought it was a wonderful idea to expedite the presentation of the evidence. It did not come from the prosecution. It came from the Senator.  And if the Ombudsman is ready to come up with the PowerPoint presentation, I think it is within the discretion of this Honorable Court to say “yes” or “no”, but definitely, it is not barred by any rule.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    It may be tedious, but if you want to—you object to the Power presentation, then, I will direct the prosecution to ask the specific questions, so that you can object.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President. Just three questions to Madam Ombudsman.

We thought we would be able to figure out these figures, but as you can see, there are very many items under which these transactions are categorized.

Madam Ombudsman, you used the term earlier “transactional balance?”

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That is right.

SEN. MARCOS. What does that mean exactly because it is so hard for us to determine?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  The transactions that went into funds, the transactions that—including the flow and outflow of funds. That is not the balance of the account.

SEN. MARCOS. I see.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Those are the balance of …

SEN. MARCOS.  That is the total—in other words …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That went through the system of his …

SEN. MARCOS.  So, in other words, all the dollar transactions when added together, a total $10 million Was that the determination that you made?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It’s even more, I think.

SEN. MARCOS.  It’s even more.  So, it is not the balance, it is…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Balance of transaction.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, even if, let us say, 10 thousand dollars was deposited and subsequently 10 thousand dollars was withdrawn, that will be a transactional balance of 20 thousand, is that correct, Madam Ombudsman?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Let us put it this way, Senator.  I think our computation, my computation which was arrived at with the assistance of CPA lawyers, is that, it’s fresh deposits which means, fresh deposits, they never moved, they remained in that particular account amounted to more than 12 million dollars.

SEN. MARCOS.   Yes, but…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Fresh deposits.  But the transaction, were saying the inflow and the outflow, that’s it.

SEN. MARCOS.  I heard you specifically say that the transactional balance to your determination was ten million dollars.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Even more.

SEN. MARCOS.  And even more.  But again—so this does not denote the balance.  It merely denotes the total amount of money…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. MARCOS.  …that went through the system.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Yes. It does not denote the balance of the account.  But as I said, Mr. Senator, it is fresh deposits amounted to more than 12 million dollars.

SEN. MARCOS.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  When I say fresh deposits, they were never moved from one bank to another, they stayed on those accounts.

SEN. MARCOS.  Very well, we’ll have to plow through all these informations.  Thank you very much, Madam Ombudsman.  Thank you, Mr. President.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  If you allow me, if you allow me, it will abbreviate the proceedings if you allow me to come up with the PowerPoint presentation.  It will be easier to be understood if you will…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Madam Ombudsman, there is an objection from the defense.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Alright, okay.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Santiago, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentle Lady from Iloilo.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Mr. President, the primary rule in the Rules of Evidence is relevancy.  In fact, it is one of the first few articles that open the section of the Rules of Court concerning evidence.  As long as the evidence is relevant, it is admissible in court.  There is no prohibition in the Rules of Evidence of a PowerPoint presentation. There is no categorical prohibition of such means of introducing evidence.  The only question facing us, is, is this relevant?   I hold as a judge, that this is relevant, therefore, it should be admitted, and beside it will help us considerably to reduce the hours that we might spend going over these items one by one.  If there is a need for voting, I vote therefore for the PowerPoint presentation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Order!  Order!  May I request the public to refrain from showing your approval or disapproval with things that are happening in the court room.

So ordered.  (Gavel)

The Gentleman from Cavite.

SEN. LACSON.  If there is a need for a motion to be submitted to the Chair to allow the Ombudswoman to present through a PowerPoint presentation, I so move, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, there is a motion to allow the Ombudsman to present a PowerPoint presentation of the report prepared by the AMLC to her.  May I request the–those who are in favour, please raise your right hand.  (The Secretary General counting) Alright.  Those who are against, please raise your right hand likewise.  Against ha, against, those who are against.  No one is against?   Alright.  The PowerPoint presentation is authorized by the impeachment court.  (Gavel).  Proceed.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Alright.  If, Your Honor, please, if you allow one of those who assisted me in charting this visual aid in coming up with a presentation to herself present.  I am referring to Commissioner  of the COA, Heidi Mendoza, if you will allow her to do the presentation or you will prefer that it is going to be me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Well, if you are technically capable, Madam Ombudsman, then…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I’ll try, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, please do so.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  As you can see, this refers  to analysis of dollar account.  Basic information.  Tabulation of transaction accounts submitted by AMLC.  The amounts appearing in the tabulation are not account balances but rather they are transaction balances.  The same is considered complete as to movement of funds about 500,000 from 14 April 2003 to 22 December 2011.

Methodology

Recording of reported transactions into specific bank accounts; posting of individual amounts under specific debit and credit column using the transaction codes as guide; summarizing all the debits and credits which are basically the inflows and outflows of funds followed by the computation of net inflow/outflow; marking of abnormal balances such as withdrawals where there are no apparent entries under the debit column; preparing individual schedules, summary of transaction per account, summary of account movements, inter and interbank schedule of net flows, supporting schedules for significant observations.

Significant observations

Multiple accounts created for similar purpose; multiple accounts spread over five banks in various branches, places; circuitous fund movements; deposit and withdrawal made on the same day; significant movement on significant dates.

Significant observation

In 2003, he had one dollar account.  In 2004, he had 13 so one plus 13 would be 14 in 2005.  In 2005, he had an additional nine dollar accounts so from 2003 to 2005, his dollar accounts totalled 23—it’s not too visible from my end—plus  he had an additional 12 dollar accounts.  In 2007—excuse me, may I just look at my record because it’s hardly visible from here—in  2007, he had 35 dollar accounts and he added 14 accounts.  So in 2008, he had 49 dollar accounts and he added 14 accounts.  In 2009, he had 63 dollar accounts and he had added 12 dollar accounts.  In 2010, he had 75 dollar accounts and he added six accounts.  In 2011, he had 81 dollar accounts and he added one account.  That gives a total of 82 dollar accounts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many dollar accounts?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  82, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  82.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  The PowerPoint machine, I think, came in late so I said I was not able to see.  All right.    First, we had this BPI Acropolis Branch, he had eight accounts.  Then BPI Tandang Sora, he had 18 accounts.  BPI San Francisco Del Monte, 34 accounts.  BPI Management Investment Corporation, he had one account.  PS Bank Cainta, he had eight accounts; PSBank Katipunan he has six accounts; then ABC, Allied Bank Corporation, Kamias, he had four accounts; and, Deutsche Bank, I don’t know how to pronounce this, AG2 Deutsche Bank, he has two accounts;  City Bank NA, he has one account.

Now, circuitous movement of funds for the four main accounts.  All right.

An account in BPI Acropolis Account 4005939, deposit in the amount of $48,589.72.  This was deposited on April 14, 2003.  On even date, on April 14, 2003, he withdrew $52,202.38.

On April 23, he deposited to the same account the amount of $78,400.66.

Two days after, he withdrew—how is this possible—he withdrew $80,000.  Maybe the—Well, the amount would show that it’s bigger than what he deposited but the presumption is that he had seed deposit there.

Okay.  Now, on April 1, 2004, he deposited $162 million—No, no, rather, I’m sorry, this time I’m now used to millions.  It is $162,982.97.  He deposited to the same account.  This came from Account No. 9771.

Okay.  Now, on April 1, 2004, he withdrew $390,000 from still the same account and deposited it to Account No. 1822.

On May 6, 2004, he deposited $390,526.09.  And on April 2, 2004, he withdraw from the main account the amount of $100,000 and deposited it in Account No. 1865.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When you say account, you’re talking within the same bank?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor, the same bank.  In other words, he had several accounts in the same bank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the same bank?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

All right.  In May 6—No, I’m done with that.

On April 2, 2004, as I said, he withdrew $100,000 and placed it in Account 1865.

On May 7, 2004, he deposited $100,134.89.

Excuse me, Your Honor, may I just talk to Ms. Mendoza?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Your Honor, may I be allowed to use my magnifying lens?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead, Madam Ombudsman.  I’m also using a magnifying glass.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  On May 5—No, rather, on May 11, 2004, he deposited to the still the same account, mother account, $9,000,340—no, I am sorry, again, as I said, I am sorry, I am now used to million—so, it should be $9,340.

On May 12, 2004, he withdrew $500,000.  That is May 12.

On May 14, 2004, he returned $500,000 to the mother account.

On August 4, 2004, he deposited to the mother account, $15,000.

On May 14, 2004, withdrew $500,000 from the mother account.

On August 4, 2004, he withdrew again, $30,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are these—the withdrawal, deposits and withdrawals covered by documentary evidence like checks or debit memos or whatever?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Based on the AMLC document, Your Honor, there are codes there which says, debit, credit, debit, but the credit memo, in other words from where these funds came from, who deposited them or how it came about is not recorded there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is this actually being operated by the account holder himself directly or was there …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … a fund manager doing this for the account holder—the deposit holder?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Except for maybe two or three accounts which I suspect, it must have been on the move of a manager, all the rest of the accounts reflected in the data, document were—appear to have been made by Renato Corona, Renato C. Corona or Renato Coronado Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Signed on the documents withdrawing and depositing.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, Your Honor, this document is sourced from the database of the AMLC, so, they did not submit supporting documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, it is actually electronically generated.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Now, on September 8, 2004, he withdrew $30,000 and placed it in account number 3345 on—I am sorry, I am referring to the blue—On September 8, 2004, he deposited to the mother account $30,040.47.

On August 18, 2004, he withdrew from the mother account $30,000 and placed in account number 3507.

On September 22, 2004, he deposited $30,040.47 to the mother account.

On August 18, 2004, he deposited $10,000 to the mother account.

On August 18, 2004, he deposited $15,000 to the mother account.

On September 8, 2004, he withdrew $30,000 and placed it to account number 1840.

On September 23, 2004, he withdrew $30,040.47 and deposited it to 3949 account.

On October 21, 2004, he withdrew $100,000.

On October 29, 2004, he deposited $39,000. On January 1, 03, January 3, 2005, rather,  he deposited 15,000 US dollars.  Now, on the same date, he withdrew 15,000, the same amount.  On January 14, 2005, he deposited 10,000 US dollars.  On the same date, January 14, 2005, he withdrew $15,000.00.  On January 20, 2005, he withdrew 10,000 US dollars.  I think we are done, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, my impression of this, and correct me if I am wrong, there is one deposit account in this bank by the depositor and he sliced it into several placement accounts.  So, the accounts were coming in and out of the same deposit account in the same bank.

JUSTICE CARPIO-MORALES.  Coming out of one particular deposit account and going to another account.  In fact, there are several different accounts here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Before you do that, may I request for a one long minute recess.

Hearing was suspended at 5:36 p.m.

The session was resumed at 5:53 p.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is resumed.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recall the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Madam Ombudsman.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Analyzing this particular bank account number, there are actually 14 withdrawals and 17 deposits.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  This is over a period of time.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It started at a given date and ended on a given date.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does the Ombudsman know if there is—what was the balance of the end of this period involved?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, Your Honor, we cannot determine.  It’s difficult to determine.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are not in a position to state?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Unless they are fresh deposits which means there were no withdrawals from the account.  It would be difficult to determine the balance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But this account exists and it’s being operated with deposits and withdrawals by the depositor?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, the data we determined was up to 2005, I think.  Yes, January 2005.

So, that is what is reflected in the document that the movement—the circuitous movement of the deposits ended on January 2005.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Before we go into another subject, may we request that the defense be furnished with the PowerPoint …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  The honourable Ombudsman is requested to provide a hard copy of this …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So that we can go over the same.  Prepare for a re-direct and determine the facts stated therein, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In fact, if we may also request the Ombudsman to provide the court a hard copy of this PowerPoint presentation.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.  We will do that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  May the prosecution likewise be give a copy, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  This PowerPoint presentation was prepared by whom?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It was prepared by me with the assistance of the COA.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The COA?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.  They were the ones who …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why was the COA brought into the picture?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Your Honor, because I had to ask their assistance because the COA—there are CPAs in the COA and for a mere lawyer without background in accounting, I found it difficult to analyze.

I did it manually and all that with all those columns and all that, so I wanted them to see if my observations were correct.  So I had to engage their help.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Counsel for the prosecution.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Mr. President, may we also be given a copy …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May we continue with the PowerPoint presentation.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  There’s another major account, Your Honor.  This is Account No. 1842, Bank of Philippine Islands Tandang Sora.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  1842?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  1842.  On August 11, 2004, he withdrew—No, I won’t say he withdrew.  There is a withdrawal of $10,000 which went to Account No. 4676.  More than a month later, or on September 15, 2004, the amount of $10,011.24 was deposited to the same account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is separate from the first …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Separate, Your Honor.  This is BPI.  The other one was BPI Acropolis.  This is BPI Tandang Sora, TS.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Another bank deposit account?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Another bank deposit account, Bank of Philippine Islands.  The first one …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The same bank.  The Bank of the Philippine …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  The same bank but different branch, Your Honor.  The first one was Acropolis Branch.  This time, it is Tandang Sora Branch.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Now, on September 12, 2004, he withdrew $10,000.  But on October 16—And placed it in another bank account.

On September 16, 2004, he deposited to the mother account $10,011.24.

In 2005, Your Honor, this is still the same, BPI Tandang Sora branch, the same mother account, but this time again, he withdrew $11,000 on April 14, 2005 to another account, account number 5427.  This is different from the previous accounts that we mentioned.

On January 12, 2006, he deposited to the mother account, $11,215.97.

On October—I will be referring to the account on the left side.  On October 25, 2005, he withdrew $12,000 and placed it in the account number BPI no. 5974.

And on January 24, 2006, he deposited $12, 091.19.

On December 8, 2005, he withdrew from the mother account $15,000.

And on March 9, 2006, he returned $15,113.99 to the mother account.

On December 8, 2005, he withdrew $21,000.

And on March 23, 2006, he returned $21,159.98.  This came from another bank account.

So, there are four bank accounts involved in this page.

Still in the same BPI Tandang Sora branch and still in the same mother account, on January 12, 2006, he withdrew $16,000 and placed it in another new account, account number 6261.

And on January 11, 2007, he deposited $16,566.07 to the mother account.

On March 10, 2006, he withdrew $26,000 and placed it in a different account, account number 6474.

And on September 8, 2006, he withdrew—he deposited rather, $26,455.95.

On March 23, 2006, he withdrew $21,159.58 from the mother account and placed it in a different account, account number 6539.

And on September 21, 2006, he deposited $21,538.04.

Finally, on this page, on January 24, 2006, he withdrew $12,091.19 from the mother account.

And onJanuary 23, 2007, he deposited $12,526.15.

Please segue to the next page.  This is an account from BPI San Francisco Del Monte.  The account number is 8104, this is BPI.  From the account number, you will recall that the previous mother account was—on September 14, 2006 rather, August.  August 14, 2006, September 8, 2006, September 21, 2006, January 16, 2007, January 23, 2007, he made five deposits.  The first was $48,391.09, $26,455.95, $21,534.04, $16,566.07, $12,526.15.  This came from an Account No. 1842.  Again on August 16, 2006, he deposited to the mother account the amount of 13,700.00.  Then on  September 27, 2006, he deposited 110, 109.19 and on January 24, 2007, he deposited 21,234.05.  The account where this came from is not indicated.  On May 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account 134,603.25..  This came from an account numbered 9366.  On September 27, okay, the withdrawal first should have been mentioned first because it is a year before that.  So, anyway, he withdrew 131,643.32 from his mother account and deposited it to account number 9366.  On May 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account 27,039.80 and on September 8, 2006, he withdrew 26,455.95, and placed it to Account No. 9188.  Finally, on August 16, 2006, he withdrew from the mother account $62,000.00 and placed it in Account No. 8955.  And on February 14, 2007, he deposited $232.23 .  Still another account, still in the same account in San Francisco Del Monte, on February 15, 2007, he transferred 63,232.23 to Account No. 0933 and on May 3, 2007, he deposited 63,345.61 to the mother account.  On January 24, 2007, he withdrew 53,326.85 and placed it to Account No. 0704.   And on May 3, 2007, from the same account, he deposited to the mother account 53,572.71.  Let me start with, on July 19, 2007, there was a deposit of $12,700.00, where the deposit came from, it is not indicated, fresh deposit.  On July 27, 07, he deposited 100,000.   On May 29, 07, he deposited 129,498.98 and on September 3, 2007, he deposited $20,000.00 while on December 21, 2007, he deposited $50,000.00.00  These are fresh deposits that were infused into the mother account.  Still on the same account, BPI,  San Francisco Del Monte. On July 19, 2007, he withdrew from the BPI Account, mother account, the amount of 20,000 and placed it in a different account 2693.

On August 23, 2007, he deposited to the mother account 20,076.44. On August 31, 2007—let me start with the withdrawal first.

On July 27, 2007, he withdraw the amount of 100,000 and placed it still in another accounts but on August 31, 2007, he deposited to the mother account 101,404.69.

On August 23, 2007, he transferred 20,007.44 on the mother account and deposited it into a different account 3193.

On September 3 of 2007, he deposited to the mother account from this new account the amount of 20,082.83.

On September 3, 2007, he transferred 40,082.93 from the mother account and transferred it to a new account 3479.

On March 3, 2008, he deposited 40,973.18.

On August 9, 2007, still from the same account, he withdrew 296,728.99 and placed it in a new account 2987 and on November 8, 2007, he deposited 299,937.86 to the mother account.

On July 31, 2007, he withdrew 130,443.32 to a new account 2812 and on March 4, 2007, he deposited to the mother account the amount of US $133,547.67.

On August 31, 2007, he transferred from the mother account $100,404.69 to a new account 3398 and on February 29, 2008, he returned to the mother account the amount of 102,634.27.

On November 9, 2007, he withdrew the amount of 299,937.86 and transferred it to a new account 7659.

On December 21, 2007, he withdrew from the mother account, the amount of $50,000 and transferred it to a new account 4351 and on January 25, 2008, he deposited to the mother account 50,224.83.

Still in BPI San Francisco Del Monte Account, Account No. 8104.

On March 5, 2008, he deposited the amount of $30,300 to the mother account.

On April 17, 2008, he deposited 24,000 to the mother account. On July 31, 2008, he deposited $30,000 to the mother account.

On January 28, 2008, he transferred from the mother account to a new account the amount of $50,224.83.  From this new account, he withdrew on August 15, 2008, the amount of $51,167.17.  On January 28, 2008, he withdrew the amount from the mother account $50,224.33.  On March 3, 2008, he withdrew the amount of $143,608.15 from the mother account, and transferred it to a new account, 4874.  And on July 7, 2008, he referred back to the mother account the amount of $144,947.79.  On March 5, 2008, he withdrew the amount from the mother account US$175,000 and transferred it into new account 4912.   And on July 9, 2008, he deposited $176,561.40 to the mother account.  On April 17, 2008, he withdrew from the mother account $24,000, and transferred it to a new account 52277.  And on June 26, 2008, he deposited to the mother account $24,102.63.  On July 9, 2008, he withdrew the amount of $345,611.82 to a new account, the following day he returned what he withdrew the day before in the amount of $345,640.68.  On July 10, 2008, he withdrew the amount of $345,640 and created a new account.  And on October 20, 2008, he deposited to the mother account the amount of $348,334.93.  On August 6, 2008, he withdrew from the mother account the amount of $130,443, and also withdrew on October 20, 2008 the amount of $356,372.34.  On December 15, 2008, he withdrew from the mother account the amount of US$20,000, and created a new account 7393.  And on January 19, 2009, he deposited to the mother account in the amount of $20,022.49.  Finally, on July 3, 2008, he deposited the amount of $100, 630.83.   I think I’m done.

Maybe there are still so many things, but I would like to believe that—yes, there are withdrawals on a particular date and returning back to the same account on the same date, deposit and withdrawal on the same date.  There are still many here, but if you will allow Ms. Mendoza to take over, I’m a bit enervated.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If there is no objection we can—anyway, this is just a continuation of the PowerPoint presentation, the request of the Ombudsman is granted.  (Gavel)

Put her under oath and…

THE SENATE SECRETARY.   Please rise, Madam Witness.  Raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MS. MENDOZA.  I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Your Honor.

THE SENATE SECRETARY.  So help you God.

MS. MENDOZA.  So help me God.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please kindly state your name and other personal circumstances, especially your position if at all with the Office of the Ombudsman.

MS. MENDOZA.  I am Heidi Llosa Mendoza, married and working with the Commission on Audit, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are with the Commission on Audit.

MS. MENDOZA.  Yes, Your Honor.  I am with the Commission on Audit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is your position in the Commission on Audit?

MS. MENDOZA.  Your Honor, I was appointed by the President as the Commissioner of the Commission on Audit but I am not yet confirmed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  You are one of the commissioners.  Please proceed.

MS. MENDOZA.  Your Honors, may I just emphasize that these accounts, four main accounts and the rest are baby accounts and we are trying to show the circuitous movement of funds.  Meaning from the four main accounts, there are many accounts created and all of them are in the name of the respondent.   And may I also emphasize that the total inflow, meaning to say, the deposits, the credit memo, the fund transfer, the internal remittances totalled to $28,740,497.93.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How much?

MS. MENDOZA.  $ 28,740,497.93.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is the…

MS. MENDOZA.  Total inflow, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Of deposits.

MS. MENDOZA.  Yes, Your Honor, deposits, credit memos, internal remittances.  Meaning, Your Honor, anything that went in.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That entered the account.

MS. MENDOZA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  US dollars?

MS. MENDOZA.  US dollars, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And how about the withdrawals?

MS. MENDOZA.  The total outflow consisting of withdrawals, credit memo, purchases, electronic payments, outward remittances amounted to $30,758,878.71.  As you can observe, the withdrawal is bigger than the inflow simply because we have to emphasize these are transactions captured by the AMLC and it only shows that there are heavy balances on the top of each account.  It could either be the beginning balance.  This proves that the withdrawal is either equal or less than the deposit.  So if I may again repeat, a total inflow of $28 million and a total outflow of $30 million.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  How about in pesos, Madam Witness?

MS. MENDOZA.  Sorry, Your Honor, I did not compute in pesos.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  That’s just the dollars.

MS. MENDOZA.  This is just the dollar, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  These are  transactions starting from a period and ending in another period.

MS. MENDOZA.  Your Honor, from April of 2003 to December of 2011, we analyzed a total of 423 transactions over 82 accounts all in the name of the respondent.  The peso account, I was told, reached around P242 million so this is a different, well, meaning P242 million in peso account and this one is $30 million outflow for dollar account and total inflow of at least $28 million, Your Honors.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  How much if I may, Your Honor please…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.   How much, do you have the totals of the dollars withdrawn by the Chief Justice, December 12, 2011 up to end of the month, just the total.

MS. MENDOZA.  The total withdrawals for 2012.  Can I just look at my…

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  December 12.

MS. MENDOZA.  Just December?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The second half of December when he was impeached.

MS. MENDOZA.  Sorry, Your Honor, we don’t have that …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  It’s in the data.

MS. MENDOZA.  It’s in the data.  Yes, but, I mean, our classification is based on the analysis, on the findings, …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  December.  Do you have the number for the entire month of December 2011?

MS. MENDOZA.  Yes, but we did it on a per account per year, Your Honors.  I’m sorry.  I didn’t do it on a per month basis.  I did it on a per account per year basis because we are looking at the inflow and the outflow.  We wanted to come up with general analysis so did it on a yearly per account basis per bank.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So what is your pleasure of the defense counsel?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At this juncture, Your Honor, we are rather brought to a confused situation because whom we presented is the honourable Ombudsman, Your Honor.  And we presented her being allowed as a hostile witness, Your Honor.

Testifying on the stand now is Mrs. Heidi Mendoza, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is correct.  So what is your pleasure?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We do not know whether she is testifying for whom and what her testimony will be and how could it be credited, Your Honor, because we cannot raise the objection that the question being propounded was not covered in our direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Objection sustained.  (Gavel)

Miss Mendoza, you are not continuing with the PowerPoint presentation of the Ombudsman.  So, to be fair to the defense, I think …

MS. MENDOZA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You’re not presented here as a witness for the defense nor for the prosecution.  So, …

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Well, I am getting a consensus from the members of the court that perhaps we may continue tomorrow with the Ombudsman herself instead of another witness that has not been duly accepted by …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We have to discharge first the witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, we discharge Miss Mendoza.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you very much, Mrs. Mendoza, for coming over.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We have to discharge the witness because she is not submitting a PowerPoint presentation, rather she’s testifying on the nature of the transactions involved.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  And so, Mr. President, inasmuch as we have been informed that the Ombudsman has been very tired because of the trial since two o’clock this afternoon, may we just ask that she be present tomorrow for the continuation of the cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The honourable Ombudsman is requested to come back to the court to tomorrow’s proceedings so that we can continue, and hopefully finish with her testimony.  So ordered.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

One more.  May we ask a copy of the PowerPoint that was being presented by the Ombudsman.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We make the same request, Your Honor, in order to enable us to conduct an intelligible cross-examination, Your Honor, material to the points discussed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Re-direct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ha?

SEN. SOTTO.  Re-direct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, for our re-direct.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, you re-direct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The request is reasonable.  The Chair would like to request the Ombudsman to provide the defense and this court hard copies of the PowerPoint presentation done by her this afternoon.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  And the prosecution as well, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And as well as the prosecution.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor, please, may we know from the defense if the Chief Justice is going to testify tomorrow.  Is he going to testify tomorrow?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Bakit naman ganyan?  (Laughter)

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I am just …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Para bang wala na kaming alternative.  We are dealing with a retired Justice of the Supreme Court and former Secretary of Justice.  If you wanted …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  Just a minute.

I think the prosecution should not ask the defense when they present their witnesses.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Walang bastusan.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  So, Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-Arms may now make the announcement.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.

All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, May 15, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  (Silence)  Hearing none, the trial is adjourned until two o’clock, May 15, circa 2012.

It was. 6:30 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