IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Monday, May 7, 2012

At 2:07 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER  The impeachment trial of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.  We shall be led in prayer by Senator Loren Legarda.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 16 Senator-Judges present in the Chamber, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

REP. SOTTO.  May I ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make a proclamation.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 22, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  There being no objection, the March 22, 2012 Journal of this Court, sitting as an impeachment court, is hereby approved.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, before Business for the Day, there were three motions that were decided on by the caucus, so, may I be allowed with the permission of the Court …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …(inaudible) start.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  The first one is the letter of DOJ Secretary De Lima and reply of the Senate. In her letter to the Senate President dated March 22, 2012, DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima conveyed her apology for her failure to comply with the subpoena issued by the Court, which directed her to testify and bring certain documents  before the Court last  March 22. Secretary De Lima added that while she is willing to appear before the court, she also requested that her further appearance be dispensed with since the matter on which she is being asked to testify on by the defense have already been covered  by her direct testimony when she appeared as witness for the prosecution or that such matter should have been brought up by the defense during their cross-examination of her. Acting on her request of her discharge, the Presiding Officer in a letter dated March 27, 2012 informed Secretary De Lima that in the interest of justice and fair play, counsel for Chief Justice Corona should be similarly afforded the opportunity to raise direct examination questions in defense of their client just as the House Panel of Prosecutors were afforded the same opportunity to propound direct examination questions to her.

On May 4, 2012, the prosecution filed a motion to quash the subpoena contending that the defense has been previously afforded the chance to cross-examination Secretary De Lima and to their questions for two days, the prosecution also claims that to recall Secretary De Lima will be violative of her rights and would be unfair to the prosecution and the court as it will unduly lengthen the proceedings. With that, Mr. President, and as agreed in the caucus, I moved that the Presiding Officer rule on the matter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The subpoena requested by the defense stressed on their motion that they want to present the Secretary of Justice as their own witness, although, she was presented by the prosecution, and she was subjected to a cross-examination, the appearance of the Secretary of Justice then was not at the behest of the defense, and so therefore, given the fact that the respondent is entitled to compulsory process to set up his defense, the motion is denied. The motion to quash is denied and the defense is directed to confer with the Secretary of Justice so that you can determine the date and time when she will have to be asked to appear in this court to be presented as a witness for the defense.

SO ORDERED.

Next motion.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  Mr. President, the Court also is in receipt of a manifestation and request filed on April 24, 2012 by Spouses Rodel and Amelia Rivera. A subpoena  ad testificandum ed tuces tecum was earlier issued by the Court upon the request of the defense commanding Mr. And Mrs. Rivera to appear and testify on March 20, 2012 and everyday thereafter until discharged. The Spouses Rivera requested that they be excused from attending the hearings on May 5 to May 27 in view of their trip to the United States which had been scheduled long before they received the subpoena, the Riveras further manifested that they are ready to attend the hearings  in compliance with the subpoena after they have returned from their trip.  Mr. President, we have been previously informed that the defense is willing to forego with their testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will the defense, please, confirm this for the record.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, if they will not be available by the time granted by this Honorable Court, we may dispense with their testimony and present somebody else who will testify on the same subject matter.  For instance, Your Honor,  we have in mind introducing the broker who effected the sale between the Coronas and these witnesses, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, the manifestation of the chief defense counsel is noted.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next motion.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.  Yes, finally,   Mr. President, on March 16, 2012, counsel for Chief Justice Corona asked that this court issue a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to Malou Mangahas, Carol Ann Ilagan, and the camera men crew, all of the PCIJ, for them to testify and bring copies of the SALNs and all other documents, letters and requests related or pertinent to the various news reports posted in the PCIJ website.  The defense submits that the testimony and documents asked is for the purpose of disproving any alleged wilfull omission of the entries in the Chief Justice’s SALNs and to show good faith in filling up the same.

The prosecution on March 19, 2012, filed its opposition to the request on the ground that the testimonies and documents sought are patently irrelevant.

On March 21, 2012,  Malou Mangahas, Carol Ann Ilagan, and Ed Lingao, by counsel, filed their opposition praying that the request for subpoena be denied on the ground that the requested testimonies, documents and videos are irrelevant and inadmissible and that the request itself is unreasonable and oppressive.

I move to submit this matter for the consideration of the Presiding Officer, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Chair would like to request the defense panel to explain to the court.  First, what are the documents sought to be produced by the persons representing PCIJ asked of this court?  And second, what is the relevance of these documents?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the defense of the respondent.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. With the kind permission of this Honorable Court, Your Honor.   The defense would like to announce for the record that we have foregone any attempt towards hearing these witnesses compelled to appear pursuant to a subpoena to be issued by this honourable court together with our request to a subpoena duces tecum, Your Honor.  After our examination of our position, and relevant matters in our possession, we have finally arrived at the conclusion that we may dispense with the testimony…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So you are withdrawing your request.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor, thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, this court notes the withdrawal of the subpoena duces tecum and testificandum addressed to the members of the PCIJ.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  Mr. President, before the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the defense, may we recognize Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentle Lady from Iloilo has the floor.

SEN. DEFENSOR.  Mr. President,  I ask no question of the parties or counsels or of any witness proposed for presentation this afternoon.  Instead, I would like to make a manifestation, particularly, read for the record my memorandum of authorities on two questions that I believed to be crucial to this stage of our impeachment proceedings.

The first crucial question is, does this court have authority to order or otherwise compel the parties to finish the trial such that this court might be able to promulgate judgment on or before June 7 when the Congress adjourns?  And the second question is, is it relevant for this court to receive evidence on the alleged irregularities that attended the sale by Cristina Corona acting for a family corporation to the City of Manila Let me go to the first point.  Hence, this court the power and the authority to order the parties to end the trial on or before June 7, the scheduled end of the Congress’ session, my humble answer is yes, this court possesses that power.  Here are the authorities.  Under the rules of court, Rule133, Section 6, the court has the power to stop further evidence on a particular point “when the evidence is already so full that some witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive but this power should be exercised with caution.”  Further, under Rule 119, Section 11, paragraph (c), “The prosecution and the defense may in that order present rebuttal and non-rebuttal and sur rebuttal evidence unless the court in the furtherance of justice permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.”  In People vs. Tan decided by the Supreme Court in 1999, the high court ruled it is within the sound discretion of a trial judge to allow a party that has rested its case to introduce rebuttal evidence.  Further, under the rules of court, Rule 135, Section 1, “Justice shall be impartially administered without unnecessary delay.”  Under Section 5, entitled Inherent Powers of Courts, “Every court shall have power, letter (d), to control in furtherance of justice the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other person in any manner connected with the case before it in every manner appertaining thereto.  Parenthetically, in the President Clinton impeachment case, the US House of Representatives impeached him for perjury and obstruction of justice on 19 December 1998.  The Senate trial began on 7 January 1999.   He was acquitted on 12 February 1999 or a little over only a month.  Therefore, I humbly  submit that this impeachment court after nearly five months can trust this with a one month trial of President Clinton.  After nearly five months, this court possesses authority to order the conclusion of trial on or before June 7 so as to allow judgment to be promulgated before Congress ends this session.

Let me now move on to point  no. 2.  Is it relevant to the impeachment proceedings that the sale to the city of Manila of land owned by Basa, Guidote Enterprises Inc. represented by Cristina Corona was disallowed in audit by the Commission on Audit following this timeline?  In 2001, the negotiated sale was consummated.  The city government took possession of the property and constructed a public market on it.  Mrs. Corona received the check worth some P35 million allegedly in trust for BGEI.  She deposited the check in her own account, 2002.  One year later, COA issued a notice of suspension of payment.  It appears that the city of Manila took no action because of alleged failure to serve the notice properly.  Hence, under the State Audit Code, the transaction remained an unsettled account.  The notice of suspension was based on alleged failure to submit certain documents that is the original copy of the deed of absolute sale, the CTC in favour of the city of Manila, the recommendation of the appraisal committee and copy of the latest tax declaration transferred from the owner to the city of Manila.  And then, after these developments, in 2001 and then in 2002, in March 2012 or after 11 years, COA issued a notice of disallowance.  In Carabejo vs. Court of Appeals decided by the Supreme Court in 2009, the court ruled that the term unexplained matter normally results from non-disclosure or concealment of vital facts.  It appears that the Corona SALN did not conceal the vital facts of the sale.  In his 2003 SALN, Corona mentioned the item “Cash advance from the BGEI (wife family corporation) of P11 million.”
The Corona SALNs do not include the purchase price of P35 million because Cristina Corona apparently received it from the city of Manila in trust for the corporation.  The 1994 SALN form did not require the declaration of trust arrangements.  Subsequently, the 2006 to 2007 SALN manual required the declaration of assets held in trust but the Civil Service Commission has deferred the application of this manual.  Remember, our basic issue here is, is it relevant to deal with the alleged irregularities in the sale of land?

In law, the term relevant means logically connected and tending to prove or disproved the matter in issue.  It means having appreciable probative value that is rationally tending to persuade people of the probability or improbability of some alleged fact.  The word relevant means that the COA Notice of Disallowance and the failure to include the purchase price of corporation property in the Corona SALN should be so related to each other that one fact tends to prove the other fact.  Under this definition, the COA Notice of Disallowance is irrelevant to this impeachment proceedings.

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 128, Section 4, entitled, Relevancy of Evidence, “Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.  Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.”

In the case of De Paul v. NLRC, decided in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled, “A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence and any decision based on unsubstantial allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process.”

Therefore, applying the test of relevancy and under the principle of criminal due process, I humbly submit that any evidence tending to prove any irregularity in the sale of BGEI property to the City of Manila would be irrelevant to impeachment proceedings over the alleged omissions in the SALN of the defendant.  Evidence on alleged irregularities should be presented to the Solicitor General for litigation in court.  I humbly make this submissions to our colleagues in the impeachment court.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Noted.  (Gavel)

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  Mr. President, in our last hearing, the prosecution has asked for the continuance in their cross-examination of former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza.  May we inquire from the defense if they are ready to present Mayor Atienza for the continuation of the cross-examination?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are, Your Honor.  We’ll call him to the stand for continuation of the cross-examination by the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request for a minute, Your Honor.  We’ll call him.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, what is the fact sought to be proven by the presence of the former mayor of the City of Manila here?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The cross-examination had already gone to the extent of narrating in details the alleged circumstances surrounding the acquisition by the City of Manila of these properties, and the payment therefore in the amount of P34.7 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Only to the extent that there was a payment of P34.7 million?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, we introduced evidence to that effect in order to show how Chief Justice Corona was able to acquire allegedly some properties which do not seem to be justified by his reported income.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, in effect, given the statement of the lady from Iloilo, nonetheless, the position of the defense is that the transaction is relevant—the transaction between Manila and the Basa Guidote Corporation is relevant to this case to the extent of the proceeds of the sale which will now be treated as a part of the funds used by the Chief Justice to acquire properties.  That is …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.  (Gavel)

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request for the indulgence of the court for only one minute, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  One-minute suspension.  (Gavel)

It was 2:29 p.m.

At 2:30 p.m., the trial is resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

The distinguished former mayor of Manila will now please take the witness stand and testify under the same oath.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. TUPAS.  Mr. President, may we request that one of our private prosecutors be recognized to continue the cross examination, Atty. Renato Samonte Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let it be noted.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The request of the prosecution is noted.

Proceed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Good afternoon po ulit, Mr. President, and Your Honors, Mr. Mayor.

May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Ginoong Mayor Atienza, last time, when you testified on direct examination, you made mention and presented at least four documents in the forms of endorsement from your city government, in connection with this negotiated sale transaction involving Basa-Guidote Enterprise, do you remember having done that last time?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  In fact, Exhibits 234, 235, 236 and 237 were marked in evidence by the defense, do you remember also having identified these documents?

MR. ATIENZA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And these endorsements were signed by your responsible officers, city legal officer Melchor Monsod for 234, Emmanuel R. Sison, your secretary, another document by Atty. Sison, and the last one, by city treasurer Liberty Toledo, city accountant Quilantang and budget officer …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any question about those details?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, we are about—I am just laying …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why don’t you just go direct to the point that you want to bring.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

Now, Mr. Mayor, in all these four documents, you will agree with me that the entity mentioned here is only Basa-Guidote Enterprise Incorporated, that is correct?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  There is no mention here of “in trust for” or Cristina Corona, in trust for Basa-Guidote, none.

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Last time also, you mentioned of the check that you ordered to be issued in favor of the seller, Basa-Guidote, as represented by Cristina R. Corona, that is correct?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  It was you as the city mayor who ordered for the issuance of this kind of check with that “in trust for” phrase.  That is correct?

MR. ATIENZA.  Hindi po ako personal.  Palagay ko ay iyon ang naging desisyon ng city treasurer sapagkat kailangang may managot doon sa tseke, dahil ang kausap po ng city hall ay si Mrs. Basa-Corona.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  So, between you, as the city mayor and the city treasurer, are you saying that it was the city treasurer who made the decision to put the check in trust for?

MR. ATIENZA.  Hindi po, ang sinasabi ko po …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Or was it not really your—it was really your instruction?

MR. ATIENZA.  Ito po ay isang proseso na nagmula doon sa katotohanan na si Mrs. Cristina Basa ang kausap ng gobyernong lokal na hindi po kinakailangang manggaling pa iyong order sa akin.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And that during the stint of your mayorship for nine years, as you said, unprecedented at that, you have seen millions of checks issued by the city government, is that correct?

MR. ATIENZA.  Hindi naman po siguro millions.  Pero marami po.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Marami.  At katunayan po, alam ninyo po na sa bawa’t tseke, official check, Land Bank check na ini-issue ng city government, lagi po itong dumadaan sa check writer, di po ba?

MR. ATIENZA.  May proseso pong tinatakbuhan iyan under regular rules that are being followed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  So that for every check issued, there is always this duplicate that is left behind bearing the entries stated on the face of a given check, that is correct?  You are familiar with that.

MR. ATIENZA.  I would not very familiar because this is all now part of the treasury responsibilities and functions.  Wala po iyon sa function ko na tsekin na iyong recording ay tama o naaayon.  Ang akin pong concern, lalo at lalo na rito sa kasong ito, ay iyong mabili iyong lupa at makuha sa lalong madaling panahon para maitayo naming iyong palengke na kinakailangan po ng Sampaloc sapagka’t iyong lumang palengke ay gigibain na.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  But for this particular transaction, you would recognize that Land Bank check you issued in favour of Cristina Corona or BGEI for that matter?  Iyan po iyong kopya ng tseke na ibinayad ninyo sa BGEI.

MR. ATIENZA.  Tama po, iyan po iyon.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  At sasang-ayon din po kayo …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, ano ang sagot ng witness?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo, ito po iyong tseke.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sige.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  At sasang-ayon po kayo sa akin na ito po iyong duplicate copy or check writer copy na nagsasaad kung ano ang entrada doon sa mismong tseke, di po ba?  Certified po iyan ng COA.  Iksaminin ninyo nga po kung parehong pareho iyan.

MR. ATIENZA.  Tama po iyong presyo.

MR. SAMONTE.  Tama po ang presyo, ang check number.

MR. ATIENZA.  P34 million.  Check number is the same.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Ang payee, di po ba?

MR. ATIENZA.  Payee is Cristina Corona, ITF.  Basa Guidote Enterprises.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Iyan po ay certified copy na nanggaling sa COA.  Ngayon po, mayroon din po kaming hawak na certified copy na galing din sa COA involving the same copy writer check.  Pakitingnan ninyo nga po kung halos kapareho noong naunang in-identify ninyo.

MR. ATIENZA.  Pareho po ito.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  No basis.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Already answered, Your Honor.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  May we request, Your Honor, that the witness not answer immediately to give us the opportunity to object.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Just give them the opportunity to address the nature of your question.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.  Because it was readily answered anyway, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  So, we would like to request, Your Honor, for the marking of this first copy writer check earlier mentioned identified by our good mayor, and stating that this is a …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, is there any difference between the two checks?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, then go to the point.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We will mark this first as Exhibit 11-L, Your Honor, the first one; and the second one as Exhibit 11-M.  These are both certified copies from COA, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Manifestation, Your Honor, that these two checks are certified true copies is not borne out by the very document being shown to the witness, Your Honor.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  These are admitted, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is not a question of admitting but it is a question of misrepresenting that the document is a certified true copy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, do not argue anymore.  Just present those evidence.  It will be the function of this court to appreciate the evidence.

ATTY. DELOS SANTOS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They are the same in all respects.

ATTY. DELOS SANTOS.  Your Honor, this is actually proper for our memorandum or summation, but we would just like to point out, Your Honor, that in the second certified copy admitted by our witness, there is something lacking. In the first photocopy, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the second, the same check …

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  In the same …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … was certified by the COA, one for the defense and one for your purposes—for purposes of your cross-examination is that correct?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And there is a difference between the two checks.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes. And the difference, Your Honor,

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the difference?

ATTY. SAMONTE.   And the difference is that in the first copy and copy certified by the COA, there is the words “Cristina Corona ITF”, as appearing also in the check, but in the second one, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Which is the your …

ATTY. SAMONTE.   Yes, this is the copy  that we …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  Which is your material for cross-examination that does not appear.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.   There is none, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.

JUSCTICE CUEVAS.  May we request, Your Honor, that they be marked, so, that we can refer to them, to either one of them?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because they are not mark.  Very vague.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Mark them accordingly.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Exh. 11-L and 11-M, Your Honor.  We request for submarking of the phrase, “Cristina Corona, ITF” as 11-L-1.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is being marked on what copy of the same document now?

ATTY SAMONTE.  Copy of the one ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Presented by the defense?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And for the other copy that we have presented today, we request that portion without is “Cristina Corona ITF” to be encircled and be marked as Exh. M-1.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is the copy which you are using for your cross-examination.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please, be precise in your description of the facts so that we will not be get confused.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of this Honorable Court, Your Honor. A while ago, we made the manifestation that the statement made by counsel in connection with the identity of the check is not yet borne out by the evidence. He claimed that these were checks duly certified by the accounting office, there is no such thing, Your Honor, that is our point of objection, Your Honor.   That is a manifestation made  …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have an objection about the use of the word “certified copy”.  Counsel for the prosecution, what is the basis of your claim that that is (unfinished)

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We say that this is a certified copy because an official document that came from COA.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   Precisely, that must be established by …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We are marking this, Your Honor, for purposes of comparison in today’s proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Will you kindly please … one after the other.  Let counsel finish the statement of the other counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry, Your Honor. I was just …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Prosecution, first.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor. We got this particular document from COA itself. This was certified.   This is a certified true copy and therefore an official document and we confronted our witness here …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why do you say certified copy?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  It came from COA itself, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Is there a statement there certifying that that is the same document an authentic copy of a document in the possession of COA?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  What is stated here, Your Honor, is certified true xerox copy from xerox signed and issued by Eva L. Sta. Maria, State Auditor IV, Chief Administrative Division.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, proceed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  That will be all for this matter, Your Honor.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I was about to make a short manifestation, Your Honor, in connection with said statement of the honorable counsel, Your Honor. Because what he has stating now came from him and he is not under oath.  We cannot cross-examine him unless he will take the stand, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is describing the document, counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He was using for cross-examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But the two documents, Your Honor, carries with it the word “Certified True Copy”, Your Honor, and this is not explained, Your Honor.  It may cause ambiguity and confusion on the part of the court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, because, the tendency of the cross-examination is to impune the authenticity of the document that you presented as evidence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is the purpose of a cross-examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Evidence ba naming ‘yan?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  The first one came from them, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, kanila.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Pareho?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kanila pareho ‘yan, hindi amin ‘yan.  I’m sorry, Your Honor, they are both exhibits for the prosecution, Your Honor.  What we marked as evidence in connection to the existence of the check is a certified true copy of the check itself, not a certification by the COA.  That is why we vehement in our observation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute, did you present the first document in your examination in chief of the witness, Mr. Counsel for the prosecution?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  It was the defense who marked the copy of the check, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But that document…

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And in my, if I remember it right, as a preliminary question, I asked our good mayor if the first document that I presented appears to be a duplicate copy of the original of the check and he said yes, then, I propounded my next question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, the question of the Chair is, who presented to the witness the copy of the check which says “ITF”?  Was it the prosecution or was it the defense?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We never have presented it, if Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What we presented in evidence, Your Honor, is the very xerox copy of the check in the amount of P34.7 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The, so that to avoid this discussion, let the prosecution clear this because both documents are your exhibits.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Well, Your Honor, be that as it may, we confronted the witness.  We gave him the opportunity to make the comparison and he said yes, so I propounded my next question thereafter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you did not…

ATTY. SAMONTE.  It is not…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, forgive me for interrupting, you did not lay the basis of your question.  You should have qualified the witness first whether he had anything to do with the preparation of that document to know the details that are written on the document.  You assumed already a fact not proven yet.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Your Honor, if I remember it right…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, so ordered.  You reform the question.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes.  I am finished with that.  Anyway, I will go to another point.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In which case …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I am through with that, with the marking, Your Honor.  I will leave it to the appreciation of the honourable court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In which case, Your Honor,  we object to the marking, we will move that it be stricken off from the record, Your Honor, because it is irregular, it is violative of the rules and evidence and procedure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, if you are not going to mark the second copy of the check, then, the Chair will sustain the objection of the defense.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Your Honor, we have already marked it and we will try to confront again our witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because in effect, what you are doing now is impeaching the very evidence that you presented in the first place.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  No, I will then rephrase, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Just to clarify the record, may we make it of record that both these exhibits are not exhibits for the defense, Your Honor, they are exhibits for the prosecution brought about only during the cross-examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, that is why the Chair was mistaken in his assumption that the first copy of the check was presented by the defense, and that is why I have to clarify.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Your Honor, we do this in regular court, may we ask our Secretariat to read back  the answer given.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Compañero, do not teach me the techniques of trial.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is not done in the regular courts.  I am sorry to tell you that.  I do not know what court you practice but you are contradicting your own evidence.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I just heard our—anyway, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Reform your question.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Mayor, I am showing you a document – a certified copy that came from COA, and I asked you earlier if you will agree that the entries stated in this other copy is a reproduction of the one appearing in the original check.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  So, my question is, do you agree or do you not agree?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, no basis for the question.  In the previous earlier question by the learned counsel, Your Honor, it was clearly stated by the witness that he has nothing to do with the routine matters involved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MR. ATIENZA.  Uulitin ko po yong sinabi ko kanina na hindi po ako ang nagpe-prepare ng tseke at yan po ay prosesong sinusunod ng city treasury when they are supposed to be issuing necessary payments.  Hindi ko po alam kung ano ang pamamaraan nila.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  No.  I want you to use your own perception today and look at these documents just for you to say whether the entries, from your own perception, whether the entries stated in this other document, a certified copy that I am showing to you, bears the entries stated in the original check.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of the honourable…

ATTY. SAMONTE.  If he knows, Your Honor.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, the witness now is being confronted with an alleged certified true copy issued by the auditor’s office.  There is no such evidence on record.  That is their assumption.  That is why we are objecting right from the very beginning, Your Honor.  That is a fact not yet established by the record and it is being made as a premise so the question is misleading, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  Counsel, what you are in effect trying to tell the court is that there is a difference between the first copy of the same check for paying the property of the Basa, Guidote Enterprises, Inc. sold to the city of Manila with that copy that you now have to and being used by you in your cross-examination, isn’t it?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, you are in effect impugning the first material that you yourself presented to the witness.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I am giving him the opportunity to make the comparison.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You cannot do that.  Are you saying that the first document that you presented to the witness is spurious?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  No, Your Honor.  We are just trying to show that there appears to be two kinds of underwriter photocopy of this same check.  That is the purpose, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then what is the materiality of that point?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  The point, Your Honor, is that it will even more show the infirmities attendant to this kind of transaction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, what you are saying is that the money that was issued to Mrs. Corona was not really in trust for, hindi ba?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is your point.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you were the ones who presented that evidence and you are bound by that document.  So ordered.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SENATOR SANTIAGO.  Counsel for the prosecution, let the court educate you.  You are asking the wrong witness.  You are presenting two copies and according to you these are certified true copies from the Commission on Audit.  So call someone from  COA and ask them if this is certified true copy and then explain why those certified copies from the same office appear to be different from each other.  You cannot get the answer from this witness.  You are forcing him to make a conclusion of fact when he had already testified for the record that he has nothing to do with the preparation of this document.  You are harassing the witness.  That is what you are doing.

ATTY. SAMONTE.   I am sorry, Your Honor.

SENATOR SANTIAGO.  You should be sorry.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  That is not my intention.

SENATOR SANTIAGO.  Whether it was your intention or not, that was the result.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  With due respect, we submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right go ahead, go ahead.  Finish your first, proceed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Now, may I proceed then, Your Honor.

Early on, during direct examination, you identified the properties which according to you kailangan for your LRT New Sampaloc Market, that is correct.

MR. ATIENZA.  Kailangan po ng lungsod ng Maynila.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Opo, ng lungsod ng Maynila at nag-umpisa…

MR. ATIENZA.  Let me just correct it.  It is not the LRT, it is the city government.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor, I stand corrected.  And you started doing what was necessary in May of 1999, that is correct.

MR. ATIENZA.  Yes.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  You sent out letters to the registered owners of the properties in that vicinity of Bustillos-Legarda, that’s correct also?

MR. ATIENZA.  Ang naaalala ko po ay may sulat na pinirmahan yung aming City Administrator, upon my orders, to look for the owners of the property which we thought was ideal for a relocation of the Sampaloc Market.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Okay.  A number of letters were sent to the prospective landowners almost simultaneously.

MR. ATIENZA.  Ang naaalala ko po yung sulat ni Col. Fernando sa Basa Guidote Enterprises.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And in the adjoining property owners also, ‘di po ba?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Katunayan po ay doon sa ginawa niyong expropriation ordinance, mayroon po kayong mga listahan ng titulong nilagay doon, ‘di po ba?  Do you remember that?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo, dahil meron pong ilang mga properties na that could serve the purpose.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Serve the purpose.  And one of which nga po, ito pong Basa Guidote?

MR. ATIENZA.  Yung pinakamalaki po, sa akin naka …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And you had in mind kung magkano po ang magiging halaga nitong mga properties na ito to serve that public purpose, the public purpose.

MR. ATIENZA.  At this point, alam ko po ang presyong nananaig doon sa lugar dahil binenta po namin yung old Sampaloc Market e sa LRT, sa gobyerno din po.  At binenta namin for P50,000 per square meter.

So, somehow, alam po namin ang on-going reasonable rates.  Tinanggap po naman ng LRT yung presyo namin e.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Katunayan po, meron po kayong finaylan ng expropriation at ito pong—Meron po kayong finaylan ng expropriation case, that’s correct?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Misleading, Your Honor.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I’m asking.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  There was no expropriation case that was filed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We will confront now, Your Honor.

There is a petition for eminent domain.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.  (Gavel)

MR. ATIENZA.  Hindi po yon expropriation case against the Basa …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Hindi.  Sa iba po, sa iba.

MR. ATIENZA.  Iyon po’y expropriation ordinance that allows the city government to take possession of certain properties.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Mr. Mayor, do you not remember this Case No. 0098311 filed by the City of Manila against or versus Guidote Mercantile Corporation, Everlasting Development Corporation, Eufemio Sy Uy and George G. Eufemio?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Before the witness answers, Your Honor, may we be informed as to the materiality and pertinency of this document?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We will show a little later on, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But the witness is very …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.  (Gavel)  That’s …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  O, alam daw ba ninyo yan, ang tanong?  Tingnan ninyo.

MR. ATIENZA.  Ito yon.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  In fact, you were the one who verified this complaint, as shown at the last page — Verification and certification.  Jose L. Atienza Jr, Affiant.  Do you now remember?

MR. ATIENZA.  Pwede pong basahin ko muna?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  By all means.

Additional information that was filed and raffled before Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

MR. ATIENZA.  Andito po yung aming City Legal.  Pwede po bang makausap ko siya para maliwanagan ko itong—ano itong dokumentong Inihaharap sa akin?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness confer with the counsel of Manila.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind indulgence of the honourable court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Examining the questions being propounded and trying to decipher the answer that will be elicited from the witness, it would appear that the prosecution is making ex-mayor Atienza their witness now, not in the concept—but not a simple cross examination question, Your Honor, this is allegedly …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us hear first.  There are four techniques of cross examination, you probe, you insinuate, you undermine, you confront.  Let them probe the witness, go ahead.

MR. ATIENZA.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

MR. ATIENZA.  Gaya po noong sinabi rin ng aking legal officer, ako po mismo, hindi ko po maalala itong expropriation case na ito sapagkat napakarami po kaming ipina-file na kaso noong aming administrasyon …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

MR. ATIENZA.  … sapagkat gumagawa kami ng programang pabahay at sa lahat ng gamit ng pamahalaan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next question.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Would you not remember that there was really a case for expropriation, would you nor even remember that?

MR. ATIENZA.  Frankly, I do not remember.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Already answered.  He does not understand.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Will you not also remember that in an expropriation case, there was a compromise agreement eventually entered into by the city mayor and you arrived at the amount of P25,000 per square meter for this property belonging to Everlasting Development Corporation, to Eufemio Sy—as evidenced by this judgment in civil case no. 0098311, you won’t also remember that.

MR. ATIENZA.  Gaya ng sinabi ko po, sa dami ng dokumentong pinipirmahan ko as mayor, everyday, and sa dami rin ng aming land cases, hindi ko po maalala specifically itong kasong ito ng expropriation case.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  But just the same, Your Honor, may we request for the marking of these two documents as Exhibit 11N and 11-O respectively.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark that …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  The first document, the complaint, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark that accordingly.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And the second document, the judgment itself on the same case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, what is the relevance of these two documents?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Relevance, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To the impeachment, to the impeachment trial.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  It is related in a way, Your Honor, because …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In what way?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Your Honor, the amount—it is actually—has something to do with the testimony of our mayor as in this eminent domain case, the amount arrived at was only for P25,000, wherein in this Basa-Guidote case, they arrived at P35,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So what if they paid P34,700,000, that is the only thing relevant into the impeachment case, if they overprice, that is another issue.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And in effect, Your Honor, the city government of Manila was shortchanged.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, that has nothing to do with the …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Your Honor, it has something to do with the statement, with the testimony of our good mayor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are impugning his credibility.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Awhile ago, Your Honor, we were questioning the materiality, the pertinence, but it’s not yet shown.  What is the materiality?  Does it mean to say that the mayor made money?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is trying to impugn the credence of the witness.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  The testimony itself, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, okay, we will allow him to proceed.  Proceed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor, one last point.

MR. ATIENZA.  Mr. President, may I also react to that statement of counsel, impugning wrongdoing on my part or overpricing as he said.  I find it most unfair, Mr. President, that he can accuse me of that in this court, wherein I have never, never done such act, never.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We are just trying to show the disparity in the amount.  We leave it to the proper court …

MR. ATIENZA.  In the same manner, Mr. President, he should also show expropriation proceedings where I got properties way below zonal value.  I got properties from the Catholic church for P75 per square meter for the poor.  Why don’t you mention that also, Counsel?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This court is trying to give everybody sufficient leeway to ask questions to elicit facts.  But, let us avoid this discussion.  Proceed with your question, Mr. Counsel.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  One last point, Your Honor.  Ito pong nangyari sa Basa Guidote Enterprise na kung saan ang tseke ay ginawa ninyong payable to Cristina Corona Iin Trust For Basa Guidote Enterprise, Inc.  Ito ho ba ay kostumbre, practice, policy ng city hall na kung mayroon kayong ka-transaksyong korporasyon, lagi ninyo pong hinahanapan ng responsible officer by way of additional safeguard like putting the check in the name of Cristina Corona In Trust For BGEI.  Ito po ay palagi ninyong ginagawa o dito lang?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind indulgence of the court.  We object to the question, Your Honor.  No basis.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ang tanong po ay ginawa ninyo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mr. Counsel, this will not hurt your case anyway.  Let the witness explain.  So ordered.

MR. ATIENZA.  Unang una po ay hindi po naman ako ang gumawa ng tseke.  Ang city treasurer po iyan.  City accountant po iyan.  City budget officer po iyan.  At dumating po iyan sa akin ay para permahan na at para magkaroon ng katuparan iyong aming paggamit ng lupa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  You have two checks, two certified copies of the same check coming from the COA.  The ITF marking in the first copy of that check was not written by COA.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  No, Your Honor.  It came from the very original of the check.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, you admit that.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We do, Your Honor.  But in the other one it does not appear.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why don’t you ask the treasurer why he put the ITF in the one check and did not do it in the other.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We just tried to ask our good mayor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is incompetent.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We will yield to the comment of our good Senator Miriam Santiago, Your Honor.  In due time, we will do that.  We just tried our luck if we can ask him, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I think that will be all, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is all?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are through.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You do not need the witness anymore?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  None anymore, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any re-direct?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Just a few questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Mayor Atienza, during the cross-examination, you were shown allegedly two copies of a check coming from the COA.

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  In paying for the property that you purchased from Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc., as far as you know, how many checks were issued by the City of Manila?

MR. ATIENZA.  Sa aking pagkakaalam po, isang tseke lang po iyon.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  And before issuing the check, was there a disbursement voucher?

MR. ATIENZA.  Mayroon po.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  And did you sign the disbursement voucher?

MR. ATIENZA.  The disbursement voucher, yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  I am showing to you our Exhibit 239, the disbursement voucher, and there appears here a signature above the typewritten name Jose L. Atienza, Jr., City Mayor.  Will you please identify this signature.

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Whose signature is that?

MR. ATIENZA.  Akin po.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Your Honor, may I interpose my objection.  As in the first place I did not touch on this particular document on my cross .

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES. Preliminary.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  That will be improper for …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.  Pirma ko po ito. Naaalala ko po ito.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Does the disbursement voucher identify the number of the check that was issued by the City of Manila in payment of the property that was purchased from  Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc.?

MR. ATIENZA. Mr. President, can I just inquire from my legal officer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

MR. ATIENZA.  Thank you, Your Honor, opo, nandito po. Nahanap namin iyong check number.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Will you please read the check number?

MR. ATIENZA.  Check No. 188804.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES. Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, with your permission. I just want to clarify one thing from the distinguished witness. Does that disbursing voucher describe the payment of in trust for the Basa Guidote?

MR. ATIENZA.  Nandito po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Nakalagay, “in trust for”?

MR. ATIENZA. Opo.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES. Okay. I am now showing to you a certified true copy of a Land Bank Check No. 0000188804 already marked by the defense as Exh. 238 and also by the prosecution as Exh. JJJJJJJJJJ, please tell us if this is the check referred to in that disbursement voucher?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFI9CER. Yes.

MR. ATIENZA. I see the check, the copy of the check and it bears the same number.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I just want to make another clarificatory question, Mr. Witness.  In that check—the check and the voucher state that the payment is in trust for, who was the actual payee of the check?

MR. ATIENZA.  Ang nakalagay po dito, iyon po, Cristina Corona ITF, Basa Guidote Enterprises.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So the payee was Cristina …

MR. ATIENZA. Basa Guidote Enterprises.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … Cristina Corona in trust for …

MR. ATIENZA.  Basa Guidote Enterprises.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, the trustee of the fund is Cristina Corona.

MR. ATIENZA. Opo.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  May we request, Your Honor, that the words “Cristina Corona, ITF, Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc.” as appearing in the disbursement voucher Exh. 239 be bracketed and marked as Exh. 239–A and the Check No. 188804 referred to in this disbursement voucher be marked as Exh. 239-B.

We also request, Your Honor, that the check number as appearing in Exh. 238 be bracketed and marked as Exh.  238-B. And the payee Cristina Corona ITF, Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc. be encircled and marked as Exh. 238-C. One last question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Noong Marso 22, 2012, in the course of cross-examination, meron hong itinanong si Senator Drillon tungkol sa isang notice of suspension.  Kailan ho ba ninyo unang narinig iyang notice of suspension?

MR. ATIENZA.  Sa totoo po e doon ko lang po narining iyong order of suspension.  I have never heard, never seen, and never sent an order of suspension.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  Have you received this notice of suspension to date?

MR. ATIENZA.  Up to now I have not received.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano iyong notice of suspension?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  COA ho, notice of suspension by the resident COA.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To suspend payment?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  It was just a notice of suspension raising some points regarding the transaction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  That will be all, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mr. Mayor, doon ba sa tseke na naglalaman nong bayad nong lupa sa Basa-Guidote at ganun din yung voucher, e kasama ang pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona?

MR. ATIENZA.  Andito pos a voucher, opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kasama ang pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anong pangalan?

MR. ATIENZA.  E di Chief Justice—Cristina Corona po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wala si Chief Justice?

MR. ATIENZA.  Wala po, wala.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wala.  Ang trustee diyan ay si Cristina Corona.

MR. ATIENZA.  Cristina Corona po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi si Chief Justice.

MR. ATIENZA.  Hindi po.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  May we have number of re-cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead. Proceed.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Mr. Mayor, you will agree with me that in the particulars of payment in this disbursement voucher, the only entity as payee mentioned herein is Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc.

MR. ATIENZA.  That is correct.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  In the particulars of payment?

MR. ATIENZA.  Nakikita ko po dito ngayon e …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Just answer yes or no.

MR. ATIENZA.  Ito ay kabayaran sa Basa-Guidote Enterprises, opo.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Nothing is mentioned in the particulars of payment of this entrust for Cristina Corona, that is correct?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  That is misleading, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, he is asking a question if it is in the document.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And with respect to this check that you identified, when Cristina Corona signed the disbursement voucher, she also received simultaneously the check, that is correct?

MR. ATIENZA.  Opo, sapagkat …

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  That is misleading, Your Honor.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I am asking, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is misleading about it?  What is misleading about the question?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  The disbursement voucher, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, the basis of your objection that the question of the cross-examiner is misleading, why?

ATTY. DELOS ANGELES.  What I heard, Your Honor, is that, the check was simultaneously delivered upon the signing of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is why he is asking for a …

ATTY. SAMONTE.  That is why.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is eliciting an information.

MR. ATIENZA.  Hindi ko po maalala iyon sa totoo lang sapagkat dumaan sa akin ‘yong voucher tapos nabayaran na iyong property.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And when Cristina Corona received personally this Landbank check which according to you you even have a simple ceremony in the city hall, you remember having said that?  Am I correct?

MR. ATIENZA.  Meron po kaming turn-over nung tseke, opo.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  And the Chief Justice, the respondent was present during that time.

MR. ATIENZA.  I don’t remember that.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  How many times did you see the respondent accompanying Cristina Corona aside from the fact that they went to your office?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, what is the relevance of that,  whether the Chief Justice was present or not?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We are showing the involvement of the Chief Justice because, Your Honor, the Chief Justice has been saying in the media that he is not getting involved so we would like to know if at all, he was accompanying the wife.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, precisely, he is present there probably to accompany the wife.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  For whatever reason then, for whatever reason.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Anyway, answer, Mr. Witness.

MR. ATIENZA.  On the several occasions we talked about the transaction or negotiation, si Mrs. Corona po ang kausap ko and a certain Atty. Corona then who was the husband was present on those two occasions.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  So the Chief Justice was present during that time.  Atty. Corona for that matter.

MR. ATIENZA.  Atty. Corona because iyon po ang pagkakakilala ko.  That is the first time I saw the gentleman.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  That will be all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Anything else?  If there is none, the witness is discharged.  Next witness.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Next witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we suspend the proceedings for a few minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many minutes?

SEN. SOTTO.  Five minutes, Mr. President.

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

It was 3:21 p.m.

At 3:37 p.m., the hearing was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The trial is resumed.  Proceed.  What is the purpose of this witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Your Honor please, may we ask permission that Atty. Dennis Manalo of the defense panel be allowed or permitted to conduct the direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. TUPAS.  On the part of the prosecution, may we ask that Atty. Winston Ginez be recognized also, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, this witness (power failure) issued a ruling stating that no capital gains tax may be levied on the excess of the just compensation (inaudible) to the Basa Guidote Enterprise, Inc. for  (power cut-off)…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the purpose of your presentation of this witness is to establish that the P34,700,000.00 consideration was intact and placed under the custody of Mr. Cristina Corona in trust for Basa Guidote.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Can you not stipulate this.  This does not have to be proven.

ATTY. GINEZ.  In fact, Your Honor, we would like, if I may be allowed …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

ATTY. GINEZ.  In fact, we would like to object, Your Honor, to the offer of the testimony because the ruling, Your Honor, is inapplicable to the facts of the case as already testified by the good mayor of Manila.  Because the premise, Your Honor, of the ruling is that it will be an involuntary sale of the property or as a result of an expropriation as the good counsel of the defense, the just compensation would not be deducted of any capital gains taxes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But anyway, whether a capital gains was due or not due, the fact is, and this is so far the fact that is understood by this court to be established, that the property was sold for P34,700,000.00 and that amount was paid for by check and received by Mrs. Cristina Corona in trust for Basa Guidote and placed under her control, so, whether there is a tax component of that amount, it does not matter because we are talking here of the quantum of assets and liabilities and net worth of a particular respondent.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, what is the materiality of all of these?

ATTY. GINEZ.  We agree, Your Honor, that is why we are objecting it is not material to the fact in issue in this case, as well as it is not applicable at all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We are wasting our time …

ATTY. GINEZ.  We agree, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … in all of these things.

ATTY. MANALO.   Well, if the objection, Your Honor, is just as to the effect of the document …

ATTY. GINEZ.  Well, anyway, …

ATTY. MANALO.  … we offer for admission by the prosecution, the authenticity and due execution of the Bureau of Internal Revenue Ruling No. DA-095-2001 dated 22, May 2001 regarding the capital gains tax in relation to the property of the Basa Guidote Enterprises, Incorporated.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright . Let us …

ATTY. MANALO.  I have here, Your Honor. It has been premarked as our Exh. 242 for the defense and a copy of which is in the possession of the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Senator Drilon …

SEN. DRILON. Mr. President, may I support the Senate President’ suggestion that this document be admitted in evidence whether or not it is applicable to the case is a matter that will be argued in the memorandum or in the oral arguments but the fact is that this document exist, so that we can dispense with this witness, Your Honor. It is admitted and let the conclusions be drawn by both parties or by each party when the memorandum comes.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What about the defense?

ATTY. MANALO. Yes, Your Honor. We are willing, Your Honor, to agree if the prosecution will admit that authenticity …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What about the prosecution?

ATTY. GINEZ  We admit,  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright.

ATTY. MANALO.  Does the prosecution likewise admit that this BIR Ruling has not been superseded, amended, modified or otherwise revoked by the Bureau of Internal Revenue?

ATTY. GINEZ.  We don’t know. We don’t know, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  If you do not know, then, the witness is here to testify. If you are going to admit, then, we can dispense with the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. The Chair will have the question, you arer sworn. Do you know about this ruling of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which is the subject of discussion in this proceeding?

MR. CADANGAN.  Your Honor, based on the record …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you know?

ATTY. MANALO. Louder.

MR. CADANGAN.  Yes. Your Honor, this ruling was …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you know of this ruling?  Yes?

MR. CADANGAN. Based on the records, Your Honor, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright. Then, what is this ruling about?

MR. CADANGAN.  This ruling exempts from capital gains tax the transfer of real property which was acquired by the City of Manila for expropriation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why was it exempted?

MR. CADANGAN.  The reason, Your Honor, is discussed in the ruling. It invoked the principle of involuntary conversion

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why was it  involuntarily disposed?

MR. CADANGAN.  Because it was acquired through expropriation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, that is the position of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and as a consequence, you issued the ruling?

MR. CADANGAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  So, what is the pleasure of the parties?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, may we also ask the witness if this ruling has been superseded, modified or revoked in any manner by the BIR.

MR. CADANGAN.  Based on the record of our office, this ruling has not been revoked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, what is the pleasure now of both parties?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, we are willing to stipulate that the ruling was issued by the BIR and that its applicability only as stated in the ruling itself is in case of appropriation on the subject properties.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, we all admit here that Basa Guidote did not pay any capital gains tax on the sale of the property? Okay?

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the prosecution?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the defense?

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. SO ORDERED.

ATTY. MANALO.  With the admissions entered into by the parties and the clarifications made by the witness, Your Honor, may we move that the witness be discharged.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is discharged.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.

Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. MANALO.  At this juncture, we will call to the witness stand Mr. Noel Kintanar, a representative of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Fort Bonifacio

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor, the seller of the properties purchased by one Cristina R. Corona which is unit 1902 of the Bonifacio Ridge Condominium in Taguig.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is this the Beladio property?

ATTY. MANALO.  No, this is the Bonifacio Ridge property, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  What is the purpose of the witness?

ATTY. MANALO.  The purpose, Your Honor, is to prove that there was a delay in the delivery of the Bonifacio Ridge property which is the real property no. 4 reported in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2010.

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

ATTY. TUPAS.  Your Honor, may we request that Atty. Hernandez be recognized for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, granted.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Your Honor, similar to the evidence regarding the alleged delay, the acceptance of the columns unit, we feel—our position is that the evidence on any delay in the delivery of the condo unit is irrelevant.  I think the Presiding Officer already took this position whether or not there was any delay as long as payment were already made, this already constitutes an asset…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, what is your saying in the court is, even if this witness will testify that there was a delay, it will not hurt your case.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, it will be irrelevant.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, then, let the witness testify so that we can finish the case.

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

MR. KINTANAR.  I do.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. witness, for the record, please state your name and other personal circumstances.

MR. KINTANAR.  I am Noel Eli B. Kintanar, married, and I reside in Taytay, Rizal.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, the witness is offered for the same purpose that we have already manifested before the Honorable Court earlier.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  The same comment on the part of the prosecution.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. witness, do you know the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, from July 2008 to December 2010 I was the head of the commercial operations of FBDC.

ATTY. MANALO.  And as head of commercial operations what are your functions briefly, Mr. witness?

MR. KINTANAR.  As head of commercial operations, I oversee the sale of real estate assets in Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, one of which was the Boni Ridge Condominium.

ATTY. MANALO.  Okay, you mentioned the Boni Ridge, is this the Bonifacio Ridge Condominium of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation in Taguig?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, that is.

ATTY. MANALO.  What is the status of this commercial project of the corporation as of this date?

MR. KINTANAR.  When I left Fort Bonifacio in 2010, the development had been fully sold to my knowledge.

ATTY. MANALO.   Now, based on your functions as the head of the commercial operations of this company, would you know who the purchaser of unit 1902 of Bonifacio Ridge is?  Who is the registered owner?

MR. KINTANAR.  Based on the records of Fort Bonifacio, the owner of that unit is Mrs. Cristina Corona.

ATTY. MANALO.  What record are you referring to specifically?

MR. KINTANAR.  In our records there is a deed of absolute sale.

ATTY. MANALO.  If I show to you a copy of this deed of absolute sale, will you be able to identify the same?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It was already established by the witness and there is no objection and he admitted that the owner of the unit is Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. MANALO.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the purpose of presenting another document to prove that this is the owner?

ATTY. MANALO.  I am just going to confront him with Section 7 of the deed of absolute sale.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then go ahead, go ahead.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.  I am showing to you the deed of absolute sale, this is the document which you referred to.

MR. KINTANAR.  This is the document.

ATTY. MANALO.  The document, Your Honor, has also been marked by the prosecution as Exhibit UUU and we move that it be marked as our Exhibit 243.

Mr. Witness, Section 7 of this contract provides for the terms and conditions of acceptance of the unit by the purchaser.  It states in part, the seller shall notify the purchaser in writing of the readiness of the unit for acceptance by the purchaser and delivery by the seller to the purchaser of the same.  My question is, when did Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation notify Mrs. Cristina Corona about the readiness of the unit for acceptance and delivery?.

MR. KINTANAR.  Based on our records of that unit, that the purchaser was notified sometime in the year 2005.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I pose this question—on or before that day, did the purchaser pay any consideration for the unit?

MR. KINTANAR.  Usually before we would…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No.  I am asking you a pointed question—did the record show that the buyer on or before the date you mentioned, the unit was paid for?

MR. KINTANAR.  Your Honor, based on our records, the unit had been paid for by that time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So it was paid for.  The only thing material here is when it was delivered then accepted by the owner.

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Values had passed from her to the seller.

MR. KINTANAR.  Based on our record, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  So what happened during this inspection for the turnover and delivery of the unit to Mrs. Corona?

MR. KINTANAR.  Well, as in most turnover processes, there was a punch list executed between the purchaser and the seller which basically identified the various deficiencies or complaints or things that had to be repaired from the perspective of the purchaser and this was usually agreed on by the seller, in this case Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation.

ATTY. MANALO.  So, in other words, there were punch lists containing defects ;pointed out by the unit purchaser to the developer.

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, that is correct.

ATTY. MANALO.  And what was the action taken by Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation regarding these issues on the construction of the unit as pointed out by Mrs. Cristina Corona in the punch list?

MR. KINTANAR.  Well, these punch list items were addressed by FBDC based on whether these were in fact part of the sort of deficiencies created or that appeared because of construction or during construction and we would refer these items as a part of our after sale service.

ATTY. MANALO.  And were the repairs actually performed by the developer in this case?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes.  The repairs were prepared over a period of time.  Of course, each time we would repair, it would require that the purchaser accept these rectifications.

ATTY. MANALO.  And, Mr. Witness, what was the response of Mrs. Corona to the actions taken by Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation?

MR. KINTANAR.  The turnover process was somewhat extended and one of the responses of Mrs. Corona was while the repairs were being completed, she contested whether she was liable for the payment of association dues to the condominium association.

ATTY. MANALO.  So did the turnover actually transpire?

MR. KINTANAR.  There was a conditional turnover sometime in 2006 but nonetheless, when she was assessed condominium dues on that unit, she wrote FBDC that these dues, the assessment from the condominium corporation should be carried or should be to the account of the developer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mr. Witness, before the acceptance by Mrs. Corona of that condominium unit, how much was the total payment for the consideration the total price of the—if you know?

MR. KINTANAR.  If I may refer to the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. MANALO.  The witness, Your Honor, going over the Deed of Absolute Sale.  May it be reflected in the record.

MR. KINTANAR.  Your Honor, the purchase price in the Deed of Absolute Sale was P9,159,940.00, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That was the cash out from the pocket of the Coronas to acquire that unit?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, Your Honor, based on our records.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So they paid that already?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  To get a unit?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Go ahead.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, this response of Mrs. Christina Corona to Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation for a conditional turnover of the property and a waiver of the association dues, is this response in writing?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes.  There was a letter that we received to that effect.

ATTY. MANALO.  Coming from?

MR. KINTANAR.  From Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. MANALO.  If I show to you a copy of this letter, will you be able to identify the same?

MR. KINTANAR.  I would be able to.

ATTY. MANALO.  I am showing a letter dated January 2, 2006 to Bonifacio Ridge Condominium by one Christina R. Corona.  Is this the letter that you refer to?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, based on our records, this is the letter.

ATTY. MANALO.  The prosecutor, Your Honor, is going over the letter.

Mr. Witness, on the second page of this letter, on the bottom portion is the name of Christina Corona and a signature on top of the name, would you be able to identify the signature appearing below?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, the signature is consistent with the signature we find on the Deed of Absolute Sale.

ATTY. MANALO.  Of?

MR. KINTANAR.  Of Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, just a manifestation.  The document presented by the defense is a photocopy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Never mind.  Are you doubting the authenticity of that photocopy?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Well, if the original is in their possession, we would like to see the original.

ATTY. MANALO.  Do you have a copy of the original of this letter?

MR. KINTANAR.  I can secure it from our records.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Subject to future presentation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request, Your Honor, that the letter be marked as our Exhibit 244 and the name and signature of Mrs. Christina Corona appearing on page 2 be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 244-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I just clarify another point.  If Mrs. Corona did not accept the unit even though they already paid 9 million plus pesos for it, would there have been a rescission of the contract and a return of the consideration paid for by the Coronas for the unit?

MR. KINTANAR.  That is a situation, Your Honor, which I am not familiar we’ve ever encountered before but I guess, if the contract could not be completed, there would possibly be such a return of the consideration and the return of the unit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But the fact that the time—that the question regarding the acceptance of the unit was pending resolution, there was already a value paid for by the Coronas for that unit.

MR. KINTANAR.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  And so, Mr. Witness, having received this letter from Mrs. Corona, what was the response of Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation?

MR. KINTANAR.  Well, our response which was conveyed through our marketing agent, Ayala Land, was that as we rectified the items on the punch list, we would be prepared to shoulder the cost of the association dues for that particular unit.

ATTY. MANALO.  And was this response reduced in writing?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, it was.

ATTY. MANALO.  I am showing to you a letter from Ayala Land Incorporated dated September 5, 2006, addressed to a Cristina R. Corona, owner of Unit 1902 Spanish Bay, Bonifacio Ridge Condominium, is this the letter that you refer to?

THE PRESDING OFFICER.  By the way counsel, what is the purpose of this line of questioning?  Are you trying to say that—are you justifying the non-inclusion of the unit as an asset in the SALN of the respondent?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, for clarification, the unit was reported in the statement of assets, liabilities and networth of the Chief Justice in 2010.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And not before.

ATTY. MANALO.  And not before, and …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What was reported before with respect to that transaction?

ATTY. MANALO.  There was no report, Your Honor, with respect to the transaction and it is our theory that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There was no reported value in the previous SALN of the Chief Justice with respect to that transaction because the unit was not yet accepted.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor, that is the reasoning for the non-inclusion of the purchase at that point in time until 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, but did not the accountant of the Chief Justice consider that value that pass from the family—Mrs. Corona to the seller of the unit as a receivable?

ATTY. MANALO.  Unfortunately, Your Honor, there was no accountant who assisted the Chief Justice at that time, Your Honor, so, to answer the question, it is possible that he was not guided by an accounting expert during this particular time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  I will not pose that question, that will be a material consideration.  So, proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor, we request that the letter identified by the witness be marked as our Exhibit 245.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  With the same manifestation, Your Honor, that the document presented and confronted is a photocopy.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, the letterhead of this document is Ayala Land Incoroporated, and the seller is Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, would you know the reason for the disparity.

MR. KINTANAR.  Fort Bonifacio is a very specific development project which is very limited in scope, and Fort Bonifacio basically engaged Ayala Land as its marketing agent in its real estate assets in that development in Bonifacio Global city.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, in this document, the name of Jocelyn Yu-Villacrucis, customer relations officer appears and there is a signature on top of the name, would you be able to recognize whose signature this is?

MR. KINTANAR.  Yes, this is Jo’s signature and prior to this hearing, I again verified that this was in fact a letter she signed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Are you familiar with the signature of Mrs. Villacrucis?

MR. KINTANAR.  I am.

ATTY. MANALO.  And so what happened after this letter was issued by Ayala Land?

MR. KINTANAR.  Well, again, we continued to address the items on the punch list.  But in 2007, again, Mrs. Corona was assessed for association dues for that particular unit but because, I think there was a typhoon that hit the country at that time, there were some recurring problems in terms of water leaks and we have to continue repairing some of those items.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, Mr. Counsel.  Can you not stipulate on this that there was never any reflection of this unit prior to 2010 SALN of the Chief Justice because the unit was not accepted by the family.  I think this is no longer in issue.  This is already fully established that there was a refusal to accept it.  Can not the prosecution accept this as a matter of fact?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We are willing to stipulate as to the fact of the non-inclusion of the unit in the SALN until 2010.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because of a dispute regarding its quality.  There is already an admission on the part of the defense that value passed from the Coronas to the seller to acquire the property.

ATTY. MANALO.  If the prosecution, Your Honor, will make the admission, then we will just have the remaining documents marked, Your Honor, subject to the presentation of the originals probably tomorrow.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So that would be the tenor of the rest of his testimony that there was no acceptance until the year 2010 because of defects.

ATTY. MANALO.  Because of the continuous repair until finally the defects were addressed and so the turnover was made and then in 2010 the Chief Justice made a report of the property in his SALN.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Chair and this court understand the factual situation with respect to this property to be this.  That there was a contract to buy a condominium unit by the Coronas from the seller, Fort Bonifacio Development on an agreed price of P9 million plus, correct?

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then that consideration was paid for.  Money was passed from the pocket of the Coronas to the Fort Bonifacio.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In exchange for a potential transfer of a unit to the Coronas which was not accepted prior to 2010.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, that is the factual situation.  Why can you not stipulate this?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  We would stipulate that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that there will be no more problem about all of this discussion and questions and answers about dues and so forth and so on.  These are irrelevant to this impeachment trial.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We so stipulate, Your Honor.  We just like to know if there is an actual turnover document which states the actual transfer to 2010.

ATTY. MANALO.  The letter of Mrs. Corona was explicit in saying that the turnover was conditional, the condition being the repairs made by the developer.  And after the repairs were completed, then Mrs. Corona accepted the unit in full and reported the property in the 2010 SALN.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, that is the problem.  We would be willing to make the stipulation.  But there is no document proving that it was indeed accepted in 2010.  The letter being referred to is dated 2006.

ATTY. MANALO.  The witness will actually testify on the point.  So, the offer of the Presiding Officer …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does it matter, Counsel for the prosecution, whether the asset involved is a condo or money between those periods, will it matter?

ATTY. MANALO.  It will not matter. We will stipulate, Your Honor.   Will the prosecution, therefore, admit the point that the turn over of the property took place in 2010 and that Mrs. Corona thereafter reported the property in the SALN of December 31, 2010?

ATTY. GINEZ  If that is the manifestation that that would be the testimony of this witness, we will stipulate.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you, counsel.  In which case, to abbreviate, Your Honor, may we request that the Bonificio Ridge assessment letter for the Homeowners dues dated May 9, 2007 be marked as our Exh. 246. The response of Mrs. Corona to the said assessment dated August 1, 2007 be marked as Exh. 247.  The inspection report for Unit B 1902 dated October 7, 2008 executed by Engr. Benedicto Macabenta of the Spanish Bay Bonifacio Ridge Condominium be marked as our Exh. 248.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Mark them accordingly.  Now, may I suggest that both panels will submit a written evidence of your stipulation of facts on this particular property.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, we will adopt exactly what will appear in transcript of stenographic notes that will be provided for us tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright. That is understood, ano?

ATTY. MANALO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We were talking of assets, liabilities and net worth. Whether the asset is in kind or in cash or in securities or what lot, tangible or intangible, we are talking of assets. We are talking of liabilities and we are talking of net worth in the SALN. And it is mandated in the Constitution that assets, liabilities and net worth must be reported, declared under oath, okay.

ATTY. MANALO.  With the admissions entered into by the parties with regard to the testimony and documentary evidence identified by this witness, Your Honor, we move that the witness be discharged.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objections?  (Silence) The witness is discharged.  Next witness.

REP. COLMENARES.  Your Honor please, while waiting for the next witness, may we be allowed to make a short manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Thank you for allowing us to make a short manifestation, Your Honor, with clarificatory question on the issue of the quashal of the subpoena on Secretary De Lima. Naghain po kami ng motion na i-quash po ang subpoena kay Secretary De Lima dahil sa paniwala po namin na delay ang resulta nito. Ayon po sa request for subpoena ng defense, ang lahat ng gusto nilang itanong kay Secretary De Lima ayon mismo sa request nila ay natanong na po. At in fact, they were given all opportunities to ask these questions during the two days, two days po na na-cross examine sila kay Secretary De Lima. Ngayon, po hindi naman namin iniisip na ang depensa ay may iba pang itatanong at i-mislead ang impeachment court that ang tunay na purpose ng pagpatawag nila kay Secretary De Lima, we do not suspect that. Ngayon po, ang sabi namin, ang korte may discretion na i-deny siyempre ang motion, request for subpoena kung tingin ng korte irrelevant iyong testimony, immaterial o pampahaba lang ng kaso. In fact, may mga subpoena na na-deny ang korte katulad noong may Supreme Court na driver na pumunta ditto, willing namang mag-testiofy pero, ginarant ng korte ang request ng Supreme Court na hindi sila i-subpoena at may poder ang korte whether or not to grant or to deny the request.

Ganun din po sa clerk of court.  Willing naman po ang clerk of court, in fact, the clerk of court has appeared here previously pero ang problema noon nabulatlat ‘yong SALNs, so, ‘nung ni-request ang subpoena niyan na article XVII, hindi na po siya napayagan mag-testify dahil sa sabi ng korte suprema bawal mag-testify sa korte itong ang mga personnel ng Korte Suprema.

Ngayon po, ang tanong po naming ay, nakita po namin kasi itong sulat ni Secretary De Lima at nagsasabi po siya dito na she is of course opposing the motion, the request for subpoena of the defense.  Pero may sinabi siya dito…

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

REP. COLMENARES.  This is May 7, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Today?

REP. COLMENARES.  Today po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

REP. COLMENARES.  Sinabi nya po dito, “This is however without prejudice to the undersigned’s continuing sentiment regarding the propriety of her recall to the witness stand as well as her appeal for her rights to such witness under Section 3”.  This is for the impeachment court to decide whether or not they will continue with the grant of the subpoena or withdraw it.  It is for the court to decide.  The court is mentioned in so many times that it wishes to avoid collision with other co-equal branches.  However, I would like to go to the other part of the letter, Your Honor.

“In line with this, the undersigned respectfully requests clarification on the intended scope of the defense panel examination of the undersigned; and also whether they intend to treat the undersigned as an unwilling or hostile witness.”

So, ngayon po, ang tanong lang namin, may nabanggit na po ba ang defense panel kung ano po ang scope ng kanilang examination.  Kasi, ang sabi po namin sa prosekusyon at sabi rin ni Secretary De Lima, “lahat po na iyan na-testify ko na yan eh, ano pa ba ang pwede kong sabihin dito na hindi ko pa nasabi”? Or wala silang oportunidad na matanong nong panahong nag-testify po siya.  In fact, hindi mo rin pupuwedeng i-claim Chief Justice Corona, that is the pride of due process rights.  Ang Korte Suprema po, in fact, nung winidhold ang mga witnesses from the Supreme Court, wala talaga kaming opportunity to ask them kasi hindi talaga sila pumunta dito.  Kasi po kami po sa prosekusyon, naprisinta si Secretary De Lima, wala po kaming intension itago, walang itinatago si Secretary De Lima, in fact, nag-appear na siya, ang hiningi lang po ni Secretary De Lima at ng prosekusyon, ano pa po ba ang gagawin at pang-delay na lang ito, ang pag-testify niya, kasi ayon po sa request, these are the same issues discussed.  So, ang hiningi na lang po namin baka may gusto pang itanong ang depensa na hindi nila naitanong o hindi sila pinayagan ng korteng itanong noon na gusto nilang itanong kay Secretary De Lima ayon po sa tanong ni Secretary De Lima.  I would like to ask for a clarification on that, Your Honor, if they have answered the question of one, the intended scope of the defense panel examination of Secretary De Lima, and also whether they intend to treat the undersecretary…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you asking for a reconsideration of the ruling of this court?

REP. COLMENARES.  Well, Your Honor, under…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I am asking you.

REP. COLMENARES.  Yes, Your Honor, if there is a Senator who is willing to ask/move for a reconsideration, of course, we would be very happy because that is natural, that is our motion.  And secondly, Your Honor …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then, you ask first if there is a Senator who will ask for a reconsideration because I cannot allow a waste time in discussing this.  The Chair has already ruled.

REP. COLMENARES.  Actually, Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The proper procedure is, and I understand where you are coming from.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To ask somebody to make a motion for reconsideration.

REP. COLMENARES.  Actually po, nasa judgment ng Senator.  Ang hinihingi ko lang po, may tanong po, nalinaw na po ba ng depensa…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, if the defense wants to explain why they want the Secretary of Justice to come back and be their witness, at least, say so.

ATTY. BODEGON.  If, Your Honor, please, Joel Bodegon for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

ATTY. BODEGON.  By way of reply, I believe the rules define the proper time for us to manifest to this court the purpose of the testimony that we would illicit from the witness, not at this time.  We are wasting the time of this court by manifestations like this.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

REP. COLMENARES.  Your Honor, if I may.  Actually kung sa manifestation lang, lugi kami sa defense.  Araw-araw marami silang manifestation but anyway, Your Honor, ang tingin namin po yong request for subpoena, hindi ka pupwedeng mag mislead diyan.  Kasi noong nagdesisyon ang impeachment court at ang Senate President for that matter, syempre tinignan nya po kung may relevance…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I assure you, Mr. Counsel for the prosecution, that this court cannot be misled.

REP. COLMENARES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We are as intelligent as you are.

REP. COLMENARES.  That is what I also presume,Your Honor, but they are now saying that they have certain purposes that they did not…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It is not a presumption.  We are elected by the Filipino people because they think we are intelligent enough to protect their interests.

REP. COLMENARES.  Yes, Your Honor.  My point being, however, Your Honor, is that meron pala silang mga purpose na hindi nila sinabi dito sa atin and  I’m sure that when the court decided to grant their request, tiningnan nila ang validity, ang relevance, ang materiality ng request.  Ngayon po, kung hindi po pala yon ang intensyon nila at may iba pala silang purpose, sana naman na-apprise yong impeachment court para maka-decide ang impeachment court kung relevant pa nga ba ang testimony o hindi.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you know their intention?

REP. COLMENARES.  Ang intention po nila nakalagay sa request nila.  Ang tanong ko lang po—yon pa ba ang intention nila?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tinanong mo, sinagot ka na e.

REP. COLMENARES.  Ang sagot po nila may intention po silang iba pero…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The request of the Gentleman is denied.

REP. COLMENARES.  Well, thank you, Your Honor.   But we hope that the clarification later on for the purposes, we will  reserve our objection of course to any  new purpose that they will state during the offer of testimony of Secretary De Lima.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel for the defense, call your next witness.

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  Yes, Your Honor.  Good afternoon, Mr. Senate President.  Atty. Lichauco.  We are calling our next witness, Miss Analyn Moises, who is the records officer of the city of Manila.  But just to abbreviate the proceedings, Your Honors, if we can make a stipulation because she is really just being presented to, well, she is being presented for the purpose of authenticating certain documents as far as the Basa, Guidote Enterprise Inc.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What are those documents?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Yes, Your Honor.  Maybe if they can just enumerate, then we can react thereafter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What are those documents to be authenticated?

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  Ordinance No. 7975 which was premarked as Exhibit 227,  the deed of sale between the Basa, Guidote Enterprise, Inc. and city of Manila.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think that is not an issue anymore.  Is there any dispute about this?

ATTY. SAMONTE.  I don’t think so, Your Honor.  I don’t even think if our good witness here can do any better than that of the good mayor.  Because what she may have to testify to today must have been taken up already lengthily by our good mayor most especially pertaining to the documents being adverted to.

ATTY.  LICHAUCO.  Your Honors, in the previous witness, the counsel for the  prosecution was questioning that some documents were Xerox copies.  Now, we are presenting certified true copies so it won’t be questioned anymore.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  Well, if only for the certification of these documents already marked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the point in this authentication?  It is already a fact and admitted that there was a transaction between the city of Manila and the Basa, Guidote Enterprise, Inc.  In fact it is also established into the record that money passed from the city of Manila to the seller, Basa, Guidote Enteprise, Inc. represented according to the presentation of the defense and the government of the city of Manila that transacted the Basa, Guidote Enteprise, Inc. and that we have been discussing for days and weeks about P34.7 million consideration for that transaction. What else more is needed to establish that fact?

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  Your Honors, if they are willing to admit that there exists an ordinance authorizing the supposed purchase and supposedly there is an Absolute Deed of Sale, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If there is a defect in the sale, it’s impertinent, immaterial, irrelevant in this proceeding.

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  Okay, Your Honor.  So, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.,

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  In which case, Your Honor, then if there is no issue at all, then we can call our next witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Call your next witness.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  Thank you.  We’d like to call Miss Efleda Castro.  She is the Manila Market Administrator.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  May we just know the purpose or purposes as she’s being …

ATTY. LUCHAUCO.  That the City of Manila is in possession.  They are deriving income therefrom.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There’s no question about that already.  That’s been solved.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  There is no question on that.

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  We can stipulate on the these two particular aspects

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  (Gavel)  What’s the materiality of this kind of evidence in this impeachment trial?

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  Your Honor, because they might be questioning the transfer of ownership, the turnover and who is actually in possession …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is immaterial to this court whether the property was transferred or not.  There was a transaction.  Whether that is void, immaterial, there is a transaction, money passed from the City of Manila to Mrs. Christina Corona.

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  So, we stipulate, Your Honor.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  We agree on the observation of the Presiding Officer.

If only as to question of possession, there will be no quarrel with us.

ATTY. LICHAUCO.  Okay.

ATTY. SAMONTE.  But as to other purposes, we agree that they are immaterial, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What I’m trying to avoid is we’re clattering this proceeding with so many collateral, irrelevant, immaterial issues.

We’re wasting time.  Please go direct to the point so that we can finish this case.  Present the defense of the respondent.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, we have other witnesses who are supposed to have been scheduled for tomorrow.  They arrived earlier.  If you would give us a short break, I will check if they are still available and I will present more witnesses.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Session suspended for …

ATTY. ROY.  Ten to fifteen minutes, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Fifteen minutes.  (Gavel)

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you very much.

It was 4:27 p.m.   

 

At 5:03 p.m., the trial was resumed.

(Inaudible)

ATTY. ROY.  Due to the phase that which the witnesses were terminated today, we have not prepared more witnesses who are prepared to take the stand, may I request that we be allowed to present them tomorrow.  We did after all managed to go through five witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many witnesses does the defense wish to present to defend the Chief Justice.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, we had originally about 14 but we have trimmed that list down, considering your public announcements that you would like to finish the trial sooner.  As a result of which, I believe, will be down to about five or six witnesses, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually we narrowed down already the number of articles of impeachment to be considered and as far as Article 7, Article 3 are concerned, these are matter of public records.  So, the only material matter that will require the presentation of evidence will be Article 2.

ATTY. ROY.  Precisely, Your Honor.  And if I am not mistaken, the remaining witnesses all pertain to issues pertaining to Article 2 …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely.

ATTY. ROY.  … except for the subpoena issued to the good Secretary of Justice, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The court will not anticipate how the defense will defend the respondent Chief Justice.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But I hope you understand that the Senate cannot afford also to prolong this case because the legislative agenda of the nation is affected.

ATTY. ROY.  To be sure, Mr. President, you have our assurance that we do not wish to burden the Senate by delaying it in anyway.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It is not a burden to us.  It is a burden to the nation.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Mr. President.  May I then manifest, in accordance with the letter that we received today from the good Secretary, that we would require her attendance on Wednesday, if that is possible.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, you have to make an arrangement with her.  She is your witness.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  We are informing the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you make an arrangement with her when she is to come here.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  We are informing the court because the letter that we received today was not yet taken up in the business that we tackled this morning.  So, we will make that arrangement, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, you are asking for a continuance.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the prosecution?

REP. TUPAS.  Mr. President, we have no objection to the pleasure of the defense.  We have no objection.  We just want to ask, Mr. President, if the defense is willing to name the five or six witnesses that they are going to present.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Jinggoy Estrada to make a manifestation and post an interjection on the question of the prosecution.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you.  If I may, Mr. President.  Mr. Counsel, instead of clattering this court, to borrow the words of the Senate President, instead of clattering this court with witnesses who are impertinent, immaterial, or irrelevant to these proceedings, I suggest that you bring the respondent himself to answer all the allegations levelled against him.  And if the Chief Justice will appear, the Judges, the impeachment court will be very, very happy to hear his side at doon pa lang pagka narinig na namin ang side ni Chief Justice, tungkol sa mga alegasyon nila, doon pa lang siguro makakapagbuo na kami ng desisyon kung ano ang didesisyonan namin.  Just to give you a classic example, during the impeachment case of former President Estrada, former President Estrada was waiting to be summoned by this impeachment court.  He was daring to appear before this impeachment court dahil according to him wala siyang itinatago.  Ngayon, kung walang itinatago si Chief Justice Corona bakit hindi na lang siya ang dalhin ninyo rito para siya mismo ang sumagot sa lahat ng mga alegasyon nitong prosecution panel laban kay Chief Justice Corona.  Pati iyong sampung milyon na naiulat, nailathala sa dyaryo, sagutin na rin niya, kung talagang totoo na mayroon siyang ten million dollars doon sa bangko ni Chief Justice.  Nang sa gayon, matapos na kaagad itong impeachment trial at makapag-render ng decision kaagad.  Hindi iyong katulad ng mga witnesses na piniprisinta ninyo rito.  Hindi naman kailangan.  Puwede namang i-stipulate ng prosecution panel iyan.  You are just wasting the time of this court., Mr. Counsel.  If I may.  Ako, ayoko hong makialam kung ipi-prisinta ninyo ang Chief Justice.  Pero sa amin, mas makakabuti and I reiterate iyong mga sinabi ng mga kapuwa ko Senador na dalhin ninyo na Chief Justice dito.  Iprisinta na ninyo siya rito para malaman na naming kung ano talaga ang buong katotohanan ng mga iyan.,

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you for that admonition, Mr. Senator.  But this is an impeachment proceedings.  And notwithstanding the character of the proceedings, Your Honor, due process should still be observed.  What are the charges against him?  That he had bgamassed properties which he did not declare in the SALN.  Is that impeachable?  That he has accounts which were not reflected therein.  But we have witnesses, Your Honor, to testify that there is no such violation.  And even if there is, it may not be considered as violation because they are not impeachable in character, Your Honor.  We may not agree with him, but let us give him the opportunity to present witnesses to support that.

He is the Chief Justice of the country, Your Honor.  And out of respect, we should at least give him some consideration whatsoever, irrespective of the nature thereof.

Now, you’re castigating the defense for presenting witnesses that like this and like that.  We have presented only five witnesses, Your Honor.  And they are very, very important to our defense, Your Honor.  We cannot be bulldozed into presenting this witness because you like him to testify.  That is not the order of trial.  That is not the demand of justice, Your Honor.

We have been a practitioner.  We have been a member of the bench.  We have been a member of the Supreme Court.  There is no authority nor any jurisprudence that give the reason for compelling a party accused for appearing in court if he does not appear to be in a position to do so, Your Honor.

Now, there were several witnesses, Your Honor, today scheduled for trial.  Luckily or unluckily, we have devised a division of labor among the members of the panel, Your Honor.  And these were the matters to be discussed by the witnesses together with the identity are delineated in that conference.

Now, incidentally, we never anticipated that those assigned to them will not be able to perform as expected of them, Your Honor.  But they are not dilatory in character.

For instance, the witness whom Atty. Lichauco will present.  He will be made to testify that actually the market was pushed through.  There was a market operating all these proceedings were undertaken.  And this certainly will cause doubt on the—rather, clearance or enlightenment on the part of the court that the transaction is a genuine one.

It is true there are check payments, Your Honor, that we utilized the same to cover up the expenditures and the acquisition made by the Chief Justice.  But, we do not know how much amount of evidence will be necessary to be able to convince the honourable court where—Kung sa Tagalog po, parang nananalakab kami sa linaw e.

Rules of Evidence.  Sinasabi ninyo hindi proof beyond reasonable doubt—kumbinsing laban.  Ito, meron kaming objection, ganito, ganito, ganito, ganito.

Now, we have other witnesses, Your Honor.  We cause them to be subpoenaed.  But we are informed only lately that they will not be able to testify.

There is a comment here made.  E hindi naman ninyo inilagay ang purpose kaya nyo tinatawag si Secretary De Lima.  My question is, is there any Rule under the Revised Rules of Court which stated that in a motion for the request or issuance of a subpoena, the purpose must be stated?  I am not aware of any …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We have already ruled upon that, counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m just …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, I think that we shall not prolong this discussion.  I hope you also give due consideration to this court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, we are.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You cannot say that we are not giving you due process.  You have all the time during the recess to study the defense of your client …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … to prepare his defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And we are very appreciative for …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I tell you the truth, we are quite disappointed that the witnesses that you brought here this afternoon are people who are testifying about the collection of fees.  What has that got to do with the impeachment to identify records?  What has that got to do with the impeachment trial?

The question here, and I think you know because you are an experienced lawyer is Article 2.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All of those witnesses who were presented this afternoon were irrelevant to that particular issue of Articles of Impeachment no. 2, and that is why we feel a little disappointed.  Now, don’t tell us and lecture to us about due process.  We are equally aware of our obligation to extend due process to anybody coming before this court.

Is it your position that there is no prima facie case presented before this court?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In our evaluation, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I am asking you a question.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that is your position?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In our evaluation …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then that is your problem if that is your position.  I will be frank with you.  If you think that there is no case presented here in this court, then that is your problem.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   We are all lawyers trained in the art, and I think—we respect your skills and your ability to appreciate the evidence, but, equally, we expect you to respect our ability to appreciate the evidence presented to us.

The Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Mr. President, I take note of the statement of the chief defense counsel that I was admonishing the defense counsel.  Mr. Counsel, I am not admonishing you, that was just my humble recommendation to let the Chief Justice appear before the impeachment court.  Dahil sa pagkakaalam ko, sa paniwala ko, ‘pag humarap diyan si Chief Justice, ang bayan magiging masaya , ang impeachment court magiging masaya, at gusto talaga namin malaman kung ano talaga ang buong katotohanan.  And in fact, I am not castigating you.  I am just merely voicing the sentiments of my colleagues here, Senator-judges.  Iyon lang po, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, thank you, very much, Mr. Senator.

REP. TUPAS.  Mr. President, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I would like to make it of record that based on our record, the defense has already submitted 17 witnesses to defend the respondent.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Seventeen, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  You presented Congressman Tobias Tiangco…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Araceli Bayuga; Demetrio Vicente; Atty. Irene Guevarra; Atty. Girlie Salarda;  Engr. Roberto Villaluz; Rodolfo Ordanes; Engr. Mario Badillo; Atty. Carlo Alcantara; Atty. Randy Rotaquio; Benz Lim, property manager, Columns Ayala Avenue, Condominium; Carmina Dela Cruz, Clients Relation Manager, Alveoland Corporation; Atty. Perlita Ele, Clerk of Court; Atty. Eulalio Diaz III, Administrator, LRA; Lito Atienza; Atty. B.C. Cadangan; Noel Kintanar and others.  That is a matter of record.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, we did so, Your Honor, for a definite purpose…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is why…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  …and we stated in the offer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   How many more witnesses do we have to expect?  We are willing to accommodate you, present all the witnesses you want.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We only intended…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   That is why we already to give you with the due process that you are asking us, and we will give you due process, fair trial, I guaranty that you will have a fair trial.  We denied the motion to quash, the subpoena of the Secretary of the Department of Justice, for your sake if you want to present her again.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  But we received information that Secretary De Lima sent an emissary this afternoon, we met him and he inform us that she will be available only next week, Your Honor, that is why we were…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, because—I will tell you this court will exercise its coercive power to compel the attendance of witnesses for the respondent to show you that we are ready to give him a fair trial and due process not only substantive but procedural due process.  But we expected that we will be at least given some consideration in not hearing illusory witnesses being presented here to testify on the collection of fees, authentication of documents, there were no more issues about the transaction in the case of the properties sold by the City of Manila including the consideration.

Anyway, you want a continuance?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, frankly speaking, Your Honor, we cannot proceed now because our witnesses are not available, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, Majority Floor Leader.

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

REP. TUPAS.  Before that, Mr. President, may we be allowed to reiterate our request Your Honor, may we just reiterate our request for the defense to name the witnesses at least for tomorrow, the five or six witnesses.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have requested for subpoena to some of them.  They are a matter of record, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What’s that?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are being asked to identify the witnesses that we will present, Your Honor.  We said we have requested for the issuance of subpoena to compel their appearances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think the prosecution should be astute enough to anticipate the witnesses that will be presented by the defense and prepare your cross-examination…

REP. TUPAS.  In that case, we submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … instead of rumbling.

REP. TUPAS.  We submit, Your Honor.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

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.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, May 8, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  (Silence)  The motion of the Majority Floor Leader is approved.  (Gavel)

It was 5:21 p.m.

 

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Wednesday, March 21, 2012

At 2:15 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile Presiding.

 

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

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

PRAYER BY SENATOR HONASAN

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

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

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

Majority Floor Leader

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

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

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

The Secretary will now please call the case.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Appearances, Majority Floor Leader.

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Welocme back, counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Apologies unnecessary.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor?

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sapagka’t tao lamang tayo.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

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

The first witness is Carmina Cruz.

Trial is suspended for one minute to wait for Carmina.

It was 2:21 p.m.

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

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

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I may.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … direct question.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  All right, proceed.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that relationship?

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We are adults, so …

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I have them with me.

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.   Yes, I do confirm.

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is another letter?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  June …

ATTY. ROY.  June 20, 2006.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are they identical in contents?

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They are linked.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What number is it?

ATTY. ROY.  Exhibit 220, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, that is possible.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is the inspection in 2006?

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

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

ATTY. ROY.  Very well, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I have it.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That was October letter?

MS. CRUZ.  October 17, 2006.

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

MS. CRUZ.  June 20, 2006, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Not that I can recall.

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    January,  when?

MS. CRUZ.  February …

ATTY. ROY.  February 26.

MS. CRUZ.  … 26, 2008, Your Honor.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    February 26?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   2006?

MS. CRUZ.  2008.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    2008.

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You are withdrawing the marking.

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

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

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  May I read, Your Honor?

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

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

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

ATTY. BODEGON.  This file exists in the computer?

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, it is.

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, for this specific file.

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

ATTY. BODEGON.  One is for…

MS. CRUZ.  For the deemed the acceptance.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And the other.

MS. CRUZ.  And for the acceptance date.

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I do confirm.

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I do recall that.

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Based on the letters?

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

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

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

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

ATTY. BODEGON.  Therefore, according to your practice…

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross-examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. CRUZ.  Thank you.

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

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

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

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

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.

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

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

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

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

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

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

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ownership and possession.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of …

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Please, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you also.

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

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

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  Very much.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial suspended for one minute.

It was 2:47 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  (Gavel)

MISS. ELE.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

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

MISS ELE.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Will you produce it, please.

MISS ELE.  Yes, Sir, I will.

This is the appointment of notary public.

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

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

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many minutes?

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Five minutes, Your Honor.

SUSPENSION OF HEARING

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

It was 2:49 p.m.

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

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

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I may.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … direct question.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  All right, proceed.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is that relationship?

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We are adults, so …

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes.

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, I have them with me.

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

MS. CRUZ.  Yes, Sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you ready?

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

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

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

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

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

MS. ELE.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you.

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

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

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Including the year 2007.

ATTY. CUSTODIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

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

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

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The witness is discharged.

MS. CRUZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Next witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Majority Floor Leader.

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    In writing?

ATTY. LAZARO.  No, Your Honor.  We …

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

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  We are ready to manifest that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alright. Manifest it.

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

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

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

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

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

ATTY  . LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Only to that extent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So these are all the cancelled titles, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just finish the first stipulation.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that correct?

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us hear first the defense.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But they agree with you.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LAZARO.  But …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We talk about 12.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Twelve, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

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

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all the 12 titles, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Exactly, Your Honor please.

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

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The statement of whom?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Treat that in your written memorandum.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there a deed of sale?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That is your position.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But the prosecution has reservation.

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

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

ATTY. LAZARO.  We recognized that, Your Honor.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Yes.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That is only with respect to…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are four …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The 12 ..

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are four …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    And then one in the 17.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   With respect to the four.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The five, the five.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.  Any …

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

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  Alright.

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

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE  PRESIDING JUSTICE. Alright. So ordered.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We agree, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … one.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  The Majority Floor Leader.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino iyon?

SEN. SOTTO. Atty. Diaz.

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

THEPRESIDING JUSTICE.   Is there a redicrect from the defense?

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

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  Yes.

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

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE. Granted. Bring the witness in?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Where is the witness?

Session is suspended for one minute.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

It was 3:35 p.m.

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

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

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Additional direct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Additional direct.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Good afternoon, Atty. Diaz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  I understand that, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. CUEVAS.  In the very titles?

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

ATTY. CUEVAS.  Not in the title.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTY. GINEZ.  Okay, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You may answer.

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

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

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

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

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Go ahead, please.

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

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

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

JUSTICE. CUEVAS.  And you replied to this communication.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

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

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

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

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

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No.

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

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

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Participated or what is your participation?

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the particular place or property situated?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No more, no less?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  What title, Your Honor?

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No more questions?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No more question?

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  No cross?

ATTY. GINEZ.  No cross, Your Honor.

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

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Thank you.

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

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

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

SEN. SANTIAGO.  In grade school?

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor

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

MR. DIAZ.  In campaign team, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

SEN. SANTIAGO.  August 2010.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Who was the appointing authority?

MR. DIAZ.  The President, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  The President, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTY. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

ATTY. DIAZ.  Yes, it is, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEN. SANTIAGO.  What was the request then?

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  I just forwarded the documents as …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  I have a list, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

SEN. LEGARDA.  And number 30?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Number 31, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Number 27 which is…

MR. DIAZ.  Named Erlinda Castillo.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Ma’m.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Number 32, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And 32 also.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Constantino del Castillo.

MR. DIAZ.  Number 33, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

SEN. LEGARDA.  Please.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

SEN. LEGARDA. Two to three days?

MR. DIAZ. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Why did it take so long?

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

SEN. LEGARDA.  There is no central database.

MR. DIAZ.  There is, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

SEN. LEGARDA.  The whole NCR.

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Huh?

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  No, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Well, the…

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

MR. DIAZ.  For accessibility, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Huh?

MR. DIAZ.  Basically for accessibility, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For expediency?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For speed?  For what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

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

SEN. LEGARDA.  You did receive it, yes.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, sir.

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

THEP RESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Bongbong Marcos.

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Personally, yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  There was a …

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Thereafter, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thereafter?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

SEN. MARCOS.  And therefore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  We temporarily stopped using it because…

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

MR. DIAZ.  No, Your Honor.l

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  We used it, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Because …

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  We will, Your Honor.

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

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

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

SEN. MARCOS.  There was no need.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Wala po.

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

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

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

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

SEN. MARCOS.  I yield to the Lady.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Si Congressman Tupas.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo iyon.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ito ba ay verbal lang?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Hindi sumulat sa iyo?

MR. DIAZ.  At that time, hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    At the time of the call?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kailan iyong call na iyon?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ha?

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

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Sabi mo prior to?

MR. DIAZ.  January 10, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    January 10.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    January 7 or 8?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ha?

MR. DIAZ.  At iyong mga iba pa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    At iyong mga iba pa?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alam mo iyon?

MR. DIAZ.  Yes.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi po.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor, to be …

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

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi pa po. Hindi po.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Mayroon po.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.    Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bakit nga?

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Pinatanong ko po sa isang …

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

MR. DIAZ.    Hindi po.  Dahil wala hong…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Hindi mo alam?

MR. DIAZ.  Sa Batangas, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oo.

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi pa ho.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Pinatakbo ko po iyong

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ang ..

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Dahil nga …

MR. DIAZ.  Malapit po sa central.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyong Bellagio?

MR. DIAZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Kaya dito mo inumpisahan ang search.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, e, bakit?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Inutusan.

MR. DIAZ.  Sa Batangas po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Inutusan saan?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya may inutusan ka sa Batangas.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It never occurred to you.

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi naman po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Bakit?

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi ka paniniwalaan eh.

MR. DIAZ.  Previous to the request…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The floor is yours.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi naman po.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi po.

SEN. MARCOS.  Wala naman?

MR. DIAZ.  Never po.

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

MR. DIAZ.  Hindi po.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gentlelady from Taguig.

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Delivered?

MR. DIAZ.  By my staff, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The entire country.

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

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

REP. TUPAS.  We did not, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That was enough for the prosecution.

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Titles …

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

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

REP. TUPAS.  No, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At that time.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about now?

REP. TUPAS.  Now …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you satisfied?

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

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You already closed your evidence.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Mr. President.

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

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

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

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

MR,. DIAZ.  They may.]

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Thank you.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

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

It was 4:57 p.m.

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

 

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

SEN. ESTRADA. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

SEN. ESTRADA.  What research are you talking about?

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.   O, sino pa?

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REP. TUPAS.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, you did not?

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

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

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

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

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, we already have Bellagio.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the Column property.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And?

REP. TUPAS.  McKinley.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And McKinley property.

REP. TUPAS.  And the Spanish Bay Tower.

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

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

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

MR. DIAZ.  Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes?

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely I said that your reason was that the media were asking you and you made a search

MR. DIAZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  I submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s what I said, I explained that.  Okay.   Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Ralph Recto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Recto.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Majority Leader.  Just very briefly, I would like to ask my questions to the prosecution and to the defense counsel, if possible.  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Based on your testimony, or rather the defense, what you said earlier, from 45 we’re talking now of 21 properties.  Is that correct?  Counsel for the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s correct, Your Honor.  Your Honor, the original number is 45.

SEN. RECTO.  It is now down to 21.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Even per admission by the prosecution.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct, correct.  Now, just to be a little more specific about it, those 21 properties, ilan ba yung parking lot ang pinag-uusapan natin?

REP. TUPAS.  Tatlo po.  Three.

SEN. RECTO.  Three?

REP. TUPAS.  Only three.

SEN. RECTO.  So, assuming we take that out from 21, that’s down to 18.

REP. TUPAS.  That’s correct.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Now, yung kay Vicente, yung Marikina, ilan po yon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Seven parcels, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Seven?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s correct.

SEN. RECTO.  So from 18 minus 7, you’re down to 11.  Is that correct?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor.  It’s a matter of mathematical computation.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Now these 11 are all in the name of the Chief Justice and his wife?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Not in the name of the Chief Justice but in the name of the seller, Christina.  You’re referring to the 7 parcels, Your Honor?

SEN. RECTO.  No, no.  I’m referring to the last 11.  So, ulitin natin, from 21, there are 3 parking lots.  So, we’re down to 18.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If I remember correctly, I think there were 5 parking lots.  Two for the Burgundy, hindi ba?

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi na po because ang Burgundy is already included in the condominium title.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Okay.

SEN. RECTO.  Ulitin lang natin.  From 21, so we’re talking about 3 parking lots in the 21?  Now we’re down to 18.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  The Marikina property which Vicente claims is his and not that of the Chief Justice, ilan yon?  Seven.  Eighteen, you’re down to 11, okay.  Of the 11, from what I recall, 2 are in the name of his children above 18 years old which should not be in the SALN.

ATTY. GINEZ.  No, Your Honor.  There are 4 properties …

SEN. RECTO.  In the name of the children?

ATTY. GINEZ.  In the name of the children, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  And they are all above 18 years old?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, but our claim, Your Honor, is that …

SEN. RECTO.  It is a simulated sale.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Simulated sale and that …

SEN. RECTO.  That has to be proven, that property.  Pero maliwanag, if your children are below 18, then you include it in your SALN.  But in this case, they’re above 18 years old.

So, from 11, 4, you’re down to 7?  Is that correct with the defense as well?  Is that number correc?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  From 9 …

SEN. RECTO.  From 11 minus 4, you’re down to 7.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.  Mathematically.

SEN. RECTO.  Mathematically.  The Chief Justice has 5.  So there’s a discrepancy of 2.  Which 2?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Eleven minus 2 lang ho.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Your Honor, if I may clarify, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Yes, please.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Out of these two properties, Your Honor, one property which has not been declared all throughout, Your Honor, is one of the Xavierville lots, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Ito yung katabi?

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is the lot 6-A, Your Honor, acquired in 1993.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.  Okay.

ATTY. GINEZ.  The title of that, Your Honor, …

SEN. RECTO.  Kaya ang bilang ko ay anim lang ang pinag-uusapan e.  Five in the SALN of 2010 and 1, as you claim, that is not declared, na katabi, apparently

ATTY. GINEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  And in the SALN, all throughout, Your Honor, what was declared was the lot that was donated in 1971.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Very consistent, Your Honor, from 1992 to 2010, that lot was declared as a donated lot in 1971.

SEN. RECTO.  I understand and I’m with you on this.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  But the point now is, from 45, sa bilang ko, based on our discussion here also is anim.  I mean, assuming, hindi kailangan ilagay ni Chief Justice sa pangalan nya yung apat dahil sa pangalan ng anak niya above 18 years old, that’s one.  Two, the parking lots.  Assuming lang.  Three, the 7 Vicente lots which was testified on here.  Napuntahan ng media, nakita yung libu-libong bonsai, he seem to be a credible witness.  So, there is one other property that has not been declared in his SALN.  Now, could there be a listing of—so, you have the five in the SALN and that other La Vista lot, six.  Is there any other, Mr. Prosecutor?

ATTY. GINEZ. Out of the 21, Your Honor, there are none, insofar as the year 2010, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.

ATTY. GINEZ.  Because the position of the prosecution, Your Honor, this has to be considered on a year-to-year basis, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  I understand.

ATTY. GINEZ.  So, yearend, Your Honor, insofar as 2010 is concerned, that is correct, only one property, Your Honor, was not declared in 2010, but insofar as other years are concerned, in 2004, the Columns was not declared, in 2005, Bonifacio Ridge was not declared.  That is subsequently …

SEN. RECTO.  May you submit that memorandum to the impeachment court as well.

ATTY. GINEZ.  We will, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. RECTO.  There are no other questions or there are no more questions for the witness, Mr. President, we may discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.  Thank you, Atty. Diaz.

MR. DIAZ.  Thank you very much.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are informed that the defense will be presenting more witnesses tomorrow.  So, with that, we would like to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.

All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, there being no other Business for the Day, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Thursday, March 22, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two o’clock of Thursday, tomorrow, March 22, 2012.

It was 5:21 p.m.

 

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Monday, March 19, 2012

At 2:10 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of the 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 Francis G. Escudero.

(Prayer led by Senator Escudero)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Amen. The Secretary will 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 18 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

REP. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  May I ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make a proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-At-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

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 March 15, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  There being none, the March 15, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is hereby approved.

The Secretary will now please call the case.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  Case No. 002-2011. In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Appearances.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  We ask the parties to enter their appearances, Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  Good afternoon, Mr. Senate President, Your Honors, for the prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  The defense.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Good afternoon, Mr. President, and members of the Impeachment Court.  For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, for a manifestation, may we recognize Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady Senator form Iloilo is recognized.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  It appears to me that we have come to the point in this impeachment trial when we are faced with the centrepiece of the prosecution, meaning to say, the accusation against the filing of the SALN, Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, by the Chief Justice.

It appears to be the showpiece of the prosecution, and therefore, we must take time out of number-crunching what you are doing last week, and see what the Constitution and what the Supreme Court have said about the filing of the SALN.

First, let me begin with Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.   I read it verbatim.  Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust when he failed to disclose, I repeat, when he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

Notice, that this heading under the Articles of Impeachment, only uses the phrase “failed to disclose”.  If you had disclosed, and we are going to apply this article literally and very strictly then there is no more case because it turns out now that he disclosed his statement of assets and liabilities as provided by law as I shall explain later.   So, in my view, Article II is suffering from at least incompetence, impartiality because if it were to apply strictly if there is evidence and evidence is being shown in this court that defendant failed to disclose, meaning to say failed to show his statement or make his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth unavailable or inaccessible to the public, then he would have committed the impeachable offense.  But if he already made, took steps to do otherwise, then the whole case falls.  What I am saying is, that Article II should have said, when he failed to disclose and he failed to declare because declare and disclose are two separate things  as we shall see when we look at the Constitution.  Article XI, Section 17, “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”   Notice, therefore, that the first requirement by the Constitution is to file a declaration, you declare what your assets and liabilities are.  And  then in the closing sentence, the Constitution said, “the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”  This is the second requirement.  The requirement that it should be disclosed.  There are, therefore, two requirements.  First, that he declared, second that he disclosed.  It appears now that the Chief Justice both declared and disclosed so the case is closed.  But in the spirit of liberality, we have taken note of the explanation of the prosecution of its Article II on the Articles of Impeachment.

Now, let us look at what our Supreme Court has ruled concerning the filing of the SALN under this constitutional provision.  In the 2003 case of Francisco versus Nagmamalasakit, etc., the Supreme Court said—“A determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense is a purely political question.  We cannot settle it by citation of authorities or by citation of cases.”  It is purely a politically question, said the Constitution.   The Constitution enumerates six grounds for impeachment, two of these namely other high crimes and betrayal of public trust elude a precise definition.   But the issue calls upon the court  to decide a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power.  Therefore, we are making history with this particular impeachment case.  We are deciding a political question.  What are the failures or the omissions in the filing of the SALN that would constitute an impeachable offense?  Notice that in the United States Constitution, it is possible to impeach a high public official for crimes “and for misdemeanour.”  We did not use the phrase “and for misdemeanours” because misdemeanours in common law systems are mere faults or failures to observe minor ordinances.  So our Constitution contemplates a very high crime.  We have to see then what is the meaning of a high crime.  In the records of the Constitutional Convention, we find at least this sentence—“ For graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust to be grounds for impeachment, their concrete manner of commission must be of same severity as treason and bribery, offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation.”  They kept on repeating this clause in the Constitutional Commission, “offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation.”  That is impare materia with all those other obviously high crimes that are enumerated in our Constitution.    Our question, therefore, is not about how do you distinguish this value from that value as a value acquisition cost or a market value.  We are not number crunchers, this is a quasi judicial and quasi political proceeding.  This is not  a quasi accounting proceeding.  So the question is whether there is any  discrepancy or omission in the SALN of the defendant Chief Justice that strikes at the heart of the life of the nation.

Now I come to a famous or an infamous statement that was made by an American President during the attempt to impeach one of the most famous Justices of the US Supreme Court, Justice William Douglas, in April 1970.  At that time, Gerald Ford ultimately President of the US was just a representative, and he maintained this infamous statement:  “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House, or in our case one-third of the House, considers it to be a given moment in history.”

So, we are actually writing the book for what is an impeachable offense.  Conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the Body, meaning to say two-thirds of the Senate, just like the Philippine Senate, considers to sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.  So, it is for us to decide what is impeachable in terms of the SALN.

Now, I have already made a passing mention of the Constitution,  let us go to the laws that are meant to implement the constitutional provision.  The first law is called the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 3019, Section 7, Statement of Assets and Liabilities, a public officer within the month of January every other year shall file statement of assets and liabilities in the proper case with the Office of the President or in the proper case with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House or the corresponding Chamber.

Next law, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, RA No. 6713.  The provision of the first law that we cited, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, was expanded by a Code of Conduct.  And it said, the two documents, meaning to say the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth and the statement of financial disclosure, it says, and I’m quoting, “These two documents shall contain information of the following:  (a) real property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed value and current fair market value. “ That’s all that the law said.  It did not indicate how we arrive these values.  It just says that the SALN should contain information on real property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed value and current fair market value.  Who determines this?  The proper public officials.  So there is no need for this Impeachment Court to argue lengthily on what is acquisition, what is assessed, what is current fair market value.  These are determinations made by the proper legal officer.  And further, the Code of Conduct provides, “The SALN shall be filed by, in the case of Senators and Congressmen, with Secretaries of the Senate and the House respectively.  In the case of Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court.”  We’ve already heard evidence that the Chief Justice filed his declaration and he filed it with the correct official, the Clerk of Court, from whom the public may see fit by the proper procedures to get a copy.  Not only do we have these two laws to guide us.  We have to look at its implementing rules and regulations, particularly of the Code of Conduct.

The Code of Conduct, implementing rules and regulations reflects the law itself, meaning to say the Code of Conduct, in providing that the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth shall contain information on the following, and it repeats:  “Real property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed value and current fair market value.”

In the implementing rules and regulations, we find this following statement, “In the event, said authority determines that a statement is not properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.”  The individual, to my opinion is rendered and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation and who after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith, underline “acts in good faith,” in accordance with it, shall not be subject to any sanction provided by in the Code, underline “shall not be subject to any sanction in the Code.”  This is the basis for the theory by some that since any failure or omission in the SALN has now been decriminalized.  It should no longer be considered an impeachable offense because of this provision in the implementing rules and regulations of the Code of Conduct, and there are certain provisions that are provided for failure to be so.

Now, we have looked at the two laws—we have first looked at the constitutional provision.  We have looked at the provisions of the two major laws, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.  Now, let us look at the—even lower level of legislation, the Civil Service Rules, you all know by now that the recent guidelines issued by the Civil Service Commission are suppose to govern declarations made for 2011 and thereafter.  And there are definitions of terms in this guideline, but among the most salient provisions of the guideline is, for computation purposes of real properties, acquisition cost shall be used.  That is what the law says.  You use acquisition cost.  In the past, people did not know what to put in their SALNs and the law did not say anything, then, eventually, the law said, you can put either acquisition cost, assessed value or fair market value.  Civil Service Commission in practice, ruled, although the conjunctive is used for these three values, the conjunctive of “and”, actually, it should be interpreted as “or”.  So, you could just choose any of the three, but now, we have in this new guideline by the Civil Service Commission that when we compute our real properties, we should use acquisition cost.  There is no more question about this.  If the public officer fails to comply with the law, he can be charged under the Penal Code with a crime of falsification for untruthful statements or for perjury.

So, we have taken a look now by this time at the Constitution, the applicable laws that are meant to enforce the Constitution.  But let me go more deeply into the matter of the failure to disclose or the failure to declare or the omission of any declaration.  The Civil Service Commission issued the recent guidelines that will govern 2012 and onwards.  And it declares that for computation purposes of real properties, acquisition cost shall be used.  So, you and I, as Members of Congress of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, beginning from 2012 should now use acquisition cost for our SALN.  But before this guideline by the Civil Service Commission, our bureaucracy was governed by the older guideline issued by the Civil Service Commission in 2006.  2006 resolution of the Civil Service Commission does not provided any guideline.

The SALN filed by Chief Justice on 2011 but covering the period of 2010 as well as his previous SALNs was filed according to the old resolution of the Civil Service Commission.  I have already said and I repeat, according to Civil Service Commission, at that time, under the old guidelines, which was very deficient or let us just say non-specific, it is not necessary to fill-up all three values.  You could just choose among fair market value, assessed value and acquisition cost.

Now, let us come to the question, how should the current fair market value be computed?  We have already been told that there are provisions in the Local Government Code because the municipalities formulate a schedule of fair market values, and this is what is applied by the city assessors.

In our present case, the defendant based the valuation of the assets in his SALN from the fair market valuation enacted by local ordinances.  However, the prosecution contends that the defendant should have used the value by which a buyer is willing to buy the property and the seller is willing to sell.  This is the argument that uses the antique, the age-old, centuries-old, possibly, definition by an English writer called Sedgwick, in his books, Sedgwick on damages, and cited in a1919 case by the Philippine Supreme Court, defining market value as that reasonable sum, which property would bring on a fair sale by a person willing but not obliged to sell to a person willing but not obliged to buy.

I don’t see what would be the utility of discussing what should be fair market value, we should be discussing the question of whether the defendant committed an impeachable offense when he allegedly, erroneously declared, misdeclared certain entries or completely omitted certain entries in his SALN.

Let us see what the—and I come now to the gist of what I really wanted to say.  Let us come now to what the Supreme Court has to say.  When you fail to properly and completely file your SALN, what are you committing?  What crime are guilty of?  In the most recent case, 2011, Presidential Anti-Graft Commission v Pleyto, PAGC versus Pleyto, promulgated in 2011.  The Supreme Court answered: “The failure is not dishonesty but only simple negligence?”  That, prosecution panel, should be the topic of your next oral manifestation particularly your manifestation or memorandum at the end of this trial.  Here is the Supreme Court speaking, and only as of 2011, Pleyto’s SALNs are prepared by a family’s bookkeeper/accountant.  Also his wife has been running their financial affairs, including property acquisitions which form part and parcel of her lending business.  Thus, he was not directly involved and he failed to keep track of the real property acquisitions.  Here is the important sentence.  Consequently, petitioner’s SALN was not filed in proper form containing several inaccurate information.  The court had no doubt that the SALN was inaccurate.  But it went on to make distinctions among these three terms, gross misconduct, dishonesty and negligence.  It cited the two standard laws, remember, that we began with, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and then the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.  This is what the Supreme Court said.  “For gross misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the acts complained of were corrupt, were corrupt, or inspired by an intention to violate the law or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.  That is what you have to prove, Prosecution.  The Supreme Court went on, “And as for dishonesty, it is committed by intentionally making  a false statement and in any material fact of practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud, in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.”  And then finally, negligence.  Negligence, said the Supreme Court, is the omission of the diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons and of the time and of the place.  In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation and there is gross negligence when the breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.  The Supreme Court goes on.  Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal  from service of the erring public officer or employee together with the accessory penalties..  Hence, opining that public official is administratively liable for such charges must be supported by substantial evidence.  Prosecution, you have to show at least substantial evidence because this sentence was made in a decision that involved an administrative case.  But we are trying an impeachment case.  The Supreme Court held that Pleyto’s failure in properly and completely filling out his SALN was not intentional.  The Supreme Court said, “Clear from the foregoing legal definitions of gross misconduct and dishonesty is that intention is an important element in both.  Missing the essential element of intent to commit a wrong, this court cannot declare petitioner guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty.  An act done in good faith will constitute only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes does not quality as gross misconduct and is merely simple negligence.  And so, in the Pleyto case, the Supreme Court said:  “Thus, at most, petitioner is only guilty of negligence.”  You have your work cut out for you.  Prosecution panel, show that an omission of a misdeclaration was deliberately intended by the defendant.  You must show essential element of intent to commit the wrong.

Now, in another case, the court found that the defendant was guilty and should be removed from service.  Office of the Ombudsman v Raccio,(?) also a 2011 case, we have two cases to choose from because the latest case always controls the jurisprudence. In that—this other case, Ombudsman v. Racho, the Court found Racho guilty of dishonesty for nondisclosure of his bank deposits in SALN.

Here is a note of caution to the defense. Defense panel, has your client, the defense, disclosed in his SALN all bank deposits, peso and dollar deposits? Because if he did not, but he admit that he made those deposits, then, under the ruling in Ombudsman under the racio decidendi, then, your client is guilty.  In this particular case, the Supreme Court defined dishonesty.  It said, “Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact or practicing or tempting to practice any deception or fraud.”

And then, finally, just for emphasis, one more case, that challenges the position of the defendant.  Carabeo, the  Court of Appeals, in 2009, he was officer-in-charge of the Treasurer of Parañaque City. He accumulated several properties and was able to travel abroad 15 times. He did not disclose this in this SALN. He alleged, as a defense, that he can simply correct the entries made in his SALN, but the Supreme Court said that while the law, indeed, allows for corrective measures, the defendant was charged, not only a violation of the Anti-Graft Act, but also violation of the Penal Code.  He failed to show any requirement that prior notice of the noncompletion of the SALN, which correction precede the filing of charges for violation of its provision. I will now stop myself.

I will challenge these two panels. Number one, prosecution, show that there is intent to commit dishonesty on the part of the defendant, and you’ve won your case. On the part of the defense, show that your client has in good faith declared in SALN all his deposits, both peso and dollar deposits, and if he did not, why not? Please take these, decided cases, that I have cited accordingly. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Joker Arroyo wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol, Senator Arroyo.

SEN. ARROYO.  Thank you, Mr. President. I would not have spoken this afternoon had Senator Santiago raised certain questions. I will just follow that up. My  question is this for both panels: Is a correctible offense an impeachable offense?  I think that the two panels should think because, off-hand, that is what I am thinking.  We don’t have precedents.  We don’t have the law which implements the constitutional provision allows us correction. So, this is my—you don’t have to answer. I am raising the question for both sides to study. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor. Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Pia Cayetano wishes to be recognized, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady from Taguig.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, just a very simple follow up from—follow through on the challenge posted by Senator Judge Mirriam Defensor-Santiago. And actually, also Senator-Judge Arroyo. I would like to know from both the prosecution and the defense if they, in fact, agree with the—well, with the challenge posted by Senator Mirriam  Defensor-Santiago. In other words, can we keep—I think it is very straightforward and can we simplify this because I saw the prosecution nodding? And in fact, you will agree with Senator-Judge Santiago that, in fact, what you will simply prove is that there was intent to commit dishonest act in— consistent with the Supreme Court ruling on Plato, then, we are properly guided. Because I saw you nodding and while you are discussing among yourselves, I also posed the same question to  the defense that,  do you agree, are you prepare to make a statement that if, in fact, that  you will prove that the defendant had disclosed all of his bank accounts in good faith and if not, why not?  Are you prepared to make a statement?  Because to me, as a Senator-judge, simplifies the issue and although Senator-judge Arroyo did not ask for an immediate answer to his question as to whether a corrective statement or disclosure that has a corrective remedy is in impeachable, I would also like to know your statement on this, your reaction to this, if  now or if not,  at a later date.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, we will submit a memorandum with respect to that issue

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  And may I hear from the defense.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Essentially, we seem to agree with the position presentation of Senator-judge Santiagao, Your Honor.  In fact, the direction at which we are taking in presenting our evidence is towards that.  We just want to state that  under the SALN form there is no requirement that we must have to indicate any bank deposits or bank accounts.   And the Chief Justice has not yet made any pronouncement on this, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).   But it is very clear to all of us because that statement, suddenly, if taken just within—if I take that statement in isolation, you are saying that the SALN doesn’t declare  a disclosure of assets because obviously your bank accounts are part  of your assets, correct?

ATTY. BODEGON.  No, Your Honor, it just that my reading and I am not quibbling over this, Your Honor, it does not require a listing of bank accounts.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Of that specific accounts.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).   So, let me rephrase my question, if I may.  My understanding of Senator Santiagos’s statement is that, there is a requirement that  the defendant discloses their assets that in are in the bank accounts.  Now, I will not quibble also as to whether that specific account needs to be mentioned.  But the assets whether it is in your baul at home, or  it is in a bank account, the totality of that, at the very least, must be declared.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Must be declared.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).    That one we have no argument on that.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).   All right.  Thank you very much.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just another point that I would like, perhaps, both the defense and the prosecution to comment on if they should submit a memorandum.  May we also have your views on the standard of conduct required of a member of a Judiciary, it is the same as to the standard of conduct, for example, of an executive official or perhaps that of a member of the Legislature.  We would like to see if you are comparing apples to apples.  In other words, yong requirement ba, yung standard of conduct ba ng nasa Hudikatura, parehas ba iyan ng isang dating undersecretary ng isang public works, for example.  Hopefully, we can have that, likewise, in the memorandum.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, we will include that in our memorandum.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Thank you.  Majority Floor Leader.  I think we better start with the trial.  All of these matters ought to be submitted after the closure of the presentation of the evidence on both sides.  The procedure in this trial is, for the prosecution to present its case and for the defense to present its defense.  Then, if there is a need for rebuttal, then, so be it.  And if the memorandum,  if at all,  will come after the presentation of the prosecution’s case, and the defense rebuttal of the evidence of the prosecution, that’s where we are as of the moment.  So, the Gentle Lady from Iloilo is again recognized.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Just one word.  In response to the defense counsel’s manifestation that it is their belief that the law does not require an itemization or specification of the bank deposits of the filer or the declarant, I repeat, in the case also 2011, I would citing the Plato case of 2011.  In this case is also 2011, Office of the Ombudsman v. Racho 2011.  In this case, the court found Racho guilty of dishonesty for non-disclosure of his bank deposits and SALN.  The court held that.  “In this case, Racho not only failed to disclose his bank accounts containing substantial deposits but he also failed to satisfactorily explain the accumulation of his wealth or even identify the sources of such accumulated wealth.”  And, therefore, in view of this pronouncement by the Supreme Court, defense will now have the burden of proving that failure to disclose bank deposits is not necessarily and indication of bad faith to omit a significant amount of the assets of the defendant.

ATTY. BODEGON.  We agree, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I suggest that we go on with the trial.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  They are now ready…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let’s hear the defense to present the case for the respondent.  We cannot judge this on the basis of manifestations or just the evidence presented by the prosecution unless the defense is ready to say that we waive our right to present evidence.

SEN. SOTTO.  So, Mr. President,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And I don’t think that they are going to waive that.

ATTY.  BODEGON.  We are not, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, there are issues here that must be clarified and that is what we are waiting for.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes,Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are now ready to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  As far as the Presiding Officer is concerned, there is only one standard for high officials and lowly employees of this government and that is found in the first sentence of Section 17 of Article XI, to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in the declaration of assets, liabilities and net worth.  So proceed.

SEN. SOTTO.  We are now ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the defense, Mr. President.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Before we proceed, Your Honor, I just would like to make a manifestation.  It is unfortunate and we apologize that our chief defense counsel is presently ill, Your Honor.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Indispose.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Indispose, Your Honor.  So in the meantime, I’ll be acting lead counsel for the defense if the honourable Presiding Officer would permit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So proceed.  We cannot control who is going to handle the defense of the respondent.  You are the panel designated by him to present his case, do so.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor.  We have specific assignments in the presentation of evidence, Your Honor.   So, for the first, may we request that Atty. Tranquil Salvador be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty. Tranquil Salvador has the floor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Magandang hapon po, Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  If I may proceed, Your Honor.  Last Thursday, I think the parties have agreed to enter into a stipulation on a singular document, Your Honor, in connection with the subpoena duces tecum that was issued by this honourable court.  And for the record, let me state it.  It pertains to Tax Declaration No. F-1000235345 pertaining to CCT No. 85716 issued by the Register of Deeds of the city of Makati particularly pertaining, Your Honor, to Unit No. 31B of the Columns, Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Your Honor.  And, Your Honor, in the light of this stipulation with the opposing counsel, let me put it on record that the document was previously marked as our Exhibit 150.  Okay.  And, Your Honor, and I will refer to the market value and assessed value duly marked and stipulated on by the parties.  The market value, Your Honor, is P1,210,000.00 which was encircled and marked as our Exhibit 150-A.  Your Honor, I will also refer to the dorsal portion of the same document which is the assessed value in the total amount of P726,000, Exhibit 150-B, marked and bracketed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But what is the acquisition value?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, the acquisition value as—there is no acquisition value, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There is no acquisition value?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, I’m referring to the tax declaration.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely there is no acquisition value..

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Indicated here, no, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How was that acquired?  Was it by donation, inheritance or what?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, this is by purchased.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By purchased.  So, there is an acquisition value if you buy a property.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDIG OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  In that light, Your Honor, before I further proceed, the witness who should have identified it considering the stipulation as to the authenticity of the document, and as to the competency of the witness, he is Engineer Mario Badillo, the Head of the City Assessor of Makati, Your Honor.  If allowed to testify, he should have established the accuracy of the entries of the SALN as of December 21, 2010, and likewise the assessed value and fair market value as approved and determined in the Assessor’s Office of the City of Makati.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think that there is no problem about that.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there (inaudible) of the prosecution?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Good afternoon, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That is not exactly the stipulation that we are offering.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What’s the stipulation.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The stipulation that we are offering is to the effect that we are not questioning the authenticity of the tax declaration.  But that does not go into the accuracy of the values reflected in the SALN.  That is our position, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  So, in that case, would you want us to present the witness?  That statement was in connection, Your Honor, with all due respect, was for the purpose for which the witness would have been presented.  And for us, if I may, it would be necessary such that at the end of the day, if we are to submit our formal offer of evidence, there is some reference point that we have to start with in connection with the submission of evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is your—Are you the one to present the witness?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, we would like to be in the light of their request last time to agree and to stipulate on this tax declaration and in the light of the observations of some Senator-Judges, to expedite this, we decided to stipulate them.

I think we are in agreement on the document, right, as to the authenticity?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  As to the tax declaration …

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, as to the tax declaration.  The statement of the purpose is if he would have been placed on the stand, if the purpose—and that is for the purposes of the record.  Okay.

Unless you want him to be presented right now, Your Honor, I will have to do that.  You could stipulate that with me, only for purposes of the record.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yes, Your Honor, may I say something.  We want to spare the honourable court with all these markings and trivialities, Your Honor.

We will stipulate on the tax declaration and only on the tax declaration.  If it goes into the accuracy of the SALN, we are not going to stipulate on that because the assessor, Your Honor, is not the one who executed the SALN—has nothing to do with the SALN of the Chief Justice, Your Honor, or that he has something to do with the tax declaration for which we admit, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, if I may.  I think my statement was if the witness would have to testify that was the purpose for which it was offered.  I think we are in agreement as to the authenticity of the document.  And following Rule 132, Section 23, I think the entries therein are deemed as prima facie.  And that is the reason why we entered into a stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)  Stop this argumentation.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There is no stipulation so far agreed upon because your minds do not meet.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution will agree to stipulate with you only to the extent of the authenticity of the document and as far as the figures that was entered in that document, but as far as the accuracy of that document, they do not accept that.

So, since that is the situation, then you present your witness.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Can we request a one-minute break for our witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  One minute break.  (Gavel)

It was 2:53 p.m.

At 3:00 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Franklin Drilon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo is recognized.

SEN. DRILON.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. President, during the break, we talked to both parties in an effort to make them agree on a stipulation in order to dispense with the presentation of this particular witness.  And both parties agreed to the following stipulation subject to their confirmation on record.  The stipulation is that, the entries in the statement of assets, liabilities and networth of the Chief Justice for the year ending December 31, 2010, marked as Exhibits 13 and 14, particularly the one that refers to a condo in Makati acquired in 2003, the entries under the column assessed value and current fair market value in the amounts of P726,000.00 and P1,210,000.00, respectively, are based on the tax declaration which is marked as Exhibit 150.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.  And if I could make a very short addition to that to the extent that it is copied from the tax declation.

SEN. DRILON.  It is based on.  You know, if you change that, you might expect—there is no difference between what you say and what I have proposed, which you have agreed upon during the break.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  In that case, Your Honor, we will agree with that.

SEN. DRILON.  What about prosecution?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We likewise confirm that, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  With that, maybe we can dispense with the presentation of this witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Are you satisfied?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We are, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Did the statement of the Gentleman from Iloilo accurately reflect the thinking of both the prosecution panel and the defense panel?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  On the part of the prosecution, we confirm that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the defense?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor, and my understanding is, is that it was copied and it is accurate.  To that extent, I agree, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, I will have to object to the word “accurate” because that is the word that we are trying to avoid here.  You cannot say that it is accurate because it does not reflect the current market value, Your Honor.  Counsel is changing the stipulation.  That is my manifestation, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  No, Your Honor.  That is based on the offer.  But in that case, Your Honor, in order to expedite, we will agree on that, based on the statement of Senator Drilon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When you say “current market value”, market value today or yesterday or in 2010?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  As of the time that the SALN was filed, Your Honor.

THE PREIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Why do you say that?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Because the SALN is dated at that time.  For example, the SALN in question, it SALN dated December 31, 2010.  So the current fair market value, Your Honor …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At that time…

ATTY. SALVADOR.  It should be as of December 31, 2010.  That is our position, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what was written in the SALN?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  What was written in the SALN were figures lifted from the tax declaration of the property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  I understand.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, there is no meeting of the minds.

SEN. DRILON.  There is a meeting of the minds, Your Honor.  Both of them have agreed to the stipulation as this Representation has read.  And if the defense can confirm that.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, this is just one little addition, that is as to the accuracy thereof.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We will not agree to the accuracy, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  That is why we said the stipulation is based on.  There is no statement of accuracy because the other side will object to it.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, if, for example, if what is based is accurate, then we will stipulate on that.

SEN. DRILON.  Then I think, I don’t think we can have any stipulation with all those qualifications, just proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Present your witness.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE SEC. Please stand up and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding.

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE SEC. So, help you God.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, can you give us your name.

MR. BADILLO. I am Engineer Mario Badillo, City Assessor of Makati.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your age?

MR. BADILLO. 59 years old.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    And your status?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you married?

MR. BADILLO. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    Your Honor, if I may proceed with offer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed. Proceed.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    Your Honor, this witness is presented to establish the accuracy of the entries of the SALN as of December 21(?), 2010 and assessed values and fair market values based on the values approved and determined by the Assessor’s Office of the City of Makati, Your Honor.

If I may proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes. Proceed.

ATTY. SALVADOR.     Mr. Witness, could you please tell us the reason why you are here before this Honorable Court?

MR. BADILLO.  This is in compliance with the subpoena of this Honorable Impeachment Court to bring the original and certified Tax Declaration No. F-01-00235345, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    So, you have that copy with you today?

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    Okay, Mr. Witness, could you please tell us who is the declared owner as appearing in the tax declaration?

MR. BADILLO.  The declared owner is Ms. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    Could you please tell us the location of the property as declared in the tax declaration?

MR. BADILLO.  The location of the property, the column, corner Ayala Ave., Gil Puyat Ave. and Malugay St. Bel-Air Village Makati City, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    Your Honor, for purposes of the record, this has been—this document, tax declaration has been previously marked as our Exh. 150.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you marking it as such?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, previously marked, pre-marked as Exh. 150.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Already entered in the record.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And Mr. Witness, I am referring to the dorsal portion of the document that you are in possession right now and I am referring now to the market value.

MR. BADILLO.    Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR. Could you please read to us the market value as declared in tax declaration?

MR. BADILLO.  The amount of the market value is P1,210,000.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.   Okay. And Your Honor, may we request and as have been previously marked this market value has been encircled and marked as our Exh. 150-A.

Mr. Witness, I am referring to the assessed value on the lower right hand dorsal portion of the same document. Could you please tell us the assessed value of the property?

MR. BADILLO.  The assessed value is P726,000.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.    Okay. And Your Honor, may we request that this amount be encircled and be bracketed as our Exh. 150-B. And just a few more questions, Mr. Witness, there is a signature on the lower left hand portion on top of the typewritten name, Engineer Mario B. Badillo, whose signature is that?

MR. BADILLO.  This is my signature, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, I have no further question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark the document accordingly.

So, but the court would like to be clarified. When was this assessed value undertaken by the City of Makati?

MR. BADILLO.  January 11, 2008, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And how about the market value?

ATTY. SALVADOR.    The witness is now referring to the document that is now in his possession.

MR. BADILLO.  I think 2006, Your onoHo

Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ha?

MR. BADILLO. 2006, Your Honor, under the name of Community Innovation Inc. transferred to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    When was that market value determined?

MR. BADILLO.  2008, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2008?

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Can you certify that that is the market value of the property as of December 31, 2010?

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor, until …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You can state under oath that that value stated there as market value of the property is the market value as of December 31, 2010

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  On what basis can you do that?  Did you do an appraisal?

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor, since 2008 up to 2010, the same market value, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   It remains the same.

MR. BADILLO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  After December 31, what was the market value?

MR. BADILLO.  The same, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The same?

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Until when?  Until now?

MR. BADILLO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Thank you.  Proceed.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, no further questions.  We are ready for cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We will conduct no cross-examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, the witness is discharged.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BADILLO.  Thank you po.

ATTY. BODEGON.  For our next witness, Your Honor, he will be presented by Atty.  Dennis Manalo.  So, may we request that he be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty. Dennis Manalo is recognized.

ATTY. BODEGON.  May we request for one minute suspension, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way counsel…

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  …why is it that you have different lawyers presenting different witnesses?

ATTY. BODEGON.  Because we have made separate assignment, Your Honor, for the different witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the preparation of the witness.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Okay, proceed.

ATTY. BODEGON.  May we request for a one-minute suspension, Your Honor, because Atty. Manalo is fetching the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, trial is suspended for one minute to wait for the witness.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you, Your Honor.

It was 3:11 p.m.

At 3:13 p.m., trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  We are ready for the next witness, Mr. President.

THE SECRETARY.  Mr. Witness, please stand up, raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty. …

ATTY. MANALO.  I am Atty. Dennis Manalo, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … Dennis Manalo, Atty. Dennis Manalo will conduct the direct examination of the witness.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, the witness is offered to prove the basis of the non-inclusion of the Ayala Heights and La Vista properties in the SALN of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2010.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  To prove further, Your Honor, that there was a transfer of the title of the Ayala Heights property in the name of spouses Renato and Cristina Corona to a certain Amelia E. Rivera, et al., on the 12th day of March 2010, based on the title of this property and the certificate authorizing registration.  To prove further, Your Honor, the transfer of the title of the La Vista property in the name of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona to a certain Carla C. Castillo on the 22nd day of October 2010, based on the title and the certificate authorizing registration.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, go ahead.

ATTY. MANALO.  Now, the second part, Your Honor, of the testimony will delve on the basis on the non-inclusion of the properties in  Cubao and Kalayaan Avenue in the SALNs of Chief Justice Corona.  The property in Cubao, Your Honor, we will prove that it is in the name of Constantino C. Castillo III and Carla C. Castillo and the property in Kalayaan Avenue is also in their names.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In their name.  What is their?

ATTY. MANALO.  Them referring to Constantino C. Castillo and Carla C. Castillo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. MANALO.  And lastly, Your Honor, to prove the basis for the non-inclusion of the parking space in the Burgundy Condominium in the SALN of Chief Justice Corona beginning 2003, the parking space of the Burgundy property in the name of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona being a part of the technical description of the TCT.  That is our purpose for presenting this witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Your Honor, if the witness will be identifying documents, maybe he can just show us and we can just submit the authenticity of the documents, Your Honor.  This witness was presented by this representation before and I’m sure he will not have any problem identifying, Your Honor, the documents.

ATTY. MANALO.  If the counsel will agree to the purpose of our presentation, then we are willing to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed to present the witness and let them agree or disagree.

ATTY. MANALO.  Okay, Your Honor.  Mr. Witness, please state your name and other personal circumstances for the record.

MR. ALCANTARA.  I’m Atty. Carlo V. Alcantara, of legal age, married and presently the designated acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City Registry  of Deeds, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. MANALO.  And how long have you been the acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City for the record, Mr. Witness?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  May I interrupt..  I will admit the qualification of the witness to expedite the proceeding.  As I have said, he was my witness before.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Including his tenure as acting Register of Deeds.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So ordered.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, can you just briefly explain your duties and functions.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  We can all submit that, Your Honor.  In fact, I presented that during the time when I presented him to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  His duties and functions and authority…

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … are admitted by the prosecution.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, as the acting Register of Deeds, do you have in your record a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renator C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, we have on record the Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  And what is the status of that title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this title is a cancelled title.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request, Your Honor, that this document presented by the witness be marked as our Exhibit…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  But before we mark it, I just want to find out when was it cancelled?  When was that title cancelled?

ATTY. MANALO.  …185, Your Honor.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this title was cancelled on April 13, 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And why was it cancelled?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The reason, Your Honor, for the cancellation of this title is the registration of a deed of absolute sale executed by spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona in favour of spouses Rodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of the deed of sale?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The deed of sale, Your Honor, refers to a…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The Deed of Absolute Date, Your Honor, is February 26, 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that a unilateral contract or bilateral contract?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this is a bilateral contract, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Between the buyer and the seller?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And who notarized it?

MR. ALCANTARA.  This document, Deed of Absolute Sale, docketed as Document No. 138, page no. 29, Book No. 4, series of 2010 was notarized by Atty. Wena T. Tan, Notary Public for Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that is registered in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City for purposes of cancelling the title in the name of the spouses Renato C. Corona and Christina Corona?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request that the document be marked as our Exhibit 185, that the rubber stamp “cancelled” be marked as our Exhibit 185-A, and that the annotation in the title of the sale of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favour of Rodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 185-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, do you have a copy of the title that replaced this particular certificate of title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, we have a certified true copy of the title in the name of spouses Rodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is the replacement of the TCT cancelled by that Deed of Sale …

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … already marked as exhibit?  Okay.  What is the number of that TCT?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The number of the title, Your Honor, is Transfer Certificate of Title No. 004-2010001387, Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what is the date of issuance?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The date of issuance, Your Honor, is April 13, 2010 at 11:33 a.m., Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And who signed that TCT?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, This Transfer Certificate of Title was signed by Carlo V. Alcantara, the Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At that time?

MR. ALCANTARA.  At that time, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed, counsel.

ATTY. MANALO.  We request, Your Honor, that the title mentioned by the witness be marked as our Exhibit 186, the name of the owner therein being the spouses Rodel V. Rivera and Amelia Rivera be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 186-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  And that the date and time of entry of this title being 13th day of April, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 186-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  Do you have with you the certificate authorizing registration of this particular transaction, Mr. Witness?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, I have with me transfer certification, the Certificate Authorizing Registration No. 2009 …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the relevance of that authorization?  The TCT is already issued and it’s the presumption of regularity of the issuance of that title exist.

ATTY. MANALO.  We will move on to the next document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  Do you have a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 0042010010259 for the La Vista property?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, I have certified true copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 004-2010010259, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In whose name?

ATTY. MANALO.  This, Your Honor, is registered in the name of Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castillo III, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is—and who—is that an OCT or TCT?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this is a transfer certificate of title, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And who transferred the property to the named owner?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this property or title is a transfer from the title of Renato or rather Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When?

MR. ALCANTARA.  This title was issued on November 9, 2010 at 3:26 in the afternoon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the operating document that cost the transfer of that property to the present owner?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the basis for the cancellation of the title of Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato Corona is the registration of the deed of absolute sale, executed by Ma. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona, in favour of Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castillo III for the sum of P18 million.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  P18 million.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Incidentally, what was the consideration of the transfer of property, the Corona property to the Riveras?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the transfer of title from Renato Corona …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To the Riveras.

MR. ALCANTARA.  … to the Rivera is P8 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  P8 million, and this one is P18 million.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request, Your Honor, that the transfer certificate of title referred to by the witness be marked as our Exhibit 187 and that the name of the owner, Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino Castillo III be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 187-A, and the date of entry of this title on November 9, 2010 at 3:26 in the afternoon be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 187-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accorndingly.

Who was the signatory to that new TCT?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the signatory to the new TCT is Carlo V. Alcantara, deputy register of deeds of Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. MANALO.  That is you.  Am I correct, Mr. Witness?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Now, do you have a copy, Mr. Witness, of the transfer certificate of title N-327732, in the name of Constantino T. Castillo, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo?  This is the property located in Cubao, Quezon City.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, I believe that was the subject of marking during my presentation as witness for the prosecution, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  I am showing to you Exhibit BBB of the prosecution which you have earlier identified when you testified the last time.  Is this the document which I am referring to as the title?  Do you confirm the existence of that title in your office?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  And under whose name is that title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, transfer certificate of title number N-327732 is registered in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And who transferred the property to them?

ATTY. MANALO.  The witness, Your Honor is just going over his record.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this is not part of the subpoena duces tecum issued to me and I don’t have the recollection as to the previous title of this property, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, will you be able to get for the record the document that will evidence the reason for the issuance of this title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you present those documents?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That certificate of title was from what previous title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the previous certificate of title No. 125683, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you know in whose name that previous title was?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, earlier this witness testified for the prosecution and they marked in evidence the deed of absolute sale which was the reason for the issuance of this title.  May I confront the witness with the document so he can just confirm that this is the document which was the basis for the issuance of the title.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Without the objection of the defense (prosecution), you may proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  I am showing to you the deed of absolute sale marked by the prosecution as Exhibit DDD which you have earlier identified when you testified before.  A deed of absolute sale between Daniel G. Encina and Constantino T. Castillo.  Is this the document which you have earlier testified to which resulted in the issuance of this title?  Please take a look at the document, Mr. Witness.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this is the deed of absolute sale executed by Daniel G. Encina in favour of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Carla R. Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Encina was the owner?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The previous owner, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Under TCT …

MR. ALCANTARA.  Under Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-20758 (129302), Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that was sold to the Castillo couple.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Carla R. Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When was the sale made?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the deed of absolute is dated December 15, 2003, Your Honor, and this deed of absolute sale was registered on February 23, 2004, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2004.  And as a consequence, the new TCT was issued.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what was the consideration for the transaction?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The consideration, Your Honor, for this sale is P10,500,000.00, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Paid for by the buyer.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed, Counsel.

ATTY. MANALO.  We wish to mark the deed of absolute sale, Your Honor, as our Exhibit 188.  We also wish to have the names of the parties in the contract sub-marked as our Exhibit 188-A, and the date of execution of the contract be marked as our Exhbit 188-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  We request as well, Your Honor, that the transfer certificate of title No. N-327732 in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Maria Carla C. Castillo, which was the result of the deed of absolute sale identified by the witness, be marked as our Exhibit 189 ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  …  be marked as our Exh. 189, the name of the registered owner be marked as our Exh. 189-A. and the date of entry of this title in the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on 17th of March 2009 at 1:40 p.m. in the afternoon, be marked as our Exh. 189-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is another transaction?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  No, Your Honor, it’s the same, it is the same TCT identified by the witness. It is the property in Cubao, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Mr. Witness, do you have with you a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title N-260027 for the Kalayaan Avenue property in the name of Constantino Castillo III and Carla C. Castillo.

MR. ALCANTARA.  I believe, Your Honor, I have also testified on that transfer certificate of title for the prosecution, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I am showing to you the prosecution’s exhibit marked FFFF, is this the transfer certificate of title that you have referred to as part of your earlier testimony?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In whose name is that transfer certificate of title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, transfer Certificate of Title No. N-260027 is registered in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Carla R. Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what was the title from which that new TCT was originated?

MR. ALCANTARA.  This title originated from RT-20758  (129302), Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In whose name?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I propound the question, Your Honor, so that the witness can answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Mr. Witness, do you still recall bringing with you when you testified the document evidencing the underlying transaction that cause the issuance of this title.

MR. ALCANTARA.  I believe, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I am showing to you a document marked by the prosecution as Exh. ZZ, is this the deed of absolute sale that you have earlier identified covering this particular title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor,  Z is the deed of absolute sale executed by Mila Melad-Bajar married to Beneroso E. Bajar, Your Honor, as vendor and Constantino T. Castillo III married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo as vendees, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the date of that document?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The date of the deed of absolute sale, Your Honor, is March 11, 2009, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the consideration?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The consideration, Your Honor, is P15 million.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And who notarized it?

MR. ALCANTARA.  This deed of absolute sale was notarized by Atty. Myrna S. Valdez Cruz, Your Honor, and docketed as Doc. No. 077, Page No. 016, Book No. 1, Series of 2009.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Counsel, proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Mr. Witness, in the title of this property, is there an encumbrance annotated, can you just—based on the title?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The question is, is there an encumbrance annotated at the back of that new transfer certificate of title?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Let me refer you again to the document marked as Exh. 189, which is the property in Cubao, a common exhibit between the parties.  Can you take a look at this document and confirm if there is an encumbrance in this title?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, there is an existing real estate mortgage annotated on this title under Entry No. 2504 T-327732, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who is the mortgagor?

MR. ALCANTARA.   The mortgagors, Your Honor, are the registered owners Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the mortgagee?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the mortgagee?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The mortgagee, Your Honor, is the Bank of Philippine Islands, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the total amount secured by that mortgage?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The mortgage amount, Your Honor, is P12 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  P12 million?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of that mortgage?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The date of the instrument or the real estate mortgage is 5-15-2009, May 15, 2009, Your Honor, and it was registered on May 19, 2009, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  After the transaction between the seller and the buyer of the property.

MR. ALCANTARA.  The mortgagor…yes, Your Honor, after the sale, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   All right, proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request, Your Honor, that the encumbrance identified by the witness be sub-marked as our Exhibit 189-C.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  By the way, that encumbrance still exist until today?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, that is an existing encumbrance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And it has never been paid.

MR. ALCANTARA.  As far as the record of the Registry of Deeds is concerned, no cancellation yet has been registered on that encumbrance, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  P12 million.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, thank you.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, may we request that the transfer certificate of title for the Kalayaan Avenue property in Quezon City no. N-260027 identified by the witness be marked as our Exhibit 190?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  And that the name of the registered owner be sub-marked as Exhibit 190-A, and the date of entry in the Register of Deeds in Quezon City on the 23rd day of February, 2004 at 9:43 a.m., be sub-marked as our Exhibit 190-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  We likewise request, Your Honor, that the Deed of Absolute Sale identified by the witness to be part of the record in the Register of Deeds of Quezon City for the previous title marked, which is a Deed of Absolute Sale by and between Mirla Melad Bahar and Constantino T. Castillo be marked as our Exhibit 191, the name of the parties thereto be sub-marked as our Exhibit 191-A, and the date of the Deed of Absolute Sale  being March 17, 2009, be marked as our Exhibit 191-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  I am sorry, it is not March 17, it’s March 11, 2009.

Mr. Witness, do you have a copy of condominium of certificate of title no. N-35812 for the Burgundy condominium in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona?

MR. ALCANTARA.  I believe, likewise, Your Honor, I have already testified on that title, Your Honor, previously for the prosecution.

ATTY. MANALO.  I am showing to you a copy of this TCT marked as Exhibit OO of the prosecution.  Do you confirm that this is the title of this particular property?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, this is condominium certificate of title no. N-35812, registered in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that an original title or transfer of title.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this is a certified true copy of the condominium certificate of title number, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Original issue?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  From the developer?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, can you please take a look at the technical description of the property and kindly confirm to the honourable court if the description includes the parking space for that particular condominium.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, there is an annotation on this condominium certificate of title pertaining to an agreement.  This agreement was entered under Primary Entry No.4175, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Please read it.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Primary Entry No. 4175 N-35812 agreement, executed by Burgundy Realty Corporation referred to as the first party and spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona referred to as the second party.  Whereas the first party is the owner-developer of 1 Burgundy Plaza while the second party is the owner of 21-D and parking slot identified as  parking slot upper Third Floor No. 11 and for this purpose, the first party and the second party have agreed that the second party alone shall use Parking Slot U3F-No. 11 under Document No. 257, Page No. 52, Book No. 59 Series of 2003 of Notary Public for Quezon City, Atty. Jose F. Ordona, date of inscription, October 8, 2003 and date of—let me correct—date  of instrument, October 8, 2003 and date of inscription, December 11, 2003, Your Honor.  This was signed by Atty. Constante T. Caluya III, the Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does that mean that, first of all, the question of the Chair is, is that an inscription at the back of the title of the condominium unit?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  As an encumbrance?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that in effect that parking lot does not belong to the owner of the unit but only to use it?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  As an owner of the unit.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It remains to be the property of the owner of the condominium development.  Is that it?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The annotation simply refers, Your Honor, to the right of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Right of use.

MR. ALCANTARA.  … use, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By usufruct.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed, counsel.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request, Your Honor, that this Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona be marked as our Exhibit 192 and the annotation of the agreement between Burgundy Realty Corporation and the spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona referring to Parking Slot No. U3F No. 11 be submarked as our Exhibit 192-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  And the date of the instrument and date of inscription of said annotation be submarked as our Exhibit 192-B.  I have no further questions for the witness, Your Honor.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  No cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you marking it?

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  Okay, no further questions?

ATTY. MANALO.  Just a moment, Your Honor, I think there is a matter that we have to mark.  May I just ask a question, Your Honor, with regard to Exhibit 192.  Apparently, there is a matter here…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, please look at the date of entry of the title in the Register of Deeds.  The date of entry is, the year is in 1993.  However, the inscription is in 2003. Can you please explain the apparent contradiction in the year.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812 registered in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Christina R. Corona was issued or entered at the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City on December 11, 2003, Your Honor, at 2:15 in the afternoon, Your Honors.

ATTY. MANALO.  The first page of the document, if you will see the form, the form does not say 2000, it says 90—1993.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor, this is an old form and we did not correct as far as the form in concerned.  We simply indicated the year when the title was issued.  So, on the original form, on the form itself, on the judicial form, it is in the year 1900 instead of 2003, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you for the clarification.  May we just have that particular portion read by the witness sub-marked as our Exhibit 192-C.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  With the clarification, Your Honor, we have no further questions for this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any …

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  No cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … cross examination?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  No cross examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Who wants to—The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just a clarificatory question with respect to our Acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  You mentioned earlier that there is this property in Quezon City sold to Carla Castillo.  Is that not right?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  And this was sold October 18, 2010?  Is this the La Vista property?  I’m sort of confused.  Would you—or is this a different property?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the La Vista property is a property with area of 1.200 square meters, Your Honor.  This was previously owned by spouses Christina Corona married to Renato Corona, and this was sold to Ma. Carla Castillo married to Constantino T. Castillo II, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes.  When was this sold?

MR. ALCANTARA.  The date of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, is October 18, 2010, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, this is the La Vista property that is 1,200 square meters?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  It was acquired in 2003 by the Coronas, if I’m not mistaken, and then sold in 2010?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Who did they acquire it from?  Would you have records?  Is that the Bocaling?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, this title—this property was previously covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-96031(270444) previously registered in the name of Victor N. Bocaling, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Okay.  So that is a La Vista property purchased in 2003 from Bocaling, and then sold in 2010 October to Carla Castillo for P18 million?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So there is no other property sold in La Vista to other persons by the Coronas, I mean based on your record?

MR. ALCANTARA.  I believe, Sir, this is the only property in La Vista previously owned by the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  This is a question that is requested of me to be raised to you by Senator Lacson.  Is this the Maranaw property?  Would you know?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, I have no particularity of the property.  Our records simply indicate that this is the La Vista property, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Is this any other property in Pansol apart from the La Vista property on your record?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pansol—Pansol is another street—another street in La Vista or …

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Is Pansol in La Vista or is this another …

SEN. SOTTO.  It is a barangay in the Third District, Mr. President, barangay in the Third District of Quezon City, Barangay Pansol.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, that would have been the—just to clarify, that would have been the P8 million property sold to the spouses Rivera in Barangay Pansol.

MR. ALCANTARA.  This is a property, Your Honor, covered previously by transfer certificate of title no. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona, which was the subject matter of the sale in favour of spouses Rodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor, for the amount of P8 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that is located in Pansol

SEN. PANGILINAN.  That is located in Pansol?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, specifically identified on the technical description, this is a property located in Barangay Matandang Balara, Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ah, Matandang Balara.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  And that was how much?  P8 million ano?

MR. ALCANTARA.  P8 million, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  And apart from this Matandang Balara, is there a property in Pansol?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, if we check the CAR, the certificate authorizing registration of the sale between Cristina R. Corona in favour Ma. Carla C. Castillo involving transfer certificate of title no. N-254901.  The location of property as specified in the certificate authorizing registration is Pansol, Diliman, Quezon City, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Referring to the La Vista property.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your HOnor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, La Vista is the subdivision, perhaps, Pansol is the barangay, perhaps ano?

Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you.

ATTY. MANALO.  I move, Your Honor, that the witness be discharged.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Escudero wishes to—wants to be recognized before we discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

I just want to clarify, the Pansol or La Vista property is the one that was sold for P18 million.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, the La Vista property was sold for P18 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that is what is known as—located in Pansol.

MR. ALCANTARA.  The La Vista property—this was indicated as La Vista property, with an area of 1200 square meter, Your Honor.  And this was the subject matter of the sale for P18 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What about the property which was supposed to be in Pansol?  Are they the same?  No …

MR. ALCANTARA.  They are different, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Escudero, Mr. President.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President, just a clarification.  Mr. Witness, when you were first called here, ito rin ba ‘yong mga bagay-bagay na nag-testify kayo?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Ito rin po, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Lahat iyong mga documents na pina-identify, pati iyong mga transfer certificates of title, iyon din iyong tinestify-an nyo rin po noon?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Lahat.  So, we are talking about the same documents in the same exhibits.

MR. ALCANTARA.  I believe, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Wala kayong bagong pinresentang dokumento sa amin?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Wala po, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, lahat ng pinresenta nyo noon, noong ipinatawag kayo ng prosecution, iyon din ang iprinisinta nyo ngayon.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Walang labis, walang kulang ang defense counsel, would that be correct?

ATTY. MANALO.  There is one title, Your Honor, the title of the property in Riveras.  This was not marked in the previous testimony.  But as to the other documents Your Honor, there were no sub-markings for the registered owners and the dates of entries of these titles in the documents marked by the prosecution.  And to us, Your Honor, this data is material to our defences, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, at the time you came here, you knew it was already registered in the name of another person but that no question was propounded to you as to that fact.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, I remember that the Chief Prosecutor or Chief Defense questioned the presentation of the titles not registered in the name of Spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Pero wala iyong TCT na nasa record naman ninyo na nasa ibang pangalan na.

MR. ALCANTARA.  We submitted likewise, Your Honor, the copy, or we presented also the titles which are not registered in the names of Spouses Renato Corona and Cristina Corona.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  At that time.

MR. ALCANTARA.  At that time, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honor.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes, Mr. President.  I just got a little more confused after the Senate President raised the question of whether Pansol and La Vista is the same property because the witness said, it is not.  Are we talking of three properties here, La Vista, Pansol, and Matandang Balara, is that right or just two properties.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Two properties, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, the La Vista property is not the Pansol property.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Your Honor, as I have mentioned earlier, the La Vista, in the certificate authorizing registration, also classified this property as under Pansol, Barangay Pansol, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, that is one property.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Because when the Senate President asked you,  are these the same, you said they are different.  So, I got confused.  Is La Vista and Pansol, the same property?

MR. ALCANTARA.  Based on the entries on the certificate authorizing registration for this 1,200 square meter lot, Your Honor, they are the same.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, they are the same.  So, the other one is Matandang Balara.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So that, these are just two properties.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Yes, your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  We may discharge the witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.

MR. ALCANTARA.  Thank you, Your Honors.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President,  I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial suspended for 15 long minutes.

It was 4:03 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF THE TRIAL

At 4:36, the trial resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we continue with the presentation of evidence by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor. Before I call on the next counsel to present witnesses, may we just be permitted to mark in evidence several Supreme Court resolutions bearing on access to SALNs of justices and judges, Your Honor. These documents have been pre-marked in the presence of the counsel for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alright. Proceed.

ATTY. BODEGON. And as our Exh. 182, Your Honor, this resolution of the Supreme Court en banc dated May 2, 1989 on the request of Jose M. Alejandrino.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   You are going to mark it as what?

ATTY. BODEGON. As Exh. 182, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Mark it accordingly.

Prosecution, do you have any objection?

ATTY. AGABAS. None, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

ATTY. BODEGON. For the next Supreme Court Resolution, Your Honor, be marked as Exh. 183, and this refers to the resolution dated September 22, 1992 in A.M. No. 92-9-851-rtc.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And as our exhibit, Your Honor, is the resolution of the Supreme Court en banc dated November 11, 1993 in A.M. 92-9-851-rtc.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Mark it  accordingly.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you, Your Honor. We are now—may I now call on our next counsel, Your Honor, to present our next witnesses. May I request that Atty. Noel Lazaro be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Atty. Noel Lazaro is recognized and he can propound the questions to the defense witnesses. Where is your witness?

ATTY. LAZARO.   Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer, and the Honorable Members of this Impeachment Court. I am Atty. Noel B. Lazaro,  Your Honor, a member of the defense panel of Mr. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. I am tasked to present our next witness, Your Honor, in the person of Atty. Randy Rutaquio, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Randy?

ATTY. LAZARO.   Randy A. Rutaquio.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Rutaquio.

ATTY. LAZARO.  He is the Registrar of Deeds of Taguig City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    R.O.T.A…I.O?

ATTY. LAZARO.  R.U.T.A.Q.U.I.O., Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Okay.  Call the witness in and swear him to testify in this court.

ATTY. LAZARO.   We have for  sent someone already, Your Honor, to fetch the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     We will wait a few minutes.

ATTY. LAZARO.   May we ask a couple of seconds, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     No need, we will wait for him.

ATTY. LAZARO.   Thank you, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  Mr. Witness, please stand, please raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please, may we ask if the private prosecutor is already present.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, I am Jose Benjamin Panganiban, respectfully appearing as private prosecutor under the direction and control of the honourable public prosecutors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, pañero.  With the kind indulgence of the honourable court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, the testimony of the witness is being offered to prove the following:

Number one, that condominium certificate of title no.  164-2010000062 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona on January 25, 2010 by the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City, Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000063 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City, Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000064 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City, and Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000065 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City, all of these titles, Your Honor, were issued on January 25, 2010, and these titles are collectively known as the Beladio property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They all pertained to the Beladio condominium unit.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, please, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. LAZARO.  And that having been issued on such date, the same has been timely and accurately declared in the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When you say accurately, what do you mean by that?

ATTY. LAZARO.  These were declared in the SALN of the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  According to the form.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, please, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The SALN reflects the assessed value, the fair market value and the acquisition cost.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Only the assessed value and fair market value as determined, Your Honor, by the filer of the SALN, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The acquisition cost is not reflected?

ATTY. LAZARO.  It is not reflected, Your Honor, however, the deed of absolute sale which is a duly notarized document was publicly disclosed, Your Honor, and filed before a government agency, more particularly, the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City, and the same deed of absolute sale, Your Honor, was also considered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a government agency which assessed, Your Honor, the corresponding taxes on this particular transaction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The SALN did not call for the reflection of acquisition cost of the real property involved?

ATTY. LAZARO.  I understand, Your Honor, a column on acquisition cost, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But it was not, that is blank.

ATTY. LAZARO.  It was, however, left blank, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I say something, Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  … for just a minute.  I understand, Your Honor, that this witness was also our witness and I’d like to inquire from the distinguished counsel, will this witness testify on matters which were not covered by his testimony when we presented him as our own witness.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, pañero.  Your Honor please, if I’m allowed to finish the purposes of the offer, Your Honor, it will become apparent that there will be new matters that witness will testify on, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the counsel for the defense proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  May I proceed, Your Honor.  The testimony of the witness is also being offered to prove that along with the issuance of the titles I have just mentioned, there were underlying or relevant documents in his office or particularly the deed of absolute sale and the certificate authorizing registration pertaining to this Bellagio property.  As a second purpose, Your Honor, the testimony of the witness is being offered also to prove that a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2093-P registered under the name of Ma. Charina R. Corona was issued by the Registry of Deeds for Taguig City on October 23, 2008 and that along with this transfer certificate of title there are relevant documentations to support this more particularly the deed of absolute sale entered into by and between Megaworld Corporation and Ma. Charina R. Corona dated October 21, 2008 as well as a special power of attorney signed by Ma. Charina R. Corona in favour of her parents, Renato C. Corona and/or Ma. Cristina R. Corona, to be her true and lawful attys.-in-fact among others to purchase and register a parcel of land particularly described as Lot No. 1 Block No. 16, Phase No. 2 in McKinley Hill Subdivision.  This special power of attorney, Your Honor, was executed and duly authenticated before the Consulate General of the Philippines located in San Francisco, California represented by Consul Arvic V. Arevalo on September 15, 2008.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the relevance to this impeachment trial of that property in the name of Charina Corona?

ATTY. LAZARO.  These documents, Your Honor, are being offered to prove the fact that this property was not included in any of the SALN of the Chief Justice because it is in fact owned by another person under the name of Ma. Charina R. Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Lastly, Your Honor, the testimony of the witness is being  offered to prove such other relevant matters as may be applicable to the defense of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  May I proceed please, Your Honor.  Good afternoon, Atty. Rutaquio.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Good afternoon, sir.

ATTY. LAZARO.  This is not the first time that you testified before the honourable impeachment court, correct?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes sir.

ATTY. LAZARO.  You have testified before when you were called upon by the House panel prosecution.  Is that correct?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, with that manifestation, may we ask for confirmation or stipulation from the good counsel whether he is willing to stipulate as to the position, qualification, competency and functions of the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you adopting the testimony of this witness based on the direct examination of the prosecution?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please, no, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No.

ATTY. LAZARO.  There will be …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There will be variance?

ATTY. LAZARO.  There will be variance, Your Honor, but I don’t think there will be variance as to the position, Your Honor, being held by the witness, along with his functions and responsibilities.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We will gladly stipulate on that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Prosecution, what is your pleasure?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We stipulate, Your Honor, on the qualifications of the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you mutually agree regarding the competence of this witness?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Noted.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LAZARO.  Mr. Witness, part of the functions of your office is the issuance of relevant titles to  buyers of certain properties.  Would you confirm that?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  And before your office issues a definite title on a particular application, are there any other documents that your office requires from applicants?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Sir.  Actually there are certain documentary requirements such as the submission of the original title, the owner’s duplicate title, the original deed of conveyance or sale, and the tax declaration, the tax clearance from the local government and then the certificate authorizing registration from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Do you require any other evidence of mode of acquisition between parties or among parties?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Sir.  If it is a corporation, if one of the parties or both parties are corporations, then we require the submission of the Secretary’s Certificate or Board Resolution.   If there is also—If one of the parties is represented by an attorney-in-fact, then would require a special power of attorney.

ATTY. LAZARO.  You have testified before when you were called by the prosecution and identified certain documents.  I am showing you this document previously marked as Exhibit DD, which is a Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000065 issued to spouses Christina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deed for Taguig City under the name Randy A. Rutaquio, Registrar of Deeds.  Please, kindly go over this document and just tell us or confirm whether that is the same document that you testified earlier.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  This is a common evidence on the part of the prosecution and the defense, so we admit the existence and genuineness, authenticity of this document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LAZARO.  I understand that, Your Honor, but we will just ask the witness to reconfirm it because there will be sub-markings that we are going to ask, Your Honor.  May I proceed, ;please, Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  May I have the answer please.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Sir.  This is the same document.

ATTY. LAZARO.  And that document was issued when, Mr. Witness?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  It was issued on January 25, 2010.

ATTY. LAZARO.  May we ask, Your Honor, that this document previously marked as Exhibit AA we will just do the request, Your Honor, permission to approach the witness, please, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Mr. Witness, I am showing you another document, marked as Exhibit AA which is condominium certificate of title no. 1642010000064, issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the registry of deeds for Taguig City, and represented by Randy A. Rutaquio, registrar of deeds.  Please go over this document and reconfirm whether this is the same document that you earlier identified when you testified before the honorable impeachment court.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Sir, this is the same document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The same document that was presented to you by the prosecution and the subject matter of your testimony.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  … when I was presented as a witness for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  This is the same document.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, this same document which is marked as Exhibit AA was previously marked as Exhibit 17 for the defense, Your Honor, and the document identified by the witness as Exhibit BB was also previously marked as Exhibit 18 for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Mr. Witness, that document marked as Exhibit AA, when was that issued?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  It was issued on January 25, 2010.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, may we ask that the date read by the witness as January 25, 2010, on the document marked as Exhibit AA be marked as Exhibit 17-A for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LAZARO.  And also, the date read by the witness as January 25, 2010 on the document previously marked as Exhibit BB be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 18-A for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Now, Mr. Witness, I have here another document, previously marked as Exhibit Y for the prosecution.  It is a condominium certificate of title no. 1642010000062, issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the registry of deeds for Taguig City, represented by a certain Randy A. Rutaquio.  Please kindly go over this document and reconfirm whether that is the same document that you testified on earlier.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, this is a common exhibit, why can you not just agree …

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That is exactly our point, Your Honor.  All these documents …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will that not be the same document?

ATTY. LAZARO.  We will just go directly with the sub-marking, Your Honor, this is just to give the witness an opportunity, Your Honor, to examine the same document.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Sir, this is the same document.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The sub-markings need not be made in open court, Your Honor, because these have been previously marked.  For the prosecution, they have marked these exhibits for the defense and I do not see why we should burden the honorable court the time, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway …

ATTY. LAZARO.  With due respect, Your Honor, to may compañero, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I do not know the purpose of the submarking …

ATTY. LAZARO.  It has been a practice to allow the submarkings, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … but the entire document contains date, information and the best evidence of those information is that document and nothing else.

ATTY. LAZARO.  The submarking, Your Honor, is to highlight the date of the issuance of these titles, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, continue.  Do it.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, please, Your Honor.  Now, with the manifestation of counsel, may I just ask, Your Honor, that the document marked as Exhibit Z, previously marked as Exhibit 16 for the defense be submarked on the portion bearing the date January 25, 2010, we request that the same date be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 16-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LAZARO.  And also the document marked previously as Exhibit Y for the prosecution and Exhibit 19 for the defense be sub-marked on the portion bearing the date January 25, 2010, and this date we request to be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 19-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  What is that, is that the parking lot?

ATTY. LAZARO.  This is, Your Honor, the condominium unit as well as the parking lots, Your Honor, collectively known as the Belagio property.  There are four titles issued to this property, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Which is the main title of the Belagio property?

ATTY. LAZARO.  The main title, Your Honor, is condominium certificate of title No. 164-2010000062, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the other condominium titles all refer to parking lots.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, please, Your Honor.  The three other titles refer to the parking areas, Your Honor, more particularly No. 50, 51 and 52, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  Were those parking lots given separate values under the contract of acquisition?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Under the lone deed of absolute sale, Your Honor, these properties are lumped together under one consideration, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.  So, there is no separate consideration for the three parking lots.  None.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Under this deed of absolute sale, Your Honor, that is correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the consideration stated in the deed of sale?

ATTY. LAZARO.  After specifying, Your Honor, the properties including the condominium unit as well as the parking areas, the paragraph specifically pertaining to the consideration states that the same is P14,510,225.00, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is the totality of the consideration for the four titles.

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Mr. Witness, you mentioned a while ago that there are accompanying  documents that you require before you issue a title.  For this particular Belagio property, can you tell the honorable court whether there are documents that you actually required or examined?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Can I have the deed of sale, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  What is your answer please?  You want to verify first?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, permission again to approach the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You don’t have to ask the permission of the court.  Just go near the witness.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor, please.  Showing, Your Honor, to the witness  a document entitled Deed of Absolute Sale, previously marked as Exhibit CC notarized on December 16, 2009 executed by and between Megaworld Corporation and Spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, sir.  We required the usual requirements that the buyer and seller filed with our office like the certificate authorizing registration and the tax clearance.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Mr. Witness. Your Honor please, the defense requests that this document Exh. CC marked earlier be also marked as our common evidence for the defense and that the same be marked as Exh. 193 for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Mr. Witness, aside from the Deed of Sale, would you confirm with the Honorable Court whether you have also required a certificate authorizing registration?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO. If you’re shown that certificate authorizing registration relative to this particular Velagio property, would you be able to identify it?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Definitely, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  I am showing you a document pre-marked as Exh. 171, which is a certificate authorizing registration 2009 No. 00185250 issued at Taguig City on December 17, 2009.  Please go over this document, Mr. Witness, and tell us whether that document is among those documents that you required or examined before issuing the relevant titles for the Velagio property?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor. This is the same certificate authorizing registration that they presented.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.  Now, earlier, you also identified and testified on a document entitled: Transfer Certificate of Title No. -2093-P and previously marked as Exh. GG for the prosecution, please go over this document issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Taguig City and please tell this Honorable Court whether this is the same document you remembered having testified on?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Is that a title of a parking lot?

ATTY. LAZARO. This is a transfer certificate of title, Your Honor, of the so-called McKinley Property, Your Honor, registered under the name of Ma. Charina  R. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is a separate property?

ATTY. LAZARO.  This is a separate property now, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor, this is the same document.

ATTY. LAZARO.  The same document, Your Honor, has been previously marked as Exh. 158-A for the defense, Your Honor. We also request that the same be submarked particularly on the portion showing the name Ma. Charina R. Corona, of legal age, Filipino, as Exh. 158-B for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LAZARO.  I am showing to you again another document, Mr. Witness, which was previously marked as Exh. 30 for the defense and this is actually a deed of absolute sale entered into by and between Mega World Corporation and Ma. Charina R. Corona on October 21, 2008 involving 1/Bl. 16 of TCT No. 989 with Lot Area 203 square meters and notarized on October 21, 2008. Please go over this document and tell us whether that is the same document that you required of the applicant?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that another property?

ATTY. LAZARO.  This is the same property, Your Honor, relative to the McKinley property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. LAZARO.  However, a Deed of Absolute Sale supporting the issuance of the transfer certificate of title, Your Honor, in favour of Ma. Charina Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What was the consideration for that?

ATTY. LAZARO.  This is in the amount, Your Honor, of P6,196,575.00, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Mr. Witness, please kindly go over the same document and please tell this honourable court who is the buyer in that Deed of Absolute Sale.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  The buyer is Ma. Charina R. Corona.

ATTY. LAZARO.  May I request, Your Honor, that the portion read by the witness as Ma. Charina R. Corona as the buyer of this subject deed of absolute sale be bracketed and marked as  Exhibit 30-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the utility of remarking this terms or names. It is already mentioned in the document marked as your exhibit.

ATTY. LAZARO.  This is for emphasis to highlight the fact, Your Honor, that the property was actually acquired under this particular name, Your Honor.  There was suggestion…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Deed of Absolute Sale speaks for itself.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, Your Honor, but in our reference, when we make a formal offer of evidence, Your Honor, it is convenient to advert to a particular marking, Your Honor, so things will not mix up, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor, please.

Now, on page two of the same document, there appears to be several parties involved in this transaction, kindly go over that page and tell this honourable court who  the buyer was in this particular transaction.  The buyer please.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  The buyer is Ma. Charina R. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the seller?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Seller, Your Honor, is Megaworld Corporation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  They are the parties to the document?

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor, if I may answer for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please, we also request that the same name read by the witness, Ma. Charina R. Corona, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 30-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Mr. Wtiness, I am showing you another document previously marked as Exhibit 39, which is actually a special power of attorney dated September 15, 2008, executed by one Ma. Charina R. Corona.  Please go over this document and tell us if that happens to be one of those documents you required of the applicant.

MR. RUTAQUIO. Yes, Your Honor, this is the special power of attorney which was filed in our office.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, please, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who signed the Deed of Sale for the buyer?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Under this particular document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, in the Deed of Sale?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Yes, Your Honor, this Deed of Absolute Sale by and between  Megaworld and Ma. Charina R. Corona, the signatories are, for Megaworld Corporation, Your Honor, was Giovanni C. Ng, a finance director for the company, Your Honor, and on behalf of the buyer, Your Honor, the signatory is Renato C. Corona, who is designated in the very same document as Attorney-in-fact, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that, actually, the name parties to the agreement were Megaworld and this…

ATTY. LAZARO.  And Ma. Charina R. Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  …and Ma. Charina…

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  …represented by Renato C. Corona by virtue of this special power of attorney.

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that special power of attorney is executed abroad?

ATTY. LAZARON.  That is also correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Authenticated?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Executed and authenticated before Consul Arvic V. Arevalo of the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco, California, United States, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who authenticated the notary public?

ATTY. LAZARO.  It says here, Your Honor, before me Arvic V. Arevalo, Consul of the Republic of the Philippines for Northern California, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Northern Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington duly commissioned and qualified, personally appeared on September 15, 2008, Ma. Charina R. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So it was the consul who actually notarized the special power of attorney?

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.  That is one of the modes of authenticating this particular document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no, no.  This document was executed outside of the country…

ATTY. LAZARO.  That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … governed by the laws of that country.

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And who was the notarial officer who notarized that document?

ATTY. LAZARO.  There is no particular notary public, Your Honor, but I understand that one of the modes of authentication, Your Honor, is that the consul himself can conduct, Your Honor, the oath and authenticate the document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, he authenticates a signature but can he notarize?

ATTY. LAZARO.  He attests to the genuineness, Your Honor, of the signature…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Of Charina.

ATTY. LAZARO.  … of Charina, Your Honor.  He is also commissioned and qualified to do, Your Honor, this authentication, Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, that is for authenticating the signature.  But to make that a valid document, is it required to be notarized by an authorized notarial officer in the state where it was executed?

ATTY LAZARO.  It does not appear here, Your Honor, that there was such independent act of notarization, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, the prosecution will have to study the law governing notarial requirements of special powers of attorneys like that in the state where it was executed.  Because my understanding of the system of authentication is if there is a notary public, the notary public’s signature must be authenticated by a designated officer of the state where the document is executed and then the consul general will authenticate or the State Department if it is to be presented in other country will authenticate all the signatures appearing in that document.

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is correct, Your Honor, we understand that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, that’s a problem that you will explain later one.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We will do so, Your Honor.  May I proceed please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Now, you identified this special power of attorney executed by Ma. Charina R. Corona and this has actually a cover acknowledgment.  By the way, Your Honor, the document referring to the signature of the consul is entitled Acknowledgment and this appears to be the same form as the one when a separate notary public makes a separate administration of an oath, Your Honor, because it also says here, known and known to me to be the same person who executed the attached instrument informing her of its contents and that she acknowledged that the same is of her own free will and act.  Now, please go over this document, Mr. Witness, and please tell the honourable impeachment court  whether this is also one of the documents that you required of the applicant.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor, this is the document which was filed in our office in connection with this particular deed of sale.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We ask, Your Honor, that this document just identified by the witness as one of those documents that his office required of the applicant be marked as Exhibit 194 for the defense, Your Honor.

Now, Mr. Witness, I’m also showing you a document entitled Certificate Authorizing Registration 200800093558 previously marked as Exhibit 172 for the defense dated October 22, 2008.  Please, kindly go over this document and tell this honourable court whether this is one of those documents that you examined after requiring the applicant of the same.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor.  This is one of the documents submitted to us as a requirement for the Deed of Sale.

ATTY. LAZARO.  In this certification issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, there appears to be a transfer from Megaworld to a particular person.  Can you please tell us the transferee of that particular property covered by that Certificate Authorizing Registration.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  The transferee is Ma. Czarina R. Corona.

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, we request that this name just read by the witness be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 172-A for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LAZARO.  For consistency of marking, Your Honor, instead of 172-A, may we just ask that this same portion be marked as 172-E, Your Honor, because there were previous markings already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LAZARO.  Thank you, Your Honor, please.

Now, on page 3 of this four-page document pre-marked as 172-C, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s the Deed of Sale?

ATTY. LAZARO.  Your Honor, please, this is the Certificate Authorizing Registration involving the same property bought by Ma. Czarina Corona.

Thank you, Your Honor, please.

Mr. Witness, showing you this Exhibit 172-C which contains a list of transferor and transferee of the same property covered the Certificate Authorizing Registration, can you please indicate or point to us who the transferee is?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Your Honor, the transferee is Ma. Czarina R. Corona.

ATTY. LAZARO.  We request, Your Honor, that this particular portion read by the witness be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 172-F for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LAZARO.  Mr. Witness, in your examination of the record covering these Bellagio property and McKinely property, did you come to know whether there are other documents, either cancelling or amending these particular properties?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Whose property?

ATTY. LAZARO.  The McKinley property, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the name of Czarina?

ATTY. LAZARO.  In the name of Czarina.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  They are existing titles, Your Honor.

ATTY. LAZARO.  So, witness, I have no further questions.  Thank you for your time.

Your Honor, that would be all for the defense, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any cross?

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, may we ask for a suspension of proceedings for one minute only, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, trial is suspended for one minute.

It was 5:25 p.m.

At 5:00 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, may I make a short manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The prosecution panel decided not to cross-examine this witness, Your Honor, to abbreviate the proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  The Chair would like to know, whether the considerations stated in these deeds of sale were paid in cash, paid by way of manager’s check or did the document describe the manner of payment, Witness?

MR. RUTAQUIO.  No, sir, it cannot be evident.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They just stated there the amount.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, sir.  Only the amount is stated in the deeds of sale.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … of the consideration without describing the manner of payment.

MR. RUTAQUIO.  Yes, Your Honor, without describing whether the payment is in cash or in checks.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, any further question to this witness?  Any further questions?

ATTY. LAZARO.  For the defense, nothing more, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Prosecution, no more.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  No more, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, the witness is discharged.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, the defense has another witness, but it seems that this will be taking up a lot of time of the court.  A lot of the time.

ATTY. LAZARO.  That is right, Your Honor.  May we, therefore move for continuance.

SEN. SOTTO.  We can do it tomorrow.

REP. TUPAS.  We object.  We object, Your Honor.  Can we, just for one-minute suspension, Your Honor.  One minute suspension, may we ask.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Trial suspended for one minute.

It was 5:32 p.m.

At 5:34 p.m., the trial was resumed.

SEN. SOTTO.  We are ready to resume, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

SEN. SOTTO.  After a consultation with the defense and the prosecution, the defense has agreed to present another witness for today.  Not as long as the supposed earlier witness that was …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How long will this witness take?

ATTY. ROI.  Your Honor, it should take only a few minutes.  We will try to present two witnesses who will testify briefly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROI.  Although we were hoping to save them for another day so that the continuity of the story would be maintained, but in order to accommodate the request of the counsel for the prosecution, we will present these witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor. Can we have a minute to call the witness, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes. Go ahead.

ATTY. ROY. Thank you.

SUSPENSION OF THE TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is suspended for a few seconds.

It was 5:35

RESUMPTION OF THE TRIAL

At 5:37 the trial resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Please, bring the witness in.

Where is the witness?

ATTY. BODEGON.   For our next witness, Your Honor, may …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is resumed.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you, Your Honor. For our next witness, may we request that Atty. Jad Roy be recognized,  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Atty. Roy is recognized.

THE SENATE SEC.  Mr. Witness, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE SEC.  So, help you God.

ATTY. ROY.  May I please the Court.  Good afternoon, Your Honors.  We are presenting Mr. Bens Lim to establish the circumstances surrounding  the acceptance of the Columns property indicated in the SALN of the Chief Justice.  The issue we wish to address in his testimony is to justify why the inclusion in the SALN is on a different date whereas, the titling of the property occurred much earlier. We offered the testimony of Mr. Bens Lim to show that there were just and valid reasons warranting the non-inclusion of the Columns property in the SALN of the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.   Mr. Lim, good afternoon.

MR. LIM.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you please state your personal circumstances, meaning to say, what do you do? Are you married and so forth?

MR. LIM.  My name is Bens John Ignacio Lim, I am 25 years old, single. I am currently employed in Ayala Property Management Corporation and I was assigned as a Property Management in the Columns Ayala Ave. Condominium Corporation.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your residence?

MR. LIM. I live in Tondo Manila, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. Lim, you mentioned that you were employed by the, what was the company, Ayala?

MR. LIM.  Ayala Property Management Corporations, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you tell us what is the nature of the company’s business?

MR. LIM.  Ayala Property Management Corporation, sir,  is a property management company, which is under Ayala Land, Inc. It is a subsidy of Ayala Land, Inc.

ATTY. ROY.  May—can you please tell the court in what capacity you are employed or connected with this company?

MR. LIM. I was hired, Sir, as a property manager and I was assigned to the columns Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Now, when you say you were hired as a property manager, what do you mean, what does a property manager do?

MR. LIM.  A property manager, Sir, is the one who manages the common area of the property itself.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Now, you informed us that you were assigned to…

MR. LIM.  The columns Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  The columns Ayala, yes.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Is this columns, this is a condominium?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Sir, it is already under condominium corporation.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  It is a condominium and it is owned by the company you represent?

MR. LIM.  No, Your Honor, it was already under the condominium corporation, the association, itself.

ATTY. ROY.  Wait a minute.  Anyway, you were assigned to this company, to this columns project?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, what is it specifically that you do for the columns condominium?

MR. LIM.  I am the one, Sir, who manages all the common area of the property, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Would I be correct in describing you as the general manager or the building administrator?

MR. LIM.  Building administrator, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  As building administrator, Mr. Lim, what are your duties in relation to the residents of the columns condominium?

MR. LIM.  Basically, Sir, we are the one who handle the common area of the building itself.  Now, we also entertain complaints from the unit owners, yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  I understand.  Now, when you received complaints from the unit owners, what do you normally do with these complaints?

MR. LIM.  It depends on the complaints, Sir.  Basically, if the complaint is based on the common area, for example, for the cleanliness, or any equipment of the building, we handle it.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you tell us, Mr. Lim, if you perform any financial functions in the discharge of your job or work as building administrator.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Objection, Your Honor, question is leading, and witness has already stated that his only duties are to manage the common areas and act on complaints.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He may answer.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Yes, please, Mr. Lim, tell us if there are any financial functions related to your work.

MR. LIM.  Actually, Sir,  the only financial function is the—basically, we are under association already, so, under association, we bill condominium dues.

ATTY. ROY.  I am sorry.

MR. LIM.  We bill condominium dues.

ATTY. ROY.  You bill condominium dues?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  What does that mean, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  The association dues itself, Sir, of the building itself, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  What do you do with these association dues?

MR. LIM.  That funds, Sir, are the ones we used for the managing of the whole common area of the building.

ATTY. ROY.  So, do I understand it that the association dues is a fund which you used for the upkeep, is that correct?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Now, where are these association dues kept?

MR. LIM.  Basically, Sir, the association has its own bank. We bill it, then, we collect it.

ATTY. ROY.  When you say we bill it, what do you mean we bill it, we bill what, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  We billed the association dues, Sir, then, if the unit owners paid already, then, we put it in the bank of the association.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You billed the individual condominium owners.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor,

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then, you put that in the bank account.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the use of the management of the common areas.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Like disposal of garbage, janitorial services, electrical repairs for other facilities of the building.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, Mr. Lim, thank you, Your Honor.  Who is responsible, I am sorry, who is responsible for billing the home owners or the residents?

MR. LIM.  The property manager, itself, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Are you referring to yourself?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Now, if a resident refuses to pay, what do you do?

MR. LIM.  Normally, Sir, on the condominium laws, we send billing, then, if we didn’t receive any payment yet, we send demand letters.

ATTY. ROY.  A demand letter. Who is the signatory of your demand letter when you send them, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  Basically, the property manager, itself, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  Are there any other demand letters sent aside from those signed by the property manager?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, just a minute.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the relevance of all of this line of questioning?  You presented this witness…

ATTY. ROY.  I’m coming to that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … to explain why the condominium was bought on a prior year only to be reflected in the SALN in a subsequent year.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  The point that will be shown is that there were some issues that precluded.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, go to the point.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.  I would like to show you a document.  Do you recognize this document?  May we please make of record that I’m sending a document to the witness and I invite counsel for the prosecution to inspect the same.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  There is no basis for the document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, let him…

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, he just said that they prepared demand letters.  Do you recognize the document, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you tell us what this document is, if you know?

MR. LIM.  This is the final demand letter, sir, sent by our corporate secretary of the association to Mrs….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Demand to whom?

MR. LIM.  To Mrs. Corona, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who is Mrs. Corona?  What’s her name?

MR. LIM.  To Mrs. Cristina Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was he occupying the property?

MR. LIM.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who was occupying the property?

MR. LIM.  None, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Nobody?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, may I request that the document identified by the witness be adopted as defense’s Exhibit No. 195.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are marking that document as exhibit?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, as Exhibit No. 195.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Can you tell us please, Mr. Witness, who executed this document, who signed it?

MR. LIM.  Our corporate secretary of the association, sir.

ATTY. ROY.  May we know the name of the corporate secretary?

MR. LIM.  Atty. Joselito Johngi Blando.

ATTY. ROY.  Did he prepare this document on his own initiative?

MR. LIM.  No, Your Honor.  This was approved by the board.  Basically, when we have a board meeting, the board approved that we send final demand letters using our corporate secretary to the delinquent owners for them to pay the association dues.

ATTY. ROY.  Going back to the document, Mr. Witness, do you confirm that what I see on this document which says, “Under these circumstances, final demand is hereby made upon you to pay your outstanding obligation to our client in the amount stated above within ten days from your receipt of this letter.”  Do you confirm those words of the document?

MR. LIM.  No, Your Honor.  Basically, this was issued by our corporate secretary.

ATTY. ROY.  Do these words appear on the document, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. Lim, can you tell us what is the amount that is being demanded by the condominium corporation in relation to this letter?

MR. LIM.  P112,213.79.

ATTY. ROY.  P112,…

MR. LIM.  P112,213,79.

ATTY. ROY.  Was this amount paid, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  Only the principal amount, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  I’m showing you photocopies of receipts apparently issued by the Columns, Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation and I invite the counsel for the prosecution to inspect the same.  Your Honor, we are showing the witness one sheet of paper which contains the photocopies of two official receipts.  The upper half, can you please explain to us what is this upper half of the document, of the paper.

MR. LIM.  The upper half, Your Honor, is the Original Receipt No. 24141…

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

MR. LIM.  … paid by Mrs. Cristina Corona, Unit 31-B, Tower One.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How much?

MR. LIM.  Amounting to P78,162.36.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  May we request that the upper half of the document be marked as defense Exhibit 195-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you.  Now, Mr. Witness, can you please explain to us what appears on the lower half of the document?

MR. LIM.  This is another payment, Sir, Official Receipt No. 24142, paid by Mrs. Christina Corona, Unit 31-B, Tower One amounting to P30,132.00.

ATTY. ROY.  May we request that the bottom half of the document be marked as Exhibit 195-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)  Are those two receipts bearing the same dates?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They bear the same dates?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, just a manifestation.  The documents presented were not originals.  They appear to be photocopies of an original document that was not presented.

ATTY. ROY.  We concur, Your Honor.  We would produce the originals as soon as we’re able for the inspection of counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, Mr. Lim, you said that in the first receipt, the amount paid was P78,162.26.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. ROY.  And then you said that in the second receipt, the amount paid was P30,132.00?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you tell us, Mr. Lim, what was the total payment made by Christina Corona based on these two receipts?

MR. LIM.  Approximately, Sir, at P108,000.00.

ATTY. ROY.  One-zero …

MR. LIM.  O-eight

ATTY. ROY.  One-zero-eight thousand?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, am I correct, Mr. Lim, that you mentioned earlier that your demand letter was for the amount of P112,000.00.  Was that correct also?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  I think the amount mentioned was …

MR. LIM.  P112,213.79.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.  But these two receipts amount to only P108,000.00.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Am I correct, therefore, that there is a deficit of P4,000.00 more or less?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  So, does Mrs. Corona owe the condominium corporation P4,000.00 more or less after these payments?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor, upon not approval of the waiving of interest and penalties.

ATTY. ROY.  What do you mean waiving of the interest and penalties?

MR. LIM.  Basically, Your Honor, in the condominium laws, we put interest and penalties for delinquent members who are not paying their delinquent dues.  They are not paying their delinquent dues, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  And where there interests and penalties charged to Mrs. Corona?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor, for the P112, 000.00.

ATTY. ROY.  For the P112,000.00 you mentioned earlier?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is inclusive of interest and penalties.

ATTY. ROY.  Your testimony is that it included penalties and interests?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  But you also testified that based on these receipts, she paid less than P112,000.00.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Can you tell us please, Mr. Lim, what happened to the penalties and interests being claimed from Mrs. Corona?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Already answered, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor.  He answered the basis of the penalties.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let him answer so that we can finish.

MR. LIM.  Mr. Corona approached me and asked me if I can waive the interest and penalties.  Most likely, Your Honor, the procedure is that the unit owner must write a letter to the Board of Directors to request to waive the interest and penalties.

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. Lim, may I ask you to stop there.  You said she must write a letter?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Did she write a letter?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  I am showing you a letter.  Do you recognize …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What has this line of questioning got to do with the reflection of this condominium …

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the letter will contain precisely the reason for the delay in accepting the delivery.

The witness is about to testify why there was an underpayment, and the reasons for that are contained in the letter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In other words, the condominium unit was not yet delivered to the Coronas?

ATTY. ROY.  That is the question in this case, Your Honor, because the title was transferred early on but there were—I think in 2004 or 2005—but there were outstanding issues which the owner or the registered owner, in this case, Mrs. Corona, could not settle with the condominium corporation.  That is contained in the letter, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But if the title was already transferred to the Coronas, then, formally, they are the owners.

ATTY. ROY.  There was no acceptance, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But they have been billing them with dues already and they paid.

ATTY. ROY.  If you will allow me to continue, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, I will just make a manifestation before we proceed, the letter that was presented by the witness appears to be a photocopy again, in violation of the best evidence rule and it appears to be a self-serving letter, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They already promised to produce the original.  If they cannot produce it, then you make a proper motion at the proper time.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We submit, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  At any rate, Your Honor, the witness will identify this as a photocopy.  Do you recognize this photocopy, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  It is a photocopy of what, if you don’t mind?

MR. LIM.  This is the letter of Mrs. Crisitina Corona to the board of directors of The Columns, Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  What is the purpose of this letter, Mr. Lim.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Objection, Your Honor, the best evidence would be the letter.

ATTY. ROY.  All right.  Very well.  Do you confirm therefore that the letter contains this paragraph?  This is also to request for the waiver of penalties and interests incurred from commencement of payments, which Mr. Benz Lim allowed, pending confirmation by the board members in applying for this waiver, I would like the board of directors to be informed of the ordeals that I have gone through with this unit.  When I first inspected my unit, I couldn’t because The Columns administration had turned it ito a bodega storage place filled with debris from other units, dirty brooms, mops were on my kitchen counters.  The tools and brooms and mops were on my kitchen counters.  The toilets were stinking.  The kitchen sink was a mess.  It is also disinfected now because I spent time, money, to clean up their mess and to disinfect the kitchen counters.  Further, this unit has had a history of various defects, undersized electrical wires, leaking roof, damaged floors, unfinished windows, jams, etcetera, etcetera.

Do you confirm that that appears in the photocopy I am showing you.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, the same objection, whether or not it appears in the document would be borne by the document …

ATTY. ROY.  This is merely confirmatory, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sustained.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, what did you do when you received this letter, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  I forward this to the board of directors, dated May of 2011 on our board meeting.  Basically, the board approved the request to waive the interest and penalties.

ATTY. ROY.  What do you mean the board approved the request?  What did that mean?  How much was waived?

MR. LIM.  Basically, Sir, it is amounting to P18,000, approximately.

ATTY. ROY.  Let us go back.  You testified that the demand was for P112,000 and some change.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Now, you are telling me that they waived P18,000, and some change.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  That means that the only obligation to you must have been about P98,000—no, I am sorry, P94,000.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Am I correct?

MR. LIM.  I would like to explain for that, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROY.  Could you please, Mr. Lim.

MR. LIM.  The payment that was paid by Mrs. Cristina Corona dated April 6, 2011, which I explained it, this is from the third quarter of 2009, going to the first quarter of 2011—second part of 2011.  Basically, the P112,000 that our corporate secretary of the association, given the demand letter is that that is only from third quarter of 2009 to first quarter of 2011, Your Honor.  So, basically, Mrs. Cristina Corona paid also the next billing which is second quarter 2011 amounting to P15,000.00 which is not included for the interest and penalties because this is a due billing.  This is only the updated billing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  The dispute is about the condition of the unit, is this correct?

ATTY. ROI.  That is right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I am asking the witness.

MR. LIM.  Can you repeat the question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The dispute between the developer and Mrs. Corona was about the condition of the unit that she bought from the developer.

MR. LIM.  I don’t have an idea for that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because the letter says about this dirty condition of the unit.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  But basically, the letter is forwarded to the board of directors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will put this question to you.  The unit was bought by Mrs. Corona.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Fully paid.

MR. LIM.  For that, I don’t have the idea, Your Honor.  This is for the developer’s concern.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But it was already owned by her so much so that association dues were being billed on her.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And so, the only question is her acceptance of the unit.l

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  And yet, this was not included in the SALN of the Chief Justice.

ATTY. ROI.  Yes, Your Honor.  He would not know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You did not consider that a value to be included in the statement of assets, liabilities and networth?

ATTY ROI.  Your Honor, if you will recall, during the prosecution’s evidence in chief, the testimony was that there was no formal acceptance of the delivery.  And that the documents of the developer would show …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.  But there was already a value transferred to the seller.

ATTY. ROI.  But that value was under dispute because of the defects, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely.  But did not Mrs. Corona pay money for the unit?

ATTY. ROI.  Yes, and she was asking for it back, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why did you not report it in your SALN as a collectible?

ATTY. ROI.  Your Honor, because they wanted the money returned.  The unit was defective.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely.  In other words, you considered that there was no transaction so that the developer owes you money.

ATTY. ROI.  That is precisely correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is an asset.

ATTY. ROI.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, proceed.

ATTY. ROI.  Thank you, Your Honor.  So, Mr. Lim, do you know if there were any dues collected from or demanded from Mrs. Corona before 2009?

MR. LIM.  I don’t have an idea, sir, because I just started to be a property manager of T Columns Ayala Avenue since 2010.

ATTY. ROI.  I see.  And yet, you have access to the records of the corporation.

MR. LIM.,  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROI.  By the way, Mr. Lim, did you present Mrs. Corona with a statement of account for the P112,000.00 that was the subject of your demand letter earlier?

MR. LIM.  I remember, sir, this was attached to the final demand letter sent by our corporate secretary.

ATTY. ROI.  Yes.  In fact, it is my mistake.  I am showing you now, just to complete the documentation, Your Honor, the statement of account that was the basis for the demand letter.

MR. LIM.  That is not the one, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Same manifestation, Your Honor, the document presented is a photocopy.

ATTY. ROI.  Is this a photocopy of the statement of account?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ROI.  May we request that the statement of account be marked as 196-A because this is attached to the letter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Until now, this Court, cannot understand your line of questioning.  The question is, did—there is a value involved here?

ATTY. ROY. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Was that included in the SALN of the Chief Justice?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor, it was.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    It was included.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    In what way?

ATTY. ROY.  It was included later, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    No. No. At that time…

ATTY. ROY.  It was declared at that time there was no mention of the Columns.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   At the time of the acquisition?

ATTY. ROY. Well, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    At the time of the payment?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the payment was made in instalments and then, the title was transferred but the transfer of the title, if I recall, 2004 or 2005. Anyway, if I recall correct, Your Honor, the property was not formally accepted until this time when …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Was that this instalment payment completed?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    But it was not accepted?

ATTY. ROY.  To the best of my knowledge, yes, that is the way it happened, Your Honor, not accepted by the buyer, Your Honor,

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    When was the completion of the instalment?

ATTY. ROY.  At around that time when the title was transferred, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    But that is already a value that ought to be reflected in the SALN?

ATTY. ROY.  But that is also a defective sale, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    It doesn’t matter. There is a value, then, if the owner wanted to rescind the contract, he could have entered it as a receivable.

ATTY. ROY.  That is what happened in the interregnum, Your Honor. There was a dispute …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Anyway, proceed.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Senator Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  May I just have—be clarified on couple of points. First, some questions on the prosecution’s counsel. The sale for the Columns took place on what year, sir?  What year?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  2004, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  October 2004.  And the declaration of the purchase and the acceptance of the Columns as an asset occurred on what year?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  It was declared in 2010.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So, there was ten years …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ. Six years, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA. Six years, I am sorry,  six years that lapse between the time that he closed the sale and the time he declared it in his SALN?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA. How was the sale effectuated?  Was this a cash sale?  Was it a deferred payment sale?  Was it financed by a bank?  Did developer finance?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, I am not so sure about the terms, all I have before me is the contract to sell which is dated January 2004 and a deed of absolute sale dated October 2004, so, it’s …

SEN. OSMEÑA. Transactions spanning less than a year and the price was P3.168?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  P3.588, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  P3.588.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Alright. Maybe, I’ll ask the defense counsel, how was the Column was paid for?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the only thing I have in my possession is the deed of absolute sale, but I suspect it was also in …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  No, do not suspect.  You are supposed to know and I presumed you are telling us the truth.

ATTY. ROY. Well, Your Honor.

oHo

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Did he pay cash? I am asking you, did he pay the cash?

ATTY. ROY.  I am not informed, Your Honor. That would have been between the buyer and developer. I don’t have the deed of sale and confirm that the price …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  And so, you are blissfully ignorant.  Will you tell us tomorrow …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  … whether he paid cash? Alright.   Mr. Lim, do you know if the cash was paid? Were you already with the Ayala Corp.?

MR. LIM. I don’t have an idea.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Anyway, some value was exchanged before …

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, if I may …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  I’ve just been informed that this was acquired on a deferred payment basis.

SEN. OSMEÑA. Yes. So, how much down was paid?  We would like to know the payment that have made.

ATTY. ROY.  We have to wait until tomorrow, Your Honor, but I will provide you with those details.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Yes.  Senator Ping Lacson might have some information.

SEN. LACSON.  For the information of Sen. Osmeña, I have here the records. The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on October 1, 2004.  The condominium certificate of title was issued in the name of Cristina Corona married to Renato Corona on November 3, 2004.  So, as of November 3, 2004, the Coronas already owned the condominium unit.  Is that correct?

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, the Coronas were already the registered owners of the condominium unit.

SEN. LACSON.  That is correct, as of November 3, 2004?

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  That’s it.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Yes, but we are trying to find out how the Coronas paid for this.  Obviously, if title transferred to them in November 2004, as far as the developer is concerned, in this case, Ayala Land, I think, am I correct, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Ayala Land was fully paid.  It might have been financed through a bank loan.  Will the prosecution be able to find out how this was paid by inquiring of Ayala Land.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We will, we will try, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  No, don’t try, get the information.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY ROY.  Your Honor, may I also…

SEN. OSMEÑA. Now, obviously, some value was paid and this was not 100% financed.  Is that correct, Mr. Lim?  There is usually a down payment.

MR. LIM.  I don’t have an idea for that, Sir, that is for sales.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  We would like to have that information tomorrow, because, I think, the Senate President is correct, there was value that was expended in 2004 and it was not reflected in his SALN.  And it is totally irrelevant whether he accepted the unit or not.  Title had transferred and there is value, and if he does not want to take acceptance of that, he could have recorded as an accounts receivable from Ayala Land.  But it cannot be zero.  So, there is falsification there and for it to last all the way up to 2010 is absolutely ridiculous.  So, therefore, we expect tomorrow, Mr. President, the information from Ayala Land.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, there is order.  Proceed.  Senator Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yes, Mr. President.  I just want to be cleared on the letter, Mr. Defense counsel.  It seems Mrs. Corona was just asking for a waiver of interest and penalties, am I correct?

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  And nowhere in the letter did she categorically say that she refuses to accept the unit.

ATTY. ROY.  That is the subject of a different series of letters, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  In the letter, does she state that she refuses to accept?

ATTY. ROY.  In this letter, Your Honor, she says that she has been asking for a re-inspection of the unit.

SEN. GUINGONA.  So she does not categorically state that she refuses to accept.

ATTY. ROY.  Well, not in those words, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Okay.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed, counsel. Senator Lacson.

SEN. LACSON.  Even if the Chief Justice did not declare the property in his 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009 SALNs, he corrected it in 2010.  There was no intention to hide it.

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, yes, you could view it that way, but, we will try to establish that he entered it in 2010 because of that point the issues regarding…

SEN. LACSON.  That is my point.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes.

SEN. LACSON.  He had no intention to hide his property.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, yes, that is true, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  And, therefore, even without this impeachment trial, he already corrected in his subsequently, I mean, in his 2010 SALN.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  Are you arguing with me?

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor, not at all.

SEN. LACSON.  Thank you.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Drilon.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.  Mr. Witness, is it correct to state that you charge association dues only to the owners of the unit?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And there was mention in the course of your testimony that Mrs. Corona had a lot of complaints about the unit.

MR. LIM.  I just got an idea for the complaint, sir, when she wrote the letter.

SEN. DRILON.  So you had no personal knowledge of this complaint.

MR. LIM.  I don’t have any idea, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, she complained about the condition of the unit.  Is that correct?

MR. LIM.  Based on the letter, sir, she stated it, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.   And I assume she had access to the unit.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  Did she have a key to the unit?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And would you know when the key was delivered?

MR. LIM.  For that, sir, I don’t have an idea.

SEN. DRILON.  Who in Ayala Land would know this or the developer?

MR. LIM.  Basically, sir, we in Ayala Land, Aldeo have quality control team.  These are the teams who are—in front of the unit owner, they inspect the unit before turnover and then they are the ones also giving the keys and signing the acceptance forms.

SEN. DRILON.  I see.  Now, who in Ayala Land would know this?

MR. LIM.  Basically, sir, this is handled by Aldeo, the developer itself and CRU, Clients Relations Unit.

SEN. DRILON.  The names please.

MR. LIM.  Miss Carmina Cruz, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And since you could not testify of your own knowledge, can you ask them instead of our requiring these people to come around.  Unless the prosecution would object, we can take your word on the delivery unless you want to bring along the person who brought the key and gave the key to Mrs. Corona.  Are you willing to do that?

ATTY. ROY.  If I may, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  We requested for a subpoena of the developer to come and send their representative.

SEN. DRILON.  Particularly on the person who delivered the key.

ATTY. ROY.  The issue of delivery will be central in that presentation, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  That‘s right.  Just a factual testimony as to when the key was delivered.

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.  I’m sure that the witness we subpoenaed would be in a better position to respond.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, I am looking at Exhibit NNN-3.  This document is marked in evidence, this is the contract to sell marked in evidence on January 24, 2012 and accepted by this court as evidence for the prosecution.  This is the contract to sell.  On Annex 3 of this contract to sell, this pertains to the Columns and there is a deposit here of P25,000 made on January 29, 2003, a downpayment of P543,181.82 on March 28, 2003.  There is also a delivery date of the unit indicated, June 2006,  and across that is a signature of Cristina R. Corona.  Would you know if this is the actual delivery date, Mr. Witness.

MR. LIM.  I don’t have an idea for that, Your Honor, that is already for Sales.  The one who handle that is Sales of Ayala Land, sir.

SEN. DRILON.  You are not involved in that.

MR. LIM.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.  So, on what date did Mrs. Corona agree to pay the dues, effective what date?

MR. LIM.  Basically, sir, we charge it  third quarter of 2009.

SEN. DRILON.  And she paid association dues effective the third quarter of 2009?

MR. LIM.  Based on our records, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  But you were charging her association dues long before that?

MR. LIM.  I don’t have an idea for that, Sir, and we don’t have records of it, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  You do not have records for that or you just do not know of your own personal knowledge, Mr. Lim?

MR. LIM.  I just don’t know, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Of your personal knowledge?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  I assume counsel would present that kind of evidence with the proper …

ATTY. ROY.  Your Honor, I think there is a misapprehension that must be clarified first.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  The Columns did not exist even in 2004, Your Honor.  This was a pre-selling of unit.  It came into agreement much later, Your Honor.  That is why there were no dues being collected until many years later.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.  That is a contract to sell?

ATTY. ROY.  That is right, Your Honor.  Now, with respect to the acceptance of the keys, I can tell you tentatively that it was no sooner than late 2009 or early 2010.  I will endeavour the ….

SEN. DRILON.  You are not testifying …

ATTY. ROY.  No, Your Honor.  Relaying information that I received, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  That is not evidence here.

ATTY. ROY.  I’m just trying to assist, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  I don’t need your assistance.

ATTY. ROY.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  We will wait for the witness to be presented and we will ask the questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When was the building constructed and finished?

MR. LIM.  Based on our records, Sir, there are three towers in The Columns.  2006 for Tower one, 2007 for Tower Two and 2008 for Tower Three.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Where was the unit of Mrs. Corona?

MR. LIM.  In Tower One, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tower One, the first one?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that was finished when?

MR. LIM.  Based on our record, it’s 2006, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Pimentel, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Pimentel.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. President.

For the defense counsel, …

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  … did I hear you correctly earlier that you stated that Mrs. Corona wanted her money back?

ATTY. ROY.  Well, yes, in effect, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Did she take steps?  Did she write a demand letter or even file a case?

ATTY. ROY.  There were an exchange of letters but my recollection is that there was a reluctance on their part to file a case, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  What do you call this action?  What’s the technical name for this action?

ATTY. ROY.  Cancellation or rescission, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Rescission, right?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Governed—Do you still remember the Article in the Civil Code?

ATTY. ROY.  I’m afraid you might have me at a disadvantage, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Anyway, just for the …

ATTY. ROY.  Eleven ninety-one.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  … for the benefit of—Ilan?

ATTY. ROY.  I think so, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Or 1151.

ATTY. ROY.  Somewhere there.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Somewhere in the Civil Code.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, the only action taken by Mrs. Corona was to write a letter.  Did you present the letter?

ATTY. ROY.  Not yet, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  This is the letter asking for the return of the amounts that she has paid for the …

ATTY. ROY.  There is a different witness for that exchange, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  And you will do it?

ATTY. ROY.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Counsel.  (Gavel)

ATTY. ROY.  I have concluded my direct presentation—my direct examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Cross.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May we conduct cross examination tomorrow, Your Honor.  We don’t have copies of the documents …

ATTY. ROY.  We have no objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  This witness is discharged …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you.  Mr. President, may I direct some questions at the witness himself.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Mr. Lim, good afternoon.

MR. LIM.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Mr. Lim, just to refresh your memory, there are three towers in The Columns.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  The first one was finished and occupancy started In 06?

MR. LIM.  2006, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  The second one in 07?

MR. LIM.  07.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  And the third one in 08?

MR. LIM.  08, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  And the unit that was purchased by Mrs. Corona was in the first, second or third?

MR. LIM.  In the first, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  In 06?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  Now, you were hired just recently?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  You belong to a company that is a property management company?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Is that property management company owned by Ayala?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Sir.  Yes, Your Honor.  This is a subsidy of Ayala Land Inc.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  Now, you are familiar with the Condominium Law …

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Essentially, what a person buys is aire between the four walls, the ceiling and the floor, do you know that?

MR. LIM.  Can you repeat the question, Your Honor?

SEN. OSMEÑA.  You know that a unit owner in a condominium building is actually buying the aire which his unit is supposed to occupy.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  The common areas, the ceilings, the walls, the floors, the pipes, the electric, the corridors, all owned by the condominium corporation, correct?

MR. LIM.  That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  And that is what they call commonly owned areas.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  And that is what you are responsible for.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is exactly …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  Now, so, when a tenant complains about an undersized electrical wire, that would be the fault of the developer?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  And would these wires be any different from the wires in the other units of the building or wouldn’t they all be the same sizes?

MR. LIM.  It depends on the unit size, Your Honor.  But basically, it is similar.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  The bigger the unit, the heavier the wire?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  So, therefore, were there complaints from any other unit owners in the building about the size of the electrical wires?

MR. LIM.  There are seldom, Your Honor.  On my tenure, there are about less than ten, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Who complained about the size of the electrical wires.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Were these corrected by the developer?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  And did you correct also the complaint, and attend to the complaint of Mrs. Corona about the undersized electrical wires?

MR. LIM.  For that, Your Honor, I do not have an idea because, maybe, that …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So, we shall ask the Ayala Corporation.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Now, the unit of Mrs. Corona is on 31st floor.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Is that the top floor?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  No, that is the second penthouse in the area, and she had a leaking roof.  Did she complain about the leaking roof?  I just heard earlier that …

MR. LIM.  Actually, Sir, I do not have an idea for that.  When she wrote the letter, that is the time I had an idea, but basically, the upper floor of Mrs. Corona is a roof deck already, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Was what?

MR. LIM.  Is a roof deck already, roof deck.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Yes, it is a roof deck, that is why she complained of a leaking roof.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor, but I don’t have an idea for that because I did not see it personally.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  You don’t know if it was actually repaired.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  We will check with the developer.  Now, the billing of P112,000, ano po, what did that cover?  Did that cover 12 months of condominium fees, six months, two years?  Ano ang breakdown po ng P112,000?

MR. LIM.  The breakdown of that, Sir, is, from third quarter of 2009 to first quarter of 2011, approximately of one year and a half.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So, from third quarter of 2009 to …

MR. LIM.  First quarter of 2011.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  … first quarter of 2011.  2011, so that is about six quarters.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Three, four, seven quarters.  Am I correct?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  Seven quarters.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Seven quarters, at how much per quarter?

MR. LIM.  Approximately, P15,000, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  P15,000 per quarter.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.  We will wait for the—we hope that the prosecution or the defense can invite the developer of Ayala Land.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution wants the cross examination to be started tomorrow?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we have Senator Marcos first, Mr. President, before we dismiss …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I would like to direct just some very simple questions to the witness.  The dates are very important, Mr. Lim, which years, etcetera.  Am I correct in understanding that 2003, the pre-selling for the Columns began?

MR. LIM.  I don’t have an idea for that, sir, that is for sales already.

SEN. MARCOS.  Tower I where unit 31B which was bought by Cristina Corona was completed in 2006.

MR. LIM.  I don’t have an idea also of that, sir.

SEN. MARCOS.  But did you not testify to that earlier on, that it was completed in 2006?

MR. LIM.  The whole building itself, Your Honor, 2006.

SEN. MARCOS.  Iyong Tower I where Unit 31B is located.

MR. LIM.  2006, Your Honor, the whole building itself, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  So, the entire project was finished in 2006.

MR. LIM.  The Tower I, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  The Tower I where the Unit 31B is located.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Very well.  The duties that were being charged were first charged in 2009, is that correct?  The dues, sorry, not duties, the dues, the condominium dues, the first time they were charged to Mrs. Corona were in 2009.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  Why is there a three-year interregnum between the time that the unit was finished, I would presume, when you say it is finished, it is ready to be moved into, and since they already a contract to buy the unit, why did the management corporation not start charging condominium dues in 2006 when the unit was completed?

MR. LIM.  I am sorry, Your Honor, but I don’t have an idea for that, but basically, maybe there is a complaint, Mrs. Corona has a complaint with the developer itself.  Maybe that is the reason why.

SEN. MARCOS.  What other possible reasons could there be for the three-year delay between the time that the unit was completed and dues were starting to be charged or demanded by the management corporation of Mrs. Corona.

MR. LIM.  Basically, sir, on our records only, we started billing 2009.  For that, sir, I don’t the idea already.

SEN. MARCOS.  Very well.  Perhaps the defense can help us out here because I think that is a critical period, the three-year period, and it will give us a better indication as to whether or not or when, what year …

ATTY. ROI.  As I understand it, Your Honor, the obligation to pay dues commences from the time that you are recognized as the owner of the unit.  Before that time, it is whomever the owner of the unit is that pays dues to the condominium corporation.  As you know, membership in the corporation is premised on ownership of the unit.  Without that nexus, there is no obligation to pay dues.

SEN. MARCOS.  Very well, so the implication that is being made, at least, by the defense counsel was that the management corporation did not, in fact, recognize Mr. Corona as the owner?

ATTY. ROI.  That is the implication I am trying to drive at.

SEN. MARCOS.  And Mr. Lim, the reason that you cite for that non-recognition until 2009 of Mrs. Corona as the owner that came about because there were still complaints and deficiencies being pointed out by the prospective owner.

MR. LIM.  I am not so sure for that, Your Honor, but maybe that is a reason.

SEN. MARCOS.  Well, very well.  Thank you very much.  Thank you, Mr. President.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Pia Cayetano please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The gentle Lady from Taguig.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Mr. :President, I direct my question to the witness.  Just a follow through on the line of question also of Senator Marcos.  So, this particular condominium project was completed sometime in 2006.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor, for Tower I.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And the procedure is for the developer to inform you as project manager that you should  start billing the various owners of individual units, is that how the billing for the condominium dues works?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  So, sometime in 2006, you started sending out billings to different condominium unit owners, correct?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor, that is the procedure.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And so, at different periods of time, you would be informed by the developer something like somebody already purchased this unit, then you can start billing this other unit.

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And you did not receive such instructions from the developer until 2009 for the particular unit we are discussing, the one owned by Mrs. Corona?

MR. LIM.  I just want to clarify, Your Honor. I started working in Columns starting 2010.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  2010.  Correct, but what does your record show?

MR. LIM. 2009, third quarter.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).    But sometime in 2009, you, as project manager started dealing them?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.). Which means you got some kind of information or direction from the developer that start dealing this unit because there is already an owner, something to that effect?

MR. LIM.  Something to that, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And so, henceforth, that was the first time from your record that you started dealing?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  Third quarter of 2009.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And prior to that, you were testifying earlier, if I remember accurately that you, as project manager, you do not know personally nor do you have record as to what the status is before 2009 when the billing for Condominium dues first started?

MR. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, in the light of the fact that the prosecution panel will cross-examine tomorrow, we may excuse the witness temporarily, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, the witness is excused and ordered to return tomorrow at two o’clock in the afternoon.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, perhaps, we may continue with the other witnesses tomorrow.

ATTY. ROY.  May I please the court, Mr. President. With your permission, we would like to rest for the day and present our other witnesses tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President last March 15, 2012, counsel for Chief Justice Renato Corona filed a motion asking the House of Representatives—House of Representatives Majority Floor Leader Neptali Gonzales Jr. be directed to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt and thereafter, if the evidence warrants, to declare Representative Gonzales guilty of contempt of Court.  Mr. President, I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Court has the decision of the caucus this noon on this matter, the motion of the defense is denied. That is the ruling of the Court.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-arms to make an announcement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sergeant-at-arms will now make an announcement.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.  All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, there being no other business for the day, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, March 20, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  Hearing none; therefore, the trial is hereby adjourned until 2 o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, March 20, 2012.  (Gavel)

It was 6:37 p.m.

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Thursday, March 15, 2012

At 2:13 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile Presiding.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of the impeachment trial of the Honorable Justice, Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court, is hereby called to order.

Let us begin the proceedings with a prayer.

(The Presiding Officer is leading the prayer.)

The Secretary will please call the roll of Members.

THE SENATE SECRETARY.  The honorable Senator-Judges Angara; Arroyo; Cayetano, Allan Peter ‘Compañero’; Cayetano, Pia; Defensor-Santiago; Drilon, Ejercito-Estrada; Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmeña, Pangilinan, Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 18 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  (Gavel)

The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

THE SEARGENT-AT ARMS.  All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 14, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, the March 14, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved.  (Gavel)

The Secretary will please call the case.

THE SENATE SECRETARY.  Case No. 002-2011, 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 to enter their appearances for the prosecution.

REP. TUPAS.  Good afternoon, Mr. Senate President and Members of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Good afternoon.

REP. TUPAS. For the House Prosecution panel, same appearances.  We are ready, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  The defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  The defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. We are ready, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, yesterday, there was a reservation for the continuation of cross-examination of Ms. Araceli Bayuga, the Fiscal Management and Budget Officer of the Supreme Court, pending submission of documents. If the documents have not yet been submitted yet then, we can move on.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is Ms. Bayuga present?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will just call for her, Your Honor.  She is here, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Will you please bring her in and take the witness stand under the same oath and testify.

REP. AGABAS.  Your Honor, while waiting for the witness, Your Honor, we would like to make a short manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

REP. AGABAS.  Yesterday, Your Honor, the defense stood to complain about two missing documents, supposedly missing documents.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. We are not complaining.  We just brought it to the attention of the Honorable Court.

REP.  AGABAS. Two documents, Your Honor, they made mentioned about a deed of absolute sale and the other one an acknowledgment receipt. As manifested yesterday, Your Honor, I manifested that we will confer with them and we did confer with them, Mr. President. And it turns out that that missing document, the deed of absolute sale, was with the defense all along.  As to the other document, Your Honor, a single-page document, Your Honor, it looks like this, a handwritten acknowledgment of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Corona, of the original deed of absolute sale from Mr. Demetrio C. Vicente,  this was returned to them last night, immediately after I discovered it that it was inadvertently inserted in one of my files, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well and good.  Now we settled the matter.  So, let us leave it that way.

REP. AGABAS.  Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It’s human error, so… to err is human, to forgive is divine.  Do we have the witness already?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, witness is here already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Under the same oath.  You may proceed with the cross-examination.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Whos is the…this is the prosecution, no?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, go ahead.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ms. Bayuga, good afternoon.

MS. BAYUGA.  Good afternoon, Sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yesterday, do you recall that we ask you to bring certain documents, do you have them with you today?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Could you please hand them to me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is with respect to the compensation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as well as the taxes that he has paid.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  For the record, Your Honors, witness handed to counsel two batches of documents, the first batch consists of 13 pages which bears the letterhead of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.  Ms. Bayuga, the first batch of documents which you handed to me, is this the sample of the certification that you were mentioning yesterday?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  It says here, “I/we, certify under oath that the amount being claimed herein was spent for the purpose indicated in the pertinent provision of the general appropriations connection with the performance of official duties”.  Is that right?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, this is the certification that your mentioning that has to be signed by Chief Justice Corona when he obtained his allowances?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, this means that he certifies that this is not his income but he has already spent the money involved here in the performance of his duties…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will object, Your Honor.  We cannot improve on the certification because this is a matter of form, Your Honor.  As to how it is interpreted and will be interpreted will be up for this honourable court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Sustained.  Let the form speaks for itself.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Are the funds which are released pursuant to the certification can they be taken home by Chief Justice Corona?  And bought—can he buy something, can he  buy condos with this funds?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If I recall correctly, Your Honor, this matter has been the subject of previous examination.  The answer of the witness is, these are matters that are devoted to what is stated in the very form, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Well, anyway, the tendency of the question is just to get a clarification whether the funds covered by the certification were disposed by the respondent. Let the witness answer if she knows.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ma’m, can they be taken home and dispose as he wishes?

MS. BAYUGA.  I don’t know, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We’ll just cause the marking of this batch of documents, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  The first batch, we’ll just mark them collectively, request that they be marked as our Exhibits N-S and then the copies of the alpha list which is the second batch of documents handed to this counsel, including the alpha list which were marked yesterday from the years 2002 and now, with this batch up to the year 2010 as subsequent markings, Your Honor,  I believe that will reach until Exhibit CCCCCCCCCCC, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.  Is there any objection?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor. The earlier alpha list mentioned had already been marked by the prosecution.  If they are being adopted, Your Honor, what is merely necessary is to have it mark also as evidence for the prosecution, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  I don’t believe the alpha list were marked by the prosecution yesterday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What were the years covered by all these alpha lists?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  The years 2002 up to 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2002, 2003, 2004, 2005.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Up to 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Up to 2010.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And they’re all marked already as exhibits.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Only the ones, 2002 to 2005 were marked yesterday but only by the defense, Your Honor.  Today we are trying to cause the marking of all the alpha lists, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the prosecution.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  For the prosecution, yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of the honourable court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   This yearend report on compensation, Your Honor, had already been marked as Exhibit 118 for the defense, Your Honor.  This  refers to 2002 yearend report.  For the 2003, Your Honor,  it is Exhibit 119 and 2004, Your Honor,  is Exhibit 120, Your Honor.  Now, 121 deals or covers the year 2005, Your Honor.  I was explaining on record that if they are adopting these exhibits already, Your Honor, then they are already marked as exhibit for the defense, Your Honor, in which case they will be common exhibits, Your Honor.   That’s my only manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So why don’t you manifest that you are adopting as your own exhibits, exhibit…

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, we are adopting as our own exhibits, Exhibits  114 to 118 for the defense and additionally, we’d also like to cause the marking of the new batch of alpha list from the years 2006 to 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, proceed.  Let the markings be done for the prosecution.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.  I have no further questions on cross-examination, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No redirect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  These alpha lists are public records.  They reflect the cash payments of certain persons employed in the government.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request that the witness be excused, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This witness is discharged.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Another witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will request, Your Honor, that we be allowed to—

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next witness for the defense.  Do you have another witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We apologize, Your Honor, that our witness is still taking lunch now because they came from their respective places of engagement.  For only one minute, Your Honor, if the court will allow us.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Trial is suspended for one minute to allow the witness to come to the room.  (Gavel)

At 2:30 p.m., the trial was suspended.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 2:33 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  (Gavel)

The witness is now in the room and he is now sitting on the witness stand.  The Clerk of Court will please swear him.

THE SECRETARY.  Mr. Witness, please stand.  Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. VILLARUZ.  I do.

THE SECRETARY.  So help you God.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will request, Your Honor, for permission in favour of Atty. Dennis Manalo, a member of the defense panel, to be allowed to conduct the direct examination of this witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty. Dennis Manalo is recognized.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. TUPAS. Your Honor, to—Your Honor, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The chief counsel.

REP. TUPAS.  One the part of the prosecution, may we be allowed—or may we request that Atty. Jose Benjamin Panganiban be recognized to received the testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Attorney …

REP. TUPAS.  Panganiban.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … Panganiban …

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … for the prosecution.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Good afternoon, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Good afternoon.

ATTY. MANALO. Good afternoon, Your Honor.  With the kind permission of the honourable court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, please state your name and other personal circumstances for the record.

MR. VILLARUZ.  I am Engineer Roberto Villaruz, married, have three kids.  I am the City Officer-in-Charge of the City Assessors of City of Taguig.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are the city assessor of Taguig.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Officer-in-charge of the Office of the city assessor of the city of Taguig, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, this witness is offered to prove the accuracy of the entries in the statement of assets, liabilities and networth of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2010.  This is an exhibit marked by the prosecution as their exhibit N.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With respect to the whole or only a part?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, this will refer to two parts in the said SALN.  It will refer to real estate properties number 4, which is the Bonifacio Ridge properties and the real estate property number 5, which is the Bellagio property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  We will prove through this witness, Your Honor, that the assessed values and fair market values of the said real estate properties are based on the values approved by the city assessor’s office of Taguig.

We will also—we will present this witness, Your Honor, also for the purpose of proving that there is basis for the non-inclusion of the McKinley property in the SALN of Chief Justice Corona, considering that the official records in the city assessor’s office of Taguig shows that TCT no. 2093 or the McKinley property does not belong to CJ Corona but to some other person, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This particular property is in the name of the Chief Justice?

ATTY. MANALO.  No, Your Honor, we will present this witness to prove that but that is–the theory of the prosecution, Your Honor, is that these are one of the properties that they claim are—should have been reported by the Chief Justice in their SALN.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It is not reflected in the SALN.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, can you please what your present occupation is.

MR. VILLARUZ.  I am the officer-in-charge of the office of the city assessor of the city of Taguig.

ATTY. MANALO.  What are the duties and functions of your office, Mr. Witness?

MR. VILLARUZ.  There are many duties and functions of an assessor.  To name a few, the city assessor establishes a systematic method of assessment in real property.  Second, the city assessor appraises all real properties in accordance with the duly enacted schedule of fair market value, pursuant to RA7160, better known as the Local Government Code of 1991, and then, the city assessor issues tax declaration for the newly-discovered properties as well as issues tax declaration for all transfers involving transfers of ownership, consolidation, subdivision and segregation, and all other transaction involving assessment of real property.

Being a custodian, the city assessor also keeps records of all transfers, leases, mortgages and all other sourced data which is essential in the preparation of schedule of fair market value, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  All right.  In relation to the duties and functions of your office, how are buyers of real property, high-rise condominium units in Taguig City assessed?  How are these properties assessed?  Can you please just explain briefly the process?

MR. VILLARUZ.  The process—to make it clear, pwede ba akong mag-Tagalog, Your Honor?

ATTY. MANALO.  Opo, pupwede po.  One who wishes to have his tax declaration …

MR. VILLARUZ.  Sige po.  Sige po.  Pwede pong English, pwede pong Tagalog.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Akala ko ba Tagalog?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, may the witness be allowed to speak in the language that he prefers.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sige, tagalugin mo na lang.

MR. VILLARUZ.  One who wishes to issue a tax declaration on her end approaches our customer service then he or she will submit all the pertinent documents like the — in case of condominium …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Teka muna, akala ko gusto mong mag-Tagalog.  Tagalugin ninyo.

MR. MANALO.  Condominium certificate of title, deed of sale, certificate authorizing registration or the CAR from BIR, the transfer tax, tax clearance, and then after that, pagkatapos niyang mai-submit iyon, tsetsekin ng customer service iyon for the completeness and veracity of the documents and then after checking he will be given the order of payment for the processing fee.  Then after paying the processing fee, he will then go back to the customer service and then he will be given a stub, a claim stub, para i-notify siya kung kalian siya babalik.  And then what happens to the documents he submitted?  The customer service will then forward it to the appraisers in charge.  Then the appraiser in charge will check the document, will evaluate, and then compute whatever taxes it has.  The appraiser then will fill up what we call FAAS, Field Appraisal Assessment Sheet form, which in turn ito iyong magiging basis ng generation ng tax declaration per se.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Paano ninyo dinedetermina ang buwis ng bawat condominium.  Halimbawa, sa isang building may 20 condominium units, pare-pareho ba ang balor noon, ang pagbabayaran ng buwis?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Your Honor, the value of the condominium depends on the floor area of the condominium unit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Floor area and the floor height.  The higher the floor, the more expensive it is, ganoon ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Not necessarily ho.  In our case …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ipaliwanag mo.  Ipaliwanag mo.

MR. MANALO.  Kinokompyut po iyong taxes incurred dito sa condominium una, based on the condominium certificate of title na titingnan iyon kung ilang square meters ang floor area ng unit.  Then after that, we do have the schedule of fair market duly enacted by our city council which is our basis in formulating the assessment of the real property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang.  Iyon bang real estate tax sa condominium ay based sa fair market value o base iyon sa assessment na ginagawa ng opisina ng assessor?

MR. MANALO.  Ito po ay base doon sa assessment na ginagawa ng opisina ng assessor na ang basehan po namin iyong schedule of fair market value na approved ng city council  pursuant to RA 7160, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi zonal value ha.

MR. MANALO.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iba iyong zonal value, iba iyong fair market value.

MR. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iba naman iyong assessed value.

MR. MANALO.  Assessed value is we call also the taxable value.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oo.  Hindi assessed value ang basehan ng ameliarmiento na binabayaran ng condominium owner.

MR. MANALO.  Actually, iyong assessed value po ang basehan po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga.  Pero sabi mo fair market value eh.

MR. MANALO.  Ang fair market value po, Your Honor, iyon po ang basehan po ng pagko-compute ng assessed value po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bakit?  Paano mo kino-compute, ibinababa ninyo iyong balor para madetermina iyong assessed value na basehan sa babayaran na buwis, ganoon ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Ganito po iyong proseso ng pagko-compute po ng assessed value.

Una, mayroon po tayong certain floor area ng condominium, let us say 100 square meters, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    At iyon may fair market value iyon?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Mayroon pong tinatawag na “unit value” po.  Iyong unit value po na iyon for the condominium, mayroon pong certain schedule po iyon.  Depende po sa type of construction, may reinforce concrete, mix concrete. In case ng condominium, definitely, reinforce concrete po iyan.  Mayroon pong specific na unit value po doon. And then, iyong  market—we can get the market value of the condominium by multiplying the floor area and the unit value. And then, makukuha natin iyong market value. Ngayon, paano naman natin makukuha iyong assessed value? Ang assessed value po ay nakukuha natin by multiplying the assessment level. Iyong assessment level po rin, iyon po ay isa rin pong integral part ng schedule of fair market value. Nakapaloob din po iyon, so base po doon sa market value, mayroon pong corresponding assessment level po iyan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Kaya nga pero ang gusto ko lang—gusto lang ng Husgado na malaman kung iyong fair market value ay equal to assessed value?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Hindi po magkaparehas po iyong fair market value sa assessed value.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Iyon bang fair market value mas mataas kaysa resulting assessed value?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Mas mataas po ang fair market value kaysa po sa resulting assessed value.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Okay. Ipaliwanag mo kung bakit?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Kasi po ang market value po, ito po ay product, produkto ng floor area at saka ng unit value. Ang assessed value po, ito po ay product ng market value at saka iyong percentage assessment level.  Usually, ang assessment level is less than hundred percent. Usually, ang ginagamit namin sa assessment level ng condominium is 60%, so, definitely, mas mababa iyong value ng assessed value kaysa po sa fair market value po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Kaya ko tinatanong iyan sapagkat ginagamit naming mga abugado iyang terminology na fair market value at ang aming definition ng fair market value ay, it is a value that a willing seller would price his property and offer it to a willing buyer, ‘di ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O iyon. Pero, kaiba iyan dito sa fair market value na sinasabi mo sapagkat iyong fair market value na sinasabi mo is based on your subjective evaluation of the property of the condominium unit in order to compute the assessed value.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, para maliwanag.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Let me clarify. Ang ginagamit po natin na value rito is for taxation purposes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Aling valuation, iyong fair market value?

MR. VILLARUZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Okay. So, is it correct to say that the assessed value is always lower than the fair market value determined by the Office of the City Assessor?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alright. Proceed, counsel.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor. With the clarification made by the witness, I will go now to the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You will go now to?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, there is a Senator-Judge …

SEN. SOTTO.  To clarify, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

SEN. SOTTO. To clarify the subject matter, may we recognize Senator Recto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Senator Recto has the floor.

SEN. RECTO.  I promise to be very brief, Mr. President, just to clarify on this issue, para maging maliwanag sa ating lahat, ‘no.

Iyong schedule ng fair market value, eto pinasa ng Konseho ‘to ng Sangganuan ng Taguig.

MR. VILLARUZ. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama ho ba iyon?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Tama ho.

SEN. RECTO.  Hindi ito iyong presyo ng bilihan.  Hindi ito current market value?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Tama po iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  Hindi acquisition cost ito?

MR. VILLARUZ. Tama poi yon.

SEN. RECTO.  Hindi ito iyong posibleng nagbebentahan ngayon sa magkakatabi?

MR. VILLARUZ. Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  Hindi ho ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Oo.

SEN. RECTO.  Eto, pinasa ng Sanggunian ito to determine the collection of property taxes for Taguig?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  So, halimbawa, kung ang Taguig 20,000 hectares, halimbawa. alam mo may residential, commercial, industrial, sa ibang lugar may agricultural, pero sa inyo baka walang agriculture.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Meron pa po.

SEN. RECTO.  A, meron pa, okay.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  Tapos, meron iyong special purpose, di ho ba?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Now, the schedule of fair market value para maliwanag, hindi eto iyong current market value acquisition cost, iba yon eh, okay?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  For purposes of real property taxes.  Iyong assess value in this case, nabanggit mo kanina 60%…

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Ibig sabihin sa Taguig, 60% iyong—or the schedule of fair market value, assess value, residential yon, commercial…

MR. VILLALUZ.  Residential, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.   A, residential, condominium.

MR. VILLALUZ. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  60%.  Ngayon, posible kung bahay iyan 30%.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Iyon ba ang sa Taguig, 30%

MR. VILLALUZ.  It depends on the market value.

SEN. RECTO.  Kaya nga, correct, precisely.

MR. VILLALUZ.  We have a table for that.

SEN. RECTO.  Now, so, in Taguig, kung condo 60%., Iyong agriculture what is it?

MR. VILLALUZ.  50%.

SEN. RECTO.  So, 50%, sa schedule ng fair market value kung condominium yan 60% of that, kung agriculture, ano ung numero mo? 50%?

MR. VILLALUZ.  50%.

SEN. RECTO.  Pagka-bahay.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Depends on the market value.

SEN. RECTO.  Oo nga, but what percent of the market value?  So, graduated iyong sa inyo.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Graduated, Yes Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Na ipinasa ng Sanggunian ninyo.  Iyong park, ano sa inyo?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Open spaces.

SEN. RECTO.  Open space.

MR. VILLALUZ.  It depends on the type of use.

SEN. RECTO.  So..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mr. Senator, ‘pag yong 1 million ang value ng condo, kung condo ang pinaguusapan, fair market value based on the schedule ng konseho, ay 60% non ang assess value.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama, para maliwanag.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kung agrikultura naman, 50%.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kung residential, 30% lang non…

SEN. RECTO.  Posible, posible.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   …ang magiging assess value.

SEN. RECTO.  Lahat iyon nanduon sa tax code ng Taguig, tama ho ba iyon?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor

SEN. RECTO.  Iyong local tax code ninyo, ganon iyon?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.   Pareho din yan sa probinsiya, kaya lang, magkaiba lang mga values, di ho ba?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Ngayon, don sa assess value, sa tax declaration, babayaran mo don—ano ba sa inyo, 2%?

MR. VILLALUZ. Two percent for the residential, 2.5% for commercial, industrial.

SEN. RECTO. Okay, ngayon, kalahati non goes to school board fund.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Magkano?

MR. VILLALUZ.  One percent.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay, now, para maintindihan ng mga nanunuod din sa atin, pag nagbayad ka na ng realty taxes, more or less, 2/3 goes to the general fund, iyon yung budget ng Sanggunian and roughly 1/3 will go to the school board special education fund, tama ho ba iyon?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor, special education fund.

SEN. RECTO.  So, lahat ng real property, 1/3 of that, ‘pag nagbayad ka ng real property tax, goes to education at the local level, tama ho ba yon?  School board fund eh.

MR. VILLALUZ.  In our case, 2% is our tax rate.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.

MR. VILLALUZ.  1% goes—for residencial, 1% for the local school board special education fund and 1% for the general fund.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  The assessed value, let’s say, in this case, it is 300, halimbawa na lang.  Two percent union tax liability mo.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Two percent of the assessed value.

SEN. RECTO.  Of the assessed value, correct?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  So, halimbawa, 3 million yung assessed value, 2% of that, 60,000, yung ang tax na babayaran mo.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Uulitin ko lang no, iba yung current value or acquisition cost, at iba iyong schedule of market values, di bo ba?

MR. VILLALUZ. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Ngayon, pwede mo bang ipaliwanag kung bakit iba iyong dalawa for the education of everyone.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Based on the local government code, we have—we conduct general revision every three years.

SEN. RECTO.  Every three years, iyon ang nasa batas.

MR. VILLALUZ. Yes, Your Honor.  The schedule of fair market value was conducted, was enacted, let’s say in the first year, so, in the third year, which is, let’s say ngayon 2012, iba na yong current market value ngayon,iyong value dati na let’s say 2009, so iba na yung value, iba na yung selling price, iba na lahat iyong mga data na na-acquire natin.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.

MR. VILLALUZ.  So, definitely, magiging iba na yon.

SEN. RECTO.  Magkaiba iyon.  So, papasa ngayon ang Sanggunian ng panibagong ordinansa.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Hindi mo pwedeng gawin taon-taon e, every three years eh.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Every three years.

SEN. RECTO.  Dahil magkakagulo.

MR. VILLALUZ. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  At para for planning purposes of the local government, you can predict your income, tama ho ba iyon?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama ho ba yon?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Ngayon, proceed, counsel.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.  Mr. Witness, you are appearing today by virtue of a subpoena issued by the honourable court, is it not?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  You were required to bring with you the tax declaration for Condominium Certificate of Title No. 5582 and this property covers the Bonifacio Ridge Condominium, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City.  Do you have that document with you now?

MR. VILLARUZ.  I have here the documents with Tax Declaration EB0191423 bearing CCT No. 5582, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, we have premarked this exhibit as our Exhibit 151 for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the materiality of that document?

ATTY. MANALO.  This document, Your Honor, will indicate two items.  It will indicate the market value of the property as determined by the City Assessor of Taguig.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What property?

ATTY. MANALO.  The property, Boniacio Ridge Condominium, which is Property  No. 4 in the SALN of CJ Corona as of December 31, 2010.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that the unit or is that the entire condominium of apartment.

ATTY. MANALO.  This refers to the unit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  The unit bought by the Chief Justice.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. MANALO.  It will also indicate, Your Honor, the assessed value of the said property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    All right.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I just like to, the prosecutor manifest that this is a faithful reproduction of …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will that reflect the acquisition cost of the condominium unit?

MR. VILLARUZ.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No.

MR. VILLARUZ.  This is the market value based on our schedule of fair market value.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But not necessarily the acquisition cost.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Not necessarily the acquisition cost.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, based on this document, where will you find the market value?

MR. VILLARUZ.  The market value will be found at the back which is P2,369,980.

ATTY. MANALO.  We request, Your Honor, that the market value identified by the witness be encircled and marked as our Exhibit 151-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  That is not the acquisition cost of the unit.

ATTY. MANALO.  It is not the acquisition cost, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. MANALO.  As explained by the witness, this is the market value based on the computation of the City Assessor’s Office using the schedule of fair market value passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Taguig.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The court would like to know whether that fair market value would be higher or lower than the acquisition cost.

MR. VILLARUZ.  It is lower.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is lower?

MR. VILLARUZ.  The market value reflected in the tax declaration is lower than the acquisition cost.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead.

ATTY. MANALO.  Can you please explain why this is so, why is it lower?

MR. VILLARUZ.  As I explained earlier, we conduct general revision every three years.  The unit value derived three years ago is entirely different from the current value today.  So that is our basis.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, I am again referring you to the document which you have identified.  Based on that document, what is the assessed value?

MR. VILLARUZ.  The assessed value is P1,421,990, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  May we request that the amount identified by the witness in the said document as the assessed value be marked as our Exhibit 151-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, you were also required to bring with you …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman—Just a minute before you answer.

SEN. LACSON.  Meron lang po akong gustong i-clarify, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cavite, Senator Lacson.

SEN. LACSON.  Meron lang po akong gustong i-clarify.  Anong year na revision yung in-apply nyo dito sa for 2010.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Actually, yung revision na in-apply namin dito, it is Ordinance No. 47, way back 2002.

SEN. LACSON.  2002.  Kasi maski under the law, once every three years, wala naman pong sumusunod don, hindi ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  I think so, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  Tama.  Tama yon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.  Answer the question.  Will you repeat your question, counsel, so that the witness will understand.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes.  Mr. Witness, you were also required to bring with you the Tax Declaration for CCT No. 164-2010000062 for the condominium unit 38-B of Bellagio One in Taguig City issued in the name of the spouses Christina Corona and Renato Corona.  Do you have this Tax Declaration with you?

MR. VILLARUZ.  I have here the original copy of the CCT of the Tax Declaration bearing CCT No. 1642010000062 with Tax Declaration No. EB01925621, registered in the name spouses Christina Corona and Renato Corona, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Based on that document, Mr. Witness, what is the market value of the said property?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Based on this Tax Declaration, the market value is P5,827,200.00, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  And based on this document as well, what is the assessed value?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Based on the document, the assessed value is P3,496,320.00, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  We request, Your Honor, that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And what is the acquisition value?  Is it reflected there, no?

MR. VILLARUZ.  No, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  We request, Your Honor, that the market value and assessed value identified by the witness in the document marked as our Exhibit 152 be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 152-A and –B.  And may we request, Your Honor, the prosecution to confirm that the pre-marked document is a faithful reproduction of the original presented by the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We stipulate, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you, counsel.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  As a matter of fact, may I manifest, Your Honor, that we stipulate on the genuineness of all these documents to expedite the proceedings, Your Honor, because these are tax declarations, and …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, if they are willing to admit, Your Honor, the authenticity—I will just have the pertinent portions of the document sub-marked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just manifest that you admit the authenticity.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The authenticity.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The authenticity of the document.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The authenticity, yes, Your Honor, we admit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  So ordered.  (Gavel)

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, you were also required to bring the Tax Declaration for Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000063 for a Parking Slot No. 50 of Bellagio One, Taguig issued in the name of the spouses Christina Corona and Renato Corona.  Do you have this tax declaration with you?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I interrupt, Mr. Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We also admit the authenticity of the three tax declarations covering the three parking slots at the Bellagio to expedite the proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Answer the question, witness.

ATTY. MANALO.  Do you have it with you?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor, I have with me the tax declaration bearing CCT no. 1642010000063, with tax declaration no. EB01925622, registered in the name of spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  And what does that tax declaration refer to?  What is the location of the property?

MR. VILLARUZ.  The property is located at parking area no. 50, basement 2, Bellagio 1 condominium, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  And based on this document, Mr. Witness, what is the market value of this particular property?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, the document speaks for itself, and we have already admitted the authenticity of these documents, not only this single parking slot but the other two parking slots as well.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sustained.

ATTY. MANALO.  We only wish to have that sub-marked, Your Honor, so, we just want, Your Honor, the witness to point to us where that value can be located in the document so we could have it sub-marked, so when we offer it …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  With that explanation, the witness may answer.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. VILLARUZ.  The market value is P240,000, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  And what is the assessed value based on the document?

MR. VILLARUZ.  The assessed value is P144,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that per parking slot?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, with the manifestation of the prosecution that they are admitting the authenticity of this document, Your Honor, we are requesting that our exhibit 153, the portion identified as the market value be encircled and marked as our exhibit 153-A, am I correct—that is the …

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Go ahead, yes.

ATTY. MANALO.  And the assessed value, be marked as our Exhibit 153-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  In fact, I would like to suggest, Mr. President, that this are pro-forma documents, and the area for assessed value as well as the area for market values, are all indicated in the documents themselves.  So, we do not need this witness to identify the values because they are clearly marked in the document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is correct.  That is acceptable to the court.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor, in which case, we just want this particular portion sub-marked so that we will just go on record, Your Honor, and just have the particular portions of each exhibit sub-marked so that we could go on record on it and when we make our formal offer, there will be now a basis in our transcript for stenographic notes and our formal offer of evidence.

ATTY.  PANGANIBAN.  We have no objection to the sub-marking, Your Honor.  What we object is the witness pointing out where to sub-mark because we all know where the entry is.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Those are technical matters.  Let us not clutter the records with those details

Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  Okay.  Thank you, counsel.  Your Honor, we also have here—we also requested the witness to bring with him tax declaration—the tax declaration for CCT no. 1642010000064, for a parking slot number 51 of the Bellagio 1 in Taguig City, under the name of the spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.  We request that with the admission made by the prosecution, the market value in this document which is P240,000 and the assessed value which is P144,000 be encircled and marked as our exhibit 154-A and 154-B.

Do you confirm this, Counsel?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We agree.  We agree, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you, Counsel.  The witness, Your Honor, has also been required to bring with him the tax declaration for condominium certificate of title No. 164-2010000065 issued for parking slot No. 52 of Belagio 1, Taguig, in the name of the Spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona.  In view of the manifestation made by the prosecution, we have pre-marked, Your Honor, this document as our Exhibit 155 and we request that the market value of the property involved in this tax declaration in the amount of P240,000.00 and the assessed value in the amount of P144,000.00 be encircled and marked as our Exhibit 155-A and 155-B.  Will the counsel for the prosecution confirm this?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  No objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  Thank you.  Mr. Witness, you were also required to bring with you the tax declaration for TCT No. 2093-P for a Lot 1, Block 16 in McKinley Hill Village, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, do you have that tax declaration with you?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  I have here the original copy of the tax declaration with TCT No. 2093-P, tax declaration No. GL 019-01137 registered in the name of Maria Czarina R. Corona, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor we want to know from the prosecution if this tax declaration of this property is one of those that will be subject of the admission earlier made.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Same manifestation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the manifestation?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That we admit the authenticity of the tax declaration adverted to by counsel.

ATTY. MANALO.  With the admission made by the prosecution, we manifest, Your Honor, that this document has been marked as our Exhibit 158.  And we request, Your Honor, that the name of the owner indicated in this tax declaration which is a Maria Czarina R. Corona be encircled and marked as our Exhibit 158-A

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  Mr. Witness, in issuing the tax declaration you have said that you required the submission of a transfer certificate of title.  Do you have the transfer certificate of title relating to this particular tax declaration in the name of Maria Czarina R. Corona which you have just identified.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Can I take a look at my …

ATTY. MANALO.  Please do so.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Your Honor, I have here the photocopy of the transfer certificate of title No. 2093-p registered in the name of Ma. Charina R. Corona, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Is that a certified true copy?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Actually, this is not a certified true copy of the original. We require the lot owner to provide us the photocopy of the original transfer certificate of title. This photocopy came from the owner who submitted this document from us.

ATTY. MANALO.  This is a copy from your record before the Assessors Office?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, we have marked this document shown by the witness as our Exh. 158-A. Will the prosecution admit as well as to the authenticity of this transfer certificate of title?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We regret. We cannot, Your Honor, because the official custodian of transfer certificate of title will be the Register of Deeds and not the City Assessor.

ATTY. MANALO.  In which case, Your Honor, we will also be presenting as well the Register of Deeds and we will just require him to make the identification of the appropriate title.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark the document accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  In which case, we just want to have this document mark to show that this is the photocopy on record with City Assessors Office following our premarked exhibit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.          What is the exhibit marked?

ATTY. MANALO.  158-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  We also—I am sorry, make it 159.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are amending the number?

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Amend the number and mark it accordingly.

ATTY. MANALO.  And we request that the name of the registered owner appearing in the document as a Ma. Charina R. Corona of legal age, Filipino, single be encircled and marked as our Exh. 159-A-I.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Miriam Santiago wishes to be recognized concerning this particular issue.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady Senator from Iloilo.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Mr. President, I humbly point out to defense counsel that under Rule 132, particularly, Section 23, there is a much greater way of introducing these documents or marking them.  “SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence.—Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are already prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”  They are already prima facie, so there is no really no point going every single detail that you want to emphasize on record. You can do this for all of the records and make a single manifestation so that they can either stipulate or object. You don’t need to go over this one by one because it will take a long, long time.

ATTY. MANALO.  We will take note of the suggestion of the Honorable Senator, Your Honor, and I have nothing further for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is correct. That is why I was trying to put the two panels together to just look at the documents. These are public records. You cannot dispute them, so, anyway, it was done.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have no more questions on this witness?

ATTY. MANALO.  I have no more questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross-examination.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yes, Your Honor, in view of the statements of Senator-Judge Ralph Recto, the cross-examination will be very short.

May I proceed, Your Honor. thank you.

Mr. Witness, you came to court today and identified five tax declarations, is that correct?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  In all the tax declarations that you identified, the words “issued for taxation purposes” are clearly marked in all those tax declarations, is that correct?

ATTY. MANALO.  We object, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the basis of the objection?

ATTY. MANALO.  The document, Your Honor, must be showed to the witness, Your Honor, before he is made to respond.  He was not shown the document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness may answer, that’s too technical.  Go ahead.

MR. VILLALUZ.  There is no word indicating “issued for taxation purposes” in the document, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  That is exactly my point, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I confront the witness with the documents, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That is exactly my point, Your Honor, that is why I objected.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   You may confront the witness.  Proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Mr. Witness, I am showing to you Exhibit 152 of the defense, and may I ask you to read the announcement marked “Important” in the document itself.  Can you do that for me, please.

ATTY. MANALO.  Which document are you showing to the witness, counsel?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I just stated that it is Exhibit 152 of the defense, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  And what portion are you referring to?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The important announcement inscribed on the document.

ATTY. MANALO.  What portion?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The announcement.

ATTY. MANALO.  In which case, Your Honor, the best evidence would be the document.  It is already in the document, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I request the witness to please read, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  We have been…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  Just allow the witness to read.  It will never be altered, it is there already.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. MANALO.  Yes, Your Honor.

MR. VILLALUZ.  (witness reading the document)  “Important:  Issued for taxation purposed and should not be considered as title to the property”, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.  And this announcement that it is—the tax declaration is issued for taxation purposes only is true not only to the exhibit, the tax declaration that you read, but also to the other four tax declarations that you brought in court today, is that correct?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Your Honor, tax declaration bearing EB-019-14923 also have a notification issued for taxation purposes, yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Just to expedite, Mr. Witness, I would like you to please confirm that that announcement could be found in all the tax declarations that you brought to court today.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   That is a form.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Anything else?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yes, Your Honor.  Now, with that admission, Mr. Witness, that it is for taxation purposes only, I would like you to please confirm that this document is not necessarily determinative of the current fair market value or the acquisition cost of the property reflected therein, is that correct?

ATTY. MANALO.  Objection, Your Honor, that calls for an opinion, Your Honor, that is for the court to determine because the records are already with the..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness may answer.

MR. VILLALUZ.  The value reflected in this tax declaration is not the actual current market value of the property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Not the acquisition cost.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Not the acquisition cost.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Correct.  And you say that, Mr. Witness, because the values reflected in the tax declarations are lifted from a schedule of values that you prepare, and which is approved by your local council, is that correct?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  And you are always bound by this schedule of values, is that correct?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Is there any exception to your being bound by this schedule, Mr. Witness?

MR. VILLALUZ.  No, Your Honor, we are bounded by the..

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  No exception.  I heard you awhile ago, say, that you are familiar with the local government code, is that correct?

MR. VILLALUZ.  Some, maybe.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  You have cited the local government code, and may I please direct you…

THE PRESIDING  OFFICER.  No, the question is, are you familiar with the government code?  Witness.

MR. VILLALUZ.  Not so much.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  But you know that there is such a thing as the local government code.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I direct your attention, Mr. Witness, to Sections 202 and 203 of the Local Government Code which I respectfully request that you read for the record.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor, this is a matter of judicial notice, provisions of the Local Government Code.  It will be taking too much the time of this court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness read it for the information of the public and of this court.

MR. VILLARUZ.   SECTION 202. Declaration of Real Property by the Owner or Administrator. − It shall be the duty of all persons, natural or juridical, owning or administering real property, including the improvements therein, within a city or municipality, or their duly authorized representative, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and file with the provincial, city or municipal assessor, a sworn statement declaring the true value of their property, whether previously declared or undeclared, taxable or exempt, which shall be the current and fair market value of the property, as determined by the declarant. Such declaration shall contain a description of the property sufficient in detail to enable the assessor or his deputy to identify the same for assessment purposes. The sworn declaration of real property herein referred to shall be filed with the assessor concerned once every three (3) years during the period from January first (1st) to June thirtieth (30th) commencing with the calendar year 1992.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Section 203, please.

MR. VILLARUZ.  SECTION 203. Duty of Person Acquiring Real Property or Making Improvement Thereon. − It shall also be the duty of any person, or his authorized representative, acquiring at any time real property in any municipality or city or making any improvement on real property, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and file with the provincial, city or municipal assessor, a sworn statement declaring the true value of subject property, within sixty (60) days after the acquisition of such property or upon completion or occupancy of the improvement, whichever comes earlier.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Do you confirm, Mr. Witness, that CJ Corona, insofar as Bellagio and Bonifacio Ridge Spanish Bay Tower are concerned, never filed any sworn statement as to the actual value of these properties with your office?

ATTY. MANALO.  Objection, Your Honor, there is no basis.  The witness, Your Honor, is here to testify on the records, on the tax declarations.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The court will allow the counsel to explain the purpose of the question.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, under Sections 202 and 203 of the Local Government Code, it shall be the duty of the owner to declare with the city assessor in a sworn statement the true value of the property.  Our point, Your Honor is, the properties which were purchased by respondent Chief Justice have different values in terms of acquisition cost and in terms of market value as reflected in the tax declarations.  There being a discrepancy and acquisition cost is substantially higher than the values marked in the tax declaration, under the law that I cited, Your Honor, it is the duty of the Chief Justice in a sworn statement to divulge the actual value of the property.  I am asking this witness as the assessor of Taguig City if ever there was a sworn statement filed by the Chief Justice to the effect of divulging the true value of his properties.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You may answer.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You may answer, if  you know.

ATTY. MANALO.  Your Honor please, may I just make a short response to that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. MANALO.  My problem with that day, Your Honor, is it deals with the acquisition cost.  In the first place, the witness, Your Honor, is not a party to the sale.  He would not know what the acquisition cost is.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is referring to the mandate of the law and  that pertains to his function as an assessor and he is being asked whether the owner of the property complied with that requirement.  You may answer.

MR. VILLARUZ.   Your Honor, as of today I have no knowledge since this honourable Impeachment Court only subpoenaed documents pertaining to tax declaration per se.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize the son of the author of the Local Government Code, Senator Koko Pimentel, to enlighten the gentlemen on the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Just to be fair to the witness also, and for the information of the prosecution, Attorney, please pay attention.  You required the witness to read Section 202 and 203.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  You also read Section 204.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  203 says that this is the duty of the person acquiring, but Section 204 says that if that person does not discharge his duty, then it’s the assessor himself who will now make the declaration so that they can complete the schedule of values.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Correction, Your Honor, but there is nothing which prevents the owner from—after a tax declaration is issued from divulging …

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  … the true cost, the true value of its property.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  But my point is, to fair, you also asked him to read 204, because although 203 uses the word duty, it’s not such a big deal if the duty is not complied with because 204 has the mechanism to correct the situation when the people do not discharge this particular duty.  So, …

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I have permission to ask the witness to read into the records Section 204, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  204.  Thank you.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  In compliance with the request of Senator-Judge Pimentel, Mr. Witness, can you please read into the records Section 204 of the Local Government Code.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Section 204.  Declaration of Real Property by the Assessor. – When any person, natural or juridical, by whom real property is required to be declared under Section 202 hereof, refuses or fails for any reason to make such declaration within the time prescribed, the provincial, city or municipal assessor shall himself declare the property in the name of the defaulting owner, if known, or against an unknown owner, as the case may be, and shall assess the property for taxation in accordance with the provision of this Title. No oath shall be required of a declaration thus made by the provincial, city or municipal assessor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.  Again, let me ask you, Mr. Witness, was there or was there not any declaration by CJ Corona on the true value or the actual value of the properties that he acquired in your jurisdiction?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, the question will lack basis because not all the properties involved in the declaration mention, Your Honor, belongs to the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

The other property belongs to Czarina.  How can the Chief Justice be made to …

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I am going there, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go over the property one by one.

The Presiding Officer would like to ask this question.  Would the Office of the City Assessor of Taguig issue an assessment without the declaration required under the Local Government Code?

MR. VILLARUZ.  There are cases, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When?

MR. VILLARUZ.  When the owner fails to declare his property, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And you make the declaration?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But in all cases, a declaration must be made whether by the owner or by the City Assessor as a basis for the issuance of an assessment of the property for owner to pay the real estate tax?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, once an assessment is made, the assumption is made, the assumption is that there was a proper declaration done for that particular property.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  We made our assessment based on our schedule of fair market value.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, may I interrupt for a minute, Your Honor, I would like to cite the resolution adopting the rules of procedure on impeachment trials, Rule 15, may I read, witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.  I noticed, Your Honor, that there was a substitution of counsel, on the part of the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I reply, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Accidentally enough, Mr. Counsel, I am the lead counsel of the Chief Justice, and I can take over anytime, with the permission from the honorable court.

Is there any violation of any rule?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Unfortunately, the rules …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What the rules provide is, at the same time, two or more, if it is one by one, that is not mentioned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I have to stop this, you are quibbling with inconsequential matters.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It doesn’t matter whether the one that asks the question is either way, the panel of defense is there, the panel of prosecutor is there, you deal with the witness.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are delaying the proceeding.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We apologize, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Stop these things so that we can proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I have a pending question with the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I have a pending question with the witness.  Did Mr. Corona file or did he not file the required sworn statement under Articles 202 and 203 of the Local Government Code with respect to his properties in Taguig City.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, it assumes a question …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness may answer if he knows.

MR. VILLARUZ.  As of today, I have no knowledge about–…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tapos..

MR. VILLARUZ.  … –the Chief Justice files a sworn statement.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Mr. Witness, can you please make a definitive answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, as of today, he does not know.  Don’t press an answer of knowledge when the witness has already said, as of today, he does not know.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, may we allow the witness to go back to his office and come back, maybe on Monday, and bring a certification that there is no such filing on the part of the Chief Justice, or if there is one, please bring a copy of the sworn statement.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, may I be allowed?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, that assumes a situation where the procedure being laid down by the honorable counsel, Your Honor, is supposed to be mandatorily or to be observed in all cases, Your Honor.  What the law says, if the owner or the administrator fail to make the necessary declaration under oath within 60 days after the acquisition, Your Honor, then, the office of the assessor can continue with the proceedings and make the assessment instead of the owner or the administrator, Your Honor.

Why will there be a necessity, there is no procedure that is outlined for that purpose, Your Honor.  That is an arrogation of the power that do not belong to this witness, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I respond to that very briefly, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, go ahead.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The Local Government Code mandates, it is not an option on the part of the owner because the wording is, it shall be the duty, it is a mandatory provision, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we know the purpose—I was telling you, Your Honor, that it is directed towards …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you, counsel, disputing the accuracy of the assessment issued on these units by the city assessor of Taguig?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Your Honor, there is a big discrepancy between the market value …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well then, if you have the evidence, produce it to confront the witness.  Your are on a cross examination.

REP. FARIÑAS.  With the permission of the honorable Senate President …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, that is the proper thing to do if you are confronting this witness by cross examination without the necessary basis.

REP. FARIÑAS.  May we approach the witness, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, you may be violating the rule that was read—he was citing thereof.

REP. FARIÑAS.  The Senate President just said that we are allowed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, you can approach but there was no statement that you can …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the prosecution approach the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am sorry, Your Honor, I am sorry.

REP. FARIÑAS.  Mr. Witness, showing to you Exhibit 151, there is an entry here, supposed entries where it states sworn statement of owner.  Now, below, it says here, will you please read what it says there.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Sworn Statement of Owner.  Under the provision of Republic Act 7160, I hereby certify that the current and fair market value of the foregoing described property of which I am the owner, administrator, is to the best of my knowledge and belief, as follows:

REP. FARINAS.  Thank you.  Is there any signature in this requirement of entry to be sworn to by the owner?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Admitted.  There is none, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The document will speak for itself if there is a signature or there is none.

REP. FARINAS.  May you review all the other exhibits of tax declarations that you have testified to here before the honourable Senate and inform us if there is any signed declaration made by the owner.  I will refer you to 152.  Unless the defense will admit that there are no signatures of the …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we know the question, Your Honor.

REP. FARINAS.  Other tax declarations, Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question, the question.

REP. FARINAS.  If the Chief Justice signed the declaration.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we clarify, Your Honor.  Declaration with respect to what property.  Because there are three properties involved here, Your Honor.

REP. FARINAS.   156.  156.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  But what property is that?

REP. FARINAS.  This is the … Pakibasa kung anong property.

MR. VILLARUZ.  This is the McKinley Hill property.

REP. FARINAS.  At the back portion, is there any signature made by the declarant-owner?

MR. VILLARUZ.  There is none.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  There is none.  Next.

REP. FARINAS.  157.  Can you also look at the rear portion and inform the honourable court if there is any signature of the declarant-owner of the property.

MR. VILLARUZ.  There is no signature, Your Honor.

REP. FARINAS.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, what is the materiality of that?  Article II deals with the—you are presenting all of these documents under Article II.  Article II of the articles of impeachment deals with the inclusion, disclosure, and non-inclusion of assest, isn’t it?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   If all of those assets were included in the SALN, so there is compliance with of Article II.  You must show that the asset was not included, then we will allow.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I say something, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  The SALN requires not only filing but also that you file accurate entries in the SALN and we are directly questioning the entries or their truthfulness and accuracy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then you produce that.  You produce that.  This is already established.  The values are established in the declaration.  Now, you want to challenge the entries in this declaration, produce the evidence to controvert it.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We already did, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Where is it?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Because we have presented the various deeds of absolute sale covering these properties.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then let those stay in the record.  Make your summation at the proper time.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are arguing about values here.  We will never end this hearing if that is your procedure.  So Ordered.  Proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Mr. Witness, as part of your functions as City Assessor of Taguig, and as part of your functions in issuing tax declarations, are you also informed about the deeds of absolute sale involving the properties under your jurisdiction?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor. It is part of the requirements before transactions were made.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Alright. For the Bellagio, you would have known as part of your functions as City Assessor, I am referring to Exh. AAAA, Your Honor, that the purchase price of the Bellagio is P14,510,225.00 …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is per deed of sale?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Per deed of sale, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN. Whereas, the value indicated in your tax declaration, assessed value of P3,928,320.00 and market value of only P6,547,200.00, will you confirm, Mr. Witness, that the value indicated in your tax declaration is substantially lower than the acquisition cost of this Bellagio property.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The documents speak for themselves.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The document is the best document.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Is that the case, Your Honor, also for …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It is already admitted by the defense.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Thank you, Justice, but may I ask you, please, if that admission holds true for the property at Bonifacio Ridge Spanish Bay Tower and also the Mckinley Hill property?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no definite statement, Your Honor, that we cannot neither deny or affirm, may we be informed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You go over.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  For Bonifacio Ridge, Mr. Assessor, for contract dated October 14, 2005, the selling price is P9,159,940.00, whereas, in the tax declaration that you issued, the market value is merely P2,369,980.00 and the assessed value of P1,421,990.00. Will you confirm, Mr. Witness, that the actual price, the selling price of the acquisition cost of this property is more than three times greater than the market value reflected in your tax declaration?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, before the witness answer, may we be clarified as to the purpose of the question?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please, clarify it.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I explain, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN. I thought it was obvious, Your Honor, that in the SALN, the Chief Justice used values reflected in the tax declaration.  We are proving right now that the acquisition cost, the actual value or the current fair market value at the time of acquisition of these properties is far, far greater than that indicated in the SALN.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that, counsel,

The SALN of the Chief Justice is an official document submitted by him. Okay. And it reflects there the values that he attached to the properties that he declared in that SALN. Now, the tendency of your questioning is that those values do not show the real acquisition cost. I agree with you. That is why, you have to introduce evidence to contradict those values to prove the true value of acquiring those properties by the declarant of that SALN. And that is—you have already done that.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We have already done that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, what is the point in belabouring the issue with this witness?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, the Majority Floor Leader.

SEN SOTTO. Senator Marcos wishes to be recognized on that point, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

SEN. MARCOS.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I would just like to clarify because there seems to be a confusion or assertion that these are somehow discretionary values that can be imputed. The assessed value is very simply the schedule of fair market value which is contained in an ordinance that is passed by the Sanggunian of that LGU, and from the schedule of fair market value as explained  by Senator Recto, they take a percentage of that, ano ba yong ating naano, is 30% for the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For residential.

SEN. MARCOS.  For residential, 60% for…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For condo.

SEN. MARCOS.  Condo, and…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  50% for agriculture.

SEN. MARCOS.  50% for agriculture, and that is right, so, these assessed values come directly from the ordinance that states the schedule of fair market value.  The assessor has no discretion here.  He simply has to follow fair market value times 30%, 50%, 60%, whatever it is.  So, I think that whatever the acquisition cost was, it does not indicate any, shall we say, discretionary adjustment by the assessor.  We are putting the assessor on a spot here when all the assessor does is make that very simple calculation.  Just to clarify for everyone that these assessed values are pretty much dictated to the assessor by the ordinance that is passed by the Sanggunian of Taguig City.  Just for clarification.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know, counsel, you already established the basis that—and you asked that awhile ago, that this document presented by this witness are for tax purposes only.  They do not deal with the actual fact of acquisition of the property by the declarant, Chief Justice, of that SALN in question.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That being the case, Your Honor, we have no further cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, then, you have already introduced the controverting evidence.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize Senator Allan Peter Cayetano, the Minority Leader who wish to be recognized, then, Senator Lacson and Senator  Recto.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Magandang hapon, Mr. President, at sa atin pong dalawang panig.  When lawyers and numbers come together, ganito talaga nangyayari.  Kaya sa mga pre-law courses tinanggal na yong maraming math courses no.  But allow me to help my kababayan in the witness stand to help clarify by first a question to both the prosecution and defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I suggest, with due respect, before you proceed, let us suspend the session for…

SEN. SOTTO.  Ten minutes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

SEN. SOTTO.  Fifteen minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Fifteen minutes.

It was 3:52 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 4:23 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.

The Gentleman from Taguig has the floor.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Kanina po, naga-argue or nagkakalituhan po pagdating sa ano yong fair market value, ano yong mga zonal value, etc.  So, let me address first this question to both the prosecution and the defense.  Malinaw naman po sa Constitution na kailangan mag-file ng SALN ang isang opisyal, mandatory po yan.  Malinaw din po sa 6713 at sa amendment na ang kailangan po nating i-file at tinanong ko na po dati ito sa ating good Justice Cuevas at sinabi nga po nya no kung ano yong mga dapat ilagay.

Dito po sa form, nakikita po natin Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth.  Doon po sa 1.  Assets, a. Real Properties, nakalagay: Kind, location, year acquired, mode of acquisition, assessed value, current fair market value, acquisition cost na may land, building and then another column, improvements, no.  Ang pinagtatalunan po natin ngayon, current fair market value.  May I ask the prosecution first, ano po ang pagkaintindi nyo, ang current fair market value, at ano ang basis nito dapat?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Para sa amin po, Ginoong Hukom, ang current market fair value is the actual value of the property at the time that it was declared. So, for example, if the SALN is dated December 31, 2010, the current, because it’s called current fair market value should be the actual value as of December 31, 2010.  That’s how we interpret it, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, including the price of the improvements, or the value of the improvements

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yes, Your Honor, if that is indicated in the SALN, including the improvements.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Ano po ang basis nyo?  Bakit po iyon ang interpretasyon ninyo?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Meron pong definition doon sa SALN form.  May I just have a second to look for my file, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pakidagdag na rin po, sino ang magsasabi kung ano ang current fair market value.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  It is a…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam po ninyo sa ating Saligang Batas ang iniuutos lang ay ilista ang assets, liabilities at net worth, hindi ba?  Ngayon, these are ordinary accounting terms used for hundreds and hundreds of years in accounting practice.  They have a settled technical meaning.  Asset, yong pag-aari mo.  Sa accounting, you record your asset by its historical cost, not by its evaluation value or per market value at a given time so that you will know, you carry these values in time for purposes of computing your taxable income when you dispose of them.  Kaya palagay ko nalilito tayo dahil dito sa mga form na ginawa.  All that the Constitution says is list your assets, liabilities and net worth.  So, naturally, for you to be able to know your net worth, you much list your asset according to the amounts that you use to buy them compared to your liabilities and  what is the difference of the asset over the liabilities, that is your net worth.  This is the accounting system.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Nandito po sa SALN form ang definition ng current fair market value.   Babasahin ko po.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).    To be clear, counsel, that is the old SALN form.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  This is the old SALN form, particularly 1992 SALN form.  Current fair market value means it’s actual value.  That is the fair value of the property as between one who wants to purchase and one who wants to sell it.  Yan po ang definition ng old SALN form and because there is that word “current”, ang amin pong posisyon is whenever you accomplish your SALN and you date it, for example, dated December 31, 2011, then you have to place there the fair market value as of December 31, 2011.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Sino po ang magsasabi?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yon pong nagde-declare kung sino po yong public official na nag-e-execute ng SALN sya po dapat ang mag-ascertain.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  At ano po ang basis nyo?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yon pong maaari pong yong acquisition cost, maaaring yong mga improvements na inilagay nya pero hindi po nya pwedeng gamitin yong tax declaration sapagkat yong tax declaration po e based sa schedule of value na luma.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Para malinaw, itanong po natin sa defense, same question po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The fair market value, if Your Honor please, na dapat maging panuntunan sa pagdedeklara sa SALN ng isang public official could be on the basis of the valuation made by the assessor, Your Honor.  Because as we will notice, even under the Constitution or any law, there is no definite amount, there are no definite considerations that must be considered for purposes of determining ano ba ang tunay na market value.  Dito po mapapansin natin ang involve po dito ay mga, hindi lamang lupa at bahay kung hindi condo units.  And alam po naman natin na ang condo unit, minsan mataas na mataas, kung ang acquisition, halimbawa po lang ‘to, P3 million, pwede pong sa isang pagkakataon ang ginawang declaration ay maaaring isang milyon lamang ang halaga non.  At maaaring kahit bago don, mas mababa pa.

What I wanted to drive out is—may I continue, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes, please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What I wanted to drive out is if in the preparation and submission of his statement of assets and liabilities, the public official making the same have relied on the valuation made by an official of the government, he must be in good faith, no presumption of malice, and therefore if there is no malice, then the statement of  assets and liabilities, if there are errors, irregularities, infirmities may be ordered corrected, Your Honor.

What prevents the correction, Your Honor, on the part of the official making the return is if there is malice and bad faith.  In other words, in order to defraud, in order to create another criminal liability, then that is where the law will set in, Your Honor, as not granting him the element of …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tama po tayo diyan.  Pero kung ito ay impeachment case e.

In ordinary cases, tama yan.  Impeachment case ito.  Ibig sabihin, linabag ba ang Saligang Batas?  Meron bang pagkakamali na pinagbabatayan o pwedeng pagbatayan sa impeachment?  Assets—Utos ng batas ito ha, utos ng Saligang Batas.  Assets, Liabilities, Net Worth, okay.  E hindi lamang yan ang sinabi, sinabi ng batas, kailangang ideklara mo at sumpaan mo na ito ang asset mo, ito ang liability mo at ito ang net worth mo.

Ano ba yung net worth?   Yung net worth po ng isang korporasyon o isang tao ay nababatay po yon dun sa halaga ng kanyang asset minus liabilities.  At yung halaga nung asset is based for tax purposes, and we must know that.  The purpose of this law is for anti-corruption policy of the government.  And you cannot commit a corruption if you acquired it for 1 million and it’s now 100 million.  You did not steal the difference between 1 million and 100 million.  If ever, if you indeed committed corruption, it’s only limited to the 1 million.  Kaya kailangan, ang importante yung acquisition cost ditto.

All right.  So proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We agree, Your Honor, Mr. President.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Thank you.  Yung word po na current at yung sinabi po ni Senate President ng net worth, wouldn’t that affect yung choice nung declarant kung ano ilalagay niyang interpretation nya ng current and fair market value?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kasi po, sa pagkaunawa ko, yung current ay varies e, sapagka’t meron pong pagkakataon na ang halaga ng acquisition, let’s say, is five million, after two or three years that may only be worth two million or even less.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Meron pong as of December 31.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So yung current as of that date …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I wanted to point out, Your Honor, a situation similar to this.  The acquisition was made years ago.  But what is involved in the controversy is the present SALN.  Now, do we hold the person making the statement liable for the 3 million or the value as it is now?  There is where a great difference will come in, Your Honor, because we have held a lot of witnesses here in connection with the valuation before, and there were statements on the effect.  Meron pong pagkakataon kahit na ang halaga’y ganito ay binibigay ng lugi pa sa halaga.  So, kung ako po ang magfa-file, alin po ang ilalagay ko?  Necessary yung ilalagay ko yung kasalukuyang halaga.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yung acquisition cost po at ‘yong assessed, wala tayong pagtatalo doon, ‘yong current.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But isa pa hong tanong, kung pwede po, ‘yong mga lawyers natin, pakitingnan niyo po iyong SALN ng Chief Justice, putol lang ho ba ‘yong form or ‘yong networth ho?  Meron po, ‘yong iba, meron po ano, iyong iba, wala.  Kasi sa form po namin, merong networth e.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Meron din po dito.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Hindi po ba hindi magiging accurate iyong networth kung hindi po ang ilalagay natin iyong actual market value.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Agreed po ako doon, pero ito ang aking itinatanong sa inyo.  Kung ako po ang magpa-file, ang ini-acquire kong condominium unit cost me, let us say, P10 million, that was three years ago, and I am filing again another SALN now, and the value thereof could even be only P1 million instead of P5 million.  May I be faulted for stating P1million only?  Is there fraud?  Is that indicative of fraud?

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  If you bought it po for five years ago at P5 million, at ang halaga noon ay P5 million.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Ang declaration nyo, 5-5.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  If three years later, it is P10 million, ang declaration niyo, 5-10.  If 10 years later, bumagsak ang presyo, it is P1 million, ang declaration niyo is 5 and 1.  Para makita po talaga kung magkano ang …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo, nakalagay po doon sa una.  I declared it as five pero bumababa na po ngayon ang halaga …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Nagkakasala ho ba ako …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … ng paglabag sa batas?

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Justice, the point, Justice, I wanted to drive at is that, wala tayong pagtatalo sa fact.  This is not a debate on—it is not an issue of fact.  So, kasi, sinasabi po nila, iba ang presyo ng actual current—iba ang current fair market value, at ang sinasabi nyo po, iba.  Ang sinasabi ho ng prosecution, dapat kung ano iyong kapag pumunta ka sa broker ngayon, pare, magkano mo ibebenta ito at magkano ko pwedeng bilhin?  Iyon ang gusto nilang amount.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  E kung sabihin po—I am sorry po, I am sorry.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Tama po kayo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Pasensya po.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Tama po kayo, sa inyo naman po, ang sinasabi nyo po, magulo iyong ganoong basehan kasi pwedeng ibaba o itaas ng broker at paiba-iba.  So, sa inyo, ang sinasabi nyo po, pwedeng iyong assessor, iyong value sa assessor, sapagkat good faith ang public official kapag ganoon—so, actually, ang pinag-uusapan natin, hindi conclusion of fact kung hindi conclusion of law.  So, ang trabaho namin, mag-decide ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng current fair market value at kung mag-aagree kami sa prosecution na dapat yong actual, ang susunod naming ano, is this impeachable or is it a simple mistake without malice, as you stated, correct ho ba ang pagkaintindi ko more or less po?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is where, Your Honor, we may vary in our  postulation and articulation.  If I were a sitting Justice, necessarily, I will take into consideration all the necessary factors.  Mayroon nga po akong nabiling halagang P5 million, three or four years ago, e magpa-file na naman ako ngayon as an impeachable public officer.  E itinanong ko sa—magkano ba mabibili?  Wala ng mabibili niyan, bulok na bulok na iyan and so on.  Am I still under legal obligation to declare it as P5 million acquisition or only the …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  My point, precisely, Justice, we can spend the whole month arguing on values and amounts, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But ang pinagtatalunan pala dito iyong conclusion of law whether kung ano ang depinisyon ng current fair market value.  Let me elaborate ano.  Tatlo ang vaules na alam natin e.  Iyon una, iyong sinasabing sa assessor, halimbawa po sa Taguig, tama po ba ako, Ginoong assessor?  Sa Fort Bonifacio ang pinakamataas na value is P19,200 sa kahit anong building at condominium.  Iyon ang pinakamataas.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Hindi po kayo pwedeng mag-assess ng mas mataas doon.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Now, kahit na meron po tayong isang condominium doon na P130,000 na per square ang bentahan, tama po ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  At bakit po nga ganoon?

MR. VILLARUZ.  We are bound by the ordinance, the schedule of fair market value.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.  And what are the considerations of our councillors and of our dear mayor in determining kung itataas o hindi?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Come again.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Didiretsuhin ko na, two years ago, itinaas ng 200-300%  ang taxes diyan, ngayon, ang policy noong bagong mayor, no new taxes, hindi itataas, bakit?  Kapag itinaas niyo iyong taxes, ano po ang mangyayari?  Sa Taguig ho ba bibili ng condominium at sa Taguig ho ba magtatayo ng condominium ang ibang mga developer o lilipat ng Mandaluyong, Pasig, Makati, Quezon City, Maynila?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Malamang na lilipat, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Meaning po, hindi inuutos ng local government code sa sanggunian na ilagay mo iyong actual market value.  Ang sinasabi lang option ninyo iyan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gentlemen, I beg your indulgence, because we have not much time.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Your Honor, just one minute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I would like to explain the position of this Presiding Officer.  The only thing material here is did this respondent, Chief Justice, include in his SALN his assets liabilities and networth in his SALN?  Did he miss in including some of his assets, liabilities and networh in his SALN.  That is Article II.  That is all we have to deal in Article II.  And if he did not, then we go back to the Constitution.  First sentence of the Constitution which says:   “A public official or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be prescribed by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and networth.  Did he comply with this faithfully?  If he did not reflect all his assets and liabilities and netwoth in his SALN faithfully.  When you state under oath something, you must be factual and truthful, isn’t it?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Then that is the issue.  That is all.  Let us not waste our time discussing values, fair market value, assessed value or whatever value.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  I agree, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution has already established the acquisition cost of his assets.  That is a proper rebuttal evidence.  So, proceed.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Your Honor, may I have one minute just to wrap up.  Your point was precisely my point because we have been quibbling from the start and many Senators have been trying to help clarify these amounts.  So, just allow me to wrap up, Your Honor, with one minute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  Proceed.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kaya po iyong batas po ang sinasabi iyong fair market value, iyon po ay iyong nasa schedule.  Iba po iyan sa fair market value na nasa Constitution, na halimbawa kung gagamitin mo iyong eminent domain, iyong mayroon kayong i-e-expropriate na lupa, and susundin doon iyong sinasabi ng prosecution na iyong halaga na iyong isang buyer eh gustong ibenta at iyong isang seller ay payag siyang ibenta at isang buyer willing siyang bumili, so, kung pupunta ako ng broker, pare, gusto ko itong condo na ito, magkano ibebenta iyan.  Pag sinabing P50,000.00 per square, kahit sa schedule mo ay P19,200 per square lang, ..iyon  po iyong actual fair market value.  Kaya tayo nalilito dahil ginamit ng local government code iyong salitang fair market value at ginamit naman po ng SALN, current fair market value at sa Constitution naman po na fair market value, magkaiba din po iyon.  Lastly, nadagdagan pa ng zonal value na nandiyan sa Section 6-E of the NIRC, na sinasabi for payment of internal revenue taxes, whichever is higher.  The amount determined by the commissioner which is the zonal value or the amount shown in the assessor’s.  But both of these can be lower.  So, bottom line, Mr. President, you are correct.  Sa haba-haba po ng pinag-uusapan ngayon, ang punto lang ganito.  Mas mababa ang assessed value, ang fair market value sa ordinansa sa buong Pilipinas.  Halos sa buong Pilipinas.  Kaso sa aktwal.  At ang pinag-uusapan lang ano ba dapat ilagay sa column na iyon.  Pero para  matigil na po iyong usapan, sinasabi ng prosecution dapat iyong aktwal, at sinasabi ng defense, good faith dahil sinunod iyong nandiyan sa assessors.  So, I hope I helped clarify this matter and we can move on to another point.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There is no question that the Chief Justice included certain assets in his statement of assets and liabilities and networth in his SALN.  There is an allegation which is 2.3, paragraph 2.3 of  Article II that he did not include some assets in the form of bank accounts. That is what we are dealing here in this particular article. And we are going astray in discussing the job of an assessor, discussing the job of a register of deeds. These are all irrelevant. Come on, proceed.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN. While on that note, Mr. President, a while ago, they made this assessor identified a transfer certificate of title purportedly belonging to Ma. Charina Corona. We checked, Your Honor, and it is the same as our evidence. Therefore, in order to obviate the need to present the register of deeds for Taguig, we are willing to admit the existence and authenticity of that title, but we are not admitting the validity and genuineness of the underlying transaction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Then, the question with respect to that title, is that an asset of the Chief Justice or is that a real asset of the daughter?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  In short, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, you present a proof that that is not an asset of the daughter, but asset of the Chief Justice, then that means, that is an excluded—non-included assets. So, it comes into the picture.  But until then, leave it as that. It is already in the record.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.   Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Ping Lacson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cavite.

SEN. LACSON.  Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

My reference is the document, the SALN of the Chief Justice, as of December 31, 2010. I have no problem with the figures listed down by the Chief Justice under the column “assessed value”. Hindi naman po siya ang may gawa nito, kung ‘di ang reference niya rito iyong assessor, hindi po ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.    Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  I have no problem with the figures as listed by the Chief Justice under the column “current fair market value”, kasi sa inyo rin galing ito, ang reference nito, City Assessor din?

MR. VILLARUZ. Current fair market value.

SEN. LACSON.  Fair market value.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Can I …

SEN. LACSON. Ito iyong sakop ng ordinance, city ordinance, hindi ho ba?  Kaya, hindi natin siya mabi-blame dito  kung ano man iyong figures na nilagay rito, hindi niya gawa ito?

MR. VILLARUZ.    Based on the tax declaration, based on the current fair market value.

SEN. LACSON. Yes. Yes. I understand. When we summed up, if we get the sum total of all the figures under the column “current fair market value”, the total would be P18,438,980.00.  Ito po ang nilagay niya under the column “acquisition cost”.  Ang tanong ko po, ‘pag pinag-usapan natin acquisition cost, ano pa dapat ang reference ng declarant? Saan nanggagaling iyong acquisition cost? Prosecution or defense may answer.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Ang acquisition po ay manggagaling doon sa deed of sale.

SEN. LACSON.  Deed of sale. Ano po ang nakalagay sa deed of sale doon sa, ‘wag na nating—kasi hindi naman sakop ng ating witness iyong first three items, ano? Iyon lang condo—number four condo at saka number five condo, magkano po iyong number four condo ayon sa deed of sale?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Iyong Bellagio po, ang nasa kontrata …

SEN. LACSON.  Iyong number four muna. Hindi ko alam kung anong Bellagio rito.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Ito po iyong Bonifacio Ridge Spanish Bay Tower.

SEN. LACSON. Okay, magkano po ang deed of sale?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Ang nasa kontrata po ay P9,159,940.00

SEN. LACSON.  Okay, magkano po sa deed of sale iyong condo number five, Taguig, acquired 2010, Bellagio?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Iyong Bellagio po, ang per contract, the price is P14,510,225.00

SEN. LACSON.  Magkano po ang total na n’on, iyong dalawang condominium lang, hindi kasali iyong tatlo?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Twenty-three thousand.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.    Million

SEN. LACSON.  Ang ibig pon sabihin nito iyong nilagay niyang total under the column “acquisition cost” na P18,488,980.00, eh, kulang po doon sa …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Per deed of sale.

SEN. LACSON.  … doon sa binanggit ninyo na deeds of sale ng dalawang property.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.   Opo.

SEN. LACSON.  Kulang po ng P5 million, more or less?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Tama po iyon.

SEN. LACSON.  So, ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Hindi po truthful,  hindi po accurate iyong pagkaka-declare ng SALN.

SEN. LACSON.  May I hear from the defense.  I want some explanation because I am referring to a document signed and sworn to by the declarant, the Chief Justice.  And the document, I supposed, that was read by the prosecution e, signed din ng Chief Justice, he being the buyer of those two properties.  So, I would like to hear an explanation if you can and if you will tungkol don sa discrepancy na 5 million more or less don sa under the column acquisition cost.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will definitely dealt with it when our turn comes in the presentation of our evidence.

SEN. LACSON.  Salamat po.  Iyon lamang po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But, may I make a short statement.

SEN. LACSON.  Sige po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The total refer to in here P18,438,980.00 seem to be the sum total of the current fair…

SEN. LACSON.  Of the current fair market value.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, there is no—this is not a representation by the filer that the acquisition cost is this amount, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  Pero nakalagay…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   This is how I understood it.

SEN. LACSON.  Nakalagay sa column ng acquisition cost eh.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Doon nga po…

SEN. LACSON.  Sana po kung ito ay sum total ng current fair market value, dapat ito ay nasa ilalim nung column na current fair market value.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po yon, pero…

SEN. LACSON.  Kasi, I did a simple computation, in fact, addition, in-add ko po yung P7,138,000.00; P921,000.00; P1,210,000.00; P2,369,980.00;P6,800,000.00; pag in-add po nyo lahat yon, ito ay P18,438,000.00.  Kung ang intension po ng declarant, e kunin yong total ng current fair market value, hindi po ba dapat nasa ilalim yon ng column na yon at hindi sa ilalim ng acquisition cost na sub-title pa ng land, building, etc..and improvements, tama po ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po iyon, if it was accurately and fairly prepared.  Your observation, I agree, should have been the correct procedure, Your Honor.  But, you will probably agree with me that there is no statement relative to the acquisition cost.

SEN. LACSON.  Tama din po yon kaya napakaimportanteng makausap natin si Chief Justice para maipaliwanag nya kung bakit nasa ilalim ng acquisition cost napalagay yung P18 milyon at hindi sa ilalim ng fair market value.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor, if this was prepared personally by him.

SEN. LACSON. A, hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But there is no evidence to the effect…

SEN. LACSON.  Meron po tayong disagreement diyan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo.

SEN. LACSON.  Kasi maski iba, maski iyong clerk nya o sekretarya nya ang nag-prepare nito, after all, siya po ang manunumpa rito e talagang obligasyon nya, responsibilidad nya na alamin kung tama ang lahat ng ito dahil siya ang makukulong, siya ang mai-impeach at hindi iyong kanyang secretary.  Tama rin po ba yon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama rin po yon.  Pero  if it was merely inadvertence or negligence, I do not know how the impeachment complaint can come in.

SEN. LACSON.  Agree po ako sa inyo don.  Kaya kailangan ipakita sa atin na hindi ito sinasadya.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What SALN?  What year was that?

SEN. LACSON.  As of December 31, 2010.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But December 31

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   Exhibit 14-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2009, do you have any—was these assets also listed in that SALN?

SEN. LACSON.  Medyo nagkakadiprensiya sa mga items, iyong under “kind, year acquired, mode of acquisition”, medyo may…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, that will be the function of the court to evaluate.

SEN. LACSON.  Tama po, Mr. Presiding Officer, salamat po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   Will you agree with me, Mr. Senator Judge that under this 2009 SALN, the computation giving a total amount of P14,059,080.00 is the computation of the figures stated herein falling under current fair market value, and that there is no entry whatsoever under acquisition cost.

SEN. LACSON.  Tama po yon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Escudero, Francis Escudero.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you also to Senator Recto for accommodating this Representation.

Mr. President, just a few questions and a manifestation after that.

Mr. Witness, gaano katagal na po kayong assessor o nagtatrabaho sa opisina ng assessors office?

MR. VILLALUZ.  I became officer-in-charge of the City Assessor November of 2010, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Bago po non diyan din po kayo sa opisinang yan?

MR. VILLALUZ.  I am with the Assessor’s Office in 2001, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Matanong ko lang ho kayo kasi para na rin si guidance namin at ng mga tao na nanonood sa atin.  Yong nakalagay doon na sworn declaration of owner as to the current fair market value, ito po ba ay pinupunuan talaga ng mga nagpa-file sa inyo?  Marami po ba kayong nakikitang ganito o konti?

MR. ORDANES.  Konti lang po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Palagi po bang blangko yan?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Karaniwan ho blangko po yon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ngayon, sabi sa Local Government Code, kada tatlong taon kailangan mag-file yong may-ari ng lupa.  May nagpa-file ho ba sa inyo?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Sa experience ko po sa ngayon wala pa po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Wala po.  May parusa po ba kapagka hindi nag-file sang-ayon sa Sections 203 at 202?  Kasi baka may parusa ho pala yong hindi ko ginagawa baka hindi ko rin ginagawa yan e.  May parusa po ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Sa pagkaka-alam ko po yong Section 204 po ang i-implement po namin.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ngayon, sunod na tanong ko po, again, I know the Chair already elaborated on this but also just to inform not only us but also all other government officials with respect to this portion of the SALN, sabi ng SALN form, current fair market value sa definition walang nakalagay na current.  Sabi, actual value at which the buyer is willing to buy and the seller is willing to sell.  Yan din po ang definition sa Local Government Code, hindi po ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Opo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ang nakalagay po sa Local Government Code, Section 199, fair market value is the price at which the buyer is willing to buy and the seller is willing to sell as determined by the sanggunian.  Ngayon tatanungin ko po kayo, nagpa-file po kayo ng SALN, hindi po ba?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Opo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ano ho yong nilalagay nyong fair market value doon sa SALN nyo?  Yong nakalagay po ba doon sa  ordinansya o yong sa pananaw ninyo balor noong lupa ninyo at which the buyer is willing to buy and the seller is willing to sell?  Nagpa-file po kayo ng SALN, hindi po ba?  Kinokopya nyo lang po ba rin yong nakalagay na fair market value doon sa ordinansa kung may lupa ho kayong pag-aari?

MR. VILLARUZ.  Sa pagpa-file ko po ng SALN…

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Sa inyo po, opo.

MR. VILLARUZ.  … usually ang ginagawa ko is mixed e.  Mayrong…

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Hindi po kayo nasasakdal dito, huwag ho kayong mag-alala.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness, answer.

MR. VILLARUZ.  Merong base doon sa tax declaration at merong base sa pagkakaalam ko po  magkano yong property po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  As a last point of this issue, Mr. President,  I have a problem with being strict—for the record—with being strict with fair market value.  Because quite frankly right now or as of December 31, I do not know the current fair market value the townhouse in which I’m living in.  Sino ba ang tatanungin ko?  Yong kapitbahay ko na nagbenta pinakamalapit sa petsa ng December 31 kung magkano?  Paano pag kailangan ko ng pera gusto kong ibenta ng palugi?  So ilalagay ko willing ako ibenta yong condominium ko, yong townhouse ko worth P5 million sa halagang P2 million lang dahil nagmamadali ako e.  Yon ang ilalagay ko ngayon dito tapos sasampalin ako ng magsasampa sa akin ng kaso na ang nakalagay sa fair market value sa ordinansya mas mataas, in-undervalue mo ito.  So at the end of the day, Mr. President, Your Honor, unless the law clarifies it, it’s quite, for me it’s logical to have a basis.  At  least hindi ka maku-question dahil ang nakalagay sa ordinansya ito yong fair market value.  That would be the safest, I would assume, kaysa ma-question ka kung saan mo hinugot yong fair market value na buyer is willing to buy at seller is willing to sell.

I’m taking off from that, Mr. President, Your Honor, I will shift to my point really.  I asked this before we came to this point and I would like to ask the question again of defense and prosecution counsels.  Nandito na po tayo doon sa yugtong nagkrus na yong dalawang kalye.  Sabi at ang teyorya ng prosekusyon yong lupa daw na nasa pangalan ni Charina ay sa kanya, kay Chief Justice Corona bagaman ang tax declaration ay nakapangalan kay Charina at yong titulo ay nakapangalan kay Charina.  Sabi naman ng prosekusyon din, yong lupa, syempre inconsistent sa posisyon nilang yon, yon yong lupa na nasa pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona pa rin ay hindi na  kanya, ayon sa depensa dahil may deed of sale na And yet ang claim ng depensa po ngayon, dahil wala sa pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona ay hindi kanya yon.

I asked both parties to submit a memorandum on this but I don’t believe we’ve received it.  Can I get the answer from both counsels now?  Let me reiterate, ang teorya po ninyo, Justice Cuevas, ay bagaman nakapangalan pa yung titulo at tax dec ay Christina Corona, hindi na kay Chief Justice Corona yan dahil may Deed of Sale na, di ho ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi ‘hindi na’ po.  Hindi kanya.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Hindi na nga po kanya at hindi na niya kailangan ideklara.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Yung sa Marikina po, yung kay Ginoong Vicente.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo.  Kay Vicente.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Yung kay Vicente po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  We have been discussing about the validity of the alleged transaction dahil po don sa Torrens Certificate of Title.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Malaki po ang—Ako po ay, wala akong rason, sa totoo lang, na pagdudahan si Ginoong Vicente matapos niyang tumestigo rito.  Ang sinasabi ko nga lang po ay, sa teorya ninyo, hindi po ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Bagaman nakapangalan ang titulo at tax dec ay Christina Corona, hindi na yan kanya.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Dahil nga po may Deed of Sale.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Dahil sa Deed of Sale na pinirmahan nya.  At ang titulo po ay …

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Kabaligtaran naman po ang posisyon ng prosekusyon na kay Czarina naman.  Sabi nyo, kanya yan, nakapangalan sa kanya e.  E kay Czarina, nakapangalan sa kanya pero ang sinasabi ninyo hindi kanya yan.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Wala ho kasi siyang kakayahang mamili ng property na yon sa McKinely Hill.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  O di idemanda nyo po ng tax evasion si Czarina pero ano po yung—Na wala po siyang kakayanan dahil hindi siya nagbabayad ng buwis, hindi po ba?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ang pinresenta lang po kasi ninyong ebidensya na kay Chief Justice Corona yan ay hindi nagbabayad ng buwis si Czarina, therefore, walang kakayanan.  Ganon po ba yon?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Meron po kaming ebidensya na ang nagbabayad—It is a simulated sale, Your Honor, because it is the Chief Justice who paid the …

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Bilang attorney-in-fact, sang-ayon sa exhibit na pinresenta ninyo, hindi po ba?  He signed as attorney-in-fact.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Well, that can mean later, Your Honor, but the receipts are in the name, I understand, of the Chief Justice.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, ang teorya nyo don, sa kanya pa rin yon bagaman yung tax dec at yung titulo ay wala sa pangalan nya?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.  Siya po ang totoong may-ari nung lupa sa McKinely Hill.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  At ang ebidensya nga pong tinatayuan ninyo ay siya ang nagbayad, tama ho ba, at walang kakayanan?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Justice Cuevas?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi pa po kami nagsisimulang magprisinta ng ebidensya dito e.  Nakikiusap po kami sa inyo na bigyan nyo kami ng pagkakataon sapagaka’t ang nadinig ninyo, ang nadinig ng this Impeachment Court ay yun lang version ng complainant.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  As a last point, Mr. President, Your Honor, there’s a third matter.  Yung No. 1 po sa item ng SALN, meron pong 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, walong column, hindi po ba?  Kind, Location, Year Acquired, Mode of Acquisition, Assessed Value, Current Fair Market Value, under Acquisition Cost, Land Building, Etc., at Improvements.

Pakigiyahan nyo kami pag nag-summation na kayo.  Alam ko na ang alegayson po ng complaint ay non-inclusion lamang at walang binanggit kaugnay sa hindi kumpletong pagfa-file, maliban na lamang kung kasama sa teyorya ninyong hindi nag-file pagka kulang.  Pero, ano po yung—kahit hindi po sagutin ngayon, sa inyong summation na lamang po para hindi maubos yung oras natin, natanong ko na rin po ito dati.  Three out of—Six out of eight po pinunuan.  Hindi natin pwedeng sabihing nagsinungaling na tinayuang niya yung fair market value, iniwang blangko, kasi yung ka-Acquisition Cost e.

Ngayon, kung ang iniwan nyang blangko ay yung Acquisition Cost, paglabag ba yon?  Pakibigay po samin yung argumento’t  basehan sa inyong mga summation pagdating po ng panahon.

Hindi po ngayon.  Ayoko pong pasukin yun ngayon para makapagpatuloy ng pagprisinta ng ebidensya.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We’ll be dealing with it when we file our …

SEN. ESCUDERO.  At paki-address na rin po, ano po ang depinisyon at pagtingin ninyo sa konsepto ng substantial compliance at good faith compliance kaugnay po ng issue at bagay na ito para magiyahan po kami.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We will file our memorandum as …

SEN. ESCUDERO.  At the proper time.  Thank you, counsel.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please proceed with the trial.  (Gavel)  Let us stop these arguments.  We are in the period of presentation of evidence.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.  And hopefully, what is transpiring is being monitored by the Civil Service Commission because it is their SALN Form that is somehow confusing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Defective.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, confusing and defective.  So, hopefully, they will listen to to the Senate Committee on Civil Service, chaired by Senator Trillanes, so that he can correct all of these.

May we recognize Senator Recto very quickly, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Batangas.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  I will no longer belabour the issues on 202 of the Local Government Code, 203, 204, going back to the issues of current fair market values, schedule of market values, and assessed values, as discussed earlier.  But first, I would like to find out from both the defense and the prosecution to guide me.

What law says that we must put in the SALN, assessed value, current fair market value and acquisition cost?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ang tingin ko po, walang definite provision sa any law, if I recall correctly.  Hindi ko po …

SEN. RECTO.  So, wala kayong alam na batas na nagsasabi na kailangang i-fill up natin lahat itong mga …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Completely and correctly.

SEN. RECTO.  Itong tatlong values na hinihingi sa SALN.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kasi po, ang pagkaunawa ko, sa panig po ng depensa, ang pagakaunawa ko po, itong form na ito, binalangkas nila na hindi tugmang tugma sa pangangailangan o sa mandato ng any specific law.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Whatever it is.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The duty is imposed by the Constitution, and all of us, whether lawyer or accountant know what is the meaning of asset, know what is the meaning of liabilities and know what is the meaning of networth.

SEN. RECTO.  That is correct, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ignorantia legis, neminem excusat.

SEN. RECTO.  That is correct, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, let us not belabour this, let us go back to the trial.

SEN. RECTO.  Precisely.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And present the evidence so that we can finish this case.

SEN. RECTO.  Yes, precisely, Mr. President, and I will get to that very briefly.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Second point na gusto kong tanungin, hindi naman dinidispute ng prosecution—first, meron ba kayong sagot doon sa katanungan ko—sa unang katanungan ko, sa prosecution side naman.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Meron po, Your Honor.  The sworn statement of assets, liabilities and networth, is required under Republic Act 6713.

SEN. RECTO.  Oo, alam natin iyon.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  Doon nakalagay ba, iyong assessed value, current fair market value at acquisition cost.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.   Doon po sa form ay expected po ang declairant na sabihin niya …

SEN. RECTO.  Hindi, sa batas, nakalagay iyon doon na kailangan itong tatlong value, ilagay—para maintindihan ko.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  Nakalagay doon sa batas na iyan.

ATTY. PANGANGIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  I will take your word for it and I will read the law.  Thank you.

Okay, no one is disputing here between the prosecution and the defense what the witness has testified on with regard to the assessed value and the current fair market value as in the SALN.  Kasi ito, galing naman po sa tax declaration e na issued ng assessor.  Sa palagay ko, walang dispute dito.  Is that correct for the prosecution side?

ATTY. PANGAIBAN.  No, Your Honor, because there was selective use of the values …

SEN. RECTO.  No, I am talking about the assessed and the current fair market value in the SALN ha.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That is correct, Your Honor.  There is selective use, for example, for the house and lot …

SEN. RECTO.  Yes, I heard your testimony earlier.  Okay.  Taguig lang to ha, Taguig, the two condos lang.  Okay.  Kasi, apparently, the numbers are the same as what has been testified.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Sa palagay ko, walang dispute dito e, galing to sa tax declaration mismo e.  Okay, maliwanag tayo diyan.  Kaya tayo humahaba din, not because only of the Senator Judges, gawa ng, I don’t know why the prosecution is belabouring this issue.

Okay.  Now, the last point, acquisition cost, palagay ko, nandito ‘yong malaking problema, as far as the prosecution is concerned, bakit hindi nilagay iyong sa deed of sale?  Iyong halaga doon, iyon ang ibig sabihin, pati ng Senate President, na lahat tayo, naiinitindihan natin iyan, sa acquisition cost.  Is that correct?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Tama po.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama iyon.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Tama po.

SEN. RECTO.  Ngayon, walang kasgutan naman ang depensa kung bakit hindi nilagay, basta sinabi lang, walang nilagay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Wala pong nakalagay.

SEN. RECTO.  Walang nakalagay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am just basing my observation on what appears on it.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.  So, ano ngayon ang sinasabi ng prosecution?  Kung walang nilagay, may itinatago, is that what you are saying?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  Maliwanag.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo, very obviously.

SEN. RECTO.  Obviously.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  At kung titingnan mo yung SALN mula 1992 hanggang sa ngayon.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Wala po.

SEN. RECTO.  Walang inilagay sa acquisition cost.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Tama po iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  Doon lang sa assessed at current market value may nakalagay?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama ho ba iyon?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Tama po.

SEN. RECTO.  So, simula noong ’92, sinasabi mo, kahit na irrelevant iyong 92, at pag-usapan lang natin 2002 hanggang 2010 …

SEN. ARROYO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

SEN. ARROYO.  I have been watching the proceedings.  A private prosecutor is arguing on points of law.  It has been cleared and the rule is, as stated by the impeachment court, is that when it comes to points of law, only public prosecutors will argue on points of law.  The private prosecutors can only examine witnesses.  A private prosecutor cannot appear for the House of Representatives.  Only a Congressman can appear for the House of Representatives.  We are now talking about theories and all that.  So, will you please.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I will yield, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  At para matapos na, isang minute na lang.  Okay.  So, ang contention ngayon dito, as far as assets A, real properties are concerned, wala pa tayo sa bangko, iyong problema ng hindi paglagay ng what is declared in the deed of absolute sale sa acquisition cost.  And your contention is that mayroong itinatago.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  That is true, Your Honor.  Totoo po iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  Iyon ang sinasabi ninyo.  And palagay ko, kung bakit tatlo ang nakalagay dito, ay dahil, halimbawa pag donation, pag donation iyong property at mayroong isang donation dito, mayroon bang acquisition cost iyon?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  Definitely none.  Because it is gratuituous.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama.  So, wala ka talagang mailalagay sa acquisition cost.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pero sa donation, the value at which you compute the donor’s tax is the value that must be reflected in your books.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Tama po iyon.  Kaya pag donation, kaya hinihingi ng batas, the assessed value, current fair market value, para may basehan sa pagbilang, mayroong accounting standard na susundan.  So, zero sa acquisition cost, may halaga ito, may standard ga.  Ngayon, I don’t think we can fight the Chief Justice naman on one point.  Simula noong nag-umpisa, wala siyang inilagay sa acquisition cost, I don’t think that is correct but para maging pareho lang iyong accounting standard, ginamit niya iyong real property tax declaration.  Tingnan mo iyong data lahat-lahat.  Kasi may nag-umpisa siya with a donation, a property.  So, mayroon bang batas na nagsasabi sa atin din, just for my guidance and I will sit down, kung wala kayong sagot you can just provide it to the impeachment court, na doon ba sa batas na binnaggit kanina, sinabi ba na dapat ba i-total nating lahat ng acquisition cost, one column, fair market value at iyong assessed value.  How do you do the accounting standard properly.  Maging sa business sector, I will know how to do that.  But dito sa SALN, dahil may donation, in the business zero talaga iyon.  So, acquisition cost pa rin ang gagamitin mo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you have to bear in mind that Article XI deals with accountability.  And the grounds accountability are culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, which is not applicable in this case, bribery, when proper, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.  When you talk of graft and corruption, we are not talking of incremental values, we are not talking of assessed values you are not talking of fair market values, you are talking about acquisition cost compared to your income tax payments.

SEN. RECTO.  I agree, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Your earned income, which was subject to tax.

SEN. RECTO.  I agree.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    And other sources of income that are legal and justifiable to cover the cost of your acquisition.

SEN. RECTO. That is correct, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   And that is why I kept repeating that Section 17 of Art. 11, which requires the submission of a declaration under oath of assets, liabilities and networth assumed acquisition cost and not incremental values or assumed values.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you, Mr. President, for your guidance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    So, proceed.

SEN. RECTO.  And finally,  and I will sit down, Mr. President. Kaya sa B naman, pero wala pa naman tayo doon, maliwanag, ‘pag bangko ang pinag-uusapan, acquisition cost lang. dahil wala namang current fair market value, assessed value.

So, thank you, Mr. President, that is the standarnd.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

REP. BARZAGA.  Just a very brief manifestation, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes, please.

REP. BARZAGA.   Well, aside from the  mandate of the Constitution that there must be a filing of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, there are also special laws …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    It is not say “filing.”, submit …

REP. BARZAGA. Submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … a declaration under oath.

REP. BARZAGA. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That is the wording of the Constitution.

REP. BARZAGA.  Yes. There are also special laws pertaining to the SALN. And insofar as this special laws are concerned, their violations are considered only mala prohibita not mala inse and therefore, it is not necessary that there must be  intent. As long as there has been a violation, then, there is an infraction of the law, and good faith, insofar as mala prohibita, is not a valid defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Regardless of what the law, the Constitution is superior than any other law.

REP. BARZAGA  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

REP. BARZAGA.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we may discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you through with the witness?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN. The prosecution is through with this witness, Your Honor. We are through with this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the defense?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   No redirect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  The witness is discharged.  Next witness.

Bring your next witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.    Our witness, Your Honor, will be Mr. Rodolfo Ordañez. We are calling him, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Bring him in and swear in and let him testify.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  While waiting for this witness, if Your Honor please, may we request that Atty. Tranquilino Salvador III, a member of the defense panel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty. Tranquil Salvador will propound the questions?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let him take the podium and show us his handsome face.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, Mr. Senate President, the witness is now here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the witness here on the stand?  Swear him in.

THE SECRETARY.  Mr. Witness, please raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. ORDANEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Senate President, can I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you.

Mr. Witness, can you give me your name, your status, your age, and your present position, if you may.

MR. ORDANEZ.  I am Rodolfo M. Ordanez, Filipino, of legal age, married, and residing at No. 3, Aquarial St., GSIS Village, Quezon City.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Occupation.

MR. ORDANEZ.  I am now the officer-in-charge of the City Assessor’s Office.

ATTY. SALVADOR. Of?

MR. ORDANEZ.  Of Quezon City.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Your Honor, can I give you the offer of testimonial evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, the purpose of presenting this witness is to establish the accuracy of the entries of the SALN as of December 21, 2010; and the assessed values and fair market values based on the values appraised by the assessor’s office of Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Of all the entries of that SALN or only with respect to the assets.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  With respect, Your Honor, to the assets pertaining to Quezon City property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pertaining to Quezon City.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Proceed.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, could you please tell us how long have you been the officer in charge of the City Assessor’s Office of Quezon City?

MR. ORDANEZ.  Actually, I was only designated by the honourable Mayor Herbert “Bistek” Bautista as officer-in-charge last January 30, 2012.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Prior to your appointment as the officer in charge of the Assessor’s Office of Quezon City, what was your position, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORDANEZ.  I’ve been in the assessment service for 30 years, almost 30 years.  Six years in the then municipality of Parañaque as tax mapper, then promote to appraiser.   Then, 16 years as appraiser in the Office of the City Assessor of Quezon City; and 8 years as Chief of the Property Appraisal Division also in Quezon City.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  I am sorry, Your Honor, may I interrupt for just one minute.  We are willing to admit the..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The qualification.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  …qualification…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And competence.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  …and competence of this witness to identify the documents that he brought, and also the authenticity of the documents that he brought into the court today, which were pre-marked already to expedite the proceedings, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Those are official records, so, the authenticity is beyond dispute unless you can show forgery.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, if I may.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the defense.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  While it is true, Your Honor, that it has been sub-marked, there are entries that we would want to be sub-marked, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, go ahead.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay, Your Honor.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  They can sub-mark, we have no objection to the submarkings, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And I think there is no dispute as to the authenticity of the same.  So, can you allow us to proceed for purposes of identifying the contents stated in the subpoena…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, you have already stated that you accept the competence and authenticity of the documents, so, let the defense do its ministerial work.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Salamat po, thank you, Senate President.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We submit, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, can you kindly inform us of your duties and responsibilities as the assessor of Quezon City.

MR. ORDANES.  My duties and responsibilities.  Number one is to take charge of the City Assessor’s Office.  Number two is to ensure that all laws and policies governing the appraisal and assessment of real property subject for taxation purposes are properly executed.  Establish a systematic method of property assessment.  Prepare, install and maintain system of tax mapping showing the graphical record of all properties subject for taxation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And keeping the records.

MR. ORDANES.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And keeping the records.

MR. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Mr. Witness, would you please tell us why are you here before this honourable court today?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Because I received a subpoena from this honourable court to present and bring the original and certified true copies of various tax declarations pertaining to the property owned by Chief Justice Renato Corona.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.

SEN. DRILON.  Point of order, Mr. President, if you may allow.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who’s talking?

SEN. DRILON.  Here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, go ahead.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, Mr. President, the witness’ competence is not in question.  His official functions as the assessor of Quezon City is not in question.  The documents are authentic as admitted by the prosecution.  The defense said we just want to encircle certain amounts.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Or figures.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Can we be excused from all of these tedious question and answer and can we just proceed.  All right.  What are these documents, encircle the amounts indicated, there is no question on the authenticity so we can move a little bit faster.  Because the next witness, I assume, is another assessor from Makati…

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  … and we go through all of these again.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  We have been sitting down here and listening  to all of these, it can be shortened and I think I have the unanimous agreement of the entire court insofar as this is concerned.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SNE. DRILON.  So if we can proceed on that basis, we can move faster.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Mr. Senator.

SEN. DRILON.  So can we do that?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  O sige so…

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And that is my next point really, Your Honor.  The documents now to be presented, it will be marked, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  All right please.

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  In fact, may I suggest, Your Honor please, that this not be made in open court because these are markings anyway.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us forget about this.  Witness, present the documents to the defense counsel so that they’ll be marked.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.  Thank you, Senator.  Requesting to approach the witness.  Your Honor, I’m referring to Mr. Witness, to Tax Declaration No. D05609349 for CCT No. M35812 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.  Do you have it with you?

MR. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the name of whom?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Could you kindly tell us in whose name is that tax declaration?

MR. ORDANES.  Tax Declaration No. D-05609349 declared in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona.  Pertains to a condominium unit in Burgundy Plaza located along Katipunan Avenue, Barangay Loyola Heights.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, this has been previously marked as our Exhibit 159.  Can we refer to the dorsal portion of the same tax declaration.  And on the lower middle portion thereof, Mr. Witness, there is a reference to the market value in the document.  Could you read to us the market value of this particular property as appearing in the document, Mr. Witness.

MR. ORDANES.  The market value indicated in this tax declaration is P921,080.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  At this juncture, Your Honor, may we request that this figure be encircled and marked as our Exhibit 159-A Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Mark them accordingly.  (Gavel)  The previous one and this second one that had been identified and mark as exhibit.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  At this point, Your Honor, they are marking it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of that tax declaration?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  What is the date?

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  The date, Your Honor, is January 8, 2004.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  You have your document now with you?  Can you refer to the dorsal portion again, and there is a portion on the lower middle portion of the same document that refers to assessed value.  Could you refer to the assessed value for us.

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  The assessed value is P276,320.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Can we request, Your Honor, that the said value be encircled and be marked as our Exhibit 159-B, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)  Next document.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

Now, Mr. Witness, I am referring to another document which was subject of the same subpoena, this time Tax Declaration No. B05600169.  Do you have a copy of the original with you today, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, this document has been previously marked as our Exhibit 160, pre-marked, together with the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.  And could you please tell us, based on the declaration who the owner is.

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  The declared owner for the Tax Declaration B-05600169 is Renato Corona.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And could you please tell us the location as appeared in the tax declaration.

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  It is located in Xavierville Avenue, Xavierville Subdivision, Barangay Loyola Heights.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Can you refer to the dorsal portion of the same document, Mr. Witness, that was previously marked as our Exhibit 160.  There is a portion on the middle, dorsal portion thereof, of market value.  Could you please read to us the market value of the property, Mr. Witness.

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  The market value for land is P174,690.00, and for improvement P67,460.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of that document?

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  May 4, 1990, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  May 4, 1990, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  1990?

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this juncture, may we request that the figures 174690 for market value be encircled as our Exhibit 160-A and that of improvement in the amount of 67460 be encircled and marked as our Exhibit 160-B, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, I’m still referring on the same document, tax declaration, there is a portion on assessed value.  Could you read to us the figure appearing therein.

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  The assessed value for land is P52,410.00, and assessed value for improvement is P16,870.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that the figure 5210 as assessed value for land be encircled and be marked as our Exhibit 160-C for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And that the improvement be encircled assessed value and marked as our Exhibit 160-D in the amount of 16,870.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Just one question, Mr. Witness, could you please tell us what is the status of this tax declaration today?

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  This tax declaration was already cancelled.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Could you please tell us why it was cancelled, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORTAÑEZ.  Because of the issuance of two tax declaration separating the land and improvement.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Now, I’m referring, Mr. Witness, to the same subpoena that you received, subpoena duces tecum, and I’m referring to tax declaration number D-0501308.  Do you have it with you, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  And could you please tell us, in whose name is it given, the tax declaration?

MR. ORDANES.  This declaration is declared under the name of Renato Corona.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And could you please kindly give us the location of the property.

MR. ORDANES.  And it is also located in Xavierville Subdivision, Barangay Loyola Heights.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, this was previously marked as our Exhibit 161, and pre-marked together with the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, I am referring to the dorsal portion of the same exhibit 161, Mr. Witness, and I am referring to the market value at the dorsal portion.  Can you read to us the market value.

MR. ORDANES.  The market value is P1,412,950.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  At this juncture, Your Honor, may we request that the market value be encircled and be marked as our exhibit 161-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  What is the date of that tax declaration?

MR. ORDANES.  The date is January 27, 1995.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, on same document and dorsal portion, there is an assessed value, can you kindly read that for us.

MR. ORDANES.  The assessed value is P211,940.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that this assessed value be encircled and be marked as our Exhibit 161-B, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Now, Mr. Witness, I am referring to another tax declaration, with number D-05603442, also for TCT no. RT-3191 (163660).  Do you have it with you, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Now, I am referring to that same document that you are presently in possession, and previously pre-marked as our Exhibit 162 in the presence of the prosecution’s representative.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor, whose name is this tax declaration?

MR. ORDANES.  It is declared in the name of Atty. Renato Corona.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of that tax declaration?

MR. ORDANES.  April 25, 2001, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And can you kindly refer to the location of the property as appearing in the tax declaration.

MR. ORDANES.  This property is located also in Xavierville Subdivision, Barangay Loyola Heights.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay, Mr. Witness, on the same document which is Exhibit 162, can you refer to the dorsal portion thereof, and I am referring to the market value at the lower middle portion of the dorsal portion.  Can you read the market value of the property.

MR. ORDANES.  The market value is P503,520, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  At this juncture, Your Honor, may we request that the market value of this property be encircled and be marked as our exhibit 162-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And, Mr. Witness, there is that portion on that dorsal page, assessed value, could you read that for us.

MR. ORDANES.  The assessed value is P125,880.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that this document—that this data be encircled and be marked as our Exhibit 162-B, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Now, Mr. Witness, still referring to the subpoena duces tecum that you received, I am referring to another tax declaration, this time, with number D-05602564, with TCT no. N-141891, issued by the register of deeds of Quezon City.  Do you have it with you, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  And could you kindly tell us, in whose name is it declared.

MR. ORDANES.  It is declared to Renato C. Corona, married to Cristina R. Corona.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay, and could you kindly tell us where this property is located.

MS. ORDANES.  This property is also located in Xavierville Subdivision, Barangay Loyola Heights.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, I am now referring again to the dorsal portion of this Exhibit 163, could you please read to us the market value of the same property.

MS. ORDANES.  The market value is P1,579,000.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  At this point, Your Honor, may we request that that figure be encircled and bracketed as our Exhibit 163-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark the document and the fair market value accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  I am now referring to the assessed value of the same document, in the tax declaration.  Can you read it to us, Mr. Witness.

MS. ORDANES.  The assessed value is P236,850.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that the assessed value be encircled and bracketed as our Exhibit 163-B, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Now, Mr. Witness, I am now referring to another tax declaration, this time with No. D 07805643 and for TCT No. N-254901 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, do you have it with you, Mr. Witness?

MS. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Would you kindly tell us under whose name this property is declared in the tax declaration in your possession.

MR. ORDANES.  This is declared to Cristina R. Corona married to Renato Corona.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Can you kindly tell us where this property is located?

MR. ORDANES.  This property is located in La Vista Subdivision, Barangay Pansol.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Please take note, Your Honor, that in the presence of the prosecution, this has been previously pre-marked as our Exhibit 164, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Mr. Witness, I am now referring to the dorsal portion of that exhibit, Exhibit 164, and I would like to call your attention, Mr. Witness, to the portion on the market value.  Could you read it for us.

MR. ORDANES.  It is P3 million.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that the amount of P3 million be encircled and bracketed as our Exhibit 164-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  What is the date of that tax declaration.

MR. ORDANES.  October 1, 2004, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does it include the area of the property?

MR. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many square meters?

MR. ORDANES.  1,200 square meters, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Your Honor.  If I may proceed.  Mr. Witness, I am referring now to the same document, the same dorsal portion, and there is that portion on assessed value.  Can you read to us the assessed value of the property.

MR. ORDANES.  The assessed value of the property is P450,000.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that the assessed value be encircled and bracketed as our Exhibit 164-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Now.  I have a question for you, Mr. Witness, referring to that same previous document.  Could you please tell us the present status of that tax declaration.

MR. ORDANES.  The present status of this tax declaration, this was already cancelled.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And can you give us or tell us the reason why it was now cancelled.

MR. ORDANES.  The reason for the cancellation of this tax declaration, because this was transferred to another person.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Transferred to whom?

MR. ORDANES. Transferred to Maria Carla C. Castillo married to Constantino T. Castillo III, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Under what manner of transfer, by succession, donation, sale, what?

MR. ORDANES.  I am sorry, Your Honor, it is not indicated.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You do not know.

MR. ORDANES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, I am now referring to our last document as referred to in the subpoena duces tecum and I am referring to a tax declaration with No. B-07802378 under TCT No. N85121 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Do you have this with you, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORDAÑEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay. And could you please tell us, Mr. Witness, who is the declared owner of this property?

MR. ORDAÑEZ.  The declared owner is Sps. Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  And can you kindly tell us where the property is located, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORDAÑEZ.  It is located in Loyola Heights Barangay Pansol in Quezon City.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay.  Mr. Witness, I am now referring to the dorsal portion of the same document.  Your Honor, at this point, let me inform you that this document has been previously marked as our Exh. 165, pre-marked in the presence of the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Okay. Mr. Witness, I am now referring to the market value of the property, can you please tell us the market value?

MR. ORDAÑEZ.  The market value is P1,150,000.00.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of that document?

MR. ORDAÑEZ.  The date is August 22, 1996, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does the document state the number of square meters involved, of that property?

MR. ORDAÑEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many square meters?

MR. ORDAÑEZ. 460 square meters, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, proceed.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that the amount of P1,150,000.00 be encircled and bracketed as our Exh. 165-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR. I am now referring, Mr. Witness, to the portion on the assessed value of the property. At the dorsal portion of the same document, can you read the assessed value for us, Mr. Witness?

MR. ORDAÑEZ.  The assessed value is P172,500.00.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, at this point, may we request that the assessed value, as mentioned, be encircled and be marked as our Exh. 165-B, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Your Honor, we have marked the document. Thank you very much. And I am ready for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that all?

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  We will conduct no cross-examination on this witness, Your Honor.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Next witness, Mr. President.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  If there are no questions, may we request that the witness be discharged.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No cross?

ATTY. PANGANIBAN.  No cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. The witness is discharged.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SUSPENSION OF THE TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. One-minute suspension.

It was 5:48 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 5:52 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I am informed by the defense that they will just stipulate and will submit the stipulation on Monday for the next witness.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Stipulate on…

ATTY. SALVADOR.  On the submarking, Your Honor, because there is only one document, and then, by Monday we will simply manifest the marking, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. SALVADOR.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, what is the pleasure of the body now?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-arms to make an announcement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-arms is directed to 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.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, there being no other business for the day, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, March 19, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  The Chair hears none; therefore, the trial is hereby adjourned until 2 o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, March 19, 2012.  (Gavel)

It was 5:53 p.m.

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Wednesday, March 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 the 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 Jinggoy Ejercito-Estrada.

(Prayer led by Senator Ejercito-Estrada)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Amen. The Secretary will please call the roll of Senators.

THE CLERK OF COURT.  The Honorable Senator-Judges:  Angara, Arroyo, Cayetano Allan Peter “Companero”, Cayetano, Pia; Defensor-Santiago; Drillon; Ejercito-Estrada, Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmena; Pangilinan; Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

REP. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  May I ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make a proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-At-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

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 March 13, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  There being none, the March 13, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is hereby approved.

The Secretary will now please call the case.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  Case No. 002-2011..In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Appearances.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  We ask the parties to enter their appearances, Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  Good afternoon, Mr. Senate President, Your Honors, for the prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  The defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are now ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the defense ready?  I understand the prosecution reserved their right to cross-examine a witness yesterday.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  And we have that witness with us today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the prosecution ready to do the cross-examination?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Let us start the proceedings this afternoon by the cross-examination of the witness presented by the defense yesterday.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  While waiting for this witness, Your Honor, who is being summoned now by a member of the defense panel, may we be permitted, Your Honor, to make a short manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yesterday, among the documents that were marked for the defense, Your Honor, is a handwritten letter of Mrs. Corona acknowledging the receipt by way of borrowing the different torrents certificate of title.  Now, they were borrowed by the prosecution lawyer, Your Honor, Atty. Justiniano Your Honor.  Now, when we—after the trial in yesterday’s proceedings, Your Honor, the said document had been missing and it was not returned. We tried to have a talk with Atty. Justiniano, but there was no satisfactory explanation regarding the same, Your Honor.  We are bringing that matter to the attention of this Honorable Court, Your Honor, just so proper remedy may be adopted by us in connection with the recovery of the said document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Is Atty. Justiniano here?

Well, what happened yesterday?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  I recalled having borrowed the bunch of documents, but I did not notice that receipt. There were bunch of document which I turned over.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    No. I saw them being transferred to you.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yes, Your Honor, there were bunch of documents, Your Honor. I think some of them are our copies of the documents which they marked.  I am not really sure if that one piece of paper is included in those bunch of documents.  May we be given time to look for them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   No.  I saw that the documents were handed to you. I think by the defense counsel.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yes, Your Honor.  We admit that.  The receipts, the xerox copy of the receipts, but I don’t really recall that one-page document, the receipt of the delivery of title.  But, anyway, we will look for it, Your Honor. It’s possible that they may have been—it may have been together with the other documents, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Please do that, prosecutor, that is unethically indication.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  We will do that, Your Honor.  We will look for that document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you very much, Atty. Justiniano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How soon can we expect the prosecution to …

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Until tomorrow, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Tomorrow? We are on trial today.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  We can ask some of our members to look for it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Who is the custodian of your records?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  I turned over the documents, Your Honor, after I had examined them to Atty. Winston Ginez, Your Honor.  As far as I am concerned, I don’t keep any documentary evidence, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You are ordered to look for that document.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Prosecution, proceed.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Under the same oath, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Under the same oath.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Yes, Your Honor.  Mrs. Bayuga on the witness stand.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Mrs. Bayuga, good afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Before we proceed, that is the only document missing, the handwritten?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The handwritten acknowledgement, Your Honor, of the seven titles, TCT titles, and the deed of sale of the Miriam property, Your Honor, both in handwriting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    And the deed of sale and the seven titles are with you?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Except …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   In fact, we have it marked even, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Except the handwritten receipt.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, only the handwritten acknowledgment of Mrs. Corona relative to the borrowing of the seven TCTs, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Proceed, counsel.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Mrs. Bayuga.

MRS. BAYUGA.  Good afternoon, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  You testified yesterday, is that by virtue of a subpoena?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  And when exactly did you receive that subpoena?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Yesterday morning.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Also yesterday?

MRS. BAYUGA.  At around 10 a.m.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Now, when you received that subpoena, you were asked to bring with you the certification that you brought with you, is that correct?  Or had you already prepared that beforehand, ma’am?

MRS. BAYUGA.    Beforehand, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.   Okay. Before you came to court yesterday to testify—you are aware of the Supreme Court Resolution dated February 14, 2012 regarding the propriety of Supreme Court Justices and employees from testifying before this impeachment court?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Naririnig ko po iyon pero hindi ko po nabasa.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ. Hindi ninyo po nabasa. So, nung sinabpena po kayo wala po kayong ginawa na may ugnayan ho doon sa resolusyon na iyon?  Kailangan nyo bang magpaalam sa korte bago kayo nagpunta dito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Siguro po hindi na dahil nung pong first time, February 1, meron din po akong subpoena from the prosecution.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ. Tama po, pero February 14 ho na issue iyong resolution.  Ang tanong ko po nung na-received nyo iyong inyong subpoena, which you said was Monday, in effect na ho iyong February 14 resolution.  May ginawa ba ho kayo, did you have to take any steps before coming to court and testifying?

MS. BAYUGA.  Your Honor, please, we are compelled to object, Your Honor, because there is nothing on record, Your Honor, that will show that this witness necessitated an authority from the honourable Supreme Court in order to be here and testify on the matters she has testified pursuant to the subpoena issued by this honourable court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the purpose of this line of questioning private prosecutor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, I would just like to know if there was authority for the witness to testify because when it was our turn to present our evidence as pointed out by Senator Pangilinan…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   What is the relevance or materiality whether there is or there is no authority given to this witness?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We would just like to know, Your Honor, and we would also like to know if there is a different treatment by the Supreme Court of the witnesses for the prosecution vis a vis witnesses for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I would suggest that you go direct to the point of your cross-examination.  That is a peripheral matter, that is a collateral matter.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  Anyways, she had admitted that she did not have to do anything.

Okay, so, Mrs. Witness, you said that you prepared the certification which you brought to court yesterday.  You prepared it beforehand?  When exactly was this, Ma’m?

MS. BAYUGA.  Last February.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Do you have a date?

MS. BAYUGA.  This certification I prepared it last March 8.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Under whose instruction did you prepare it?  Who ask you to prepare it, Ma’m?

MS. BAYUGA.  Upon instruction of my superior.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  When you say superior this is Chief Justice Corona?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, he directly instructed you to prepare it, is that correct?

MS. BAYUGA.  Through my immediate chief.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, you did not talk to him directly.  Did you consult with him directly?

MS. BAYUGA. No, Sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Whether during the preparation or after it was prepared, you never had the chance to speak with the Chief Justice?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, when you prepared it, I am assuming that it was also the figures, you had a lot of figures here concerning his salaries and allowances.  I am assuming that you also had this check by the Office of the Chief Justice before you signed it.

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So you just signed it without him having seen it beforehand, is that correct?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you.  So, just to recap so I can move to another point. Chief Justice asked you to prepare this table which you did, and you signed it, and up to today, the Chief Justice has not seen this table?  Would that be accurate?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, with the kind indulgence of the honourable court.  the exact  testimony of the witness, Your Honor, is to the effect that she was instructed by her immediate superior who must have been talked to by the Chief Justice.  That was the answer of the witness.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, the witness is here, she is competent to answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Let the witness explain.  Madam Witness please very clearly with—make your answer clear so that there will be no wrangling.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Uulitin ko po, nagpagawa po si Chief Justice nitong certification na ito, ginawa nyo po, tama?

MS. BAYUGA.   Yes.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tapos, pinirmahan nyo ng hindi nyo po pinapa-check muna kay Chief Justice.  Tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, hanggang ngayon ho ba hindi pa nakikita ni Chief Justice ito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Nakita na po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Kelan ho nya nakita?

MS. BAYUGA.  Last Monday.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Bago kayo nagpunta dito.

MS. BAYUGA.  Kahapon po ako nagpunta dito.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So bago kayo nag-testify.  Ano ho ang comments nya?  Doon ho nagmiting na kayo ng face to face ni Chief Justice?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ibinigay ko lang po sa kanya.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Tapos bakit nyo ho ibinigay sa kanya.

MS. BAYUGA.  Dahil po mayroon pong discrepancy yon pong kami ay mag-check with the auditor yong una pong ibinigay naming certification.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So may pagkakamali yong una nyong draft?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yong pong computation ko po hindi ko po naisama yong salary increases ni Chief Justice.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  And he pointed out that there was a mistake.

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi po sya ang nag-point out kundi po ang auditor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Teka ho, sabi nyo pinirmahan nyo na ho kaagad.  So yong signed certification nyo ho nakita hong may mali yon so gumawa ho kayo ng bago.  Is that accurate?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So dalawa na ho yong signed nyo.  Yong isa tinapon nyo na ho, yong may mali.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yong isa itinapon  na po namin.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So yong mali ho na yon hindi si Chief Justice yong nag-point out pero yong auditor.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero pinarating nyo ho kay Chief Justice yon, yong first version?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo dahil kukunin ko po yong  isang copy.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Ano naman ho yong feedback sa inyo?

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala naman po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So si Chief Justice po yong pinaka boss ho ninyo sa Supreme Court.  Tama ho ba yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo, sya po ang chief of the agency.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So wala ho kayong pagkakataon na nagbigay sya ng instruction sa inyo tungkol sa paghanda nitong certification?

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Either directly or indirectly wala hong pinapasabi?

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Bukod ho kay Chief Justice, may iba pa hong Justice na involve ho doon sa pag-review at paghanda noong certification na dinala nyo?

MS. BAYUGA. Lahat pong Justices iginawa ko po ng certification.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Sabay-sabay ho nyong ginawa?

MS. BAYUGA.  Isa-isa po dahil napakarami po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho pero…

MS. BAYUGA.  For 2011 po yong ginawa ko sa ibang Justices.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So yong paggawa nyo ho nitong certification na ito this is an annual thing, every year nyo hong ginagawa ito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Upon request po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So sa ngayon hong pagkakataon si Chief Justice lang ho ang nag-request.  Tama ho ba yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Mayroon pong ibang Justices.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Alam nyo ba ho kung para saan yong certification?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po alam kung saan po nila gagamitin.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Yong certification nyo ho ano, babasahin ko po.  Ito ho yong Exhibit 114, yong una nyo hong papel na ipinakita sa korte.  This is to certify that Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, received the following salary.  Yon po.  Tapos doon sa last page, this certification is being issued for whatever legal purpose it may serve His Honor, March 8, 2012.  Ito hong His Honor, si Chief Justice po yan?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Kasi sya ang nagpagawa sa inyo?  Gaano katagal nyo ho ginawa itong certification na ito?

MS. BAYUGA.    Matagal din po dahil nag-start po kami ng 2002.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Pero ito ho, so bale update lang ho ito ng existing certification?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yearly po meron po kaming inire-report sa COA.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho.

MS. BAYUGA.  Na salaries and allowances and other emoluments for the year, yearly po yon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ah hindi ganito na lang ho.  Kelan ho kayo in-instruct ni Chief Justice  na gumawa ng certification na ito?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Referring to the certification now marked in evidence?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Exhibit 114.

MS. BAYUGA.  Mga third week of February.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Third week of February.  May kinalaman ba ho ang paggawa nito tungkol dito sa kaso na ito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po alam, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero alam nyo hong may kasong on-going laban kay…

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Accountant ba ho kayo Ms. Bayuga?

MISS BAYUGA.  Hindi po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, second week of February, natapos nyo ho March 8, mga tatlong linggo?  Accurate ba ho yon, more or less?

MISS BAYUGA.  More or less po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tapos, sabi nyo ho, mag-isa nyong ginawa, nobody assisted you, yun hong pagkasabi nyo kahapon.

MISS BAYUGA.  Dahil meron na po kaming existing records na yearly po hinihingi ng COA kaya po parang mas madali pos a amin yon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, bale nagdagdag na lang ho kayo ng isang taon, ganon ho ba?

MISS BAYUGA.  Nagdadagdag lang po kami.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, yung past, the previous entries Calendar Years 2002 to 2010, hindi nyo na ho ginalaw yon?  2011 na lang ginalaw nyo?

MISS BAYUGA.  Ni-review din po namin.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Pag sinabi nyong ni-review nyo, yun yung binabanggit nyo kahapon na chine-check nyo po yung bawa’t payroll.  Tama ho ba yon?

MISS BAYUGA.  Opo.  Ni-review din po naming, baka po mamaya meroon pong pagkakamali.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, hindi nyo lang ho dinadagdag yung 2011, dino-double check nyo pa ho dun sa existing hard—may file ho siguro ng payroll non, yung sinasabi nyong voluminous ano?

MISS BAYUGA.  Meron po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, kayo lang ho ang gumawa niyan?

MISS BAYUGA.  Pinakukuha ko lang po sa file naming, then I’m the one who reviewed and evaluated the record.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  A, reviewed and evaluated the record.  So, hindi ho kayo nagpasok ng entries.

MISS BAYUGA.  Actually, may entries po ako.  I’m the one.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Sabi nyo ho kasi kahapon alone e, di ba?  Sabi nyo no one assisted you.

MISS BAYUGA.  Opo.  Meron po ako—Ako po ang gumawa po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Teka ho.  Kayo ho mismo nagpasok ng entries na bago?

MISS BAYUGA.  Ako po ang nagpasok ng entries.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  E yung mga nakaraan ho, 2002 to 2010, kayo ba rin ho nagpasok non?

MISS BAYUGA.  Yung pong mga past years, nagre-request ng ano po yon—nagawa na po yon pero kinuha din po uli namin ng payroll, kinuha ko po ang payroll, tiningnan ko po uli.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  A, so, para sigurado ho?

MISS BAYUGA.  Para po sigurado.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero, sabi nyo you did it alone.  Wala hong nag-check nung ginawa nyo?

MISS BAYUGA.  Wala na po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, isang tao lang ho yan, walang pangalawang set ng mata na titingin, baka nagkamali kayo ng isang numero, wala hong ganon?

MISS BAYUGA.  Kung mali man po, ako po yung nag-check alone.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  E yung mga myembro ho—abogado po ng defense counsel, nakipagkita ba ho kayo bago kayo nagpunta dito?

MISS BAYUGA.  Dun lang po kami nakaupo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Saan ho?

MISS BAYUGA.  Sa defense po dahil wala po naman akong kilala dito.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ang sinasabi nyo ho kahapon bago kayo tawagin?

MISS BAYUGA.  Bago po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Bago ho nun, wala kayong—hindi kayo nakikipagkita sa kahit kaninong abogado?

MISS BAYUGA.  Wala naman po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Hindi ho kayo nag-practice ng testimony nyo?

MISS BAYUGA.  Wala naman po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Punta na ho tayo dun sa certification nyo, yung Exhibit 114.  May kopya ba ho kayo sa harapan nyo?

MISS BAYUGA.  That is the certification?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes.

MISS BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ginawa nyo ho March 8?

MISS BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Ngayon, una ko hong napansin, it’s divided into three different sets:  salaries and other emoluments, fringe benefits and other allowances, tapos yung panghuli ho, expense allowance.  Nakikita nyo ho yon?

MISS BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ano ba ho yung pagkakaiba—Ano ba ho ibig sabihin ng emoluments?

MISS BAYUGA.  Iba’t iba pong allowances na tinatanggap ni Chief Justice.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Ang hong pinagkaiba nung set na yan, yung first group sa pangalawang group, yung fringe benefits and other allowances?  Kasi ho nakagrupo ho ng iba e.

MISS BAYUGA.  Opo.  Ito pong fringe benefit and other allowances, ang iba po dito binigay po namin sa—out of our fiscal autonomy.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ano ho ibig sabihin non.  Pwede nyo ba hong ipaliwanag sakin?

MISS BAYUGA.  Yun pong allowances na ibinigay namin na fiscal autonomy, out of savings po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  As opposed to, yung first group ho?  Kung hindi out of savings yon, out of saan ho yan?

MS. BAYUGA.  Sa GAA po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  GAA, meaning, General Appropriations …

MS. BAYUGA.  Appropriations Act.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, iyan ho iyong budget ng Supreme Court?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  E iyong third grouping, expense allowance, ano ho ‘yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Expense allowance po, ito po ay as JBC Chairman si Chief Justice.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Bakit ho may sarili siyang category?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ganito po ang pinagawa sa akin ng immediate chief ko na i-ano ko po iyong three categories.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay, pero hindi nyo po alam kung ano ang dahilan.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ngayon ho, sige, isa-isahin ho natin, doon ho tayo uli sa page 1, Exhibit 114, salaries ho, iyong unang-unang entry, P353,045 for calendar year 2002, nakita nyo po ‘yon?  Ano ho itong entry na ‘to?  I am assuming ito ho iyong official na sweldo niya as Chief Justice, tama ho ba ‘yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ito po iyong tinanggap niya starting April 9, 2002, iyon pong entrance niya as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I ask permission, Your Honor, just to advise the witness to talk louder, Your Honor, apparently …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Ayusin mo lang iyong microphone mo …

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … para naiiintindihan ka namin.  Nahihirapan din ako e.  Malayo ako sa ‘yo kaya nakatingin ako dito sa monitor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Sige po, pakituloy.

MS. BAYUGA.  Ito pong P353,045, tinanggap po ito ni Chief Justice, effective April 9, 2002, noong siya po ay maging Associate Justice ng Supreme Court.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho.  Tapos, for evey year, ito ho iyong pinaka-basic na sweldo niya as Chief Justice.

MS. BAYUGA.  As Chief Justice.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  As Chief Justice, okay.  Tapos, doon sa calendar year 2010, may footnote, promoted to Chief Justice, effective May 17, 2010.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Iyong pag-promote ho na ‘yon, may salary …

MS. BAYUGA.  May salary increase po siya.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Bakit hindi ho sa 2010 pumasok, iyong salary increase?  Parang konti lang iyong difference between 2009 and 2010.

MS. BAYUGA.  At that time po, wala pong—iyong salary increases po nila sa second tranche, hindi pa po ibinibigay, mayroon pong status quo ante order dahil po sa monthly special allowance pursuant to 9227.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, ibig sabihin na na-delay ho ng konti ‘yong increase ho.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero reflected na ho ‘yon sa 2011.

MS. BAYUGA.  2011 po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Iyong susunod ho na entry, longevity pay, ano ba ho ang ibig sabihin niyan?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ano po ito, after 10 years po na nag—as Associate Justice, they are entitled to receive longevity pay.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ano ho ang basehan niyan, batas ba ho iyan o Supreme Court resolution?

MS. BAYUGA.  Parang may batas po tungkol po dito.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero hindi ho kayo sigurado.

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi po ako.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Next entry, PERA, what does PERA stand for, Ms. Bayuga.

MS. BAYUGA.  Personal Economic Relief Assistance.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.

MS. BAYUGA.  Pero ito po noong una is P1,500, then, inalis po natin, inalis po ‘yong AdCom, isinama po natin sa PERA.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Teka ho, ano ba ho ‘yong AdCom, sinasabi nyo ang AdCom, iyong susunod na entry, ano ba ho iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Additional comopensation po in the amount of P500 a month.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay, ano ho ang basehan noon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Nasa GAA din po iyan dati.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, lahat ho ng government offices, may ganyan o kayo lang?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ang alam ko po, lahat pong agency, mayroon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Ito hong next entry, RATA, ano ho ang ibig sabihin ng RATA?

MS. BAYUGA.  Representation Allowance and Transportation Allowance.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, doon sa pangalan ho, eto ho iyong mga allowance na ibinibigay kay Chief Justice para sa transportation at saka para saan pa ho?

MS. BAYUGA.  Representation allowance po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pag sinabing representation, ano ba ho ang ano…what would fall under that category?

MS. BAYUGA.  That is committable allowance po for miscellaneous expenses.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Katulad ho ng ano.

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po alam kung ano po iyong ginagastos nila sa RATA.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, ang ibig ninyo hong sabihin, ito ho ibinibigay sa Chief Justice monthly.

MS. BAYUGA.  In a monthly basis.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho.  Pero the Chief is going to use this for his transportation expenses.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  At saka representation.  Siguro ho iyong mga restaurant, kakain sa labas, mga ganoon ho.

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Hindi ba ho dahil RATA iyan, dapat iyong pera ho pumunta talaga sa transportation saka representation.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Hindi naman ho salary ito, ‘di ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, these are funds which are used by the Chief Justice as a function of his office.  Ginagastos ho niya ito dahil Chief Justice siya para may panggastos siya, may panggasolina siya, tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, since ginagastos niya, hindi niya ho iniuuwi ito?  Hindi ho kanyang pera ito.  Ginagastos niya bilang isang opisyal ng Supreme Court.  Hindi niya ho ibinubulsa ito, panggasolina niya ho ito, pang-transportation, restaurant while he is on official business, tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Iyon hong susunod, extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses.  Next item na ho.  Iyong last na ho.  Ano ho ang ibig sabihin nito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Eto po, nakalagay din po, stated din po ito sa GAA, for the use in the office po ito.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Alam ninyo ba kung what particular use in the office.

MS BAYUGA.  Miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ  Hindi ba ho ano iyan, iyong mga public relations, meetings, seminars, mga ganoon ho.?

MS. BAYUGA.  Diyan po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tama ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Subscription to professional journals.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo, diyan po napupunta.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Diya ho papasok iyan.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero ito hong extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses, ano ho ito ano…  … kailangan may pruweba na ginamit ni Chief Justice, kailangan niya hong iliquidate ito ano, hindi niya puwedeng gastusin sa personal niyang gusto.  Kailangan din ho as a function of his office.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, he has to make an accounting of where he spent these funds, tama po ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ang liquidation po nito ay iyong paid payroll po na ipinadadala naming sa COA.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pakipaliwanag nga ho iyon.  Ano ba ho ang ibig sabihin ng liquidation?  Pagkakaintindi ko ho doon, ina-account niya kung paano niya nagastos, tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Sa amin po. sa Supreme Court, it has been the practice na through payroll po ang payment na extraordinary and miscellaneous expense allowance.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ano ho ang ibig sabihin ng through payroll?  Isinasama ho sa suweldo niya?

ATTY. BAYUGA.  Hindi po.  Additional payroll po ito.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero ang paggamit po ng pondo na ito para doon sa mga sinabi kong mga uses.  And in the same manner, hindi niya puwedeng iuwi ito, magbakasyon siya sa abroad.  Kailangan ginagamit niya for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses of his office as a Chief Justice, hindi ho ba?

ATTY. BAYUGA.  For the office.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.   Hindi puwedeng kanya ho ano.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Hindi niya puwedeng iuwi ito, hindi niya puwedeng isama sa bank account niya ito, tama ho iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, teka ho, eto hong mga allowance na ito, sinasabi ninyo kailangan gastusin niya in relation to his office, ‘di ba ho, as Chief Justice?  Hindi niya puwedeng iuwi ito, hindi niya puwedeng isama sa personal savings account niya, hindi niya puwedeng gastusin for his personal use.  Ibig sabihin hindi ho talaga kanya iyan.  But it goes with the office, iyong expenses ho na ito.  They come with the office and is expected to use them as a function of his office para may panggastos ho siya, tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, teka ho.  Kahapon kasi, sabi ninyo ‘yong, actually, headline ho sa diyaryo kanina, na iyong kinita ni Chief Justice Corona P21 million. Kasi binasa n’yo iyong total kahapon, ‘di ba? P21 million over ten years, pero hindi naman ho talaga kanya iyong buong P21 million na iyon, ‘di ba?  Kasi madami nga ho, sabi ninyo, eh, expenses nga ho niya, dahil Chief Justice siya, may mga panggastos siya, correct, tama ba ako?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, teka huwag kayong sasagot. Your Honor please, the trend of the question tends to establish, Your Honor, that the witness has something to do with the appropriation, payment and release of this amount.  All that the witness stated is that all these items mentioned by her came from already an entries involving a long-span of time.  In other words, she has nothing to do with the appropriation. She has nothing to do with the payment. She has nothing to do with the determination of the validity of the said appropriation, Your Honor. That is my point of objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kayo po ay na-involve sa pagre-release ng mga payroll na iyan sa mga mahistrado?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyon pala. Trabaho niya iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is release only, Your Honor.

MS. BAYUGA.  Only the payment po We just prepare the payroll, disburse to them, then, wala na po kaming pakialam kung saan po nila ginagamit.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is my point, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga, iyong payment, may kinalalaman ka?

MS. BAYUGA. Opo, opo, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kung paano nila ginamit iyon, hindi mo alam?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po alam.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyon. So, …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero, alam niyo kung para saan dapat iyong mga allowances na iyon, ‘di ba ho?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko naman po …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Sinabi ninyo ho kahapon, iyong functions ninyo …

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Babasahin ko ho.  Ito ho iyong binasa—binasa n’yo rin ho ito: “Supervises and implement the policies, rules and regulations related to the operation of the Cash Collection Disbursement Division.”  So, kayo ho nagsu-supervise ng policies and rules?  “Supervises the activities of the personnel, custodian of all monies, and other cash items official receipts of the court,  signs, encashes checks of cash advances for salaries, allowances and other benefits.” So, sa inyo din ho nanggagaling iyon? Kayo rin ho ang pumipirma?  “Signs disbursement vouchers for cash advances, initial salaries, terminal leave with pay and other payments made to official employees of the court.” So, siya ho talaga. Kayo ho talaga ang involved dito, the disbursement at saka—sa division ng mga expenses na ito?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Sa inyo po galing ito.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … the question is kilometric. It is too general.  The witness would not know which of these questions she will answer. Will you kindly …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Those are her functions, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but what is…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Make your questions specific. Slice it into bits so that there will be no arguments.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.   Magmumukuhan na lang ho ako, pero, nagkakaisa ho tayo na iba-ibang entry ho ito dahil iba-iba iyong purpose noong mga pondo na ito. Hindi naman ho sweldo lahat ito, ‘di ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Isa lang iyong entry ninyo na salaries, ‘di ba, sa taas lang?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sandali lang. Sandali lang.

Madam Witness, itong mga classification ng mga gastusin na ito, ito ay periodic na ibinibinigay sa mga mahistrado?   Periodic ba ito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Mayroon pong monthly. Mayroon pong quarterly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga, periodic.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo, periodic po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … whether it is monthly, quarterly?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi iyong kung gagastos siya ay nagbibigay siya sa iyo ng resibo na ito ay ginastos ko, hindi?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo, hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Eto ay nasa budget na, budget of expenditure?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ng—sa Korte Suprema?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At iyan ay inire-release na ninyo sa mga mahistrado buwan-buwan, lingo-linggo, buwan-buwan, o quarterly o semestraly.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ngayon, kung ginamit nila yan o hindi, hindi nyo na alam iyon.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Walang liquidation na pumapasok sa inyo.

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Basta certification.

MS. BAYUGA.  Certification po na nakalagay po sa payroll.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Certification ang liquidation nito?

MS. BAYUGA. Yes, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, iyon, o sige.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you po.  Ano po iyong certification na iyon?  Sine-certify, halimbawa, si Chief Justice, sine-certify nya na nagamit nya itong pondo na ito para doon sa allotted purpose.  Ganon ba ho iyong certification?

MS. BAYUGA.  May nakalagay na po sa payroll na iyong pong na-spent po nila sa mga miscellaneous…

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  They spent it pursuant to the purpose for the fund, di ba ho?

MS. BAYUGA.  Oho.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tama lang, okay.  So, they spent it while on duty with the Supreme Court.  they don’t take it home for their personal use, tama ho?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po masagot iyon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Maaari ba hong inuuwi nila?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po alam dahil hindi naman po basta….

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Para saan po iyong certification?

MS. BAYUGA.  Gagastusin po nila iyon for miscellaneous expense.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Opo, sang-ayon po doon sa purpose ng pondo.  Okay, correct, salamat po.

Ngayon, sabi nyo custodian din ho kayo ng mga resibo, tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo, dahil sa amin po ang koleksyon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  So, ano hong mga resibo ito, halimbawa iyong mga barong ho ni Chief Justice nasa inyo ba ho yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Sir.  Official receipt we use during for daily receiving, receiving of daily collections for legal fees, bar examination…

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, hindi ho iyong mga resibo  ng each justice.

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Linawin lang natin yan ano.  Ang sinasabi ninyo na resibo na ini-issue ninyo ay iyong resibo ng mga fees or charges na kinolekta ng Korte Suprema sang-ayon sa batas, sang-ayon sa reglamento, hindi ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyon ang income.  Ngayon, iyong expenditure eh walang resibo iyon na nanggagaling sa inyo.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Maliban na lang iyong sa sweldo, iyong mga allowances pinipirmahan nila iyong mga dokumento na nagpapakita na tinaggap nila iyong kanilang sweldo at allowances nila.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, iyon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Ito hong mga allowances na ito, halimbawa, iyong extra-ordinary and miscellaneous, RATA, monthly special allowance, paano ho ang pagbigay ho nyan kay Chief Justice, cash ba ho yan, tseke ba ho yan.

MS. BAYUGA.  Cash payroll po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.    Ano ho ang ibig sabihin nun?

MS. BAYUGA.  We made the payroll, we prepared the payroll, then, in cash ibinibigay po naming sa kanila.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, cash as in cold cash, bills and coins ho iyan?  Hindi nyo poi dine-deposit dito sa bangko nila or walang tseke?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.    Cash ho talaga?

MS. BAYUGA.  In cash ho.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.    Alin ho dito sa mga entries iyong cash or lahat ba ho yan cash?

MS. BAYUGA.  In cash po lahat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang, iyan ba ay cash or tseke?

MS. BAYUGA.  In cash, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Currency?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pesos and centavos?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Okay.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Eto hong entry na extra-ordinary—nasa page 2 na po ako, exhibit 115, iyong bandang baba ho, third to the last, extra-ordinary and miscellaneous expense (PET), ano ho ito?  Ano ho ang ibig sabihin nito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Monthly expense allowance or equivalent to extraordinary and miscellaneous expense allowance sa Presidential Electoral Tribunal po.

ATTY . HERNANDEZ.  So binibigay rin ho ng cash ito bawat buwan?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Medyo malaki ho ito, mas mataas pa ho sa salary nya ito.

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Your Honor, only P16,000 a month.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  E yong kasunod ho noon, yong monthly expense allowance, PET.

MS. BAYUGA.  That is monthly expense allowance equivalent to RATA from the Presidential Electoral Tribuna.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yon ba hong Presidential Electoral Tribunal ay saan ho nanggagaling yong pondo noon, Supreme Court din ba ho yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Saan ho?  MEA rin ho yan?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tapos ano ho yan, para bang hindi na rin ho kailangang i-liquidate yan basta binibigay ho sa bawat Justice yan?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tapos cash ho ito?

MS. BAYUGA.  In cash po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Dalawang item yan di ba?  RA, ano yong RA?

MS. BAYUGA.  Representation allowance and transportation allowance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yong TA.

MS. BAYUGA.  Transportation allowance, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O ayon.  Kasama doon ang gasolina, di ba?  Transportation allowance, gasolina.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kung magtaksi sya o sasakay sa eroplano, kasama yon?  Kasama ba yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  For gasoline expenses, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gasoline expenses lamang.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May I proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yong representation expense, yon ang for entertainment ng mga bisita, ng mga pangrega-regalo, hindi ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.    May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ms. Bayuga, nabanggit nyo po kanina na paminsan-minsan kailangan mag-submit ng certification si Chief Justice.  Tama ho ba yon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Certification in connection with what please?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  For the release of the allowances.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Which allowance because—too general?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ang pagkakaintindi ko lahat ng allowance as she testified.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So the question now relates to all the allowances.  We are objecting because the question is too general, Your Honor.  There are plenty of allowances mentioned in here.  The witness has nothing to do with the appropriation therefor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo there are certain allowances that are liquidated for purposes of auditing…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … by way of certification because it is cumbersome to file up receipts along the way, di ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O yon ang sinasabi na certification.  Linawin mo sa witness.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Opo.  Alin-alin ba hong allowances yon, yong kailangan ng certification dito ho sa listahan ninyo?  Pwede nyo ba hong isa-isahin yong kailangang i-liquidate?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Certification of having spent, certification of having received, that is precisely our basis, Your Honor.  That is why we are objecting.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, I am just basing on the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yong certification normally deals sa expenditure.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ano-ano ho yon?

MS. BAYUGA.    Lahat pong ito ay paid by payrolls so lahat pong liquidation namin is the monthly report of disbursement.  The payrolls also received by the Chief Justice.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So lahat ho ito kailangan ng one certification.

MS. BAYUGA.  Not certification, sir, but payroll, the paid payroll itself.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Hindi ko po maintindihan.  What do you mean by paid payroll?

MS. BAYUGA.  I have no payroll here.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ganito na lang ho, nabanggit nyo po  kanina na nagsa-submit si Chief Justice ng certification, hindi ba ho for expenditure?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yon pong certification na sinasabi ko sa inyo, stated na po sa payroll.  Ang nakalagay po doon na yon pong gagastusin nila for miscellaneous expenses ay for this purpose.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pwede ba ho kayong magdala ng sample?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you.  May dala ba ho kayo ngayon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Pwede ho kayong magdala next time?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you.  Siguro mga 4 or 5 para lang ho makita namin.  Kung pwedeng iba-ibang purposes para maiba naman.

MISS BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you.

Okay.  So, punta na ho—takbo na ho tayo sa Exhibit 116.  Yung third page nyo ho yung Supreme Court Christmas Allowance.  Tapos may footnote ho kayo dito, SC Christmas Allowance to augment Representation Expenses for subsidy of SC Cash Raffle and Donation to Charitable Institutions.  Tama ho yon?

MISS BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, diyan ho talaga ginagamit itong allowance na ito?

MISS BAYUGA.  Ito po pine-prepare po namin ang payroll as per authority signed by the Chief Justice and the 14 Justices.  Then ibinibigay po namin sa kanila or nagbibigay sa amin for subsidy, for SC Cash Raffle.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho.  So, ..

MISS BAYUGA.  Hindi lang po si Chief Justice kundi lahat pong Justices.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Opo, opo.  So ginagamit naman ho for the purpose stated in the footnote.

MISS BAYUGA.  Yun pong iba, dahil nakalagay naman po diyan, donation to charitable institutions.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, dino-donate naman ho siguro nila sa charity yan ano?

MISS BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po sila nakikita kung ano dahil ang liquidation nga po hindi naman po resibo kundi po payroll.  E hindi ko po kayo masasagot.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero may certification ho sila?  So, ang assumption ho, ginamit ho para don sa pakay niya?

MISS BAYUGA.  Wala pong certification na nakalagay sa payroll.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  A, wala ho

MISS BAYUGA.  Wala po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Aantayin ko na lang ho yung dadalin nyo.

MISS BAYUGA.  Just the authority.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho.

MISS BAYUGA.  Yun pong authority isinend po sa amin approved by the Chief Justice and the 14 Associate Justices.  Igagawa po naming ng payroll yon.  Then, ire-receive po nila yon in cash.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yung authority ho, anong usually ang nakasulat ho don.

MISS BAYUGA.  Yun po.  Kung ano po yung nakalagay don sa …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  A, okay.  Yung purpose nga ho?

MISS BAYUGA.  Yung purpose po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So parang nag-certify sila na itong pondo na ito gagamitin talaga naming para sa charity yan.  Parang ganon ho, in a sense?

MISS BAYUGA.  Kung iyon po ang nakalagay sa authority.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Thank you.  Di ganon din ho yung susunod na entry, PET Christmas Allowance?  Ganon din ho?

MISS BAYUGA.  Ganon din.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Ito ho, may tanong ho ako.  Di ba ho, parang almost every Monday ay nagra-rally ho sa Supreme Court?  Yun hong pondo para diyan sa mga yan, san ho kinukuha yan?

MISS BAYUGA.  Wala po akong alam, Sir?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Hindi nyo ho–Hindi ho galing sa inyong dis—Kasi, ang dalas ho non.  Tapos may mga streamer, may mga loud speakers, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sagot kayo ng sagot.

MISS BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po kaya sagutin po, Sir, yon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May isa pala akong tanong.  Dun ho sa RATA …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang.  Ano ba naman ang kaugnayan ng Chief Justice?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  That’s what—E kayo’y sagot ng sagot.  Tumingin muna kayo dito.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gusto ba ninyong ma-impeach ang buong Korte Suprema?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  I’ll move on, Your Honor.

Yung ano pala, Mrs. Bayuga, yung RATA, dib a ho transportation yon?  R-A-T-A, di ba ho transportation allowance?

MISS BAYUGA.  Opo

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero si Chief Justice, di ba ho may sariling kotse na siya?  May service car na ho siya as Chief Justice?

MISS BAYUGA.  Meron po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tapos may backup rin ho siguro yon para sa bodyguard?  May kotse rin ho yan?

MISS BAYUGA.  Actually, Your Honor, yun TA na nakalagay dito, hindi po nila tinatanggap yan.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.

MISS BAYUGA.  Stated lang po sa payroll.  Pero actually, ang tinatanggap lang po nila yung pong Representation Allowance.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  I see.  So wala na silang transportation?

MISS BAYUGA.  Wala na pong Transportation Allowance.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Kasi may sarili na silang kotse?  Provided ho yon?

MISS BAYUGA.  Provided po.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Pati gasolina ho nun libre na ho ano?

MISS BAYUGA.  Yun pong pang-gasolina po nila, yun pung TA nila.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  A, okay.  So gasolina ho?  Gasolina ho kasama, yung kotse ho hindi?  Tama?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What do you mean kotse hindi?  Very vague, Your Honor.  I’m sorry I have to—Yung gasolina kasama sa allowance, yung kotse …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo palagay ko yung mga kotse na assigned sa mga Justices ay capital assets ng Korte Suprema iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Only assigned.

THE PRESIDNG OFFICER.  Under capital outlay iyon sa budget nila.  Ngayon, iyong mga RATA ay iyan ang MOOE, maintenanance and other operating expenses iyan sa budgeting ng gobyerno.  Then you have personnel salaries.  Kaya iyong mga representation, RATA, is MOOE iyan.  Iyong mga hard objects na kagaya ng kotse, kung ano pa ay capital outlay iyan.  Nasa libro lahat iyan ng mga ahensya pero iyong physical asset, ginagamit, kagaya ng desks, chairs, tables at mga airconditioning units, kasama na diyan ang mga bisikleta, motosiklo.  Ano pa?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, go ahead.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you.  Ms. Bayuga, dito naman ho tayo sa ano, sa alpha list, iyong dala niyo hong exhibits 118 to 21, nasa harapan ba ho ninyo?

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala po akong copy Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am just showing copies of the documents, Your Honor, to the witness before any question is propounded on this.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Ngayon, turning your attention to the second page of Exhibit 118, which is the 2002 alpha list, nakita nyo po, Ms. Bayuga?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May entry ho dito ano, Renato Corona, salaries and other, ang entry po, P340,426.62, nakita nyo ba ho iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Bakit ho parang iba ho siya doon sa table na ginawa niyo?  Doon sa table niyo, P353,045?  May paliwanag ho ba doon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.  P340,425.62, ito na po ‘yong taxable compensation ni Chief Justice.  Deducted na po dito ‘yong mandatory deduction.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Ano ho iyong mga mandatory deduction?

MS. BAYUGA.  The 3% life insurance, the Medicare and the Pag-IBIG contribution.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero gross pa ho ito, hindi pa ho—wala pa hong taxes withheld ito ano?

MS. BAYUGA.  Meron na hong taxes withheld ito.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ah, withheld na ho iyong taxes?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, net na ho ito.

MS. BAYUGA.  Net …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Net of taxes na ho ito?  Sigurado ho kayo?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor, this is the taxable compensation income of the Chief Justice.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, pero iyong 340 na ho na iyan, gross ho iyan.  Kaya nga ho doon sa column sa bandang kanan …

MS. BAYUGA.  Less 52 …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho.

MS. BAYUGA.  Amount of exemption, P32,000 …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kapag sinabi niyang gross, ibig sabihin noon, after the allowable deduction before income net of tax, hindi ba?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tama no iyon ano?  Bawas na ho iyong deduction pero hindi pa ho iyong tax?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Meaning, the amount before netting the tax that will be deducted to cover the obligation to the government.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tama ho iyon.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Dala nyo pala ho iyong 2002 to 2005, nasa inyo rin ba ho iyong 2006 to 2011, iyong alpha list ho.

MS. BAYUGA.  I don’t have the document.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Pero sa opisina, puwede ninyo ho bang dalhin kasabay na ho noong mga sample certifications next time?

MS. BAYUGA.  The certified xerox copies of the document.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho.  Puwede ho?  Thank you.  Ngayon, kung nasusundan ninyo ho itong impeachment proceedings, ang prinisinta po ng prosecution si BIR Commissioner Kim Henares.  Naalala po ninyo iyon?  Nag-testify ho siya na you can only be in an alpha list when you have no other sources of income, tama ho ba iyon?  Sang-ayon ho kayo doon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, the witness is being cross-examined on the  testimony of another witness which is improper for cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is just trying to ask an information from the witness, if she knows.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Then I will request that the question be reformed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Reform it.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Kayo ho ay naghanda nitong alpha list, ano po?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ang mga isinasama ho diyan sa alpha list ay mga individuals who have no other source of income, tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi po.  Lahat po ng empleyado ng Supreme Court from the Chief Justice down to the lower …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, hindi po ninyo tinutukoy kung mayroon silang ibang negosyo o pinagkakakitaan, kasi ang sabi ho ni BIR Commissioner Henares, ang puwede lang hong masama sa alpha list ay iyong mga taong empleyado lang sa isang kompanya at walang ibang source ng income?

MS. BAYUGA.  Lahat po isinasama namin, Your Honor.  Kung mayroon po silang additional income, mayroon pong other form na ilalagay po nila doon iyong income from the government at other income from the private.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Oho, ITR ho iyan, Income Tax Return.  Kung may other source sila, kailangan nilang mag-file noon.

MS. BAYUGA.  Mayroon po.  Dapat pong mag-file sila.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, dapat po wala na sila sa alpha list.

MS. BAYUGA.  Dapat po kasama sila.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Kasama pa rin ho?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.l

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ang pagkakaintindi ninyo?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Okay.  Iyon hong treatment ho ninyo ng ano … so may salaries ho dito.  Iyan ho iyong talagang suweldo.  :Pero iyon hong allowances na malalaki, monthly expense allowance PET,  extraordinary miscellaneous expense PET, hindi ba ho kasama sa suweldo iyon?  Hindi ba ho suweldo ang treatment ninyo doon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi po namin naisasama sa gross income.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, hindi ho nata-taksan ang mga iyon.

MS. BAYUGA.  It has been the usual practice of the court since I joined the court, almost forty years.  Hindi pa po ako hepe ay iyon na po ang kalakaran ng Supreme Court.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, hindi talaga ho isinasama sa ano,  iyong salaries lang ho talaga iyong nandoon sa alpha list.

MS. BAYUGA.  And the year-end bonus in excess of 30,000.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Ngayon ho, iyong alpha list, sige ho, palagay ninyo ng hindi ho tinataksan iyong mga allowances na iyan, may entries ho dito eh, may sample ho kayo sa harapan ninyo?  Page 2 ho, halimbawa, Exhibit 118, doon sa bandang gitnang kanan, mayroon hong dalawang columns.  Iyong sa kaliwa, non-taxable, iyong kanan ho taxable.  So, iyong kanan ho, iyong taxable, nandoon ho iyong salaries.  “Di ba ho iyong mga ibang kinikita ni Chief Justice, halimbawa  hindi ba ho dapat ipinapasok ho doon sa non-taxable?

MS. BAYUGA.  Dahil po ito po ay naka-program sa amin po, iyan po ang program and hindi naman po taxable income kanya po siguro hindi   na po isinasama.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you closing your cross-examination?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  I am, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Re-direct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No re-direct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, the witness is discharged.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before we discharge the witness, may we recognize Senator Drillon, and then, Senator Recto, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Senator Drilon has the floor.

SEN. DRILON.  Good afternoon, Ms. Bayuga.

MS. BAYUGA.  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  You submitted before this court this Exh. 114. The total compensation for ten years is P21,636,781.00 for the Chief Justice.  My question is, in 2002, the income is P1,451,042.00 per your certification?  Just for the record.

MS. BAYUGA.  P1,004,451.42, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.  Now, out of that, the withholding tax was only on P353,045.00 as the amount appears to be on salaries?

MS. BAYUGA.  P110,281.60, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  What is P100…

MS. BAYUGA.  For P104,560.89, Your Honor, for the year 2002.

SEN. DRILON.  Is the withholding tax?

MS. BAYUGA.  Is the withholding tax.

SEN. DRILON.  And this withholding tax is a withheld tax on salaries?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  There was no withholding tax on the rest of the amounts appearing here in 2002?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, in 2003, the total compensation income is P1,594,525.04 as appear in Exh. 117 for the column 2003 for the Chief Justice?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  The withholding tax was only on the salary, which is P485,100.00?

MS. BAYUGA.  Including the P15,425.00 for year-end bonus, salaries and year-end bonus in excess of P30,000.00, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Did you submit any document on that?  Or where is that based, is that on an Alpha List?

MS. BAYUGA.  Included in the Alpha List, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  This is marked in evidence, may we know from both parties?

In the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, all the withholding tax would be just be basically be on the salaries?

MS. BAYUGA.  Based on the salaries plus year-end bonus in excess of P30,000.00, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Okay. Just, so, we can have an example. Let’s say in 2010, the total amount appearing here on exhibit 117 for the Chief Justice is P2,882,682.38.  The salary for 2010 is P650,447.23.  Just for clarity where was the withholding tax based?

MS. BAYUGA.  It was based on the salary, basic monthly salary, longevity pay, and the year-end bonus in excess of P30,000.00.

SEN. DRILON.  But the bonus was far in excess of 30,0000 in 2010.

MS. BAYUGA.   Yes, Your Honor.  In excess of 30,0000, it was taxable.

SEN. DRILON.  It was taxable.  In 2010 was it in excess of 30,000?

MS. BAYUGA.  In excess of 30,000, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  In 2010?

MS. BAYUGA.  2010, P53,423.55 is taxable income po.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.  But was there withholding tax on that?

MS. BAYUGA.   There was withholding tax.

SEN. DRILON.  What was the total bonus again in 2010?  Total.

MS. BAYUGA.  Total amount?

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

MS. BAYUGA.  For 2010, the year-end bonus, all in all, including the P5,000 cash gift is P88,423.55.  But the taxable income is only P53,423.55.

SEN. DRILON.    I see.  And that was included in the alpha list.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Now, did you submit BIR reports from 2006 to 201, the alpha list?

MS. BAYUGA.  For 2011, Sir?

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, or 2006-2011 if available.

MS. BAYUGA.  For 2011, not yet, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Not yet, because…

MS. BAYUGA.  It was delayed because one of our staff died last year.

SEN. DRILON.  What about for 2006?

MS. BAYUGA.  We submitted.

SEN. DRILON.  You submitted.

MS. BAYUGA.  It was duly received by the BIR.

SEN. DRILON.  How about to the court?

MS. BAYUGA.  200…

SEN. DRILON.  2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,…

MS. BAYUGA.  Up to 2010.

SEN. DRILON.  2010, has it been submitted to the court?

MS. BAYUGA.  It was duly received by the BIR.

SEN. DRILON.  Did you submit it to the impeachment court?

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Your Honor. The 2002-2005 only.

SEN. DRILON.  You did.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Can you submit also the 2006-2010 and if 2011 is available, up to 2011.

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, can you submit it.

MS. BAYUGA.  The certified Xerox copy…

SEN. DRILON.  Only, yes, the certified Xerox copy.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay, you submit that tomorrow.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  What about 2011?  It’s not yet ready?

MS. BAYUGA.   Not yet ready, Sir.

SEN. DRILON.  So, all of these allowances listed in exhibit 114 from 2002-2010, even 2011, were not subject to withholding tax except those year-end and cash bonus in excess of 30,000, is that correct?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Please can you speak louder, yes?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  And it was not, according to you, subject to withholding tax because they were expenses which were supposed to have been liquidated in the payroll.  Hindi ba yon ang sinabi?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ever since I…

SEN. DRILON.  No, no, just answer the question.  They were not subject to any withholding tax, I mean these bonuses in excess of up to P30,000 and all of these other emoluments were not subject to withholding tax and were not reported as income because they were all reimburseable expenses as appearing in the certification in the payroll.

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po sinabing reimburseable ang mga allowances na tinatanggap ng Supreme Court.

SEN. DRILON.  So they are not income in your classification.

MS. BAYUGA.  They are income po.

SEN. DRILON.  They are income but they are not taxable.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yon po ang usual practice ng court na lahat pong allowances na tinatanggap namin ay not subject to tax.

SEN. DRILON.  I see.  Hindi, not subject to tax.  Now, when you were asked extensively on that certification, you said the certification appeared as appearing in the payroll.  Hindi ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Do you recall exactly what appears there?  The following amounts are certified to have been spent by the recipient or substantially to that effect.  Is that how it looks?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi po, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Ano yon?  What appears there?

MS. BAYUGA.  The monthly allowance then the monthly received by the recipient then they sign the payroll.  Iyan po ang aming inili-liquidate sa COA.

SEN. DRILON.  Ah there is a sheet of paper which appears like a payroll, the amounts of allowances and other emoluments appearing there are signed by the recipient and this serves as the liquidation of those amounts, ganon po ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Ayon.  So wala na pong resibong binibigay basta pinipirmahan na lang doon sa payroll and that is deemed to be the liquidation?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Kaya hindi po sinasama yan sa income for purposes of withholding taxes.  Hindi po ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Nadatnan ko na po na yon po…

SEN. DRILON.  No, no, iyon po ang prinsipyo noon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sagutin mo lang yong question.

SEN. DRILON.  Hindi po sinasama yan sa withholding tax computation dahilan sa yan ay sa inyong reglamento, sa inyong practice yan po ay expense na na incur hindi po income.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will ask the question ‘no.  Madam Witness, yong mga hindi regular salary ay hindi isinasama sa subject to withholding tax sang-ayon sa treatment ng accounting procedure ng Korte Suprema.  Ganon ba?

MS. BAYUGA.    Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ayun.

SEN. DRILON.  So that halimbawa lamang, looking at your Exhibit 117, for the year 2010 for the Chief Justice, the total amount of income or emoluments, I withdraw the word income—emoluments is P2,882,682.38, tama po ba yon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Yung withholding tax, saan binase?  Sa salary?  P650,447.23.

MS. BAYUGA.  Sa Salaries po, Longevity Pay and …

SEN. DRILON.  Salary, …

MS. BAYUGA.  Salaries, Longevity Pay, Year-End Bonus and Excess of P30,000.

SEN. DRILON.  Salary, Longevity Pay, Year-End Bonus and Excess of P30,000.  Alin pa?  Yun lang?

MS. BAYUGA.  Dun lang po, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  A, doon lang.  Dun sa iba, walang income tax na ibinayad?  Sa ibang item?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  So, magkano lang po yung tatlong item na yan na sinabi mo?  Salary, Longevity Pay and Year-End Bonus and Cash Gift?

SUSPENSION OF HEARING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Habang pinag-aaralan niya, one-minute suspension.  (Gavel)

It was 3:37 p.m.

At 3:41 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

Are you ready with the answer, Madam Witness?

SEN. DRILON.  Madam Witness, can you now provide us with the answer?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

MS. BAYUGA.  P736,392.54, the gross taxable compensation income, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  For 2010

MS. BAYUGA.  For 2010.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That consist of the recurrent salary plus longevity pay plus bonus beyond P30,000.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that is the base of the withholding tax based on the applicable rate in the internal revenue code, correct?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, did Chief Justice Corona file an income tax return for 2010 or did he rely only on the alpha list as his return?

MS. BAYUGA.  His name was included in the alpha listing for 2010 but as to other income, I do not know Sir.

SEN. DRILON.  Not other income, the income beyond P736,892.54, in other words, the difference between P2,882,682.38 for 2010 as appearing in Exhibit 17, less P736,892.54 as you just reported, there was no income tax return filed for this amount?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po alam Sir kung ini-include po niya sa other income.

SEN. DRILON.  In other words, you do not know because you are not in possession of information whether an income tax return was filed.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor, only the alpha list.

SEN. DRILON.  Only the alpha list.  All right.  Now, since you did not consider the allowances as taxable, they are not included in the alpha list reported to the BIR.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And they are not included in any report to the BIR from the Supreme Court.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor, for almost 40 years.

SEN. DRILON.  I am sorry.

MS. BAYUGA.  For almost 40 years, since I joined the court, all allowances are not included.

SEN. DRILON.  I see.  Okay I have no more questions, just to remind the witness that she is committed to produce the documents that we have requested, specifically, the alpha list from 2006 to 2011.

MS. BAYUGA.  2010, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  2010, I am sorry, yes.  If you can bring that.  Thank you very much.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize Senators Recto, Trillanes and then Escudero.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Recto has the floor.

SEN. RECTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you, Majority Leader.  Madam Witness, I am looking at Exhibit 114.  This should be the same document that was used for questions of you with regard to the salaries and other emoluments, fringe benefits and other allowances which total P21,636,000.00 of the Chief Justice from 2002 to 2011.  I was looking at the items, salaries and other emoluments is one; may listing sa ilalim noon; and then you have fringe benefit and other allowances.  And then you have the third item, expense allowance.  Ito iyong mga categories, okay.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Nabanggit ninyo kanina na ang taxable na wini-withhold ninyo ay doon sa salaries and other emoluments and there are three items: salaries, longevity pay, and year-end bonus and cash gift.  In excess of 30 is what is taxable under the NIRC, tama ho ba iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Mayroon kayo ritong fringe benefit and other allowances.  Ang total lahat nito is about P3 million.  Hindi ho ba sa batas, iyong P3 million na fringe benefit hindi talaga kinakaltas sa tumatanggap noon at ang may obligation na magbayad nito ay iyong employer at hindi ang employee.  Iba iyong kaltas at iba iyong obligasyon na magbayad, fringe benefit.  Are you familiar with that law, with the law on … Dahil dito, maliwanag ha, salaries kinakaltasan natin, mayroon kang withholding tax, nasa alpha list ninyo iyan; pero mayroon ka rin ditong heading na fringe benefit and other allowances, walang kaltas dito.  Maliwanag.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  Base sa testimony ninyo.  Alam  ba ninyo na ayon sa batas, na iyong fringe benefit ay binabayaran ng employer at hindi ng empleyado?

MS. BAYUGA.  Tuwi po kaming magbabayad ng fringe benefit, mayroon pong aurhority coming from the court na hindi po stated doon na I have to deduct.  No specific instruction to deduct the withholding tax for such allowances.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct.  Ang puntos ko ay ganito.  Base sa batas, iyong fringe benefit hindi naman talaga dine-deduct sa empleyado eh.  Binabayaran ng employer.  Ibig sabihin, the obligation to pay the tax for fringe benefit, whether gobyerno o pribado, is the employer and not the employee for fringe benefits.  Are you familiar with that?

MS. BAYUGA.  I am not familiar, sir.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  But ayon sa Section 33-B of the NIRC, Section 33-A of the NIRC, ang final tax of 32% effective January 1, 2000 is hereby imposed on the grossed-ups monetary value of fringe benefits furnished or granted to the employee by the employer.  The tax imposed is payable by the employer.  Nakalagay sa batas.  So, posible, ganyan ang nangyayari sa Supreme Court.  In some, hindi sa lahat, doon sa tinatawag na fringe benefit.  Dahil dito sa Senado, ganoon din dito, base sa fringe benefits.  Now, hindi lahat ito considered as fringe benefits.  I don’t know if you are expert witness. Kayo ho ba mayroon kayong other compensation income?

MS. BAYUGA. Ako po?

SEN. RECTO.  Opo.

MS. BAYUGA.  Katulad din po ng tinatanggap ng mga  …

SEN. RECTO.  Hindi compensation income. Ibig sabihin, hindi galing sa Supreme Court.

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala po.

SEN. RECTO.  May pribado ka bang negosyo?

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala po.

SEN. RECTO.  So, you would not be familiar what optional standard deductions? Hindi na rin?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi.

SEN. RECTO. Okay.  Kasi, kung halimbawa, kung sa pribado naman, mayroon kang kinitang P22 million, mayroon kang optional standard deduction na  40% kaagad. Samakatuwid, basta 18% ang gross na binayaran mong tax or gross  at hindi na 32% iyan, eh, may 40% kang OSD, compliant ka na sa Tax Code. But you would not know that because you don’t have other compensation income.  So, okay, huling tanong na lang, Madam Witness.  Bakit sa tingin ninyo nilagay dito  fringe benefit and other allowances?  Bakit iyon ang heading ninyo?

MS. BAYUGA.  Ito pong certification ay pinagawa lang po sa akin ng aking immediate chief.

SEN. RECTO.  Yes, I’m sorry.

MS. BAYUGA.  Ito po ay pinagawa lang po sa akin ng immediate chief ko.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.

MS. BAYUGA.  Na ito ang dapat ilagay “salaries and other emoluments.”

SEN. RECTO.  Oho.

MS. BAYUGA. “Fringe benefits and other allowances.”

SEN. RECTO.  Sa madaling salita, may ibig sabihin ito, the salaries and other emoluments, iyong tatlong bagay dito taxable.  Iyong fringe benefit and other allowances, that is another heading, hindi ho ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

SEN. RECTO.  At sa lahat ng  government officials, employees, may ganito, eh?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Karamihan, hindi ho ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  And then, mayroon kayong pangatlo “expense allowance.” Nandito naman halos “ zero, zero, zero, zero.” Palagay ko ‘to,   as Chief Justice ng 2010 and 11, eto lang ang may entry, eh?

MS. BAYUGA.  As JBC Chairman.

SEN. RECTO.  JBC Chairman.  Ano iyong JBC?

MS. BAYUGA. Judicial and Bar Council.

SEN. RECTO.  Bar Council.  Okay.  Expense allowance, so ito maliwanag kailangan ginastos, expense allowance, eh, hindi ho ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po alam.

SEN. RECTO.  But you would not know if he did spend it, ‘no. Okay, iyon lang po,  Madam Witness, thank you.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN SOTTO.  Sen. Trillanes, Mr. President, may we recognize him, please.

THE PRESIDING. JUSTICE. Who? Senator Escudero?

SEN. SOTTO.  Trillanes.  Trillanes.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE.  Senator Trillanes is has the floor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Well, I would like to address these questions to the Chief Defense counsel. Defense counsel, can you help me understand why you presented this witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Well, I have stated the purpose on record, Your Honor, to show the different compensation, benefits, and other allowances received by the Chief Justice, Your Honor, in order to explain, at least, the sources of the amounts that have gone into his income, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  So, how is this relevant to the case beforehand?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Very relevant, Your Honor, because if the other amounts of compensation whether by means of allowances and so on goes into the coffers of the Chief Justice, Your Honor, then, it will explain the other alleged deficiencies brought about by the evidence of the prosecution that he could not have acquired this amount of properties because his income does not justify the acquisition thereof.

SEN. TRILLANES. Okay, so, in short, Mr. Defense Counsel, you are trying to prove that the bank deposits are not ill-gotten?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I have not gone that far, if Your Honor please.

SEN TRILLANES.  So, well, in effect, you are actually reviving Art. 2.4, is that the case, Mr. Defense Counsel?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  2.4, Your Honor, is in connection with illegally acquired wealth.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the prosecution had been debarred  from presenting any evidence in connection therewith.

SEN. TRILLANES.  But you are actually presenting evidence to explain 2.4  or to disprove that the bank deposits are ill-gotten.  That is the only purpose that I can think of in this ….

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, that is your personal assessment if, Your Honor, please, but being a defense counsel, we have to do everything for purposes of at least explaining the position of the Chief Justice.  It may not jive with what your perception, Your Honor, with your postulation and articulation, but decidedly, we needed it because the impeachment court is not made up solely of one judge, Your Honor.  It is a collegial court, and our appeal is  to the entire court, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  So, in short, you are conceding the opinion of this judge, is that the way I understand it, Mr. defense counsel?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Conceding the opinion as to what?  I hope you pardon me, Mr….

SEN. TRILLANES.  Okay.  Well, anyway, does your witness have any personal knowledge as to how the Chief Justice spent the money, the  22 million?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, the way the testimony of the witness have gone, Your Honor, she has nothing to do, neither is she privy to the manner by which this amount reflected in the various documents testified to by her, have been spent, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  So, she had no idea whatsoever as to how much the Chief Justice actually spends every month for association dues, electric bills, grocery bills, gasoline and car maintenance bills, salaries of the household helper, if any, and so on and so forth.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is clear from her testimony, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  So, in short, for all you know, the respondent is—or probably would be spending so much more than the 21 million stated.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It could be, Your Honor, but that has not—I am sorry, akala ko tapos na kayo.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Yes, please, Sir, go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It could be, Your Honor, but in accordance with the purpose of our offer, Your Honor, it is limited to the extraction of various amounts appearing in their salary payrolls and other documentary evidence lifted from there, this is the synchronize or summarization of what she has done.  In other words, she has nothing to do with the grant of this amount, she has nothing to do with the way they were spent, and she has nothing to do by way of justifying how all these matters came to existence, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  It is very clear, Mr. Defense counsel.  Now, let’s just approximate.  For somebody with the stature of the Chief Justice who has maintaining a penthouse in the Beladio, what’s that other condominium?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, it is not a penthouse, in fact, it is not occupied up to now, Your Honor, so, our evidence will show—I am sorry.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Okay.  The stature of the Chief Justice who is maintaining, let’s say a few households, let’s just put a figure that he maybe spending around P150,000 to P200,000 per month, and with that you multiply by 12, he spending around 2 million more or less per year then times 10, 21 to 22 million.  So, in short…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ubos din.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please.  If I do not think I can produce evidence by mere manifestation or argumentation, Your Honor, I am not willing neither am I in a position, legally speaking and physically speaking to deal on the truth, accuracy of the figures that you have mention, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Yes, with that, I support the position of the Senate President that it is only the Chief Justice who can actually explain all of these things.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Maybe yes, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Yes.  Now, I would like to take this opportunity also to ask you if you have any plans to divulge the dollar accounts as promise by the Chief Justice himself?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, I have not yet, concretely and positively arrive at the ultimate conclusion that we have to or we do not have to.  That will depend on the progress of the proceedings and the nature of our evidence or the stages of which our evidence maybe.  Because we are on the defense, Your Honor, eh.  If the prosecution have not even establish the prima facie case against the respondent, then, I do not think we have to place him on the stand, Your Honor.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Yes, I understand, but I am just holding on to your word and records would bear us out as well as the word of the Chief Justice in his media rounds that he will divulge.  And if you are the Chief Justice talking, then you have to value his word.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Oh yes, I had been informed, Your Honor, although I did not hear, maybe I was asleep or elsewhere when these alleged statements were made but I will go on record, Your Honor, as not having stated that we will present his what we call foreign currency deposit, Your Honor.  In fact, I recall being asked by one of the Senator-Judges, Your Honor, as to whether I can convince him to do this and do that in connection with this foreign currency deposit, Your Honor, and I made the statement that we are still on the verge of fighting this particular issue before the honourable Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari prohibition that we have filed with the said court.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Well, you’ll have to understand and forgive me if I will remind you every now and then of that promise of the Chief Justice to divulge the dollar accounts.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you for the manifestation.

SEN. TRILLANES.  Thank you, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Escudero, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Isang katanungan po lamang sa ating testigo ngayong hapon.  Ma’am, noong nagpunta po dito si Commissioner Henares, sabi po nya wala daw silang record na nagbabayad kayo ng buwis via withholding tax based sa alpha list insofar as the Justices of the Supreme Court is concerned.  Pakipaliwanag po sa amin kung bakit nya nasabi yon.

MS. BAYUGA.  Hindi ko po masasagot ang inyong katanungan, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  When we asked the commissioner kung nagre-remit ba, nagbabayad ba ng buwis, ipinakita lamang yong alpha list for certain years pero may mga taon na wala daw po silang record, wala po silang alpha list.  Sina-submit nyo po ba ito taon-taon sa BIR?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Received by the BIR?

MS. BAYUGA.  Duly received by the BIR.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Saan pong tanggapan ng BIR, kung maaari pong malaman?  Dahil hindi ko makita ang dahilan kung bakit hindi alam ng  commissioner yan sasabihin po sa amin yon.

MS. BAYUGA  RDO No. 33.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  RDO No. 33 which is located in Manila, I presume.

MS. BAYUGA.  Intramuros.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  In Intramuros, Manila.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Revenue District Office No. 33.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  At nire-remit nyo rin po sa pamamagitan ng pagbayad sa bangko yong wini-withhold ninyo.  Nakita ko po yong record nyo, roughly P34 million total for the past 8 years.

MS. BAYUGA.  Through TRA.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ano po yong TRA?

MS. BAYUGA.  Tax Remittance Advice po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So may pruweba po kayo na bayad yong withholding taxes na dapat due and owing sa gobyerno sa mga natatanggap na sweldo at taxable income ng mga Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Can you kindly, it was requested earlier, can you kindly furnish us with a complete set dahil kulang po yata yong nabigay nyong alpha list sa amin 02205 po lamang.  Pakibigay po sa amin kung maaari yong balance rin para lang…

MS. BAYUGA.  Up to 2010, Your Honor?

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Kung ano po yong available.  May 2011 na  po ba, wala pa?

MS. BAYUGA.  Wala pa po, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Up to 2010 lang, please.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With due respect, Your Honor, if I’ll be allowed to say a couple of words in connection with this, Your Honor.  If I recall, Your Honor, when the honourable Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner Henares, took the stand as a witness for the prosecution, Your Honor, well, there was Exhibit CCCCC-7, Your Honor.  It was marked in the hearing of February 6, 2012 and this covers the taxable years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   Ah in previous years yong wala nila.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Meaning 2002 to 2005?

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Yon po yong wala ang BIR daw.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Tama po.  So kumpleto na po yon sa record ng impeachment court sa ngayon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  From 2002 to 2010.  2006 to 2010, galing sa BIR?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  2002 to 2005 galing po sa kanya ngayon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sa defense, opo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ah kaya yon po ang lohika kung bakit 2002-2005 lamang ang prinesenta ninyong alpha list.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ang aming purpose ay just to show that there was compliance in connection with the requirement of filing of all these things as shown by these various statements 2002 year-end report on compensation for the year 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Can we get the concurrence of the Secretariat, Mr. President, even at a later time if indeed we have a complete record of the Alpha List already and the payments made by the Supreme Court insofar as salaries and emoluments they are taxable by Justices.  Even at a later time.  Para lang malaman natinng kumpleto yung record natin from 2002 to 2010.  Ma’am, nandyan po ba?  Thank you.  I would like to thank the Secretariat.

May I address some questions just to place everything in proper perspective.  May I get confirmation from the prosecution?  I asked this before, ang napatunayan diumano na ari-arian sa panig ninyo, ni Chief Justice Corona, ay 24.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  The number of real properties?

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Dalawampu’t apat kabilang na yung anim na parking lot.  Tama po ba?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Tama po, as far as I know.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ngayon, kabilang sa ebidensyang pinresenta ninyo yung HHH, a Deed of Sale tungkol sa isang ari-arian sa Quezon City na binenta na, ayon din sa inyo.  So, ang claim lang ninyo nung pinresent ninyo yung testigo ay yung kinita daw don ay wala sa kanyang SALN.  So, do I take it na 24 yung kine-claim ninyong ari-arian ni Chief Justice na dapat dineklara niya sa kanyang SALN kasama, ulitin ko, yung anim na parking lots?  Would that be accurate?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, I’m sorry.  I’m not in a position at this time to make that statement.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Can I ask someone who’s in a position to answer, Mr. President, because we cannot be more or less, it should either be 21, 23, 24, so that we, as Senator-Judges, would know, ano ba yung dini-disprove ngayon ng depensa at ano ba yung napatunayan ng prosekusyon kaugnay sa kanilang alegasyon na hindi nilalaman ng SALN ni Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the prosecution in a position to answer the question of the distinguished Senator from Sorsogon.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, may we have like a five-minute recess so we can check our records and give the exact data?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Tamang-tama yung recess.  Sige.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SUSPENSION OF HEARING

SEN. SOTTO.  Because of the lateness of the hour, may we move to suspend for 15 minutes instead.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial suspended for 15 minutes to check the record of the prosecution.  (Gavel)

It was 4:08 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF THE TRIAL

At 4:50 p.m. the trial resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Trial resumes.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before the brake, Senator Escudero had the floor.  After Senator Escudero, the Minority Leader, Senator Allan Cayetano wishes to be recognized also, but at this point, may we continue with Senator Escudero and the present witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Escudero.  Before we go off, the prosecution was verifying their records regarding the status of the claimed assets, hard assets that were not included in the SALN.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President, bago po sumagot ang Kagalang-galang na Chief Prosecutor, tinatanong ko po ito para mailagay sa tamang perspektibo iyong nagaganap sa harap natin ngayon. Dalawangput-apat na ari-arian diumano ang nasabi noon sa akin, ewan ko ngayon kung ilan, ang pag-aari ni Justice Chief Corona, subalit lima lamang ang nasa SALN. At ang sinusubukang patunayan ng depensa, eh, hindi kanya iyon. So, nagka-countdown ho kasi kami dito ng ilang Senator-Judges. Pwede po bang malaman ilan po ba ang napatunayan ninyo, tingin ninyo napatunayan ninyo?

REP. TUPAS.  Ginoong Pangulo, doon sa—base doon sa offer of evidence na sinabmit namin at inadmit ng impeachment tribunal mayroong …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Real estate muna.

REP. TUPAS.  Real estate lang po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   Real estate lang po.

REP. TUPAS.  Real properties, mayroong 21 titles covering 21 properties. Nasabi ko lang 24 dati, kasi iyong 24 na iyon, iyong tatlo doon ay parking lots na wala namang title, so, naging 21 lang ngayon, at 21 including three parking lots doon sa Velagio.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   Twenty-one kasama na ho doon iyong three parking lots.

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Iyon bang mga parking lots, eh, kasama sa titulo ng condo?

REP. TUPAS.  Hiwalay po iyon, Ginoong Pangulo.  At sa 21 titles na ito, mayroon ditong tatlong titulo ng tatlong parking lots.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   Tatlong tituladong parking lots.

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   So, 24 noong una dahil nasama ninyo iyong tatlong parking lots na walang titulo kasabay noon ang titulo ng unit?

REP. TUPAS.  Tama iyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pero iyong asset din iyon, eh, iyong parking lots asset din iyon dahil may value iyon.

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po.

SEN. ESCUDERO. Gaya ng nasabi ko, Ginoong Pangulo, sinusubukan po naming mag-countdown kung tutugma iyong pinepresentang ebidensiya ng magkabilang panig. So, 24, ah, 21 kung tatanggalin ko ho iyong parking lots, 18, kasama po ba dito iyong Exh. HHH ninyo na nagprisinta kayo ng ebidensiyang binenta na po ito to make it …

REP. TUPAS.  Tinitingnan ko lang.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   Opo.

REP. TUPAS. Tsinetsek ko lang kung ano iyong HHHH.  Kasama na po iyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali, dati 24, ‘di ba?

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tinanggal ninyo iyong tatlo dahil parking lots iyon?

REP. TUPAS.  Dahil walang titulo po iyong tatlong iyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Walang titulo. So, 21.

REP. TUPAS.  Dalawangput-isa.  Tama po, Ginoong Pangulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May mga titulo iyan?

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Pero iyong tatlo na walang titulo, eh, kanino iyon?

SEN. ESCUDERO.   If I may answer, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Kasama na iyon noong Condominium Certificate of Title kung saan nakadikit iyong mga parking lots na iyon, kung hindi ako nagkakamali?

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po iyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, so, iyon ay one asset iyon involved in one title?

REP. TUPAS. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   May I ask, sa 21 nabanggit ninyo, tatlo doon parking lots, kasama ba doon iyong lupa sa Pansol, Quezon City na ayon sa Exh. HHH ninyo, which is an absolute deed of sale, eh, binenta na o nilabas ninyo na ba yon sa 21?  Pansol, pansol.

REP. TUPAS.  Kasama pa po iyon sa 21 properties.

SEN. ESCUDERO. But in your own exhibit HHH, deed of absolute sale, binenta na ito.

REP. TUPAS.  Nabenta na po ito noong…ipinapatsek ko lang po pero ang pagkakaalam po namin dito…

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Ang date received po sa Register of Deeds ay April 13, 2010.

REP. TUPAS.  Correct, 2010.  Pero isinama naming yon kasi may mga dates na year-end na dapat kasali pa yon sa SALN ng respondent Chief Justice na hindi isinali.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, kasama sa 21.

REP. TUPAS.  Kasama sa 21.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Kasama rin po sa 21 iyong pito na diumano pinatunayan ni Ginoong Vicente na siya na raw ang may-ari.

REP. TUPAS.  Kasama po, tama.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Kasama rin po ba doon sa 21 iyong pag-aari ni Mirriam Roco na binili raw nya.  Inallege mo ba iyon na kasama sa 21?

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mag-aarithmetic ho ako ng konti para masubaybayan ko at ma-appreciate ko rin yong ginagawa ng depensa.  Twenty one, tatlong parking lot, so, kung aalisin ko iyon, 18, ina-account ko lang Manong Ping…18, pito so labing isa, lima ang kini-claim ni Chief Justice na kanya, so, ang so far wala pang tangka na ipaliwanag, hindi ko sinasabing tatanggapin namin at paniniwalaan naming ay anim.

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi po, kasi…

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Hindi, iyong lima inaamin naman nya eh.

REP. TUPAS.  Iyong hindi nya inamin.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Iyong hindi inamin ay anim.

REP. TUPAS.  Iyong walang tangka pa na pagpapaliwanag.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Walang pang tangkang ipaliwanag.

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, iyon ang hinihintay nating gawin kung saka-sakali ng depensa.

REP. TUPAS.  Tama po iyan Ginoong Pangulo.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Sa pera naman, sa bank accounts, maaring makita namin kung saan papunta and lahat ng ito.  Base sa inyong teorya, magkano ba iyong cash-on-hand ni Chief Justice kumpara sa kanyag idineklara sa kanyang SALN.  Nalito ho kasi kami ng kaunti dun sa mga bank accounts dahil may inopen, may klinows, ang isang pahayagan tinotal po lahat nung amounts na lumabas, eh, hindi naman ho dapat itototal iyon dahil may inilabas, may ipinasok.  Sa inyong teorya po magkano po ba iyong cash on hand na dapat nyang idineklara, para makita po namin kung pumapantay ba iyong ebidensya na tinatangkang iprisenta ng depensa doon sa nais nilang ipaliwanag na diprensya.

REP. TUPAS.  During the break, ang kinompute po namin based dun sa offer of evidence, yung real property lang po…

SEN. SOTTO. At a later time, Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  At a later time, we will submit it.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Just so we can do a matching of the allegation and the answer of both the prosecution and the defense,  that  we can weigh how it has been answered thus far.  And if the defense is still on line with respect to being on a sue on Article II.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, but it was previously asked in the previous hearing of this honourable tribunal, and ang klaro lang doon 2010 ay iyong cash P3.5 ang sa SALN, at ang P31.5 million iyong prinesent ng prosecution na pagmamay-ari ni Chief Justice.  Pero with respect sa ibang taon po, isusumite po namin iyon para mapaliwanagan lalo si Senador Escudero.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  As a final point, Mr. President, just for the record, in relation to the question of Senator Trillanes awhile ago, it was my understanding that  the ruling of the Presiding Officer in the Senate impeachment court in disallowing evidence to be presented on Article 2.4 is that, in barring it, ang assumption natin don, I don’t know if it was in caucus or in plenary was that, if it is proven by the prosecution although we said not properly alleged, that there is income or there are assets in excess of income, the losses there is a presumption that it is ill-gotten.  And, therefore, the burden shifts from the prosecution to the defense to prove that it is not ill-gotten.  In which case, the prosecution can present during rebuttal, perhaps, evidence to prove otherwise.  Kaya nga sinabi namin, sa ngayon hindi kayo pwede mag-presinta ng ebidensya, and I think that is the tendency of the witnesses being presented by the defense now to try to explain and prove the sources of income at ang hinihintay rin po namin sana dumating tayo sa puntong iyon Justice Cuevas, pinapalabas nyo sino ang may-ari, saan galing yong pera.  Ang hinihintay din po namin ay yong paliwanag kung bakit wala doon, ano yong nandoon at saan ba matatagpuan doon sa dokumentong tinatawag na SALN yong mga kanya pa at yong inaamin nyang kanya, nakapangalan man sa kanya o hindi.  Darating naman po tayo doon, hindi po ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tiyak na darating po kami roon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President.   Thank you, Your Honor.  Thank you, Congressman Tupas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, proceed.  The Minority Floor Leader.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Magandang hapon, Mr. Senate President, sa magkabilang panig.  Nakatayo na rin po si Justice Cuevas, payagan nyo po na i-pursue ko lang po yong point ni Senator-Judge Trillanes at ni Senator-Judge Escudero.  Naintindihan ko po kasi yong kahapon yong prinesent na witness tungkol po doon sa lupa sa Marikina.  Kasi halimbawa po ano, pina-tabulate ko sa staff ko yong properties na nasa SALN and yung properties na wala.  So yong properties na wala, isa-isa ninyong pinapaliwanag or I assume na umpisa pa lang yong kahapon kung bakit wala sa SALN.  So yong kahapon, maliwanag sa akin na sinusubukan nyong patunayan na hindi naman sa kanya yon so bakit nya ilalagay sa SALN.  So yon po maliwanag sa akin yong part na yon.  Pero doon po sa tanong ni Senator Trillanes, nakikita ko po yong point nya.  Kasi po ang ruling ng korte ay yung 2.2 at 2.3 ang ating nililitis.  Ibig sabihin po yong  whether or not there was a filing ng SALN at ayon sa prosekusyon kasama din dito whether or not accurate at tama po ang dineklara sa SALN.  Pero ang sinabi po ng korteng ito hindi pwedeng magbigay ng ebidensya ang prosekusyon tungkol sa ill-gotten wealth.  So noong ipinakita nyo po ang witness na ito—magandang hapon, ma’am—at ipinalabas na P21 or P22 million ang kinita nya in ten years or if I just do a simple mathematical, although hindi ganoon ka-accurate, something like P2.1 or P2.2 million a year, hindi ko rin po sobrang maintindihan.  At this point in time ho hindi ganoon kaklaro kung ano ang pinapatunayan ng prosekusyon sapagkat tina-tabulate ko rin po ang summary ng mga pondong ipinakita ng prosekusyon, assuming we will admit all of that and assuming tama po yon.  For example po, let’s say in the year 2009, ang SALN declaration isP 2.5 million pero ang lumabas sa mga bank accounts ay P9.178,501 million or for example po ng 2010, ang SALN declaration is P3.5 million pero kung tama po ang addition namin sa tatlong bank account P31,752,623 or yong 2009 po to be clear, P9,178,501.  So by showing us that he made P2.1 million a year, how do you relate that to the point na ang pinapatunayan or dini-disprove or pinu-prove dito  is that mali ang pinayl ng SALN?  Hindi naman pinapatunayan dito kung sapat ang kinita ng Chief Justice kasi sinabi na natin e.  Pag ill-gotten wealth, hindi kayo pwedeng magpresenta ng ebidensya.  So even assuming the Chief Justice made 7, 10, 15 million this year or last year or the years before, hindi yun yong point as of now.  Ang point as of now is, nadeklara ba ito sa SALN.  Unless po yong pinapatunayan nyo, yong sinasabi ni Senator Escudero.  That because you believe that the presumption kick in because ang naging total is P31.752 million, there is now a presumption that this is ill-gotten and you are trying to prove that it is not ill-gotten.  So pwede po bang paki klaro lang iyon because if you are just trying to show to the public that hindi corrupt at may pinagkunan, I understand that.  But hindi naman po yon ang issue sa korte.  Now, if you are trying to prove something else sa korte, let me give you this opportunity to clarify it to us and make the connection.  So, what is the connection between his income and his declaration sa SALN?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, we will be dealing with that aspect of the litigation, Your Honor, not only through the testimony of this witness, Your Honor, but there are other witnesses in connection that we will be presenting in connection with the additional income SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, this is preliminary.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right., Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.  I think that’s the only thing that we wanted clarified.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In other words, this is not the totality of the evidence for the prosecution in order to establish the non-culpability of the honourable Chief Justice, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, this is just step 1.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But, you agree with us that the issue here is the filing or non-filing of the SALN and the accuracy of the SALN.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, I do not think the issue will deal on the filing or non-filing, Your Honor, because that is admitted by the evidence of both parties.  You will recall, if Your Honor, please, you will recall that even at the start of the presentation of the evidence, the representative of the Supreme Court who brought those documents here have them marked at instance of the prosecution, and they are all the SALNs, Your Honor, covering period 2002 to 2010, Your Honor, and we also adopted it …

CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … as our own evidence in order to show that it is not true that there was no compliance with the requirement of preparation and filing.

Now,—Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  You are talking about the physical filing on the presence of the SALN which we all admit …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  … is the—I termed it as an issue, filing and non-filing, because if my memory serves me right, ang paliwanag po ng prosecution, pag hindi accurate yung filing or may mga falsities, it is tantamount to non-filing.  That’s why I’m not ready to make a decision on that and I know the defense is saying that that is not the case.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  And you read the law and 6713 and the implementing rules on that day na diniscuss natin.  I just wanted na ibalik po yung tanong ni Senator Trillanes to make sure na ang pinag-uusapan po natin dito, hindi issue whether not corrupt si CJ or whether yung pera ay galing sa masama o mabuti.  Ang pinag-uusapan ditto, whether or not yung SALN niya ay finayl at na-declare ba o hindi, or may paliwanag ba, in layman’s term, Mr. Counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  I’m satisfied with that.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yun po ang aming tatangkaing patunayan sa mga darating pang mga testigo at ebidensiya ng defense, Your Honor.  As of this moment, we are not—I have to confess, Your Honor, and very candidly at that, that we are not yet prepared to jump into conclusions, Your Honor, unless our basic evidence are already on record.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  I will accept that.  I just wanted to be fair to both sides …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  … dahil unfair naman sa prosecution kung sila hindi pwedeng adduce ng evidence to prove ill-gotten wealth, and then ang defense ay pwede naming mag-adduce ng evidence to prove na hindi siya ill-gotten.  But, tama din naman po si Senator Escudero that as long as the amounts are over what is declared or what his income—what is his legitimate income, there is a presumption that kicks in, and of course, we will give you all the latitude to dispute that presumption.  But, as you said awhile ago, you do not even believe that the presumption already applies or that we should presume that the amounts named in the bank accounts is over and above.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please, I regret very much to not be able to give my conformity to such kind of an articulation, Your Honor.  We are of the different persuasion and we will prove to this honourable court that even assuming there is discrepancy or quite a difference in the making of the return which may be considered inaccurate, Your Honor, that is not a ground in our thinking as a ground for impeachment, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.  We simply don’t want to confuse the issues but I’m more than satisfied and I thank you, counsel, for clarifying that.  Thank you, Mr. Senate President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you also.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Lacson before …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cavite is recognized.  (Gavel)

SEN. LACSON.  Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Ipahintulot po ninyo na basahin ko lang yung Konstitusyon, yung napatungkol ditto sa ating pinag-uusapan sa Article XI, Section 17.  Ang sinasabi po nito:  “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”

Meron pa pong karugtong, hihinto na lang po muna ako don.

And understanding ko po, pag sinabing submit a declaration under oath, ang understanding ko po ay dapat totoo, tapat at eksakto.  Hindi po ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po sapagka’t kung hindi ganon, walang katuturan, walang kahulugan ang provision na yan.

SEN. LACSON.  Kaya ko po binasa …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kung kahit ano finayl ay okay na, e bale wala po yan sa magaspang na pangungusap.

SEN. LACSON.  Kaya ko po binasa para magabayan na rin kayo sa pagpiprisinta ng inyong depensa ng sa ganoon, hindi tayo wayward.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po.

SEN. LACSON.  Gusto rin po naming marinig kung paano ipapaliwanag ng nasasakdal o iyong impeached official, in this case, iyong ating Chief Magistrate, dahil alam niyo po, sa mga naiprisinta ng prosekusyon, tatatpatin ko kayo, nagkaroon po ng doubt, in my mind, at least, na mayroon talagang basehan iyong impeachment complaint.  Ngayon, ito po ay nakabitin sa—nakabitin po doon dahil gusto kong margining ang paliwanag at pwede pong mawala iyong doubt in my mind kung maganda ang inyong paliwanag o paliwanag ng inyong kliyente.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po iyon.  Salamat po sa inyong pagbibigay paalala sa amin, pero kung inyo pong mamarapatin, ipahintulot ninyong sabihin ko, hindi naman si Justice Cuevas ang ebidensya, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  Hindi nga po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have to call for witnesses.  We have to present documentary evidence to prove our point, Your Honor. 

SEN. LACSON.  Tama po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Irrespective of what Justice Cuevas may be articulating here or postulating, that is nothing.

SEN. LACSON.  Tama po iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If it did no consist of evidence, Your Honor.

SEN. LACSON.  Pero kayo po ang lead counsel, kaya sabi ko, bayaan niyong magabayan ko kayo para tama iyong ating pinag-uusapan dito.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po.

SEN. LACSON.  Salamat po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, proceed.

SEN.SOTTO.  Senator Estrada, Mr. President, the President Pro-Tempore.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Isang katanungan lang po doon sa lead prosecutor ng prosecution panel.

Isang katanungan lang, Congressman Tupas, ibabalik ko lang iyong aking dating tanong noong araw tungkol doon sa mga titulo na allegedly, pagmamay-ari ni Chief Justice Renato Corona.  Iyon pong iprinisinta niyo sa media, iyong 45 titles, ibig sabihin ba ho hindi nyo po sinuri iyong iprinisinta niyo sa media na 45 properties sapagkat lumalabas po ngayon, ayon sa computation ni Senador Escudero na 21 titles minus three because of the parking lot, at iyong pito ay pinatunayan na noong witness kagabi, si Mr. Vicente, e 11 na lang ang dapat patunayan, at iyong lima doon out of the 11 ay inaangkin na ni Chief Justice Corona.  So, anim na lang iyong patutunayan ng depensa.  Ibig bang sabihin, noong iprinisinta niyo iyong sulat ng LRA ay hindi niyo nilinis iyong mga pagmamay-ari ni Chief Justice, basta na lang ibrinodcast niyo sa publiko iyon?  Did you just make it appear that Chier Justice Corona really or truly owns those 45 properties?

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, unang-una, Mahal na Pangulo, hindi anim na properties iyong patutunayan ngayon kasi mayroong 21, at least, 21 properties iyong inoffer.

SEN. ESTRADA.  21 minus three because of the parking lot, as I understand correctly.

REP. TUPAS.  No actually, 24 siya minus three kaya naging 21 siya.

SEN. ESTRADA.  All right.

REP. TUPAS.  Noong nag-request po kami doon sa land registration authority at ang ibinigay sa amin noong araw na iyon ay mayroong 45 properties at may presumption of regularity—ang sa amin po, sa isip namin, in good faith, may presumption of regularity iyong official functions and acts of agencies, especially for Land Registration Authority, na siya po iyong custodian ng records.  At nailagay po namin iyon sa aming motion.  Actually, naalala ko, noong—it was January 13 yata noong nagkaroon kami—nag-submit kami dito sa—this honorable tribunal ng isang motion na attached iyon.  So, pero as we go along, sinuri namin iyon at after naming sinuri, 24 minus three which is 21 properties ang ini-offer namin during the offer of documentary evidence.

Iyon po ang nangyari, Ginoong Pangulo.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, inaamin niyo po ngayon, Congressman Tupas, na hindi po 45 properties ang pagmamay-ari ni Chief Justice.

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi po 45.

SEN. ESTRADA.  21 or even less.

REP. TUPAS.  21 po kasi iyon po ang offer of evidence po namin sa aming exhibits po, 21 titles.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Unang-una, 45, naging 24, ngayon 21 na lang, hindi ba?

REP. TUPAS.  21 titles po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May numero noon na 24.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano ang nabawas doon sa 24?

REP. TUPAS.  Iyong 24 po, Ginoong Pangulo, that included doon iyong tatlong parking lots doon sa Burgundy.  Pero iyong nakita namin, wala palang separate na titulo iyong parking lots na iyon kasi kasama lang doon sa condominium certificate of title.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, itong sa 21, may kasama pa rin na parking lot.

REP. TUPAS.  Tatlo po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tatlo pa rin.

REP. TUPAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tatlo doon sa Burgundy.

REP. TUPAS.  Hindi po.  Tatlo po sa Belagio na lang.  Iyong Burgundy di na namin kinount iyon kasi iyong Burgundy kasama na po iyon sa certificate of title.  Isang titulo lang sa Burgundy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige.

REP. TUPAS.  Salamat po.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. Presidient, Senator Guingona wants to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Bukidnon, T.J. Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Justice Cuevas, may tanong lang ako ano.  Assuming we have 21 properties that the prosecution has presented, and assuming that you can explain everything, fine then.  As far as the properties are concerned, that is fine.  Then for the year let us say 2010, the SALN declaration of the Honorable Chief Justice has an amount of 3.5 in the bank.  P3.5 million po.  But according to the calculations as presented, there is P31 million versus a declared of 3.5, may discrepancy po.  Assuming again, sir, na maipaliwanag din iyon, mai-explain talaga, the thing that I would like to find out then is, how come the dollar account, ano po, hindi po naka-declare dito sa SALN?.  At siguro naman nakalagay sa batas, hindi po ba, na one of the exceptions sa dollar account is that the depositor gives his consent, hindi po ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.   Hindi ba you agreed with Senator Lacson that a SALN has to be accurate ano po, truthful.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  By accurate we do not mean centavo per centavo, peso per peso, Your Honor.  Because there are cases, on the point already, wherein the exact amount do not tally and yet it was considered filed through mere inadvertence.  Simple negligence, it is not a ground for administrative case, Your Honor.  Now, may go a little further, if you will allow me, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Please do, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, there is no dispute as to several parcels of properties, Your Honor.  Even in our answer, we categorically admitted for instance these Belagio, Makati Boni Ridge, Burgundy.  These are admitted.  So, there is a no controversy to this.  We have stated it in our SALN, Your Honor.  It is not merely stated in there.  When we filed our answer, we made a categorical admission that these properties belong to the honourable Chief Justice Corona.  Now, insofar as the dollar deposit is concerned, we have not gone that far, Your Honor, because there is no necessity for revelation of this because this is covered by the exemption provided for under the Foreign Deposit Account, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Agreed, but there is no indication of its existence in the SALN.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, I think we should wait for the reception of evidence coming from the defense before we discuss these things.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Very well, Mr. President.  We will await the presentation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, if we are finished with the witness …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May I just make a short statement.  Your Honor, earlier we had closed and terminated my cross-examination.  I made a mistake.  I was reminded by my co-counsel that we had requested for two batches of documents.  May we be allowed to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are asking permission for …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Additional cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To reopen the cross-examination?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  If necessary, Your Honor, when we see the documents tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Okay.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we know what those documents are, Your Honor?  Because this is highly a sensitive issue already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    There were, indeed, the record will show that they were asking for a document.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    I remember this.  What were those documents that you …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  About four or five samples of the certification she was mentioning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.  Yes.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  And also these Alpha Lists from 2006 to 2011.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    That is correct. So, granted.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  We submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright. Next witness.

SEN. SOTTO. We are finished with the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, we cannot close the testimony of the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because he will have to appear tomorrow in connection with …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Subject to redirect by the …

SEN. SOTTO. Prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  By the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    By the defense.  Alright.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Lacson wants to be recognized, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator …

SEN. LACSON.  Bago po nating pahintulutang umalis iyong testigo, nakita na po ba iyong nawawalang dokumento?  Baka may ma-contempt na naman dito.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Aling dokumento, iyong sulat?

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Iyon pong sulat na acknowledgment receipt by Mrs. Corona stating to the effect that she received seven TCTs, covering the seven parcels, the deed of sale, which was—which I showed to counsel, Atty. Justiniano, during the cross-examination being conducted by him, Your Honor.  In fact—ano bang tawag doon?  The video will show, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.     Was that written acknowledgment attached to the certificate of titles?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    They were separate—it was a separate.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Separate, Your Honor, two documents. First, acknowledgment receipt by Mrs. Corona and secondly, the deed of sale of the property belonging to Mirriam Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Was that the deed of sale returned?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It was not returned, Your Honor.  The two documents have not been returned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Well, you better explain this.

REP. AGABAS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we don’t know about it. Nevertheless, we were trying our best to look for it. Yesterday, Atty. Justiniano is also trying to recall, just in case, he was able to receive it yesterday, so, if it was so that he received it yesterday, so, we were trying to trace where it is—where is that document you are asking us now. Because, yesterday, as you can see, well, if we have some cameras here, we have lots of paper here in this table yesterday. So, unluckily, sir, I used a car other than the car I use now. So, requested, just in case, my staff was able to get it yesterday because one of our staff was the one who took those papers and the documents yesterday, so, I requested that the car come here, so, it is now on its way. We were trying to trace out if it was included in those papers.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But be sure the car will not get loss.

REP. AGABAS.  Of course, it will not. Okay. So, we don’t know the kind of paper you are asking us, nevertheless, you gave us an idea, so, later on, we will try to look into it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Wait a minute. This is a matter between  the defense counsel and the prosecution. The court had nothing to do with the interchange of a document or the transfer of document to one panel and its return. So,

REP. AGABAS.  Yes. Mr. President, we already asked Atty. Justiniano what’s that and he did not even mark it yesterday, so with the defense, they did not mark that kind of paper, that document.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, we were not able to mark it yet because it was in the process of identification. And when Atty. Justiniano, our colleague, made mentioned about it, he asked that he be allowed to go over it. So, I gave it to him and the video will show that.

REP. AGABAS.  Mr. Chairman, they already finished the direct during that time. Atty. Justiniano …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He was cross-examining.

REP. AGABAS. … he was in his cross-examination. So, we will try our best, Mr. President to look for it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    I remember that there was a request—indeed, there was a request from Atty. Justiniano to look at the, what do you call this, the copies of the TCTs covering the seven parcels in the name of  Cristina Corona that were sold to Mr. Vicente Then, later on, the sale of another parcel of 1,700 square meters owned by Miriam Roco cropped up including the deed of sale and that was also, I think, shown to the prosecution lawyers by the defense.  The Chair distinctly remember this scene, but the return I did not notice that anymore.

SEN. RECTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. RECTO.  As you correctly stated, this is a matter for the prosecution and the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. RECTO. It is not a document in the possession of the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. RECTO.  This is between the two of them, so, I believe, Mr. President, let the two parties settle that among themselves rather than, Mr. President, himself, trying to figure out what this was.  This is between the two parties not with the court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have tried our level best, Your Honor, and with all humility, we should not have burden the court, Your Honor, had there been no refusal.  Kasi walang ganito, and so and so, where else are we going to go?  We cannot institute a separate civil action in connection…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is why the court is trying to appeal to both sides to thresh this out.  You know, we are all professionals here.  I am not casting any doubt on the integrity of one or the other.   But the fact is, certain documents are missing.  So, indeed, the presiding officer notice and remembers the transfer of this documents from the side of the defense to the prosecution panel in the course of the examination of Mr. Vicente, the witness.  So, somewhere along the way, these two documents were missing, and so the two sides must endeavour to look for these documents.

REP. AGABAS.  We will do it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because they are material evidence in this case.

REP. AGABAS.  Yes, Your Honor, I would like to manifest, Your Honor, that this Representation, I don’t have any idea with respect to what the defense cousel is saying.  Nevertheless, we just learned about it, this Representation, when you make a manifestation awhile ago, the defense counsel.  Nevertheless, we will confer with them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, thank you, Madam

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Now, proceed. Next witness.  The witness is discharged, the defense may now present its next witness if you have any witness.

SEN. SOTTO.   The witness is discharged temporarily, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, temporarily.  Come back tomorrow at two o’clock.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We request, Your Honor, for one minute break, we will call the witness, the witness is in our room.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, trial is suspended for one minute.

It was 5:28 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF HEARING

At 5:35 p.m., the hearing was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Call your witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, we are calling Miss Irene GUEVARA as our next witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Swear the witness.

THE SECRETARY.  Madam Witness, please raise your hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MISS GUEVARA..  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  So help you God.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request, Your Honor, that Atty. Joel Bodegon of the Defense panel be recognized and allowed to conduct the direct examination of the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty. Joel Bodegon has the floor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you, Your Honor.

We present this witness for the purpose of—Well, she will testify, Your Honor, on her employment with the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the composition and function of the Tribunal, the membership of the respondent, Chief Justice Renato Corona, in the Tribunal, and the allowances and per diems that he received during the period that he was a member of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think the composition of the Electoral Tribunal, being a part of this Senate is within its judicial notice.  So, just establish the membership of the Chief Justice in that Tribunal.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Miss Guevara, can you kindly state your name and other personal circumstances.

MISS GUEVARA.  I’m Atty. Irene R. Guevara, of legal age and a resident of Angono, Rizal.  I’m presently employed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal as Secretary of the Tribunal.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you.  With the permission of the honourable court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.  Go ahead.

ATTY. BODEGON.  You stated that you are an attorney.  When did you become a lawyer.

MISS GUEVARA.  In 1981.

ATTY. BODEGON.  From what school did you attend your …

MISS GUEVARA.  From the Ateneo de Manila University.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And when did you pass the bar?

MISS GUEVARA.  I took the 1981 Bar Examinations …

ATTY. BODEGON.  And …

MISS GUEVARA.  … and passed it.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And you passed it?

MISS GUEVARA.  Yes.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Did you place in the top 10?

MISS GUEVARA.  Luckily I did.  I was No. 1 in the 1981 Bar Examinations.  (Applause)  Thank you.

ATTY. BODEGON.  After you topped the Bar Examination in 1981, what employment did you obtain?

MISS GUEVARA.  I worked as a staff member of the Office of then Associate Justice Venicio Escolin who was then my—who was my professor at the Ateneo, and after the 1986 revolution, I was taken on by Chief Justice (inaudible).  Then Associate Justice Marcelo B. Fernan and continued in his office when he became Chief Justice, and after hereon, for the vice presidency, I transferred to the Office of Chief Justice Andres Narvasa.  And after that, I was appointed Deputy Assistant Chief Attorney of the Supreme Court until I transferred to the Senate Electoral Tribunal in 1995.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And, your having transferred to the Senate Electoral Tribunal has been continuously until the present?

MISS GUEVARA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BODEGON.  And what is your present position with the Tribunal?

MISS GUEVARA.  I am the Secretary of the Tribunal.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Since when have you been Secretary of the Tribunal?

MISS GUEVARA.  Since September 1995.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Until the present?

MISS GUEVARA.  Until the present time.

ATTY. BODEGON.  As Secretary of the Tribunal, would kindly inform the honourable court what your duties are?

MS. GUEVARRA.  As secretary of the tribunal, I am the head of the secretariat.  I oversee the day-to-day operation of the different services in the secretariat.  I also exercise general supervision over the services, the offices and I keep records of the proceedings of the tribunal.  Our function is a kin to the clerk of court of a regular court of justice because we are quasi-judicial office.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you.  Now, in the course of the performance of your duties as secretary of the tribunal, did you come to know the respondent, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes, Your Honor, he became member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and he was also my professor in the Ateneo Law School.

ATTY. BODEGON.  How was he as a professor of law?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Is that relevant?

ATTY. BODEGON.  If you care to answer.

MS. GUEVARRA.  I’d rather not if I will be excused.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Anyway, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, what courses did you take under the Chief Justice?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Only one subject, this is private international law in the fourth year.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Conflicts of law.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes, Sir, Mr. Senate President.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Okay.  Would you kindly inform the honorable court the allowances and per diems that the members of the tribunal receive?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes.  As a member of the tribunal, one receives a monthly—may I just wait for my—I actually wrote it down because, you know, these are figures, and as lawyers would say, we are not really good at figures.

So, they have a monthly expense allowance or per diem in the amount of P20,000 per month; extraordinary and miscellaneous expense in the amount of P19,166.67 a month; and additional allowable expenses of P82,000 per month, or a total of P121,166.67 monthly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Per member of the tribunal.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How many members are there?

ATTY. BODEGON.  There are nine members.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Six Senators and three …

MS. GUEVARRA.  Three Justices …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … Justices.

MS. GUEVARRA.  … of the Supreme Court.

ATTY. BODEGON.  You mentioned—may I continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

ATTY. BODEGON.  You mentioned that Chief Justice—the respondent, Chief Justice Corona became part of the tribunal.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes.

ATTY. BODEGON.  What positions did he occupy?

MS. GUEVARRA.  He was designated member of the tribunal.

ATTY. BODEGON.  During what period was this?

MS. GUEVARRA.  This is from February 28, 2008 to April 30, 2009.

ATTY. BODEGON.  How long was that?

MS. GUEVARRA.  A period of 14 months.

ATTY. BODEGON.  14 months, and during that period, how much allowances and per diems did he receive?

MS. GUEVARRA.  In the 14 months that the Chief Justice was a member of the tribunal, he received a total amount of P1,696,333.38.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Now, you were subpoenaed by the honorable court to bring with you document evidencing the allowances, per diems and reimbursements that the respondent, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona received from the tribunal during the period that he has been part of it.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Do you have that document with you?

MS. GUEVARRA.  I have certification issued by the office dated January 5, 2012, this was signed by me.

ATTY. BODEGON.  If, Your Honor, please, we tried to have this pre-marked this afternoon, unfortunately, there was no one from the clerk of court to allow us to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it now.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Now, anyway—so, we request that the certification produced by the witness be marked as our Exhibit 166, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BODEGON.  In what capacity was …

MS. GUEVARRA.  I signed the certification as the secretary of the tribunal.  This was based on the records kept by the accounting service accomplished in the ordinary course of business of the Tribunal.

ATTY. BODEGON.  May I invite your attention, kindly show her the document, to the signature above the typewritten name Atty Irene R. Guevarra, whose signature is that?

MS. GUEVARRA.  This is my signature, sir.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Incidentally, what positions did the respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona occupy with the Tribunal?

MS. GUEVARRA.  At that time, he was the Third Justice Member of the Tribunal.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Was he ever chairman of the tribunal?

MS. GUEVARRA.  No, he did not become chairman of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.  What I know is that he became chairman of the HRET, the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you.  That will be all with the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Cross-examination.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  May we have the document.  With the permission of this honourable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Atty. Guevarra, your certification states that Chief Justice Corona received the amount of P280,000.00 for the period March 2008 to April 2009.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Is this correct or should this be P280,000.00.

MS. GUEVARRA.  P280,000.00.  P20,000.00 a month.  Monthly expense allowance/per diem.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  You earlier testified that there were three components of the funds or the allowances and fees which Chief Justice Corona received.  The first was monthly expense.  Is this an allowance or this part of his income?

MS. GUEVERRA.  It is considered an allowance, expense allowance.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, it has to be liquidated.

MS. GUEVARRA.  We have the same procedure adopted by the Supreme Court as earlier explained … which is a certification.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Do you have this certification?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Certification in the payroll, if I may read it.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Actually, it is just an acknowledgment of the receipt of the sum, opposite our name as monthly expense allowance incurred in the performance of our duties as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal for the month of …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May I see that document please.

MS. GUEVARRA.  This is unsigned.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  For the record, witness handed to counsel a one-page document which is unsigned, which appears to be just a sample …

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes, a sample of the payroll.  This is actually the payroll for the month of March, 2008 as a sample.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, according to this certification, the expense was incurred in the performance of their duties as member of the SET, is that correct?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes, that is right.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, it is not really income.  It was used by them when they perform their functions, is that correct?

MS. GUEVARRA.  We did not consider it their income, as in fact we did not withhold taxes from it.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Fair enough.  The second item is the EME, miscellaneous expenses.  What does the first E stand for?

MS GUEVARRA.  Extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Is it the same treatment as the month expense?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes.  There is also a certification in the payroll that states, this is to certify that the expenditures to be reimbursed without the need of presenting receipts for purposes within the contemplation of Section 25 and other related sections of Republic Act No. 9401 or similar procedures, provisions of the General Appropriations Act are necessary, lawful and correct and were incurred by reason of and/or in the furtherance of the performance of the functions and duties of my position as chairman or member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May I see that document, please.

ATTY. BODEGON.  May we request, Your Honor, that the two documents now presented by the witness be respectively marked as our Exhs. 167 and 168 for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  And so, as with the first item, this is also an expense. It is not part of his income, correct?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  And the last entry is what you termed as the additional allowance?

MS. GUEVARRA.  This is the additional allowable expense.  Again, we have the certification. This is to certify that the additional allowable expenses being received herein are necessary, lawful and correct and incurred by reason of and/or in the furtherance of the performance of the functions and duties of my position as chairman or member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May I see that document again, please.

ATTY. BODEGON.  We request, Your Honor, that the last document read by the witness be marked as our Exh. 169.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, for the prosecution, we are also requesting that the last three documents presented by the witness be marked as Exh. PPPPPPPPPP, QQQQQQQQQQ, RRRRRRRRRR.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Thank you.  So, Atty. Guevarra, again, this is not part of his income, is that correct?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Insofar as the SET is concerned, these two items are reimbursements for expense, the chairman or the member should have spent them for his office …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ. In relation to his duties …

MS. GUEVARRA.  … in relation to his duties as …

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  … as a member of …

MS. GUEVARRA. … as a member of the tribunal.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  So, in other words, he can’t use these expenses or these allowances for his personal use, is that correct?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Well, under the law, that should be the case.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ. We have nothing further, Your Honor.

ATTY. BODEGON.  No redirect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No more question from the cross?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  No more questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    How about redirect?

ATTY. BODEGON.  No redirect, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO. May we recognize Senator Pimentel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. President. Alam ninyo po, I spent four years of my life appearing before the S.E.T., so I have personal knowledge of the professionalism of Atty. Guevarra.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Thank you.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, gusto ko lang pong magpasalamat sa inyo publicly, ‘no. Salamat po sa inyong professionalism na pinakita ninyo po sa mga litigants before the tribunal at very objective po si Atty. Guevarra, marunong makipaglaban sa katotohanan, kaya, pwede po nating gawin siyang model, actually, when we decide this particular impeachment case before us. So, salamat po, Atty. Guevarra, for the professionalism which you displayed when you handed my case.  Thank you.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Any one else?

SEN SOTTO.  One last, Mr. President, Senator Recto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Gentleman from Batangas,  Senator Recto.

SEN. RECTO.  Iyong nabanggit ninyong allowances, are they under the PS column or MOOE column.

MS. GUEVARRA. The per diem, ah, the monthly expense allowance per diem, is under the PS, which has a budget for that.

SEN. RECTO.  Magkano iyon?

MS. GUEVARRA. P20,000.00 a month po.

SEN. RECTO. So, that means, PES for compensation for the work that you do?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Opo and the other are …

SEN. RECTO.  Pwede mong i-take home iyon. Pwede mong i-take home iyon, PS iyon eh?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay. And the others are MOOE?

MS. GUEVARRA. MOOE.

SEN. RECTO.  Ibig sabihin kailangan mong gastusin?

MS. GUEVARRA.  Yes.

SEN. RECTO.  Para maliwanag.

MS. GUEVARRA. Opo.

SEN. RECTO. Thank you.

THE PRERSIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  We may discharge the witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The distinguished-lady witness is discharged.

MS. GUEVARRA.  Thank you very much.

SEN. SOTTO.  If the prosecution counsel or the defense counsel would ask one more question about the allowances of the Senate, I will be constrained to cite them for contempt.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Another witness.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor, may we call on Atty. Girlie Salagda of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The witness mentioned may now enter the Chamber and take the witness stand and take an oath and testify.

ATTY. BODEGON.  May we request for one minute break, Your Honor, for us to fetch the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is too long, okay, one minute.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is suspended.

It was 5:55 p.m.

At 5:57 p.m., trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  Swear the witness.

THE SECRETARY.  Madam Witness, please stand, raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

ATTY.  SALAGDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Atty. Bodegon.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor, with the permission of the Honorable Court, we are presenting the witness, Your Honor, to testify on her employment with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, the composition and functions of that tribunal…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you just stipulate on this, these are very routine matters.

ATTY. BODEGON.  They want to conduct a lengthy cross-examination, Your Honor, we are giving them the opportunity.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   All right.  Proceed.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  No, Your Honor, we are willing to stipulate, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the defense.  Subject to cross-examination.  Can you stipulate so that we can expedite the proceedings.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes Your Honor, we had subpoenaed the witness to produce and testify before the court on the allowances and per diems received by the respondent, Chief Justice Corona, when he was part of the tribunal both as member…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Of the House of Representatives.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, both as a member and later as chairman, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, would you accept that?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. BODEGON.  So, may we request the witness to present the certification that we had subpoenaed to produced.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just mark the material document that she was required to produced, subject to cross-examination.

ATTY. BODEGON.  May we request that the certification be marked as our Exhibit 170.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Do you confirm that the signature on that document is yours?

MS. SALARDA.  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The prosecution, do you confirm the authenticity of those documents?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Then the authenticity of the documents is not in dispute.  Mark them as exhibits.

ATTY. BODEGON.  There is an attachment to the certification, Your Honor, which is marked 170.  We request that the attachment consisting of two pages be marked as Exhibit 170-A and 170-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.  Now, witness, what is the total amount of money received by the respondent based on those documents while he was a member of the House Electoral Tribunal?

MS. SALARDA.    May I consult my notes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

MS. SALARDA.  During his 21h months as member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, he received a total P2,504,022.92 in allowances, extraordinary miscellaneous expense and per diem and as Chairman of the tribunal, for five months, he received a total of P855,784.93 or a total of P3,359,807.85, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   That includes for personal services.

MS. SALARDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And for…

MS. SALARDA.  MOOE, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  MOOE.

MS. SALARDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then what else?

MS. SALARDA.  Allowances, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, allowances.  Is that correct, counsel for the prosecution?

ATTY. BODEGON.  For the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the defense.

ATTY. BODEGON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. BODEGON.  That will be all with the witness, Your Honor, if they are willing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have no further question.

ATTY. BODEGON.  No more, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Direct examination is closed.  Now, cross-examination.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, just a few questions, Your Honor.  Among these itemized rows in the document you presented, reimburseable expenses, extraordinary and miscellaneous expense and per diem, which one is personal service, which one is MOOE and which one is allowance?

MS. SALARDA.  The per diem is from the PS or personal service while the additional allowances and the extraordinary miscellaneous expense are from the MOOE, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  And so a certification is necessary for the Chief Justice to claim the extraordinary and miscellaneous expense.  Is that correct?

MS. SALARDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  No further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No further questions?  No further cross?  You finish your cross-examination?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Finish, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Any question from the members of the court?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, because of parliamentary courtesy, there is only one question from Senator Estrada.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Ano ho ang pangalan ninyo?  Hindi ko nakuha e.

MS. SALARDA.  Your Honor, I’m Atty. Girlie I. Salarda from the HRET.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Saan ka nag-aral ng law?

MS. SALARDA.  From the University of Santo Tomas, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ah UST.  Hindi Ateneo, UST?  Okay.  Doon sa P2,504,022.92 na tinanggap ni Chief Justice during the span of five months, ito ba ay kasama noong sya ay Chairman na ng HRET?  Am I correct?  Does that include his chairmanship, as the Chairman of the HRET?

MS. SALARDA.  No, Your Honor.  That is only the total when he was a member of the HRET.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Okay.  Ilan members ang Ilan bang members ng HRET?  Kasi sa SET I understand there are three two Justices and six Senators.  Dun sa HRET, ano bang composition ng HRET?

MISS. SALARDA.  HRET is composed of three Justices from the Supreme Court, Your Honor, and six Members of the House of the Representatives.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Only six members and none of them in the prosecution panel are members of the HRET?

MISS. SALARDA.  None, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  All right.  Yun bang tinanggap ni Chief Justice during the span of 21 months, yun din ang tinatanggap ng bawa’t myembro ng HRET?

MISS. SALARDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ganon din?

MISS. SALARDA.  Opo.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, that is not taxable?

MISS. SALARDA.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Madam Witness, what years did the Chief Justice serve in the House Electoral Tribunal?

MISS. SALARDA.  Based on our records, Your Honor, he served as member of the House of Representatives from January 2, 2007 to February 27, 2008 and April 30, 2009 to November 5, 2009.  And he served as Chairperson of the Tribunal from November 6, 2009 to May 16, 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, how many years would that be?

MISS. SALARDA.  Around three years, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Three years.  He started in?

MISS. SALARDA.  January 2, 2007, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

MISS. SALARDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, four actually years but not actually 48 months?  Because each year must be reflected in the SALN of the Chief Justice, okay?

MISS. SALARDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, it will cover four SALNs.

MISS. SALARDA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we may discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If there are no further questions from the witness, the witness is discharged.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I have been informed by the defense that the other witnesses will be ready by tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. SOTTO.  So, with that, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make an announcement.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.

All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, there being no other Business for the Day, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Thursday, March 15, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two o’clock of Thursday, March 15, 2012.  (Gavel)

It was 6:08 p.m.

 

 

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Tuesday, March 13, 2012

At 2:12 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile Presiding.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of the impeachment trial of the honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.  (Gavel)

We shall be led in prayer by Senator Franklin M. Drilon.

PRAYER BY SENATOR DRILON

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Secretary will now please call the roll of senators.

THE SECRETARY.  The honorable Senators Angara; Arroyo; Cayetano, Allan Peter ‘Compañero’; Cayetano, Pia; Defensor-Santiago; Drilon, Ejercito-Estrada; Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmeña, Pangilinan, Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 19 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  (Gavel)

Majority Floor Leader

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

THE SEARGENT-AT ARMS.  All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 12, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, the March 12, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, is hereby approve.  The Secretary may now please call the case.

THE SECRETARY.  Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Appearances.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, may we ask the parties and/or their respective counsel to enter their appearances.

REP. AGGABAS.  Mr. Senate President, Your Honors, good afternoon.  For the prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearance.  We are ready, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  The defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.  We are ready also, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, in yesterday’s session, the counsel of Chief Justice Corona manifested on the floor that they are requesting that certain Members of the House of Representatives be invited to testify as adverse witnesses for the defense.  Their request was opposed by the prosecution invoking previous rulings of the court on inter-departmental courtesies.  Mr. President, I move that the matter be submitted to the Presiding Officer for proper disposition.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This Presiding officer has gone over the provisions of Article XI of the Constitution again.  And I reread the entire provisions and, indeed, the power impeach, the sole power to impeach, is lodged by the people, through their Constitution, in the House of Representatives.  The wording is that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power to initiate all cases of impeachment.  And in view of this, it is the understanding of this Presiding Officer that any impeachment that is made against any impeacheable officer is an act of the House of Representatives, through its Representatives, and, therefore, given that situation, this Presiding officer has decided to rule that we cannot compel, by compulsory process, any Member of the House to appear as a witness here or as an adverse party.  In the same manner that we have accorded the same courtesy with the Members of the Supreme Court where there was a request from the prosecution to subpoena them, we shall accord the same consideration on inter-parliamentary courtesy to the Members of the House.  So Ordered.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Yesterday, the honourable Miriam Defensor-Santiago made a reservation that she be allowed to propound questions to the defense witness, the Honorable Tobias Tiangco.  May we request that Representative Tiangco be allowed to retake the witness stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the honourable Congressman here?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He is here, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please take the witness on the stand and testify under the same oath, and the gentle Lady from Iloilo has the floor.  Proceed.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I beg the indulgence of our colleagues, and particularly the President, in that I cannot l be as succinct as I want to be this afternoon because I am feeling particularly unwell.  But since I made the reservation, I had to come.  Mr. Witness, your haircut alone indicates that you are an iconoclast.

REP. TIANGCO.  Ma’am, can you please define an iconoclast.  I do now know …

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Yes.  An iconoclast is a person who goes around in a sacred temple smashing all that he thinks are false idols.

REP. TIANGCO.  Ma’am, Your Honor, should I comment or?

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  No.

REP. TIANGCO.  But, Your Honor, before you proceed, if I may be allowed.

SEN DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Yes, please.

REP. TIANGCO.  To the honourable court, I would like to make an apology because of what happened yesterday.  There were pictures in the newspaper that showed me without my shoes on.  And with just with my socks sitting down there.  I did not mean to demean this honourable court or to show disrespect to the honourable court by removing my shoes Your Honor.  I was just tired.  I wanted to relax a bit.  So, during recess, I took off my shoes, so I apologize to the whole Impeachment Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Court understands, so, you may proceed.

REP. TIANGCO. Buti na lang ho hindi butas yung medyas.

SEN. SANTIAGO. And if were up to me, I will also accept your apology considering that you, probably, wanted to preserve the quality of your leatherwear.  Maybe that has to do with a fact that you have not received your PDAF. (Laughter)

REP. TIANGCO.  Ma’am, I have received it, but it was delayed, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes. Mr. Witness, you are adverse witness, meaning to say, you should logically belong to the prosecution panel, but you are testifying as a witness for the defense panel. So, you are in a peculiar situation.

There are two differences between an ordinary witness and an adverse or hostile witness. The first is procedural on direct examination. An ordinary witness cannot be asked a leading question, but by contrast, on direct examination, an adverse witness can be asked a leading question by the panel to which—which is presenting him. That is the main difference.

I was surprised to read and hear yesterday that someone said:  “Objection to the question.  It is leading.”  There can be no leading question objected to in the case of an adverse witness, precisely, he is adversed and so, the lawyer presented him is allowed to ask leading questions so that the lawyer can continue to control the proceedings. That is the procedural distinction.

The second is the more important distinction. The distinction is this, the testimony of an adverse witness carries far more weight than the testimony of an ordinary witness. Why? Because an adverse witness testifies in a positive way.  Normally, the prosecution tells a story or makes allegations and the defense counters with the negative reaction by saying, “No, no, no.”  None of those happened, but in the case of an adverse witness, since the witness is adversed what he says carries great weight. So, in effect, he is testifying against self-interest. Normally, you would not testify against your own colleagues, unless you are a sociopath, but there must therefore be a very strong motivation for you to testify and if you cannot be impeached, then, the Rules of Court will apply as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Our Supreme Court has ruled: “Testimony is positive when the witness affirmed that a fact did or did not occur and negative when he says that he did not see or know of the factual occurrence.”  We have already said your testimony is positive.  Normally, we expect negative testimony from the defense and that is why I now invoke the very classic rule.

It is well-settled that an affirmative testimony is quite stronger than negative testimony especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. The Supreme Court has qualified that rule by saying: “Evidence to be credible must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but the evidence that he testifies to must conform to natural habits and natural occurrences and behavioural patterns.”  So, I have taken the trouble of requesting for your resume. You finished both elementary and high school in Xavier School, presumably for that.

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, you confirmed that and you finished Management in Ateneo?

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  And in fact, you even went to Management first before you went to public service?

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  What I am more impressed with is that you received the following awards: you do not need to confirm this, but if you wish to deny it, then, of course, you should, Most Outstanding Vice-Mayor in Metro-Manila 2000, Most Outstanding Mayor in Metro-Manila 2001, National Achievers for Young Professionals in the Field of Public Service, One of the Ten Most Outstanding Municipal Mayors in the Philippines 2002,  the Outstanding Young Men or TOYM.

Now, we will now have to see whether, since you appear to be a credible witness, what you described is pursuant to natural patterns of behaviour of an ordinary man, the so-called reasonable man, in law.  So, let me just raise a few points, very few points.  The only way that the prosecution can impeach you as a witness, meaning to say, can prove that you are lying under oath, and therefore, that your testimony should be completely disregarded, the only way that they can impeach you is has already been pointed out by the Supreme Court.  The court said, it is well-settled that if the defense fails to prove any nefarious motives on the part of the one who testifies, I should amend that by saying it is well-settled that if the panel that fails to prove any nefarious motives on the part of one who testifies against the accused or against the  prosecution, the presumption is, that the witness has not been so moved and that his testimony should thereby be accorded faith and credit.  In other words, what the Supreme Court means is, if he seems credible and what he is testifying too seems so credible, the only you can proved that he is a liar is to show that he has a nefarious motives.  Therefore, I will ask you this question, have you ever had a run-in with the administration in the political context, have you ever had any major disagreement, I understand that you resign from the majority, you delivered a privilege speech about the matter that you testified to yesterday, so, the question is, what makes you think, what is your motivation, do you have any?

REP. TIANGCO.  My only motivation, Your Honor, to appear before this impeachment court, was precisely the privilege speech.  Because, doon ho sa privilege speech, may parliamentary immunity ho tayo.  So, gusto ko lang siguraduhin, syempre, I have to think forward, Your Honor, na hindi ho ito magamit sa akin later on na sabihin na nagsinungaling ho ako sa privilege speech ko.  So, the best way for me to prove na kaya kong panindigan iyong privilege speech ko is iyong manumpa ho ako sa korteng ito at sabihin na ang sinasabi ko ho ay ang katotohanan at ang buong katotohanan.  Kung ang tanong nyo ho sa akin is, If I had any…

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Nefarious motives is the way Supreme Court put it.

REP. TIANGCO.  Hindi ayos na—disagreement..

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Major disagreement.

REP. TIANGCO.  Sa akin ho wala ho akong alam.  Ang ano lang ho, I don’t know if you will call this a disagreement, siguro naman we are free to vote whatever we think of.  Noong Merceditas Gutierrez impeachment, hindi ho ako nakumbinsing may probable cause, so, hindi ho ako bumoto doon.  That was an administration measure.  Doon ho sa ARMM postponement, hindi rin ho ako bumoto kahit na iyon e administration measure dahil may iba ho akong—I am not a lawyer, Your Honor, but there were issues there that I didn’t believe na dapat ma-postpone iyong ARMM elections.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  All right, let me think of some other motive.

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Because you sound too good to be true.  You don’t have any political disagreement with the administration according to you.

REP. TIANGCO.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  That, of course, remain to be tested.  Do you have any business relations with the leading members of the administration or any of their families that could have….

REP. TIANGCO.  With this administration?

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes.

REP. TIANGCO.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  No.  Do you intend to run for Senator and therefore obtain publicity  through this proceedings?

REP. TIANGCO. On record and in front of the whole Filipino people, I will say this.  I have two more terms as Congressman of Navotas, I will finish my term as Congressman of Navotas.  So, in 2013 and in 2016, in front of the Filipino people, in front of all of you, I am saying, I will just run in my former post as Congressman of Navotas.  If I may explain, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, go ahead, please.

REP. TIANGCO.  Alam nyo ho nung kinalaban ko ho si GMA ng 9 ½ years,  hindi ho ako iniwanan ng mga mamamayan sa Navotas.  Kahit pinahirapan ho ako nung 9 ½ years dahil kalaban ko ho si GMA, ibinoto pa rin ho nila ako ng Mayor ng tatlong beses.  So, iyan  ho ay utang ko sa kanila.  So, ganon ho, so, ito ho ay pangako ko sa lahat ng nakikinig ngayon, kung tumakbo ho ako ng Senador before 2016, tawagin nyo ho akong sinungaling.  But after 2016 when I’m turned out already, I will have to find an option for myself, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Of course.  So, you were an arch enemy of Gloria Arroyo and one of the reasons alleged here in impeachment proceedings is that the Chief Justice should be removed because he is too close or too intimate with Gloria Arroyo and yet you are saying now that you were an arch enemy politically of President Arroyo.  Is that a fair summary of…

REP. TIANGCO.  That is very accurate, Your Honor.  It is not personal.  It started, Your Honor, when impeachment, noong hindi po natapos iyong impeachment, noong nag-walk out—I don’t want to offend any one, Your Honor, but I will state what…

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Feel free to offend me if you want to.

REP. TIANGCO.  No, Your Honor.  What I am trying to say is—ay hwag na ho, kasi nandito ho yong ibang mga nag-walk out noon e.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  All right, well,…

REP. TIANGCO.  Okay, I will apologize.  This is a difference of opinion but I have my opinion is respected.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  You notice, of course, that I am trying to test your credibility.

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  You testified that you attended this all majority caucus.

REP. TIANGCO.  Ma’am, can I finish the…

SEN . SANTIAGO.  It’s not really necessary otherwise the two of us will take too long.

REP. TIANGCO.  Okay.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  It will be unfair to others.  You said that you attended the majority caucus and there you were suspicious that you might not be able to reach a conclusion that will enable you to sign the impeachment complaint you gave several reasons.

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Did you do or say anything in that caucus to indicate that you disagreed with what they were planning to do?

REP. TIANGCO.  Ma’am, Your Honor, we were not allowed to ask questions.  Only two persons were able make singit their questions and that was Congressman Biazon and Congressman Rufus.  After that, Congressman Mandanas stood up.  Actually, I was reading the Rules because I wanted to stand up but no one was allowed to ask questions, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  So you’re prohibited.

REP. TIANGCO.  Because it was stated by the Speaker, sabi ho nya, pagkatapos ng PowerPoint presentation, yong mga gustong pumirma, pumirma.  Yong mga ayaw pumirma, bahala kayo hwag kayong pumirma pero this is non-debatable, no questions will be entertained, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  All right.  I was trying to see whether the rule of admission by silence applies to you since under the rules of court if you are present in something that you now denounce and you did not say or do anything, that is considered admission by silence.  But now you are saying that does not apply to you because there was a rule or a policy that no questions would be entertained.  Is that so?

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes.  Now, you have in effect in fact in the transcript that has just been distributed to us, you have in effect stated that you felt under threat to sign the complaint.  You said so categorically.

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  All right.  Now, I will read to you excerpts from RA No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 3.  Corrupt practices of public officers.  The following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:  a)  persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority.  I’m referring, of course, to the Rules of the House of Representatives on Impeachment which requires you to read the complaint and then sign it.  So, since you are claiming that you felt that you are being pressured, that you are being threatened by what was said or done to you in your testimony yesterday, I would like to know whether you feel or you believe that what I have just read from the law applies to that situation you described.

REP. TIANGCO.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  In that case then, you are alleging that your fellow colleagues in the House were guilty of the corrupt practices as described by the paragraph I’ve just read.

REP. TIANGCO.  Not my colleagues, Your Honor, but those who spoke during the all majority caucus, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  All right.  Not all of your colleagues but at least some of them.

REP. TIANGCO.  Those who threatened—I will correct my statement—those who threatened during the all majority caucus.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  All right, one last question.  As you said, you felt pressured and you resented it because in my readings, your personality has always been one of independence, may I say fiery independence.  Now, I will read to you the Penal Code particularly on threats and coercion.

“Article 286.  Grave Coercions.  A certain penalty shall be imposed upon any person who without authority of law shall by means of threats or intimidation prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.”

In general terms, do you feel that this paragraph that I have just read apply to that situation?

REP. TIANGCO.  Not only to that situation, Your Hono, even to the situation yesterday when the Majority Leader, when interviewed on Sunday came out with statements that I will be expelled from Congress, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Mr. Witness, you will either end up a national hero in the eyes of the public or a heel or a traitor in the eyes of your colleagues in the House of Representatives.  What your future status depends on subsequent developments on how the public take this developments.  Thank you for answering these questions.

I’m done with this witness, Mr. President.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.

REP. TIANGCO.  Thank you Madam Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, there being no other Senator-Judges to propound questions, may we move to discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged and thank you, Toby, for coming here.  (Gavel)

REP. TIANGCO.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Thank you to all the Senator-Judges.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The defense may now proceed to present their witnesses.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, we are calling Mrs. Bayuga.  She is allegedly in the withholding area, Your Honor.  May we be allowed to call her.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, will you please—Who is the witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Mrs. Bayuga, Your Honor.  Araceli Bayuga

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you call the witness of the defense to the Chamber to take the stand and to be sworn in and testify.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  One minute suspension to wait for the witness.  (Gavel)

At 2:37 p.m., the hearing was suspended.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 2:38 p.m., the hearing was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, counsel, how many witnesses do you intend to present today?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have four witnesses for today, Your Honor, but some of them will only have very short testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  All right.  Proceed.

THE SECRETARY.  Madam Witness, please stand up and raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  So help you God.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, before we proceed, may I suggest to the prosecution to be watchful and raise your objection seasonably so that we can—the Chair can make a ruling.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, we will do that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the defense also will grant time for the prosecution to understand the question.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  May I make a comment before we start.  Apparently, the witness called here to testify is an employee of the Supreme Court.  I’m reading the compliance of the defense and I’m just wondering if she is covered by the same February 14, 2012 resolution that prohibited employees of the Supreme Court for testifying for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness invoke any prohibitory rules promulgated by the court.  We cannot anticipate it.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor, thank you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Besides, Your Honor, the witness will be testifying on factual matters in connection with the discharge of her duties as an employee of the Supreme Court, never on privileged matters, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Will you kindly state your name and all your personal circumstances.  Sabihin nga ninyo ang pangalan ninyo.

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.  My name is Araceli C. Bayuga of the Supreme Court of the Philippines located at Padre Faura Manila.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Civil status.

MS. BAYUGA.  I am married.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your age—age, edad po ninyo.

MS. BAYUGA.  I am 62 years old.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And your occupation right now.

MS. BAYUGA.  My position is SC’s Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, the testimony of this witness is being presented in connection with impeachment Article 2, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Article 2.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The one that deals with SALN.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The purpose of the offer of this witness deals with the nature of her job as Chief of Staff of the Cash and Collection and Distribution Division of the Supreme Court, the fact that she had prepared the statement of the Cash Collection and Disbursement of the honorable Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor, and further, to authenticate the certification issued by her, Your Honor, in the discharge of her duties in that capacity, Your Honor.  May we now proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Sabihin nga ninyo kung ano ang inyong mga gampanin bilang Chief Judicial Staff Officer in Cash Collection and Distribution Division of the Supreme Court.  Nauunawaan nyo ba ang Tagalog, gusto nyo ba ang Tagalog o Ingles?

MS. BAYUGA.  May I read my duties and responsibilities dahil napakarami po ito …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sige po.

MS. BAYUGA.  Supervises and implement the policies, rules and regulations related to the operation of the Cash Collection Disbursement Division, and supervises the activities of the personnel, custodian of all moneys and other cash items, official receipts of the court, signs, encashes cheques of cash advances for salaries, allowances and other benefits of the officials and employees of the court including the honorable Justices.

Signs disbursement vouchers for cash advances, initial salaries, terminal leave with pay and other payments made to official employees of the court.

Signs all monthly report of disbursement and monthly report of collection, to be submitted to the accounting division, FMBO and COA.

Supervises the counting and distribution of salaries, allowances and other emoluments of Supreme Court officials, honorable justices and other officials of the court.

Signs certification for salaries, allowances and other benefit received by honorable Justices, official and employees of the court.

Signs and submits to the BIR the annual return of income tax withheld on compensation in the alphabetical listing of official and employees of the court from whom taxes are withheld.

Signs all individual withholding tax statement of official and employees for distribution to all concerned official and employees.

Perform other duties that may be assigned from time to time by my immediate chief.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Thank you.  With the nature of the function you have narrated awhile ago, will you kindly tell the honorable court whether you have executed any certification relative to the allowances and benefits received by the Chief Justice, in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I am showing to you a certification of the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division, consisting of four pages, Your Honor, which was earlier marked as Exhibit 114, for expediency, Your Honor.  Will you kindly go over the same and tell us what relation has that to the certification you have issued in connection with the allowances, salaries and disbursement made in favour of the Chief Justice.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Iyan po ba?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, may I just make a manifestation.  Justice Cuevas manifested that the exhibit was marked.  It was, in fact, has not been officially pre-marked, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We made of record that we have earlier marked for convenience and expediency.  We are now adopting the same marking.  We will make a manifestation to that effect.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  The marking you made …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, there is no relevance of that.  Let the defense do that.  Anyway, you are the prosecution.  If they will not mark it as exhibit, we will disregard it.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Yes, Your Honor.  Just to set the records straight.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do not interrupt so that we will not be derailed by all of these details.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request that the certification referred to by the witness in her testimony, Your Honor, be marked as exhibits.  The first page as Exhibit 114, second page as Exhibit 115, the third page as Exhibit 116.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What else?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the last page, Your Honor, as Exhibit 117 for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark the documents accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be allowed to proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I noticed that appearing on the last page, more specifically Exhibit 117 for the defense, Your Honor, is a signature over the typewritten name Araceli C. Bayuga, SS Chief, Judicial Staff Officer, Cash Collection Disbursement Division, FMBO.  Kindly examine the same and tell us whose signature is that.

MS. BAYUGA.  This is mine.  Sa akin po itong pirma.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I also noticed that at the left bottom portion of Exhibit 117 is a signature appearing over and above the typewritten name Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Fiscal Management and Budget Office.  Will you kindly tell the honourable court whose signature is that.

MS. BAYUGA.  This is the signature of my immediate chief, Your Honor, the name Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Why do you know that that is the signature of Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores?

MS. BAYUGA.  She is my boss for so many years.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  How many times have you seen her affix her signature similar to this one?

MS. BAYUGA.  Daily, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kindly go over Exhibit 114 and tell us about the entries therein appearing, more especially under the item Salaries.

MS. BAYUGA.  The Salaries of the Chief Justice for 2002 is P353,045.00; for 2003, P484,100.00; for 2004, P485,100.00; for 2005, P485,100.00;  2006, P485,100; for 2007, P508,248.72; for 2008, P627,763.20; for 2009, P635, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Slowly, slowly.  Sige po.

MS. BAYUGA. …653.90; for 2010, P650,447.23; and for 2011, P1,147,301.77 amounting to P5,872,859.82.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you. Kindly go to Exh. 117, which is the fourth page of this certification. Now, in there, there is a total amount appearing under—iyon bang CY, calendar year?

MS. BAYUGA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Calendar year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. Now, there appears in here a total amount in the sum of P21,636,781.45, is that right?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, sir. You are right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Now, kindly tell the Honorable Court what is the source of these figures that you have stated in these exhibits, Exh. 117?  Saan po galing ito, ma’am?

MS. BAYUGA. The nature of payment are the following: salaries, longevity pay, PERA, ADCOM, Representation Allowance and Transportation Allowance, extraordinary and miscellaneous expense allowance, monthly special allowance under Republic Act 9227, Additional Cost of Living Allowance that is the JDF, productivity incentive benefit, clothing allowance, year-end bonus and cash gift, loyalty cash award, extraordinary and miscellaneous expense allowance from Presidential Electoral Tribunal, monthly expense allowance from Presidential Electoral Tribunal and fringe benefit and other allowances such as emergency economic assistance, anniversary bonus, productivity enhancement benefit, Christmas Cash Gift, additional Christmas Cash Gift, year-end cash gift, fringe benefit, rice allowance, groceries as fringe benefit, additional fringe benefit, Christmas allowance, and Christmas allowance.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I direct your attention to the figure reading, “P21,636,781.45”, which I request, Your Honor, to be marked, to be encircled and marked as Exh. 117-A, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Where did you get this total amount?  Saan po ninyo kinuha? Saan nanggaling iyon?

MS. BAYUGA.  I reviewed and evaluated all the paid payrolls pertaining to salaries, allowances, and other benefits received by the Honorable Chief Justice from 2002 up to 2011.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, do you now swear under oath as to the correctness, accuracy and truth of the entries appearing in these Exhs. 114, 115, 116 up to 117?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You also swear as to the truth of the correctness of the figure reading,  twenty one million, six hundred thirty six thousand, eighty-one pesos, and forty five centavos.

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, a little earlier or a couple of weeks before, we requested for the production of payrolls in your possession, more specifically those covering that of the honourable Chief Justice Corona, do you have them with you now?

MS. BAYUGA.  I don’t have it with me, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Why?  Kindly tell the court.

MS. BAYUGA.  It’s too voluminous.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Lakas mo boses mo.

MS. BAYUGA.  Napakarami po ng paid payrolls para po madala naming sa ngayon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In other words, if that is so, what does these figures appearing in Exhibits 114, 115, 116, 117 represents or cover.

MS. BAYUGA.  I review then evaluated all the paid payrolls, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Meaning…

MS. BAYUGA.  To certify as to correctness of the amount stated and the certification.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, the payrolls that you mentioned which is rather voluminous and too cumbersome to be brought before this court, in whose possession are they?

MS. BAYUGA.  In my possession, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And your possession dates back from when up to when?

MS. BAYUGA.  From the time I joined the court up to present.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Meaning from what year up to what year?

MS. BAYUGA.  From 1973 up to present.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, in your examination of the entries appearing in these payrolls which you mentioned awhile ago where you at anytime assisted by any of your employee in your division?

MS. BAYUGA.  No, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Meaning you did it alone?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, in the introduction or during the introduction of the evidence for the prosecution, mention had been made that there had been no alpha list covering the Chief Justice from the year 2002, 2003, 2004, up to 2005.  My question to you now is, do you have this claimed alpha list in your possession now?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Objection, Your Honor, witness would be incompetent.  She enumerated all her duties and functions, and the alpha list, the taking care or supervising the reporting of such alpha list was not one of the duties which she mentioned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you in possession of the alpha list, Madam of the Supreme Court?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have anything to do with its preparation?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In fact it was mentioned as one of her functions, Your Honor.  Now, do you have them with you now?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Will you kindly bring it out for the information and examination by the Honorable Court.  Witness handling to this Representation, Your Honor, the alleged filed copies…alin po ba, ito?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor, the certified Xerox copies of the alpha list from 2002 up to 2005.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will just request, Your Honor, that we be permitted to have them mark and make the substitution later because these are copies which form part of the official record of the Supreme Court, Your Honor.  But in the meanwhile to gain time, we will just mark them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Would there be any objection on the part of the prosecution to have those copies copied?

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  We have no objection to having those documents reproduced, we would like a copy, Your Honor, for purposes of our cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will, we will give you a copy as of today, Your Honor.  Our only purpose is to preserve this as part of the official record of the honourable Supreme Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, how about for 2003 did you have it with you?

MS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness handling over to this Representation, Your Honor, the 2003 year-end report of compensation.  How about 2004?  Witness handling, Your Honor, to this representation the 2004 yearend circular.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  Para malinaw, Ginang Witness, sabihin mo lang kung sinabi yong taon, kung meron o wala.  Para kumpleto ang record natin.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yon pong 2005, meron ho ba o wala?

MS. BAYUGA.  Meron po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Meron po.  Witness handling to this representation, Your Honor, the 2005 BIR yearend report on compensation.  Now, we request, Your Honor, that these documents identified by the witness in today’s proceedings, Your Honor, be marked as follows:  first, the 2002 BIR yearend report be marked as Exhibit 118, Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … which consists, made up of five pages.  The BIR yearend report, Your Honor, dated 2003 on compensation consisting likewise of six pages be marked as Exhibit 119.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The 2004 yearend report on compensation consisting of likewise several pages, Your Honor, be marked as Exhibit 120.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the BIR for 2005 yearend report identified by the witness consisting of five pages be marked as Exhibit…  Now, will you kindly tell the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark as what?  What exhibit is that?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  These are from Exhibits 118 up to 120, Your Honor.  We have taken the liberty of earlier marking them for convenience, Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, mark them accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … and we are adopting the same markings, Your Honor, for identification purposes.  118 to 121.  Now, kindly go over this stamped mark appearing at the right hand margin of page 2 of Exhibit 118.  Will you and which is accompanied by a signature appearing over a typewritten name Araceli C. Bayuga, January 31, 2003 and tell the honourable court what is that stamped mark there?

MS. BAYUGA.  It was duly received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness referring to this stamped mark.  Pakibasa po ninyo for the records.

MS. BAYUGA.  Region No. VI, Revenue District No. 33, Intramuros, Malate, Ermita area.  Received January 31, 2003.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Now, likewise, may I be allowed to direct your attention to a rubber stamp impression appearing on the second page of this Exhibit 119, Your Honor, deferring the date January 30, 2004  Kindly go over it and tell us how that happened to be there, if you know.

MS. BAYUGA.  For 2003, our alpha list was received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Region No. VI, Revenue District No. 33, Intramuros, Manila.  Received on January 30, 2004.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Now, likewise, may I be allowed to direct your attention to a rubber stamp impression appearing on the second page of Exhibit 120 bearing January 28, 2005.  Kindly go over the same, examine it and tell the honourable Court how that rubber stamp impression happen to be there, if you know.

MRS. BAYUGA.  For 2004, our Alpha List was received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Region No. 6, Revenue District No. 33, Intramuros, Malate, Ermita Port Area, dated January 28, 2005.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Now, likewise, may I be permitted to direct your attention to another rubber stamp impression appearing on the second page of Exhibit 121 dated January 30, 2006.  Kindly go over the same, tell the honourable Court if you know how that rubber stamp impression happen to be there.

MRS. BAYUGA.  For the 2005 Alpha List of the Supreme Court, it was received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Region No. 6, Revenue District No. 33, Intramuros, Malate, Ermita Port Area, dated January 30, 2006.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your mentioned that all these rubber stamp impression belongs to the BIR?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  How do you know that?

MRS. BAYUGA.  I was the one who …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sabihin po ninyong ng malakas, hindi kayo madinig.

MRS. BAYUGA.  I was the one who brought the Alpha List to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, why was it necessary that they be brought to the BIR?  Bakit po kinailangang dalhin yan sa BIR?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Under Revenue Regulations, we have to submit the annual Alpha List wherein the names of the official employees of the court from whom taxes were withheld were stated.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ginang Wintess, yun bang Alpha List ang withholding tax ng mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pati ang mga Mahistrado?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Including the honourable Justices and officials of the court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Lahat ng opisyales at empleyado ng Korte Suprema?

MRS. BAYUGA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That will be all with the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Prosecution, cross-examination.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ.  Your Honor, may we request the we be allowed to go over the documents and conduct our cross-examination tomorrow.  This is the first time that we are seeing these documents and they are fine lines ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will just request that we have this Xerox copied, Your Honor, so we can retain the original, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. BARZAGA.  May the prosecution, Your Honor, be permitted to make a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  (Gavel)

REP. BARZAGA.  Actually, Your Honor, this is already Day 28 of the trial, and along the days that we have been conducting hearing, certain procedures have already been set up.  And insofar as the marking of the documentary evidence is concerned, it has been the order of the Presiding Officer that the pre-marking should be made in the morning in order not to waste the time of the honourable Court.  And, therefore, we appeal to the defense that insofar as the other documentary evidence to be presented by them, we suggest that what has been the mandate of this Court be observed.  After all, that was the procedure which we follow, and we expect also the defense would comply in the same manner that we did in the course of the presentation of our documentary evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be allowed to make a …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you have any further statement?

REP. BARZAGA.  Well, actually, the issue is actually embodied in the records of the proceedings, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, we understand that.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please.  We were made to understand that the purpose behind this rule, Your Honor, is to expedite.  So, notwithstanding the fact that the witness was seen by us only this afternoon, we have arrogated unto ourselves the marking so that we can move on expeditiously, and there is no diminution with the time allowed to the prosecution, Your Honor.  I do not see any reason how they could have been prejudiced.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is correct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will do that if we have time.

REP. BARZAGA.  Just a brief rejoinder, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please.

REP. BARZAGA.  Well aside from the employee of the Supreme Court, the defense also request for the issuance of subpoena insofar as the city assessor of Taguig is concerned.  The city assessor was present as early as ten o’clock in the morning, the counsel for the prosecution was also present, unfortunately, no marking of the documentary evidence subpoenaed was made, on account of the absence or non-presence of the defense counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is your point of—I do not understand.

REP. BARZAGA.  Well, my manifestation is very simple.  We request …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  The city assessor of Taguig was subpoenaed upon the request of the prosecution?

REP. BARZAGA.  Upon the request of the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, we do not know whether they want to present him—the city assessor or not.  So, let’s wait until they present the …

REP. BARZAGA.  The presumption of the prosecution, Your Honor, is that as long as a request for subpoena was made by the defense, our presumption is that the person subpoenaed, together with the documents, will be presented.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is correct.  We cannot control their presentation of their evidence.  They may change their mind not to present him.

REP. BARZAGA.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Let us not quibble about these minor details.  This will not affect your case either way.  So, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, they are requesting for the deferment of the cross examination, Your Honor, allegedly, to be able to examine the documents identified, we have no objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We already ruled.  We allow them to make their cross examination tomorrow.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you have another witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, may we request that the witness on the stand, Mrs. Bayuga, be temporarily excused—discharged.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Madam Witness, you are temporarily discharged.  Please come back to this court, tomorrow at two o’clock in the afternoon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. BAYUGA.  Thank you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If it will not be asking too much, Your Honor, may we request only one-minute suspension.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  One long minute suspension.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

It was 3:12 p.m.

At 3:19 p.m., the trial was resumed.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, we are ready to resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Mr. Demetrio.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who is your next witness?  Please put him on the witness stand.  Put him on the witness stand  and swear him.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes, Mr. President.  Just a clarification. Would there be other Supreme Court employees who will be testifying today for …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I do not know.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Maybe the defense counsel …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  As of today, none, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, this next witness is not from the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He is not from the Supreme Court, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes, Mr. President, may I just make a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Before we proceed with the next witness.

Mr. President, earlier, it was a witness from Supreme Court that came before us.  I would like to stress, I have no issue with the defense.  My issue is with the Supreme Court.  I was told, Mr. President, that the previous witness was subpoenad and therefore,  Bayuga, Atty. Bayuga, was here on the strength of a subpoena. Previously, Mr. President, a court process server was likewise subpoenad by this court, yet, the Supreme Court refused to honor the subpoena and therefore, the witness did not appear.

Mr. President, my concern here is, we now have a situation wherein the Supreme Court decides when it will honor our subpoena and when it will ignore our subpoena.  Again, this is not an issue between whether it is for the defense or the prosecution, Mr. President.  This is an issue between this Impeachment Court, which has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases and the Supreme Court, which is an institution that is held accountable by this Impeachment Court, Mr. President.  The only check on the possible excesses of the Supreme Court, Mr. President is in this Impeachment Court.

My fear, Mr. President, is now the only check is now being checked by the entity that is supposed to be checked.  I don’t wish for any ruling, Mr. President, at this point.  I am just making this manifestation and hopefully, we may be able to find a solution because, again, we will be calling the Supreme Court employee or she will return tomorrow, Mr. President, if the Supreme Court allows her to return.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, I guess when the time comes for a rebuttal evidence if the prosecution would want to ask any of the employees of the Supreme Court to appear, then, we will equally issue a subpoena and thresh out that at the proper time.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In this connection—along this line, may we be permitted, only one minute statement, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have here a copy of the resolution referred to of February 14, 2012, Your Honor, and it provides, among other things, last portion, “In some Philippine Law Rules prohibit the disclosure of confidential or privilege information under well-defined rules,” Your Honor.  “At the most basic level and subject to the principle of comity, members of the court, the court officials, employees may not be compelled to testify on matters that are part of internal deliberations and actions of the court in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions and duties while testimony on matters external to their adjudicatory functions and duties may be compelled by compulsory processes,” Your Honor.  I am just reading from …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At any rate, I was informed by the Office of the Legal Counsel that Ms. Bayuga who was also subpoenad on February 1 upon the request of the prosecution and she complied, she appeared here on February 1 in response to the subpoena issued to her. Maybe the matter that was the subject of her examination today, as well as then, are not considered confidential by the Supreme Court. So, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of the honourable court.

THE SECRETARY.  Mr. Witness, tayo po, pakitaas lang po ng kanang kamay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of the honourable court, pakisabi po ninyo ang inyong pangalan, edad, tirahan…

MR. VICENTE.  I am Demetrio C. Vicente, I am 70 years old.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Binata po kayo, may asawa?

MR. VICENTE.  Meron na ho isa lang.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the purpose of this witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This witness, Your Honor, is being presented to prove the existence of the sale in his favour by seven parcels of land  formerly registered in the name of Mrs. Maria Cristina Roco Corona, Your Honor.  With the kind permission of the honourable court.  Kilala ba ho ninyo si Gng. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Oho, kilala ko ho dahil siya ho ang nabilan ko ng lupa.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ito ho ba iyong maybahay ng kagalang-galang na Punong Hukom ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng ating Republika?

MR. VICENTE.  Oho, siya ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Si Chief Justice Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Oho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sinabi po ninyo sa kagalang-galang na hukuman na kaya nyo siya kilala ay sapagkat nakabili kayo ng lupa sa kanya, tama ho ba iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Oho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po itong lupa na nabili nyo sa kanya?

MR. VICENTE.  Sa Marikina Heights, doon ho ako nakabili ng lupa na pag-aari ni Mrs. Cristina Roco Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Kailan po  yang pagkakabili nyo ng lupa na ang may ari ay si Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, kailan po iyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Noong mga 1990, maybe July 1990.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Iyon ho bang bilihan nyo ng lupa ni Mrs. Corona eh nakadokumento o may papel?

MR. VICENTE.  Meron ho akong Absolute Deed of Sale.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Now, ilan pong parcel ng lupa ang nabili ninyo kay Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE. Pito ho, pito.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, iyon pong sinasabi…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pitong ano po, pitong…

MR. VICENTE.  Pitong parcel of land.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Pitong ektarya?

MR. VICENTE.  Pitong metro kuwadrado, a, no, pitong titulo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Pitong titulo.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  A, pitong titulo.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, may we be allowed to proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed, counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Now, I am showing to you, ipinakikita ko po sa inyo itong kopya ng Deed of Sale which had earlier been marked as exhibit 54 for the prosecution consisting of 6 pages, including the various certifications appearing therein.  Will you kindly go over the same, examine it.  Witness going over the same.  Ipinakikita ko po sa inyo ang dokumento na iyan na binubuo ng anim na pahina, pakitingnan nyo, sabihin ninyo sa kagalang-galang na hukumang ito kung ano ang relasyon nyan doon sa dokumentong ng bilihan nyo ni Mrs. Corona.

MR. VICENTE.  Eto ho ang Absolute Deed of Sale noong property na binili k okay Mrs. Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano bang petsa nyang dokumento na yan?

MR. VICENTE.  July 20, 1990 po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  July 20, 1990, notaryado.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sige.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I notice that on page 1 of this document is a signature which apparently reads  “D. Vicente”.  Kindly go over the same and tell us whose signature is that.  Paki tingnan po ninyo.

MR. VICENTE.  This is my signature.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We request, Your Honor, that the signature referred to by the witness be underlined or encircled and mark as Exhibit 54-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  The document has already been marked?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It had earlier been marked as Exhibit 54 for the defense, Your Honor.

THEP PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, noted.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   May I stand corrected, Your Honor.  This should be 54-B, Your Honor, because we already have a 54-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, correct the records and place the correct marking.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, kindly go over the other pages of this document and examine the signature therein reading “D. Vicente”.  Kanino pong pirma ito?

MR. VICENTE.  That is my signature.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness referring to a signature appearing on the left hand margin of page 3, Your Honor, which we request to be marked as Exhibit 54-C, Your Honor.  Likewise, on page 4, is another signature reading “D. Vicente”.  Whose signature, kanino ho ito?

MR. VICENTE.  Akin hong signature yan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We request, Your Honor, that the said signature identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit 54-D.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, likewise, on page 5, is a signature appearing over and above the typewritten named Demetrio C. Vicente, vendee.  Will you kindly tell the honourable court whose signature is that?

MR. VICENTE.  This is my signature.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  We request, Your Honor, that the signature identified by the witness to be his be marked as Exhibit 54-E.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, may I also direct your attention to a signature appearing over a typewritten name Cristina R. Corona, vendor.  Whose signature is that?  Kanino pong signature?

MR. VICENTE.  Signature ho noong seller, yong si Ma. Cristina Roco Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yong sinasabi nyo kanina na maybahay ng kagalang-galang na Chief Justice Corona.

MR. VICENTE.  Totoo po yon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Now, will you kindly examine the entries appearing under one TCT No. N97119 which is Lot 13-APSD-13-189.  Napansin ho ba ninyo yan?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, likewise, under TCT No. 97120 is a statement or entry reading a portion of Lot 13-A.  Napansin po ba ninyo yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alin po yong Lot 13?  Alin po yon, kung alam ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Second lot from the whole seven lots.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, yun pong under TCT No. 9-97122, it is another parcel which is Lot No. 13-A-3.  Yun ho ba’y—Ano po yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Yun po’y isa pang titulo na referring to …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Lot No. 3.

MR. VICENTE.  … Lot No. 3.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Thank you.  Likewise, appearing under TCT No. N97122 is a parcel described as Lot 13-A-4.  Alin po yan lote nay an?

MR. VICENTE.  That pertains to No. 4 lot.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Likewise, under No. 5, TCT No. N97123 is parcel of land described as Lot 13-A-5.  Alin po yan lote nay an?

MR. VICENTE.  Yan ang No. 5 na lote.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Again, may I call your attention to No. 6  which is covered by TCT No. 97124, a parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 13-A-6.  Alin po yan?

MR. VICENTE.  Yan yung No. 6 na lote.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Doon po sa susunod, yung ika-pito, TCT No. 97125 is a parcel of land denominated as Lot 13-A-7.  Alin po yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Yan po yung pang-pitong lote.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, sinasabi ninyo na itong mga lote na ito, Lote A-1 up to A-6 are portion of a bigger lot.  Alin po yung bigger lot na yun na tinutukoy ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Yan yung mother …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Pakilakas ninyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Yan yung mother title nung buong lote na nabili ko.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A, ibig ninyo sabihin—Liwanagin—Hindi po ba—

MR. VICENTE.  Isang lote ho yan na binili ko, ang mother title kasama na ho yun dun yung lote diyan.  Subdivided nong ibinigay sa akin.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A, isang buong lote na subdivided into seven lots?

MR. VICENTE.  Seven lots.  Oo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po ang nag-subdivide niyan into different lots, Lot 13-A and so on and so on down the line?

MR. VICENTE.  Nung makuha ko yan, si Christina Rocco ang nag-subdivide diyan, itong seven lots.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Siya po ang nag-subdivide?  Ganon ho ba ang ibig ninyo sabihin?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi, ang ibig kong sabihin, nung ibigay sakin yung title, pito.  But as far as the Marikina City Assessor’s Office is concerned, isa lang ho ang title niyan.  Pero hindi pa naita-transfer sa kanila yung pito.  Yung mother title lang ang nandon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po ang ibig nyong sabihin na mother title ang nandon?  Paliwanag nga ninyo sa kagalang-galang na Hukom.

MR. VICENTE.  Pinanggalingan ho nung pitong maliliit na lote.  Yung kabuuan.  Kabuuan ho ng mother lot.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Pakinggan ninyo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang.  Yoon pong kabuuan nung lupa na sumasakop nung pitong lote ay may titulo yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At sa kaninong pangalan yung titulo?

MR. VICENTE.  Kay Mrs. Christina Rocco Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, yung titulo na yon ay pina-subdivide yung lupa na sinasakop nung titulo na yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino ang nag-subdivide?

MR. VICENTE.  Si Mrs. Corona ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At dahil dun sa subdivision na ginawa, naging pitong lote?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama po yon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At yung dating titulo, nakansela at binigyan ng iba’t-ibang titulo yung mga lote na bumubuo doon sa dating titulo?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama po yon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At yan ang pitong parsela ng lupa na ipinagbili sa inyo ni Ginang Christina Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, again I go back to the Lot 13-A-1 which is covered by TCT No. N97119, and it states 200 square meters, tama ho ba?  Is that correct?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama ho yon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, Lot No. 13-A-2 which is covered by TCT No. 97120 consist of 200 square meters, tama ho ba yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama po ‘yon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now again, may I direct your attention to TCT no. 97121, and it states, it contains an area—the lot therein described contain an area of 218 square meters, tama po iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama po iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, TCT no. 97122, which covers lot number 13-A-4 consist of 225 square meters.  Tama po iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama po iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Iyon pong lot number 13-A-5, which is covered by TCT no. 97123, consist of 232 square meters, tama ho ba iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama ho iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, on the other hand, lot number 13-A-6, which is covered by TCT no. 97124, consist of 255 square meters, pakitingnan nga po ninyo, tingnan niyo kung tama iyon.

MR. VICENTE.  Tama po iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po iyon.  Thank you.  Now, on the other hand, lot number 13-A-7, which is covered by TCT no. 97124, consist of 327 and 95 square decimeters, is that correct?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama ho iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, this contract refers to a sale of seven parcels of properties.  How much was paid by you for the purchase of these seven parcels from Mrs. Corona? 

MR. VICENTE.  I paid P509 thousand, nine hundred something.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Nine hundred …

MR. VICENTE.  Nine hundred eighty-nine something.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the entire seven parcels.

MR. VICENTE.  For the entire property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang, ilang metro kwadrado iyong kabuuan noong pitong titulo?

MR. VICENTE.  It has a total area of 1,700.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Five thousand?

MR. VICENTE.  1,700 po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  One thousand …

MR. VICENTE.  1,700 square meters po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  1,700 square meters, magkano per square meter ang presyo sa inyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Nakalimutan ko na ho pero iyon ho ang binayaran ko.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pero ang total purchase price …

MR. VICENTE.  P509,989.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige.  Thank you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sa likod po ng document of sale na ito, on several entries referring to payment of capital gains, confirmation receipt and amount of documentary stamp tax, kindly go over the same, examine it and tell the honorable court, what does that represent?

Ano po ang sinasaklaw niyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Ang sinasaklaw ho nito, nabayaran na ho ang capital gains, documentary stamp saka—bayad na ho lahat ng capital gains dito at saka ano po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po ang nagbayad niyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Si Mrs. Cristina Roco.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Lahat-lahat.

MR. VICENTE.  Lahat na ho iyon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kanino po itong mga titulo na nakalagay dito?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang ano, doon sa P900,000 na gross …

MR. VICENTE.  P509,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  P509,000 na gross price noong pitong parsela, inawas doon ang capital gains tax, ganoon ba?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho.  Siya ho ang nagbayad noon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga, pero saan niya kinuha iyong ibinayad, doon sa ibinayad sa iyo o …

MR. VICENTE.  Binayaran ko na ho iyong lahat ng halaga noong lote.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyong ibinayad mo sa kanya doon inawas iyong buwis.

MR. VICENTE.  Oho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  These are real properties.  Will you kindly tell the honorable court who has been paying the real estate tax.  Iyon pong ameliar, sino po ang nagbabayad?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako ho ang nagbabayad ng ameliar dahil akin na ho iyong property.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kailan pa po kayo simulang nagbayad ng ameliar covering these properties?

MR. VICENTE.  From the time I got this property, 1990.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What documents can you show to this honorable court attesting to the fact that you had been paying the real estate tax, ano pong dokumento ninyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Mayroon ho akong mga resibo rito.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sige po.  Witness going over his envelop containing the said receipts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute, Counsel.  What is the purpose of this line of examination?  Anyway, that was property sold already by Mrs. Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The purpose, Your Honor, is to show that the sale is a genuine deed of sale between the seller and the buyer.  So that any and all obligations which should be shouldered by the buyer is being shouldered by this witness, Your Honor.  In other words, it is not merely a make-believe transaction, Your Honor.  It is an honest-to-goodness transaction, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I don’t think there is an issue about that.  So, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Witness, Your Honor, presenting to this Representation the latest payment covered by official real property tax Receipt No. 070134 received from paid by Demetrio Vicente.

MR. VICENTE.  That is the latest payment for the year.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit 122.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  By the way, may I ask this question from the prosecution.  Are you disputing the validity of this transaction where seven parcels of land were sold by Cristina Corona to Mr. Vicente?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yes, Your Honor.  There is an issue with respect to this transaction.  And that will be pointed out during our cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … Sa ngayon po, kanino naka-rehistro sa Register of Deeds itong pitong parsela na ito na sinasabi ninyo sa kagalang-galang na hukuman na binili ninyo kay Maria Cristina Roco Corona?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think the title would show that, Counsel, that fact, isn’t it?  Well, anyway, the witness may answer in order not to delay the proceedings.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we now proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I have here seven xerox copies of transfer certificate of title more especially TCT No. 9719, TCT No. N-97120, TCT No. 97121, which had been marked as Exh. JJ.  May I go back?  TCT No. 97120 which had been marked as Exh. II, and TCT 9719 as Exh. HH, Your Honor, TCT No. 97121, which had earlier been marked as Exh. JJ, Your Honor. Likewise, TCT No. 97122, which had earlier been marked as Exh. KK, TCT No. 97123 which had been marked as Exh. LL, TCT No. 97124, which has been marked earlier as Exh. NN and Exh. MM which is TCT No. 97125.

I noticed that the name of the registered owner as appearing in here is still Ma. Cristina M. Corona married to Renato C. Corona in all these titles.  Teka muna, sabihin ninyo nga ninyo sa husgado kung bakit nabili na ninyo itong properties na ito eh, ang titulo nasa pangalan pa ni Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE. Hindi ko po na-transfer sa pangalan ko iyong mga titulo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Bakit nga po ninyo hindi pa nililipat sa pangalan ninyo ang titulo?

MR. VICENTE.  Eh, kasi ho iyong mismong lote iyan nagpatayo ho ako ng bahay, naubos ho doon iyong pera. Hindi pa nga ho tapos hanggang ngayon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi kayo marinig liwanagin po ninyo.

MR. VICENTE. Pasensiyahan ninyo na ho ako dahil na-stroke ho ako kanya medyo bulol ho ang pagsasalita ko.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sige, dahan-dahan po lang.

MR. VICENTE.  Oho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Huwag kayong magalit.

MR. VICENTE.  Ay hindi, hindi ho ako …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sige po.

MR. VICENTE.  Kanya ho hindi ko narehistro sa pangalan ko, nawalan na ho ako ng pera na ma-i-transfer sa pangalan ko dahil nagpagawa ho ako ng bahay noon, kanya doon na ho ako nakatira ngayon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Doon po sa pitong lote na iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Doon sa dulo ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Eh, iyon pong ibang lote?

MR. VICENTE.  Bakante, bakante ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sa ngayon?

MR. VICENTE. Oho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Wala pong nakatirik doon?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Nakatira?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala ho, wala.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Alright.  Now, sino po ang nangangasiwa ng pitong lote na iyan  ngayon, na namamahala?

MR. VICENTE.  May bakod ho doon, ako mismo ang nangangasiwa ng lote.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Ano po ang pakialam, kung mayroon, si Mrs. Corona diyan sa pitong lote na iyan na ipinagbili sa inyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala na ho siyang pakialam dahil hindi na po sa kanya iyon, akin na iyon dahil mayroon akong deed of sale.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Salamat po. That will be all with the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alright. Cross-examination.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  With the permission of the Honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Mr. Vicente, ang sabi po dito sa Deed of Sale ay binili ninyo ng halagang P509,985.00, paano po ba ito binayaran, cash o tseke?

MR. VICENTE. Binayaran ko ho iyan ng manager’s check.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Manager’s check. Saan po kayo nagkabayaran? Saang lugar?

MR. VICENTE. Doon ho sa bahay niya sa may Loyola.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Sa may Loyola?

MR. VICENTE. Oho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Sino po ang kaharap noong kayo ay magkabayaran?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala na ho.  Basta’t inabot ko sa kanya iyong tseke in the name of Cristina Roco-Corona.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eto pong Deed of Sale na ito na pinirisinta sa inyo ni Justice Cuevas, sino po ba ang gumawa nito? Ha, sorry, I stand corrected.  Sino po bang ang gumawa nitong Deed of Sale na ito?

MR. VICENTE.  Iyan ho naka-prepare na iyang Deed of Sale na iyan noong nabayaran ko.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO. Hindi po ninyo alam kung sino ang nag-prepare nito?  Sino nag-draft?

MR. VICENTE.  Eh, abugado ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi ninyo kilala?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko kilala pero humarap ho ako nag-oath taking ako non.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah, nag-oath taking po kayo.

MR. VICENTE.  Pirma ko ho yon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Oho, hindi ko ho sinasabing hindi nyo pirma yan.

MR. VICENTE.  Iyon nga ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Napuna ko po dito, Mr. Vicente, na kayo bilang buyer at si Mrs. Cristina Corona ay parehong taga Quezon City.  Hindi ho ba tama iyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo, opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Napuna ko rin po dito na itong dokumentong ito ay ninotaryo sa Makati.  Ano po ba ang dahilan wala po bang notaryo doon sa Quezon City?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho, nagpunta ho kami don sa ano sa Makati hindi ko na ho matandaan ngayon pero…

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Oho nga po ano ho ang dahilan kayo ho ay nagpunta doon?

MR. VICENTE.  Para ho inotaryo iyong pirma ko saka yong pirma ni Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ang tanong ko ho wala po bang notary sa Quezon City?

MR. VICENTE.  Ay hindi ko ho alam, wala ho akong kilalang abogado doon eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Napuna ko po dito ho sa Deed of Sale na ito dito sa page 5, doon sa inyong sedula, ang sedula ni Mrs. Corona ay kinuha sa Quezon City noong March 7, 1990.

MR. VICENTE. Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ang sedula nyo ay kinuha nong March 7, 1990.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Sabay po ba kayong kumuha ng sedula?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho, eh it so happen na pareho ho ang date eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ibig po ba nyong sabihin bago itong Deed of Sale na ito wala pa kayong sedula non?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala pa ho eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Kaya po ba lang kayo kumuha ng sedula para mapirmahan itong deed of Sale na ito?

MR. VICENTE. Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ngayon po, Mr. Witness, sabi po nyo nagpunta kayo ng Makati.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Saan po bang lugar doon sa Makati kayo nagpunta?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko na ho matandaan dahil 22 years ago.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Siguro naman po bata pa kayo non.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi, ngayon ho di ako napupunta ng Makati eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  A, hindi po.  Kalian ho kayo huling napunta doon?

MR. VICENTE. Two years ago.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Two years ago.  San pong lugar kayo sa Makati nagpunta?

MR. VICENTE.  Madalas ho kami doon nag-bi-bike ho ako eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Oo nga po, saan po doon sa Makati?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko na ho…

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Akala ko ho ba madalas kayo don…e ano ho ba ang tama?

MR. VICENTE. Madalas ho ako dyan sa Makati nong araw.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi ho ba sabi nyo kanina two years ago nagpunta kayo don?  Ano ho ba talaga ang totoo dito?

MR. VICENTE.  Ang huli hong punta doon, two years ago.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Iyon nga po two years ago.  Nung two years ago saan po kayo sa Makati nagpunta?

MR. VICENTE.  Ang ibig nyong sabihin san kami nagpanotaryo?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hndi po, hindi ko po sinasabi, huwag po nating pagusapan iyong notary kasi sabi nga nyo hindi nyo matandaan eh.

MR. VICENTE.  Kaya nga ho eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ngayon, saan lugar kayo sa Makati  nagpunta?   Nong two years ago po?

MR. VICENTE.   Ayala-Buendia.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ayala-Buendia.  Ayun po bang opisina ng Notaryo ay doon din sa Ayala-Buendia?

MR. VICENTE.  Ay hindi ko na nga ho matandaan nga iyon eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ano po ba iyong opisina, ito po ba ay building, bahay?

MR. VICENTE.  Building ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Building.  mga ilang palapag po?

MR. VICENTE.  Ang Makati ho nong araw konti lang ang tao.  Araw-araw ho ako nagdadaan diyan eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, iyong building mga ilan pong palapag?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko na rin ho matandaan eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO. Matatandaan ba ninyo kung anong—ground floor, second floor, third floor?

MR. VICENTE.  Ground floor ho siguro yon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah, ground floor.  Ano po iyong—eto bang opisina ng abogado may katabi po ba ito?

MR. VICENTE.  Naku hindi ko na din ho matandaan.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO. Hindi rin nyo matandaan.  Napuna ko din dito sa Deed of Sale na ito may dalawang testigo.  Ito pong unang testigo kilala po ba nyo siya, eto pong nasa bandang kaliwa.  Kung gusto po ninyo tingnan po muna ninyo para hindi po kayo mailto.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko ho kilala iyon eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  A, hindi nyo kilala.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko kilala iyon e.  Iyong isa, iyong isa kilala ko.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ang isa po, di ba ang isang testigo ay mismong si Chief Justice Renato Corona.

MR. VICENTE.  Kilala ko ho iyan.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Iyan, tama, pero iyong isa hindi nyo kilala.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko ho kilala.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi rin kayo kilala nung isang testigo nyo na hindi kayo kilala.

MR. VICENTE.  Ewan ko ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Mr. Vicente, napuna ko po iyong middle initial ninyo ay letter C.  Ano po ang ibig sabihin nyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Coronado.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah, Coronado, abay kayo po ba ay kamag-anak ni Chief Justice Corona kasi po ang kanyang ina ay Coronado ang apelyido.

MR. VICENTE.  First cousin ho ng nanay ko iyan.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ayun, kayo po ay may relasyon, ganun po.  Sabi po nyo kanina inaamin ninyo yong titulo ng bahay ay nasa pangalan pa ni Mrs. Corona.  Totoo po ba yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Tama po yon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Sabi po ninyo kaya nyo hindi naipalipat ay dahil nagpagawa kayo ng bahay.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Magkano po ba nagastos ninyo doon sa pagpapagawa ninyo ng bahay?

MR. VICENTE.  At that time ho yong sobrang noong pinagbilhan ko ng bahay sa Quezon City ay inilagay ko sa improvement ng bahay.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Kayo po ba doon sa pagpapalipat ng titulo, nagtanong po ba kayo kahit kayo, magkano ba ang estimate na magagastos kung ipalilipat sa inyo ang titulo.

MR. VICENTE.  E ang alam ko ho babayad ako ng transfer tax at saka documentary stamp.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Oo nga po. E may ideya po ba kayo kung magkano ang inyong ibabayad at hindi ninyo naipalipat sa pangalan ninyo ang titulo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi dahil trusted ko ho yong pinagbilhan ko dahil kamag-anak ho namin.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah kamag-anak.  Kaya hindi ninyo pinalipat dahil kamag-anak nyo si Chief Justice Corona, ganon po ba ang dahilan?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Actually, second cousin ko ho yan e.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah ganon po.  Yon pong tax declaration, kanino po bang pangalan ito naroroon ngayon?

MR. VICENTE.  Iyan po ay nasa pangalan ni Cristina Corona.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi rin po ninyo ipinalipat ang tax declaration sa pangalan ninyo, hindi po ba totoo yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi, yong mga later part sinabi ko sa assessor’s office, ipinakita ko yong deed of sale, akin yan kaya merong akong…

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi nga po.  Ang tanong sa inyo yong tax declaration, sa ngayon po nakaninong pangalan ang tax declaration?

MR. VICENTE.  Ang tax declaration ho na kay ano pa, na kay Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  E bakit naman po hindi ninyo ipinalipat sa pangalan ninyo, hindi na nga nyo napalipat ang titulo at pati tax declaration hindi pa rin palilipat?

MR. VICENTE.  Yon mga ibang titulo since 1910 ang sabi ko nga doon ng ipinakita ko yong deed of sale nasa akin na yan.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, bakit hindi ninyo ipinalipat ang tax declaration sa pangalan ninyo?  Iyon po ang tanong.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko na ho naisip yong paglipat e wala pa naman sa akin yong ano e.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi po ba bilang pagmamay-ari, hindi po ba ninyo naisip na ang katibayan ng pagmamay-ari ng isang lupain ay ang titulo?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo, pero…

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Alam po ninyo yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute, counsel.  Let the witness finish the answer so that the record will not be garbled.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  I’m sorry po, Your Honor, medyo napapabilis po tayo ng salita.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Don’t be excited.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ngayon, wala na nga po sa pangalan ninyo yong titulo, hindi rin po ba ninyo naisip na wala na nga sa pangalan ko yong titulo e di ito man lang tax declaration malagay sa pangalan ko?  Hindi po ba ninyo naisip yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Marunong akong mag-isip ho pero nasa akin ang absolute deed of sale e tama na ho yon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah ganon po.  Dahil nasa inyo ang absolute deed of sale sa tingin ninyo tama na po yon.

MR. VICENTE.  Sa aking palagay ho ganon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mr. Vicente.

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kayo po ba may mga anak?

MR. VICENTE.  Isa lang ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wala.

MR. VICENTE.  Sa asawa ko ho, isa lang.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi, tinatanong ko kung may mga anak kayo.  Meron ba kayong mga anak?

MR. VICENTE.  Isa lang ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ah isa.  Buhay pa?

MR. VICENTE.  Oho, nagtatrabaho ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Pwede na po ba akong magpatuloy, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Patuloy, patuloy.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eto po sa likod ng deed of sale meron po ditong nakalagay na bayad naman po yong documentary stamp.  Ito po pwede po bang pakibasa ninyo?  O e wala po sigurong dahilan para hindi ninyo maipalipat sa pangalan ninyo yong titulo.  Bayad na po pala naman sabi nyo kanina hindi.  Wala kayong pera e yon po bayad e.

MR. VICENTE.  Pag sa transfer yan babayaran ko pa uli.  Saka yong documentary stamp babayaran ko pa ulit.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eto nga po bayad na nga daw sinasabi dito.  Ayan po pwede po bang pakibasa ninyo?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, I hate to object, Your Honor, but the counsel now is arguing with the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the ground of the objection?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Argumentative, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, he is testing the credibility of the witness.  He may answer.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Pwede po bang pakibasa lang ninyo ito po yong…

MR. VICENTE.  Documentary stamp paid.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yon nga po, paid.  Hindi po ba ibig sabihin nyan bayad?

MR. VICENTE.  Capital gains, paid.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  O, bayad din po.

MR. VICENTE.  Oo.  Hindi ko makita yung kwan e.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ganon nga po.  Ang sabi po nyo kanina, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano’ng sagot ng witness?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ano po bang sagot?  Bayad din.

MR. VICENTE.  Bayad na rin ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Bayad na rin.  Ayun.  So, maliwanag po, Documentary Stamp, bayad; Capital Gains, bayad.  Ngayon, ang sinasabi nyo kanina ay kaya hindi nyo maipalipat, wala kayong pera dahil nagpagawa kayo ng bahay.

E ngayon po, kung bayad na ay di po ba wala nang dahilan para malipat sa inyo ang titulo ng lupa?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi, meron pa ho akong babayaran diyan e.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ano po yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Yung Transfer Tax.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Alam po ba ninyo kung magkano’ng Transfer Tax?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi nga ho alam, pero nagtanong ako, malaki rin daw ho yon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ano pong sinabi sa inyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko na ho matandaan.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Mr. Witness, hawak ko po ang isang sertipikasyon na ito pong selyo ng Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, City of Makati, na inisyu po ito ni Atty. Ma. Corazon Cecilia H. Pineda of Court VI, at ito po ay sertipikasyon, binayaran po namin ito as shown by Official Receipt No. 1408567 dated February 21, 2012.

Ang sinasabi po dito sa sertipikasyon na ito, at babasahin ko po sa inyo, “This is to certify that in accordance with the records of this office, a certain Ma. Beatriz S. Montoya has never been commissioned by this court as notary public for and in the City of Makati.”

Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, hindi po ba yung sinasabing nakalagay sa dokumento na inyong pinuntahan, ang nagnotaryo ay si Atty. Ma. Beatriz S. Montoya?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Pakitingnan po ninyo.  E ano pong masasabi ninyo?  Sabi po sa certificate ito ay fake daw naman notaryo nito e.  Hindi daw magiging—Never daw nakomisyon ng notaryo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is not binding on the witness, Your Honor.  He is not a signatory to the said document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, that’s a certification certifying that the notary public appearing on the document is not a licensed notary public of Makati.

So, the witness may answer.  (Gavel)

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko ho alam yon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  A, hindi po nyo alam.  E ngayon pong nalaman ninyo, hindi po ba kayo napaplano na imbestigahin kung ito ba’y tunay na notaryo o hindi?

MR. VICENTE.  Ngayon ko lang ho nalaman.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  O ngayon, ano pong plano ninyo?  Alam na po ninyo yon.

MR. VICENTE.  Pwede ko hong idemanda yan.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eto po, balikan natin yung pagkakanotaryo.  Sino po ba nagdala sa inyo don sa tao kay Atty. Montoya na yon kung totoo na sya ay notaryo?  Sino po nagdala sa inyo don?

MR. VICENTE.  Kasama ko ho diyan yung seller, si Mrs. Corona.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Si Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Oho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  E si Chief Justice po, kasama din?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  A, hindi ho kasama?

MR. VICENTE.  Kasama ho.  Kasama kasi siya ang pumirma.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ayun ho.  Hindi ko naman kayo lituhin.

Your Honor, may I request that this certification issued on February 21, 2012 be marked as our Exhibit ten O, Your Honor.

And may I request, Your Honor, that the official receipt dated February 21 …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What did you say the previous document?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  This is the certification, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And you want it marked what?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Decaple O, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly for the prosecution.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Can I continue, Your Honor?  Mr. Vicente, natatandaan po ba ninyo kung kalian kayo nagpunta dito sa sinasabing notaryo?  Ano pong petsa?

MR. VICENTE.  1990, mga July ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  July.  Anong oras po kayo nagpunta sa kanya?  Umaga, tanghali …

MR. VICENTE.  Umaga, umaga.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Umaga.  I have no more cross, Your Honor.  May I just request that the official receipt dated February 21, 2012 be marked as our Exhibit …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the date of the notary?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  The notarization is July 26, 1990, You Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you check whether that date is a business day or a holiday?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Thursday, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thursday.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we state for the record, Your Honor, that the certification is to the effect t that this is to certify that in accordance with the records of this office, a certain Ma. Beatriz S. Montoya has never been commissioned by this court as notary public for the City of Manila.  That is all.  Makati, I am sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Mr. Witness, I am showing to you a certified Xerox copy issued by Ricardo L. Castro, City Treasurer of Marikina, for the year March 18, 2010, showing that the official real property tax receipt was paid by Corona, Ma. Cristina R.  Ang ibig sabihin po ba nito ay hanggang March 18, 2010, ang nagbabayad ng amilyar ay si Mrs. Cristina Corona.

MR. VICENTE.  Ako po ang nagbabayad niyan since 1990.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Since 1990.

MR. VICENTE.  Noong makuha ko na iyong property.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Mayroon po ba kayong mga resibo na katunayan ay kayo ang nagbabayad?  Sige po, kayo na po ang pumili ng—inyo pong records iyan e.

Ito po ba?

MR. VICENTE.  Ito po.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Witness handing to this representation, official real property tax dated September 14, 2001.  Mr. Witness may sinasabi po dito doon sa received from Maria R. Corona, hindi po ba ang ibig sabihin noon ang nagbayad ay si Maria Cristina R.Corona kasi sabi nga received from.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi po.  Dahil hindi ko pa ho naita-transfer sa pangalan ko iyan kanya nandoon pa rin sa pangalan ninya.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah.  Ibig po ninyong sabihin, iyong pera sa inyong bulsa nanggagaling pero ang resibo ay sa pangalan ni Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Opo.  Tama po iyon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah, ganoon po ba iyon.?  No more cross, Your Honor.  Hindi na po kailangan, sinagot na ninyo.  Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you through, Counsel?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yes, Your Honor, no more question on cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any re-direct?  Counsel for the defense, any re-direct?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Awhile ago you identified this official real property tax receipt No. 0770134, and it states, received, paid by Demetrio Vicente.  Kindly go over the same and tell us who is that Demetrio Vicente mentioned in this.  Sino po iyang  Demetrio Vicente?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako po iyan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sinasabi ninyo kanina na kayo ang nagbabayad.  Now, may we request, Your Honor, that this tax receipt  carrying the entry paid by Demetrio Vicente OR No. 0770134 be marked as Exhibit …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What date is that?  For what year was that receipt?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  March 12, 2012, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Exhibit 122, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  March 2012.  Only recently.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  Now, likewise, I am showing to you an official real property tax receipt No. 0770133 which states received from Demetrio Vicente.  Now, kindly go over the same and tell us who made the payment stated therein.

MR. VICENTE.  I made the payment, Demetrio C. Vicente.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po iyang Demetrio Vicente?

MR. VICENTE.  That is me, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what year is that?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  March 12, 2012, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Also this year.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, mark it.  Is that the same document as the previous one?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor.  That is what I was about to ask the witness.  This tax payment here, what does it cover?  Ano pong sinasaklaw ng pagbabayad ng tax na iyan?

Mr. VICENTE.  This pertains to the property I bought from Cristina.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi.  Alin po ito, dahil dalawa ho iyan.  Itong isa …

MR. VICENTE.  Iyong isa ho, iyong una, kay Miriam Roco.  Akin din ho iyan eh.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You mentioned about Miriam Roco.  Ano po ang kinalaman ng Miriam Rocong iyan sa properting binabayaran ninyo ang real estate tax?

MR. VICENTE.  Iyong lote ko ho 1,700 ang nabili ko kay Mrs. Roco.  Ngayon, iyong kapatid niya, Miriam, binili ko rin iyong 1,700 property. Kanya, I am staying on 3,400 square meter property, kanya ho nawalan ako ng pera.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, kindly go over this statement of account in the name of Miriam Roco but paid by Demetrio Vicente in the total amount of P12,749.60? Kindly go over the same and tell the Honorable Court what relation has this with the alleged payment you made covering the property you purchased from Miriam Roco?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, but ito ang property which I paid pertains to another 1,700 square meter property beside the other property which I bought from Miriam Acresina Roco.  This is from Miriam Roco.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, we request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness as Exh. 123 for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kindly go over this statement of account which is Account No. 55816 carrying the name of Demetrio Vicente and tell us what relation has this with the alleged payment of real estate tax you have made to the City of Marikina?

MR. VICENTE.  Eto po iyong 1,700 square meter.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ilakas po ninyo.  Hindi nadidinig.

MR. VICENTE.  Ito po iyong 1,700 square meter na binili k okay Mrs. Cristina Roco.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po iyong Ma. Cristina Roco na iyon? Ano ang relasyon niya kay Miriam?

MR. VICENTE.  Kapatid ho iyan ni Miriam Roco.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po ito ni   Justice, Chief Justice Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Iyan po ang sister-in-law.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Again, I am showing to you the document you handed to me, which is Official Receipt No. 0750707 dated January 13, 2012, which states “Received from Vicente Demetrio.”  Kindly go over the same and tell us who is the Vicente Demetrio referred to?  Sino po iyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako ho si Demetrio Vicente. This pertains to the …

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Hindi po  kayo nadidinig.

MR. VICENTE. This pertains to the property, the improvement, where I am staying now.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Likewise in the lot you bought from  …

MR. VICENTE.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes. Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  We request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness be marked as Exh. 125 for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

Is that for the seven lots? Is that for the seven parcels?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is that for the seven parcels?

MR. VICENTE.  Sir, this is for the eight parcels of land.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi.  Seven parcels iyong binili mo kay …

MR. VICENTE.  Iyong binili ko kay Mrs. Corona seven.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kaya nga.

MR. VICENTE.  Iyong isa binili ko rin kay Miriam na one lot.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oo, pero dalawang resibo?

MR. VICENTE.  Dalawa ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, iyong isang resibo para doon sa pitong lote.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yung isang resibo para doon kay Mirriam.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Itong pitong lote nagbayad ka ng amilyar nito.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noong 2012.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo, for the whole year.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the full year.

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   What year?

MR. VICENTE.  2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyong 2011?

MR. VICENTE.  Bayad na ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino nagbayad?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2010 sino nagbayad?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako din po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2009?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako rin po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2008?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako rin po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   2007?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako rin.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2006?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako rin po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2005?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako rin po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  1990 mo binili eh.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Hanggang sa 1990.

MR. VICENTE.  Iyong second quarter ako na po ang nagbayad.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Second quarter ng anong taon?

MR. VICENTE. 1990, third quater, third and fourth quarter of 1990.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kailan inilipat ng city assessor’s office sa—ito ba ay sa Marikina?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ang tax declaration from Mrs. Roco sa inyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi pa ho na-transfer except…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Hindi, hindi, dahil dati-dati si Mrs. Cristina Roco Corona ang nagbabayad nung amilyar amyetno nong pitong lote.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo, nung sa kanya po iyong lote.  Nung binigay na sa akin iyong Absolute Deed of Sale, ako na ang nagbayad nun.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Inilipat sa iyo yung tax declaration?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi pa po e as far as the assessor’s office…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi pwedeng magbayad ng amilyar amyento kung hindi ilipat sa iyo yong tax declaration.

MR. VICENTE.  Nagbabayad ho ako pero sa pangalan niya.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ahh…sa pangalan niya.  Ikaw nagbabayad sa pangalan niya.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ganon din ang kuwan nong 2012?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sa pangalan din nya nailagay iyong resibo?

MR. VICENTE. Opo, nakalagay sa resibo na paid by Demetrio Vicente.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    O, sige, pero ang tax declaration na kay Cristina Corona.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now,  allow me to show you another official real property tax receipt dated—official receipt no. 0682010, under account no. 123807.  Kindly go over the same and tell us who is the Vicente Demetrio named there.

MR. VICENTE.  Ako po yan, ako po yan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    What does that represent?  Ano poi yang resibo na iyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Eto po iyong lote, iyan po iyong lote na binili k okay Mrs. Corona.  Because at that time, 41,000 ho ang ibinayad ko dyan, because ala pa ho yong 50% deduction because of the Ondoy tragedy.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness be marked as exhibit 126 for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness which is OR No. 062010 be marked as exhibit 126 for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Again, I am showing to you another document labelled statement of account in the name of Vicente, Demetrio C., Account No. 1238007, period covered January 2001 to December 2010.  Kindly go over the same and tell us whether you know that document.  Tignan po ninyo at sabihin ninyo kung kilala ninyo yang dokumento na yan.

MR. VICENTE.  Ito po yong nasa pangalan ko ho itong statement of account at dated March 20, 2010.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Covering the period January 2001 to December 2010.  All right.  Now, ano pong kinalaman nito sa sinasabi ninyong pagbabayad ninyo ng buwis?

MR. VICENTE.  Yan po yong binabayaran kong buwis for that particular period.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alin po yong property na binabayaran ninyo dito?  Witness is going over the same, Your Honor.

MR. VICENTE.  Ito po yong lupa na binili ko kay Mrs. Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaninong tax declaration yong lupa?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kanino raw pong tax declaration yong lupa, tinatanong kayo ng husgado.

MR. VICENTE.  Sa akin pong pangalan yong statement of account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oo pero yong tax declaration kanino?

MR. VICENTE.  Nasa pangalan pa ho ni Mrs. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  E sino ang nag-i-isyu noong statement of account sa inyo na pagbayaran ninyo yong…

MR. VICENTE.  Office of the City Treasurer of Marikina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  City Treasurer.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi City Assessor.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At this stage, if we are allowed to intervene I will just read for the records, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It states, Your Honor—Statement of account, bill date, March 18, 2010, period covered, January 1 to December 2010, Office of the City Treasurer, Real Property Tax Division.  That is the entry contained in here, Your Honor.

Now, what is this amount due which appears to be P65,268.34?  Ano ba ito?  Anong exhibit ito?  We will request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit 127.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There is some confusion here and the court would like to understand.  Why is it that the City Treasurer’s Office consider Mr. Vicente as the one responsible for taxes on properties that are as declared for tax purposes by Mrs. Cristina Corona?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In the document identified by the witness, no mention about Cristina Corona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yan pong nakalagay dyan, P65,268.34, sino po ang nagbayad nyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Binayaran ko po yan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kanino ninyo binayaran yang halaga na yan?

MR. VICENTE.  Sa City Treasurer’s Office

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  O bakit kayo nagbayad ng halagang P65,268.34?

MR. VICENTE.  Akin na po yang loteng yan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sinasabi ninyong inyo na pero wala sa inyo ang titulo, wala sa inyo ang tax declaration, anong ibig ninyong sabihin?

MR. VICENTE.  Nasa akin ho ang titulo nyan at saka absolute deed of sale.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ito ba yong galing kay Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Nakarehistro na ba yang titulo na yan sa pangalan ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi po.  Hindi po nakarehistro sa pangalan ko yan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be allowed to continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Continue, continue.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I direct your attention—call your attention to an Official Receipt No. 0628338 dated March 24, 2005—9, ano po yon?

(Audio technical problem)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, the declared owner here is one Vicente Demetrio and the Account No. is 123807.  Kindly examine it and tell us whether the Demetrio Vicente declared owner mentioned in here.  Tingnan po ninyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Sakin po yan.  Pangalan ko po yan.  And this is a receipt.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Receipt in the amount of?

MR. VICENTE.  P6,238.68.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, this appears to be—or this is labelled Official Real Property Tax Receipt.  How did it happen that the receipt is in your name when according to you, this is not yet declared in your name?  Pano po nangyari na kayo nagbabayad, nasa pangalan nyo yung pagbabayad, samantalang hindi naman …

MR. VICENTE.  Pinakita ko yung Absolute Deed of Sale of property, nasa pangalan ko, kaya as far as the Treasurer’s Office is concerned, (Audio technical problem) pangalan ko.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi po kayo madinig.  Hindi po kayo nadidinig.  Ulitin po ninyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Sa akin hong pangalan na yan kasi pinakita ko ho yung Absolute Deed of Sale na sa pangalan ko, na ako’ng buyer nung property.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Was there any instance where you have appeared this City Assessor’s Office for purposes of declaring this property?  Meron na ho bang ganon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Nakausap ko po yung Assessor’s Office na chief na sinabi ko, pinakita ko yung Deed of Sale ko kaya nai-transfer sa pangalan ko.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kelan po yon?

MR. VICENTE.  2009.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  2009.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, again, may we request, Your Honor, that the document identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit 128, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, again I show you …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang.  Sandali lang, Mr. Vicente.  Will you kindly fix the sound system.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President.  (Audio technical problem) fix the sound system.  May we move for a (Audio technical problem)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman (Audio technical problem)

All right.  Trial suspended.  (Gavel)

It was 4:38 p.m.

At 5:14 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

Continue with the examination of the of the witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the permission of the honorable court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I am showing to you a bunch of receipts for your examination and perusal.  And kindly tell the honorable court whether you know these receipts.  Ipinakikita ko ho sa inyo ang maraming resibo.  Pakitingnan ho ninyo at sabihin ninyo sa husgado, sa kagalang-galang na hukuman kung kilala ninyo o alam ninyo ang resibo na iyan.  Witness examining the same.

MR. VICENTE.  Kilala ko ho, iyon ho ang mga resibo na nabayaran ko sa treasurer’s office ng Marikina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For what years are those?

MR. VICENTE.  For the year 2010, sir.  March 18, 2010.  2001, 2001 for Cristina Roco.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will request, Your Honor, that the receipt, official real property tax receipt dated 9/14/2001, 0192713, Your Honor, in the name of Corona Maria Cristina R in the amount of P8,075.00 which bears a rubber stamp impression paid, be marked as Exhibit 129, Your Honor.  Likewise, Official Receipt No. 0192712 dated 9/14/2001, Your Honor, under account number 55816 .

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.  All of these receipts are in the name of Corona Maria Cristina.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Maria Cristina, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the payment is for the account of Mr. Vicente.

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Your Honor, may I make a manifestation.  The receipt states that received from Maria Cristina R. Corona, not from Mr. Vicente.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, precisely.  So, it is a receipt from Maria Cristina Roco Corona not for the account of Mr. Vicente.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  And the title of the property still remains in the name of Maria Cristina C. Roco Corona.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  The receipts, Your Honor, if I may make this manifestation again …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I am talking of the title of the property.  They are unregistered in the name of Mr. Vicente until now.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Registered under the name of Maria Cristina Corona, Your Honor, the title.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Where is that statement?  The receipt appears to be in the name of Ma. Cristina but there is no mention of what you have been trying to tell the court.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  That was the question of the Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no.  Let me …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But there is nothing in here which shows that the title is the name—we are referring to the receipt.

THE PRESDING OFFICER.  Let me clarify. Let me clarify so that there will be no wrangling. All these receipts, the real estate tax receipts are in the name—are from Ma. Cristina C.  …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … Roco-Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. For the account of Mr. Vicente Corona …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor, it states Account No. 55816 declared owner, Corona, Ma. Cristina—“received from Ma. Cristina Corona.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright. Alright.  And until now, until now the titles of the seven parcels are still unregistered in the name of this witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I didn’t get. The question is directed to the witness or to me, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, I want clarification. The title, the TCTs covering the seven parcel of land.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Lahat daw po ng titulo doon po sa pitong lote na ito nasa pangalan ni Mrs. Corona.

MR. VICENTE. Opo up to now.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hanggang ngayon?

MR. VICENTE.  Hanggang ngayon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi pa narerehistro sa pangalan ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi pa ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. O, sige.  Alright. It’s understood.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I heard you state a while ago that you are a relative of the Corona’s, is that right?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Who is your relative?  The Chief Justice or Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  The Chief Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, how did you happen to be the purchaser of this property?

MR. VICENTE.  Through a broker.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What do you mean “broker”?

MR. VICENTE.  Real estate broker because I have a lot of friends in Marikina Heights.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi kayo nadidinig.

MR. VICENTE. I have a lot of friends in Marikina Heights who stays behind—beside his property and they said that that lot is open for sale and they pointed to a broker.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Do you recall the name of the broker?

MR. VICENTE.  Mrs. ah, ah. I forgot the name of that broker.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But he is a broker of …

MR. VICENTE. Of real estate property.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Who made the offer to you actually?  Kanino po—o sige.

MR. VICENTE.  It was the broker who made the offer that this particular lot is for sale.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You are referring to the seven parcels, tama ho ba?

MR. VICENTE.  The whole parcel of land. The one that belongs to Miriam and Cristina Corona, ah, Roco.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, you mean, you wanted to tell the court that this purchase that you made cover to parcels, one belonging to Marina, the other one belonging to Regina, for clarification only?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes. When I came to know that one parcel is the one that belongs to Miriam, the sister of Cristina, and the other one, and the other with the seven titles belong to Cristina Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright. Now, if, as you said, you—by the way, are you in—how often have you seen Mrs. Corona prior to the sale?

MR. VICENTE.  I only saw her twice when I bought the property and paid them in cash, ah, in manager’s check way back in 1990. And the second time I saw her was last January 19 when she called me up.  When she called me up and said, can I borrow the original Deed of Sale of that particular property since it is still under my name.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  How about Chief Justice Corona, how often do you meet him?

MR. VICENTE.  I have not seen him for the past 22 years except last January 19, or even talk to him on phone.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  When was the last time you met him?

MR. VICENTE.  I met him last January 19.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What year?

MR. VICENTE.  2012.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.

MR. VICENTE.  When they went to my place and asking for the original Deed of Sale.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Per the document of sale that you identified, the consideration is something five hundred nine thousand pesos.  Now, how were you able to pay that big amount?  What was your source of income at that time?

MR. VICENTE.  I was able to pay that amount not only five hundred nine thousand but one million eighteen thousand, because I bought the two lots.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  How were you able to produce that amount which you…

MR. VICENTE.  Because I sold my house in Tandang Sora prior to that year.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You mean house only or house and lot.

MR. VICENTE.  House and lot.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Where in Tandang Sora is that located or situated, that house and lot that you sold?

MR. VICENTE.  In Filland(?) Subdivision.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In?

MR. VICENTE.  Filland.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Filland Subdivision.  Magkano po nabili iyon o magkano po nyo ipinagbili?

MR. VICENTE.  I was able to sell it at 3.5 million.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.  And how were you paid?  Papaano po kayo nabayaran?

MR. VICENTE.  I was paid in cash.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And how did you dispose off that three million proceeds of the sale of your Tandang Sora property?

MR. VICENTE.  That is the time I started looking for a place where I can buy a land, and I found out there is an available one in Marikina Heights.  So, when I paid the land, I started constructing the house.  I rented a place near that place in Marikina where I stayed for four months and then after four months, I transferred to that house unfinished.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, I also recall you having stated that you paid this P509,000.00 purchase price in check, did I get you right?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, Sir.

VV JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Sir.  Now, you recall what check was that or which bank?  Natatandaan po ba ninyo kung anong banko iyong tseke ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko na ho maalala eh.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, examining these receipts that you identified,  which we will ask to be marked later for expediency, Your Honor.  Now, why are these parcel  still in the name of Ma. Cristina Corona, when according to you, you are already the owner of this property having purchased the same.

MR. VICENTE.  For lack of funds dahil nagpapagawa ako ng bahay, hindi na ho ako nagkaroon ng pagkakataon para mai-transfer sa pangalan ko.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but that was almost twenty two years ago.

MR. VICENTE.  Kaya nga ho hindi pa nga ho tapos iyong bahay ko nakalipat na ako doon eh.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi ho, paano ho, ibig kong sabihin meron ng kulang-kulang—mahigit ng 20 taon ninyong nabili hanggang ngayon hindi pa ninyo naoi-tra-transfer.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  I’m just wondering, Your Honor, if counsel is impeaching his own witness.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Why impeach….

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  With the line of questioning.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We submit, Your Honor, how could it be impeaching.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The counsel is just getting an explanation.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, you stated that you paid in check only you cannot remember which bank check is it.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, likewise, I heard you stated that it was a manager’s check.

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Going over your records, would you be able to present before this court any centilla of evidence covering the said check?  Maaari ho bang check up-in ninyo yong record ninyo at determine kung merong bakas, halimbawa Xerox copy o kung ano pa man?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala ho.  Dahil ang ano ko binigay ko lang yong manager’s check doon sa pinsan ko dahil tiwala ho ako e.  You know why?  Because the mother of the Justice is my ninang on my wedding and then his ninong is my father during his baptism.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi po kayo nadidinig.

MR. VICENTE.  Can I answer.  I trust Chief Justice Renato Corona because he is my kinakapatid because his ninong is my father and his mother is my ninang in my wedding.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, we have here, Your Honor, these photocopies of the real property tax receipts, Your Honor, the original of which we are showing to counsel for the prosecution for the purpose of giving them the opportunity to determine, Your Honor, whether the Xerox copies which we will be asked to be marked, Your Honor,  are genuine reproduction of the respective original, Your Honor.  We, therefore, request, Your Honor, most respectfully that OR No. 067947 be marked as Exhibit 134.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 4712627 be marked as Exhibit 135.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 4695440 be marked as Exhibit 136.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 0628337 be marked as Exhibit 137.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 0546929 be marked as Exhibit 138.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 0521695 be marked as Exhibit 139.  Official Receipt No. 0499523 as Exhibit 140.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark them accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 0467344, Your Honor, as Exhibit 141.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 036224 as Exhibit 142, Your Honor.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 0352886 as Exhibit 143.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  OR No. 289572 as Exhibit 144.

THEPRESIDING OFFICER.  142?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  144, Your Honor. OR No. …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … 0289571 as Exhibit 145.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  These are receipts of payment covering which lot?  The lot you acquired from Mrs. Corona or from Miriam Rocco?

MR. VICENTE.  From Miriam Rocco, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yun bang lupa na binili mo kay Miriam Rocco ay nasa pangalan mo na?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala pa, Sir.  Wala pa ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yung titulo, nasa yo?

MR. VICENTE.  Nasakin ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pero hindi mo pa rin inililipat sa pangalan mo?  Hindi mo pa rin inililipat sa pangalan mo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi pa rin ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O sige.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May ipinakikita po kayong isang sketch.  Ano ho bang tinutukoy nito?  Ipaliwanag po ninyo sa kagalang-galang na Hukuman.

MR. VICENTE.  Ito hong loteng ito, bale with eight titles, don ko po inilagay ang bahay ko sa dulo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po itong 13-B?  Kanino ninyo …

MR. VICENTE.  Lot 13-B belongs to Miriam Rocco.  And then seven titles belong …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the properties of?

MR. VICENTE.  Of Mrs. Corona.  Christina Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We’ll request, Your Honor, that this sketch, Your Honor, or graphic representation be marked as 146 for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, with the permission of the honourable Court, I’m showing you again a bunch of Xerox copies or photocopies of Real Estate Tax payments.  Kindly go over the same and tell us …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I just want to make a clarification, if I may, with the permission of counsel.  Yun bang si Miriam Corona may asawa?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko alam, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May anak?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko rin alam kung may anak.  The reason I bought it because there’s a power of attorney given to the sister, Christina, empowering her to sell the property.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, it was Christina Corona who sold that land of Miriam …

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … Rocco to you.  Ganon ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, he is going over the same.  My question is kindly go over the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga tinatanong ko …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … ang nagbenta sayo ng lupa ni Miriam Rocco ay si Mrs. Christina Rocco Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, Sir.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Under a power of attorney?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano yon, special power of attorney?

MR. VICENTE.  Special power of attorney.  I can show you the special power of attorney.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You have it with you now?

MR. VICENTE.  I have it with me.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  O sige.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Your honor, may we know the materiality of this line of questioning because the Deed of Sale only shows that the seller was Ma. Christina Rocco Corona.  Nothing was mentioned about Miriam, when we are only talking of the seven lots.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is the basis of objection—legal basis?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Immaterial.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please, this is to show the genuineness and …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer and you can make a re-cross.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Nasan don yung power of attorney?

MR. VICENTE.  Can I answer the question.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi kayo tinatanong.  May abogado.  Sige po.  Kunin ninyo yung dokumento, yung power of attorney na sinasabi ninyo.  Witness, Your Honor, going over his documents, Your Honor.  Witness, Your Honor, handed to this representation a special power of attorney dated August 10, 1984, purportedly executed by one Miriam B. Roco, in favour of Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, Your Honor, which we request to be marked as Exhibit 147.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And now, what is this certification dated July 17, 1980.  Ano po iyan?

MR. VICENTE.  Ibinigay ho sa akin ito ni Mrs. Cristina Roco to show me that she has the power of attorney for the sale of that particular property of her sister.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will request, Your Honor, that we be allowed to mark this—the document identified by the witness as Exhibit 148 for the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Your Honor, may I make this manifestation.  When we were presenting our evidence, the defense was very technical in their objection.  This is a document executed in 1984, this has nothing to do whatsoever of the alleged sale of the property, the Marikina property in 1990.

I cannot see the relevance, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, what is your objection?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel …

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  That have not even covered my cross examination, Your Honor.  I cannot understand when we were presenting, they were objecting left and right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because all your questions are objectionable.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  No, the questions are also objectionable.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer, and I told you already, counsel for the prosecution, that is proper for re-cross.  You can ask him additional cross examination question, and then, you bring all of these things out.  For heaven sake.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request, Your Honor, that the special power of attorney identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit 147, and the certification dated July 17, 1990 be marked as Exhibit 148.  We will have them Xeroxed, Your Honor, and we will request for a—to be allowed to substitute the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  Wala na.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are through with the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Re-cross.  Now, you ask all your questions to clarify all those things that you wanted to object—that you were objecting to.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Witness, hindi po ba ang pinag-uusapan natin dito ay iyong deed of sale, diumanong deed of sale na diumano’y binenta ni Ma. Cristina Corona, ang kanyang lupa sa inyo noong 1990, ito ba iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  E paano po nasama itong si Miriam, si Miriam Roco?

MR. VICENTE.  Kasi nabili ko nga ho iyong lupa, kasi ang nilagay ko ho—can I show you this map?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  O, sige po, sige po.

MR. VICENTE.  Dito ko po nilagay ang aking bahay, occupying the Miriam property and the Roco property, Miriam and Cristina property.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  So, itong bentahan na iyon ay magkaibang dokumento, ganoon po ba?

MR. VICENTE.  Magkaiba ho ang dokumento.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ngayon po, Mr. Witness, kanina po doon sa redirect examination, may narinig ako sa inyo, noong 1990 daw, may P1 milyon kayo dahil nagbenta kayo ng property sa—P1 milyon sa Quezon City.  Totoo po ba iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi lang P1 milyon, tatlo at kalahati ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah, tatlo’t kalahating milyon po.  Ganoon po ba.  Tatlo’ kalahating milyon.  Mr. Witness, kanina po noong tinanong ko kayo, sabi ninyo eh kaya hindi ninyo napalipat sa pangalan ninyo dahil wala kayong pambayad ng transfer tax, tama po ba iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eh, may tatlong milyon po kayo noong 1990, kinompyut po naming ang transfer tax noong 1990, lumalabas po na P2,599.92, aba eh paano po ba nangyari iyon?  May tatlong milyon kayo, iyong halagang wala pang limang libo eh hindi ninyo mabayaran.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No basis, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is proper.  Let the witness answer.

MR. VICENTE.  Kasi ho kaya ako nawalan ako ng pera ay nagpatayo ho ako ng bahay.  And it cost me so much.  Ay iyong gastos ko, iyong renta ko sa bahay na inuupahan ko during the construction of my house, hindi ho sumapat.  Kaya naubusan ho ako ng pera na pambayad ho ng transfer.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi po ba totoo noong 1990, nagbayad kayo ng real estate tax na nagkakahalaga din ng P2,594.88, hindi po ba totoo na nagbayad kayo ng real estate tax noong taong iyon.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ibig po ba ninyong sabihin mas una ninyong binayaran iyong real estate tax kaysa ipinalipat ninyo sa pangalan ninyo iyong titulo ng lupa, ganoon po ba?

MR. VICENTE.  Ganoon nga po ang nangyari dahil I was so busy constructing my house at that time.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eh, hindi po ba ang ibig sabihin ay busy din kayo sa pagpapagawa noon eh busy din kayo sa pagbabayad ng real estate tax, hindi ba ganoon din.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Pero nabayaran ninyo ang real estate tax, hindi po ba ganoon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Sabi po ninyo, kayo ay nagpatayo ng building noong 1990, totoo po ba iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Bahay ho.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eto bang building na ito, di po  ba totoo eh idine-clare ninyo for tax purposes.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Idineclare ninyo.  Eto po, mayroon po akong kopya ng certified copy ng tax declaration of real property, account number 123807, tax declaration number E 0017-136042.  At nakalagay po dito, dito sa bandang baba, may box po diyan, doon sa printed word na building, mayroong X, ito po ba ang tax declaration ng building ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Bahay ho iyan.  Bahay.  Hindi building.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Bahay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I-clarify ko lang po, Ginoong Witness.  Alin ang naunang bentahan, iyong pitong parsela na lupa ni Maria Cristina Roco Corona o iyong kay Miriam Roco?

MR. VICENTE.  Isinabay ko ho iyon, Your Honor.  Sabay ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Magkasabay.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino ang nataryo doon sa pagbebenta ng lupa ni Miriam Roco?

MR. VICENTE.  Bale isa lang ho iyong dokumento ko eh..  Iyong ke Miriam with a power of attorney kay Cristina and the other one iyong ke Cristina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Magkasama sa isang kontrata sa pagbebenta?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho.  Dalawa ho iyong aking deed of sale.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga, iyong pagbebenta ni Maria Cristina Roco Corona ng pitong parsela ng lupa, ang notaryo publiko ay Montoya.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sino ang notaryo publiko ay Montoya?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Sino ang Notaryo Publiko doon sa kontrata sa pagbebenta noong lupa ni Miriam Roco?

MR. VICENTE.  Can I check my record, sir?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you…

MR. VICENTE.  Can I check my record?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, sige.

(Witness is checking his record.)

MR. VICENTE.   Your Honor, it’s Atty. Montoya.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kasama mo rin si Mrs. Corona noong nagpunta kayo kay Montoya?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Magkaibang araw ba iyong pagpunta ba ninyo noong ibinenta iyong pitong parsela at noong ibinenta iyan kay Miriam Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  I’ll check it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Magkaibang araw?

MR. VICENTE. Hindi ko matandaan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anong petsa noong bentahan ninyo ni Miriam Corona?

(Witness is checking his record.)

MR. VICENTE.  July.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    July ano?

MR. VICENTE.  July 26, 1990.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Iyan ang kay Miriam Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ang kay Ma. Cristina Roco-Corona?

MR. VICENTE. The same date ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ah, parehong date?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    So, pinagsabay iyong benta sa iyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Bali walong parsela ang ibinenta sa iyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, sige.

Samakatuwid, magkakasabay na ibinenta ni Ma. Cristina Roco-Corona iyong pitong parsela ng lupa na nasa pangalan niya at iyong lupa ni Miriam Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, sige.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.    We will request, Your Honor, that the Deed of Absolute Sale …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, sandali lang.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Sige po. Sige po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Para makumpleto ko iyong para sa husgado at iyong bayad noong lupa ni Miriam Corona ay iba bang manager’s check iyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho, isa lang ho, isa lang manager’s check.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Isa lang?

MR. VICENTE.  Receipt.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Ang kabuuan ay magkano?

MR. VICENTE.  P1,018,000.00.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano bang area noong kay Miriam Corona?

MR. VICENTE. 1,700 square meters.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Ganoon din iyong area na ipinagbili ni Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Okay.  Miriam Roco pala, Miriam Roco.  Iyong kay Miriam Roco 1,700?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At iyong kay Mrs. Corona, si Ma. Cristina Roco-Corona 1,700 din?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Samakatuwid ang presyo noong lupa ay pareho?

MR. VICENTE. Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  P509,000.00 iyong kay Miriam Roco at P509,000.00 din iyong kay Cristina, pero, iisang managers check.

MR. VICENTE. Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi ka pumirma ng resibo in favor of Miriam Roco.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi na po dahil merong siyang Special Power of Attorney.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ang tumanggap nung kabuuan nung presyo ng walong parcel ng lupa ay si Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Okay.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of the honourable court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Then we will request that the Deed of Absolute Sale identified by the witness covering the property of Miriam Roco consisting of two pages be marked as exhibit 149, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Mr. Vicente, kelan po ba nyo unang nalaman na tetestigo kayo sa kasong ito?

MR. VICENTE.  Nung January 19, tumawag sa akin si Mrs. Corona na kung pwede daw nyang mahiram yung kopya ng Absolute Deed of Sale.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ipinaliwanag ba nya kung ano itong kasong naka-pending dito sa impeachment court?

MR. VICENTE.  Kailangan daw nya ho dahil meron daw ho kaso sa impeachment iyong si Justice.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Iyon po ay January 19.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo, January 19.  Can I add something?  Ito ho iyong resibo nung January 19 na tinanggap nya sa akin, the original copy of the Deed of Sale.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ito pong si Mrs. Corona, dati na po bang kayong nagtatawagan nito?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko nakakausap iyan for the past 20 years since I bought the property.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Saan po kayo tinawagan sa landline, sa  cellphone?

MR. VICENTE.  Sa cell—wala ho akong cellphone eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah, wala kayong cellphone.

MR. VICENTE.  Sa landline.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Pero sa loob po ng 20 taon hindi po kayo nagkakausap kahit sa telepono?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho, hindi ho nakakausap iyang mag-asawa.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Napuna ko po, Mr. Vicente na doon sa mga resibong inyong ipinakita ay ang lumalabas na nagbabayad ay si Mrs. Cristina Corona, maliban na lamang sa isang resibo.   Ipinakikita ko po  sa inyo itong exhibit 123 ng defense, na lumalabas po dito kahapon, March 12 ay may binayaran dito na nagkakahalaga ng P12,749.60, and for the first time din po ay lumabas ang pangalan ninyo, received from Demetrio Vicente.  Pwede po bang ipaliwanag ninyo ito?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, what is the question now?  There are several questions eh, may we request…

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Pwede bang ipaliwanag ninyo kung bakit kahapon nagbayad kayo nitong real property tax.  Eto po, eto, para huwag kayong mailto.

MR. VICENTE.  Eto ho 19….iyan po nakalagay ang pangalan ko diyan, 2008, received from Demetrio Vicente the amount…2008.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  O, sige po, so dalawa po.  Meron pa po bang iba na resibo na sinasabing received from Demetrio Vicente?

MR. VICENTE.  Eto pa po.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO. E, di po ba ang nakalagay dito ay received from Roco, Miriam, hindi po kayo.

MR. VICENTE.  Ayun ang pangalan ko andun sa ilalim.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ah, kayong dalawa ang lumalabas na nagbayad.  Ano pa ba ang ibang resibo na nandoon ang pangalan ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  2010.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Kanina po may ipinakita ako sa inyong tax declaration…

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  … yong sa building ninyo, Account No. 123807.   Doon po sa ipinakita ninyong resibo na sabi ninyo pangalan din ninyo ang lumabas, naroon din ang Account No. 123807.  Ibig sabihin ba nito ay yong building ang inyong binabayaran ng tax at hindi yong lote?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho, lote ho at saka building.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eto nga po e.  Para hindi po kayo malito, basahin po muna ninyo itong tax declaration of real property na nakalagay po dyan building.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Wala po doong x yong land.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi iba ho yong receipt noong land e.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Oo nga po.  Eto pong pinagbabasehan po natin yong account number, eto po yon e.  Kasi po magkapareho po yong account number na nakalagay dyan sa tax declaration na sinasabing building at pareho din dito sa resibo na sinasabing Account No. 123807.  Kung inyo pong susundin yan ay lumalabas building ang binabayaran ninyo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question, Your Honor, appear to be misleading because there are two payments in there—one for the land, one for the building.  Improvement, Your Honor.  They cover two different subjects, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  May tanong po nga ako sa inyo na kung ito po ang pagbabatayan nitong tax declaration of real property under Account No. 123807 at ihahambing ito, pagtatabihin dito sa inyong resibo, lumalabas po na inyong binabayaran, ang covered ng resibo na ito ay yong tax don sa building.  Hindi po ba?  Pwede po bang ipaliwanag yan?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question appears to be predicated on a different tax declaration.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  No.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is trying to ask the witness to explain why there are two receipts.  My understanding is, also of the Presiding Officer is when you have a land plus a building, then they are covered by one tax declaration.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  From our experience, Your Honor, now, humility aside, they have quite separate receipts for the improvement and for the building.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, let the witness answer.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Sige po sagot kayo.

MR. VICENTE.  Can I answer.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Sige po.

MR. VICENTE.  Yong building ho ibang resibo yon.  Yong real estate of land, iba pa rin ang resibo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Pwede po ba ninyong ipakita yong resibo doon sa building?  Heto nga po, etong inyong prinisinta na sinasabi ninyong resibo para sa building, heto nga po.  Yon pong numerong 123807 ay iyan din po nga ang lumalabas dito sa tax declaration para sa building.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Kaya itong…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang para maklaro dahil kuwan e.  Yong account number ng real estate tax para sa bahay ay kapareho noong account number doon para doon sa lupa hindi ba?  Yon ang ibig mong sabihin?

MR. VICENTE.   Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFICER.  Hindi ba, Mr. Counsel?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Magkaiba po yon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Magkaiba.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ang sa lupa po ay Account No. 55816.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, yon ang ikinatatayo noong bahay ni Mr. Vicente.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi po, dalawa yon e.  55815 and 5816.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mr. Vicente, linawin ko lang.

MR. VICENTE.  Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yong bahay mo ay nakatirik sa isang lote.

MR. VICENTE.  Dalawang lote ho ang tinayo ko.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  A, dalawang lote.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Ngayon, ano ang account number nung mga lote na kung saan ay nakatirik yung bahay mo?

MR. VICENTE.  Teka, hahanapin ko.  Ang alam ko lang ho Lot No. 13.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, yung Lot No. 13, may tax declaration yon.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anong tax declaration non?  May Lot 13 e.  Lot 13 sabi niya.  O sige, anong tax declaration niya?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request most respectfully, Your Honor, for (inaudible)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you please use the microphone.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request for a (inaudible) of the question, Your Honor.  Apparently, the witness did not understand it.  He did not get it, pakiulit ninyo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yun bang lote trese na lupa, doon mo itinayo yung bahay mo?

MR. VICENTE.  Yung kalahati don, tapos yung iba …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi.  Anong lote mo ang …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Saan nakatirik yung bahay ninyo?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Saan nakatayo yung bahay mo?  Anong lote?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Anong lote?

MR. VICENTE.  Lot 13 and Lot 13-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Lot 13-B at Lot 13.

MR. VICENTE.  Thirteen-A-1.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sandali lang.  Lot?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ulitin po ninyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Lot 13-A-1 and Lot 13-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ang pinagtayuan mo ng bahay mo?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, ano ang tax declaration noong Lot 13-A-1 at 13-B?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo nandirito.  Pero hindi ko alam …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, sabihin mo, anong tax declaration number?

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. HONASAN.  Senator-Judge Ralph Recto would like to intervene to clarify.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I just want to finish this.  I will recognize Senator Recto.

SEN. HONASAN.  Thank you, Mr. President.  We submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anong tax declaration number?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko ho alam e.  Hindi ko makita rito.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anong tax declaration number noong bahay mo?  Dahil sinabi ng abogado mo magkaiba yung tax declaration nung improvement.  Improvement yung bahay mo.  Yung kinatatayuang lupa, magkaiba daw ang tax declaration.  Kaya tinatanong ko yan.

MR. VICENTE.  Ang nandito lang ho yung account number.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga, ang tinatanong ko yung tax declaration sapagka’t ang alam ko, iyong tax declaration ng lupa at ng improvement, magkasama.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi nga ho, iba nga ho ito.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iba iyong account number kaysa sa tax declaration.

MR. VICENTE.  Can I have somebody to help me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, alright.  I will recognize the Gentleman from Batangas to help the witness.

REP. RECTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. President, baka siguro dahil may kinalaman to sa real property taxes, at ito, araw-araw, trabaho ng asawa bilang governor sa lalawigan ng Batangas, sa pagkaintindi ko, dalawa ang loteng pinag-uusapan niya at may isang improvement na bahay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Oo.

REP. RECTO.  Posible po na dalawa o tatlo ang tax declaration niyan.  Ang isa, doon sa isang lote, iyong isa naman, doon sa pangalawang lote, at possible, may isa pa iyan, para sa bahay.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

REP. RECTO.  So, posibleng tatlo ang tax declaration ho ninyo o di kaya, dalawa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  E di sabihin niya kung tatlo o dalawa.

REP. RECTO.  Iyan ho ang tatanungin ko.  Tama ba yon, sa dami ng mga dokumentong pinamarkahan ninyo kanina.  Ang binabayaran ninyo, may tax declaration kayo para sa dalawang lote.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

REP. RECTO.  At mayroon din kayong binabayaran na isa pang real property tax para sa improvement o bahay o building.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

REP. RECTO.  Samakatwid, tatlo iyon.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

REP. RECTO.  Sa isang taon, tatlo ang binabayaran.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Di sabihin mo kung—para maintindihan ng husgado, ano iyong mga tax declaration for the house?

REP. RECTO.  Di ko nga ho alam kung asan iyon dito e.

MR. VICENTE.  Eto nga, nandito na ho ang resibo, wala ho akong nakikitang declaration number na alam e.

REP. RECTO.  Pwede ko ho bang lapitan para tingnan ko yong resibo?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, I was about to propose, if it will not be asking too much, that the witness be given up to tomorrow, so that he can examine his—this is a 20-year old transaction, Your Honor.  He may have in his possession the tax declarations that are being touched in the question of the honorable court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is under cross by the prosecution, if they agree, I have no objection.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because wala pong—the way I recall, Your Honor, there is no tax declaration that he had testified to but tax receipt.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo, Mr. Counsel, paano ka magbabayad ng real estate tax na walang tax declaration?  Iyong owner of the property will make a declaration for real estate purposes, office, land and the value of that land, the assessed value.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Per lot.  Kaya nga tinatanong ko kung ano ang tax declaration niyan?  The Gentleman from Batangas.

REP. RECTO.  Mr. President, iyong hawak po niya ay resibo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga.

REP. RECTO.  So, hindi iyong tax dec mismo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

REP. RECTO.  Pero tama po iyon, nakita ko iyong drawing nyo doon, at doon sa mga nakita kong resibo, lumalabas, tatlo nga ang binabayaran niya.  Iyong dalawang lote, isang lote noong kay …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Miriam.

REP. RECTO.  Malamang, base doon sa drawing niya, kay Miriam, iyong isa, kay Cristina, at iyong isa naman …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Bahay.

REP. RECTO.  … improvement of building o bahay niya.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, lahat ba iyong—iyong parsela ni Miriam ay isang tax declaration iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  Isang declaration iyon dahil iba ang may-ari.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyong pitong parsela ni Maria Cristina Roco Corona, isang tax declaration din po iyon.  Ngayon, iyong bahay, isang tax declaration.

SEN. RECTO.  Posibleng isang tax declaration din iyon base sa mga resibong nakita ko.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pero, magkaibang mga account number.

SEN. RECTO.  Magkakaiba kaya magulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga.  Iba iyong account number noong mga parsela sa pangalan ni Maria Cristina Roco Corona at iba rin ang account number sa tresurerya noong lupa na ipinagbili na pag-aari ni Miriam Roco.

SEN. RECTO.  It appears that way, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At iyong bahay iba rin ang account number.

SEN. RECTO.  Iba naman din iyon.  Tama ho iyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo, ang alam ko kung may bahay ka ide-declare mo iyong value noong lupa, assessed value, plus the improvement sa tax declaration.

SEN. RECTO.  Depende iyan sa local government unit.  Minsan po naiiba.  Minsan naman, kung tama ang computerization mo, nasa isang tax declaration iyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, go ahead.

SEN. RECTO.  Mr. President, sa dahilan na nandito na rin ako, baka puwede akong magtanong ng dalawa o tatlong tanong lang just for clarification.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.  Subject to the pending re-cross of the prosecution.

SEN. RECTO.  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Isang katanungan para sa ating lead ng defense counsel.  Ang dahilan kung bakit pinaharap ninyo ang testigo ninyo sa araw na ito para patunayan na ang lupang ito ay ibinenta noong taong 1990.  Tama ho ba iyon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po.

SEN. RECTO.  At kung binenta noong 1990, hindi na dapat ilagay sa SALN ni Chief Justice Corona after 1990.  Halimbawa, 2010, 11, hindi ho ba?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It should be that way.

SEN. RECTO.  It should be that way.  Nguni’t doon sa SALN ng Chief Justice noong 1992, bakit nandoon pa rin nakalagay iyong property ng Marikina?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because the purchase, they have not declared it in his name.  So, the records of whether the Register of Deeds or the Assessor’s Office will show that they are still in the name of the original owner.

SEN. RECTO.  Bakit noong 1993, tinanggal na kung iyon ho ang paliwanag ninyo?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I did not get it, please.

SEN. RECTO.  So, ulitin natin.  Nabanggit ninyo na ibinenta ito.  At mukha namanng totoo na binenta noong 1990.  Ang tanong ko, bakit sa SALN ng Chief Justice noong una siyang pumasok sa pamahalaan, July, 1992, base sa mga dokumento, naroon pa rin in July 1992.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am not privy as yet to the contents …

SEN. RECTO.  And, therefore, that is why I support the call of the Senate President na ang makakasagot lang ng mga katanungan na ito ay ang Chief Justice lamang.  Kasi nandoon pa rin sa 1992 SALN form eh.  Hinihintay ko kaninang tanungin ng prosecution iyan, hindi tinanong.  Ngayon naman, tatanungin ko ang prosecution.  Mr. Prosecutor, you cross-examined the witness earlier trying to prove, it appeared to me, it appeared, I suppose, to many of the Senator-Judges as well, na parang pinapalabas ninyo na hindi totoo at simulated iyong sale noong 1990, tama ho ba iyon?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Tama ho iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  Iyan ang linya ninyo, para magkaintindihan tayo what is the purpose of your cross-examination.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Tama ho iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  The purpose is, to show na hindi totoo iyong bentahan.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Tama ho iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  Okay.  Base sa mga dokumento mayroon kami dito, na galing na rin sa inyo, may mga buwis na binayaran noong 1990.  Mahirap sabihin na hindi totoo iyon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ang pagkaalam ko po, kung ako po ay hindi nagkakamali, iyong mga ibinabayad na iyon ay sa pangalan lahat ni Maria Cristina Corona sa mga resibo.

SEN. RECTO.  I am talking about the absolute sale, the deed of absolute sale.  Mayroon doon sa likod na exhibit something, I can get to my table and read it to you, iyong binanggit ninyo kanina, capital gains, documentary stamp tax, lahat nabayaran puwera lang iyong transfer tax hindi ho ba?

MR. VICENTE. Naroon nga po iyon, nakatatak sa likod.

SEN. RECTO. Naroon iyon. Tama, ‘no.  So, mahirap naman—may mga pangalan diyan sa BIR, may mahahalagang binayaran doon, mahirap naman i-simulate iyan way back in 1990.  Ngayon lang ang impeachment. I mean, mahirap namang paniwalaan na sinimulate iyan, ngayon, lang dahil nagkaroon ng impeachment. Eh, kung iyong dokumento nakalagay diyan 1990 pa.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Ayaw ko naman pong mag-speculate, pero, ang alam ko po ay iyong certificate authorizing registration, eh, wala pa po silang naipiprisinta hanggang sa ngayon. Hindi po ba kapag nagbayad …

SEN. RECTO. Dahil hindi pa—hindi noong 1990, maaaring wala pang computeraized CAR.  Wala pa noong panahong iyon, eh.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.   Kaya nga po, ‘di siguro naman po ngayon, pwede ng makakuha kung—pwede naman po sigurong …

SEN. RECTO.   Kung ililipat niya sa pangalan niya. Ganoon ba?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO. Ganoon nga po kung talagang ilipat.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama. Tama.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO. Ganoon nga po. Kung talagang ililipat.

SEN. RECTO. Tama.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Eh, kaso nga po hindi inililipat eh.

SEN. RECTO. Oo, pero, hindi naman mali dahil 90% sa buong Pilipinas mga tax declaration at hindi titulo.  Sa katunayan, marami doon sa aming lalawigan sa Batangas, hindi talaga nililipat mula sa pangalan ng lolo sa kanilang mga apo. Nangyayari talaga iyan. Hindi ho ba?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.   Tama ho iyan, Batangueño din po ako. Talaga pong ganoon sa probinsiya natin.

SEN. RECTO.  Tama po iyon.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.   Ang nagtataka lang po ako dito …

SEN. RECTO. Oo.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.    … mukhang lumalabas, hindi na nga inilipat pati iyong Deed of Sale ay hindi in-annotate sa title.  Hindi ba pwede naman po? Kung ayaw po nilang ipalipat, pwede po iyon, pero, at least man lang iyong Deed of Sale, itatak doon sa titulo.

SEN. RECTO.   At least, maliwanag iyong pinapatunay ninyo na you are claiming, in effect, it is a simulated sale?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.   Tama po iyon.

SEN. RECTO.  Sa depensa naman, ang pinapakita ninyo talagang nagkabentahan way back in 1990?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct.

SEN. RECTO.  Ang isang tanong ko lang nga na nabebitin, eh, bakit nandoon pa rin sa SALN noong 1992?  At dahil sa nabanggit ninyo kanina, mukhang hindi ninyo masasagot iyon, siguro nga, pinakamaganda para sumagot sa mga ibang katanungan na katulad niyan ay walang iba kung hindi si Chief Justice Renato Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi naman siguro sapagkat these are official transactions duly recorded and so on, but here is my observation. 1992, wala pa po sa Supreme Court si Chief Justice Corona.

SEN. RECTO.  Correct, correct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, wala itong—itong SALN will not come into force, Your Honor.

SEN. RECTO.  Mayroon kaming kopya, 1992 first time he entered the government.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  1992?

SEN. RECTO. 1992, July.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Eh, wala …

SEN. RECTO.   Oo, nakalagay din dito.  Nakalagay, Marikina, donation 1980, land, Marikina.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Oho.

SEN. RECTO. So, I supposed it is the same property we are talking about. I just want it to put that on record. Sana makatulong ako, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you. Thank you. Nakatulong po kayo.

SEN. RECTO.  Doon sa tatlong tax declaration.  Maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi ko maintindihan iyong sistema ng declaration. So, alright, counsel for the prosecution, continue with your recross.

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Wala na po akong tanong sa recross kasi nasabi ko na po  kay Senator Recto iyong gusto kong sabihin na hind in-annotate doon sa titulo iyong Deed of Sale. Hindi ko na po itatanong iyon. Wala na po akong tanong.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi mo na itatanong iyong sa testigo?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO. Hindi na.  Hindi na po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Hindi mo na tatapusin iyong recross mo?

ATTY. JUSTINIANO.  Hindi na po. Tama na po iyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  O, sige. Alright, any redirect?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are through, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He was on recross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ang ating testigo ay discharged.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman …

SEN. HONASAN. Senator Jinggoy Estrada wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  May isang katanungan lang po, Ginoong Vicente, noong 1990, ano ba ho ang trabaho ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Noong 1990 …

SEN. ESTRADA.  Opo.

MR. VICENTE. … wala na po  akong heavy equipment. Mayroon akong mga payloader before prior to that date kanya ibinenta ko nga iyong aking ano, iyong aking mga bahay doon, eh, wala na nga ho akong income.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, nasa construction business ba ho kayo noong 1990?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi. Rental.

SEN. ESTRADA. Ah, rental.

MR. VICENTE. Rental ng mga heavy equipments. Payloader in particular.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Hanggang kalian ho ang negosyo ninyong rental ng mga heavy equipments?

MR. VICENTE.  I started that business from 1975, ‘76 …

SEN. ESTRADA.  Up to?

MR. VICENTE.  … with one unit, medyo dumami ng dumami because of sub-contracts and then I put up a house in Tandang Sora.  After that, in 1990 naubos na nga iyong mga units naibenta ko na…

SEN. ESTRADA.  Kumita na po kayo?

MR. VICENTE.  Eh, syempre, nakapagpatayo nga ho ako ng bahay eh.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Magkano naman po ang kinita ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Naku, hindi ko na po matandaan dahil syempre alam mo…

SEN. ESTRADA.  Magkano po inabot iyong bahay ninyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Sa Tandang Sora?

SEN. ESTRADA.  Opo.

MR. VICENTE.  Siguro mga dalawa.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Dalawang milyon?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Opo.

MR. VICENTE.  Eh, nakuha ko iyong lote in exchange of my car and some cash.

SEN. ESTRADA.  All right.  Is your business still existing?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala na nga ho eh.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ah, wala na. Ano na ho ang trabaho—Hindi na ho kayo nagtatrabaho ngayon?

MR. VICENTE.  Meron ho akong share dun sa apartment ng pamilya, iyon ho ang aking income, then, some amount from my daughter from Kuwait.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ah, may daughter from Kuwait?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, magkano ho ang kinikita nyo buwan-buwan ngayon?

MR. VICENTE.  Roughly, with my wife’s earnings from her apartment…about 25.

SEN. ESTRADA.  25 thousand?

MR. VICENTE.  Plus my daughter’s, iyong abot ng anak, siguro may mga…

SEN. ESTRADA.  Wala pa rin ho kayong balak na ilipat iyong titulo iyong pinagbilhan nyo kay Mrs. Corona saka kay Mrs. Miriam Roco, wala pa rin kayong balak ilipat sa pangalan ninyo.

MR. VICENTE.  ‘Pag nagkaroon ho ako ng pera dahil meron ho akong…

SEN. ESTRADA.  Magkano lang ba ho, ang sinabi ho ni Atty. Justiniano na ang transfer tax lang e two thousand five hundred lang.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho ganon dahil nagkaroon ho ng penalty iyon for that transferring…

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, magkano kung babayaran nyo lahat ang transfer tax nung titulo, magkano ho aabutin?

MR. VICENTE.  Roughly mga P200,000.00 yata.

SEN. ESTRADA.  P200,000.00.  So, ngayon, you still cannot afford.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi pa po eh.

SEN. ESTRADA.  To pay the transfer tax.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi pa po.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Because you are only receiving P25,000 a month.

MR. VICENTE.  Saka nagkaroon ho ako ng sakit eh, na-stroke ako twice kaya medyo bulol ho ang pagsasalita ko.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Iyon lamang po at maraming salamat po.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. HONASAN.  Senator Frank Drilon wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Drilon has the floor.

SEN. DRILON.  Ilang katanungan po.  Sabi nyo binenta nyo bahay nyo sa Tandang Sora ng 2 milyong piso?

MR. VICENTE.  3.5 po.

SEN. DRILON.  Ah, 3.5 million.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Kailangan nyo po ibenenta ito?

MR. VICENTE. Early 1990.

SEN. DRILON.  Early 1990.  Hindi po prior to 1990?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi po.

SEN. DRILON.  Ha?

MR. VICENTE.  Kaya ho nung maibenta ko naghanap ako ng malilipatan na bibilhing bahay.

SEN. DRILON.  So, kalian nyo po ibenenta ulit ito iyong sa Tandang Sora, early 1990?

MR. VICENTE.  Early 1990.

SEN. DRILON.  Mga Enero kaya?

MR. VICENTE.  Enero, Pebrero, somewhere.

SEN. DRILON.  Okay.  E, bakit po noong sa Deed of Sale na may petsang 26 July 1990, iyong inyong address ay Tandang Sora pa rin?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Bakit po?

MR. VICENTE.  Eh, dun pa po ako nakatira.

SEN. DRILON.  Eh, sabi nyo ibenenta nyo na.

MR. VICENTE.  Medyo matagal ho ako nabayaran non eh, unti-unting binayaran sa akin.

SEN. DRILON.  Ah, unti-unting binayaran sa inyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Nung ma-full, nung paid na, doon ako umalis.

SEN. DRILON.  Installment ang bayad sa inyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi naman ho.  From February up to July.  Hanggang hindi ako nabibigyan ng full payment, hindi pa ako umaalis sa bahay na iyon.

SEN. DRILON.  Hindi ka pa umaalis hanggat hindi pa buo iyong bayad.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Ngayon, kayo po nakatira nung ginawa po itong Deed of Sale sa 22 Filland Homes.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo, Tandang Sora.

SEN. DRILON.  Tandang Sora.  Si Mrs. Corona ay taga Xavierville, Loyola Heights.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Iyong  Residence Certificate nyo po ay Quezon City?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Ngunit nung binili nyo poi tong lupang ito, lahat kayo ay nagpunta ng Makati.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Bakit kaya?

MR. VICENTE.  Kumuha po ako ng sedula, and at the same time nagpanotaryo ako ng Deed of Sale.

SEN. DRILON.  Paano, paano po?

MR. VICENTE. Nagpa-notarize ho kami ng Deed of Sale.

SEN. DRILON.  Nagpa-notarize kayo ng Deed of Sale, teka,  nung ibenenta nyo po. yong Tandang Sora, may sedula na po kayo noon?

MR. VICENTE.  Meron ho.

SEN. DRILON.  Huh?

MR. VICENTE.  Meron ho.

SEN. DRILON.  Meron.  Yong sedula nyo iba doon sa sedulang ginamit…

MR. VICENTE.  E nawala nga ho yong sedula ko kaya kumuha uli ako e.

SEN. DRILON.  Nawala yong sedula nyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Ah okay.  Ngayon, doon po dito sa deed of sale, ang testigo po dito si Renato C. Corona.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Sino po tong isang testigo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko na ho natatandaan kung sino yan.

SEN. DRILON.  Merong Regina.  Meron ba kayong Reginang kilala?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko ho naano.

SEN. DRILON.  Hindi ko po mabasa ang kanyang family name pero Regina hindi ko noo kilala.  Ito po bang kayo, si Mrs. Cristina Corona, si Renato Corona at isa pang testigong may pangalang Regina, kayo po ba lahat nagpunta ng Notaryo Publiko sa Makati?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. DRILON.  Lahat kayo apat.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo—ah hindi kasama yong babae.

SEN. DRILON.  Huh?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi kasama yong babae.  Yong Regina hindi ko nakita yon.

SEN. DRILON.  Pero ang sabi dito pinirmahan at nilagdaan sa prisensya nitong Regina.

MR. VICENTE.  E abogado ho ba yan o yong witness?

SEN. DRILON.  Kung testigo po, testigo ito po.

MR. VICENTE.  Witness ho yan ano?

SEN. DRILON.  Opo, opo.

MR. VICENTE.  E hindi  ko nakita ho yan e.

SEN. DRILON.  O sige.  Hindi na po ako magtatanong at lalo akong nahihirapan.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gentleman from…

SEN.HONASAN.  Mr. President, Senator Alan Cayetano wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Minority Floor Leader.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Magandang hapon, Mr. President, Ginoong Witness.  Magtatanong lang po ako para medyo ma-clarify ko rin po.  Ginoong Witness, magandang hapon po.

MR. VICENTE.  Good afternoon, sir.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Ayaw ko po kasi, Mr. Witness, magkamali dito at kung anuman ang magiging paghuhusga namin, kung guilty o innocent, gusto ko makasiguro kami kaya hindi ko po kinu-question ang integridad nyo.  Pagpasensyahan nyo po magtatanong po ako at bumubusina lang po ako at mawalang galang sa ibang tanong.  If it seems that I’m questioning yong iba nyong statement po mamaya but hindi po yon ang intension.  Para lang po tayo hindi magkamali mamaya.  Narinig nyo po yong sinabi noong prosekusyon po na ang teyorya nila o lumalabas po sa kanila ay nagtatago ng property ang Chief Justice sa inyo.  Iyan ang parang gusto nilang palabasin.  Pero  ang sinasabi ng depensa at sinasabi nyo hindi totoo yon talagang binili nyo.  Tama po ba?

MR. VICENTE.  Binili ko ho yan, dyan ho ako nakatira ngayon.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Sige po.  So parang ang gusto nilang palabasin ay nagtatago ang Chief Justice ng property sa inyo pero lumalabas ngayon ay sa inyo yon baka kayo pa ang nagtatago ng property sa pangalan nya.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Dahil nasa pangalan pa nya.  Hindi ho.  Eto po ang tanong ko—noong 1990 po noong binili nyo, pakiulit po, bukod po sa pagbenta nyo ng lupa ninyo, ano pong trabaho ang pinagkakakitaan ninyo noong panahon po na yon?

MR. VICENTE. During that time meron ho akong payloader for rent.  Nagumpisa ho ako 1975 ngayon ng isang unit and then nadagdagan ng nadagdagan yon.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So gaano kalaki po yong bahay nyo sa Tandang Sora noong panahon na yon?  More or less lang po magkano ulit ang bili nyo don sa lupa, kay Mrs. Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  One million.  Yung sa dokumento, one million.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Anong ibig nyong sabihin sa dokumento?

MR. VICENTE.  Yung Absolute Deed of Sale.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Iba ba ho yung actual nyong bili at saka yung nasa dokumento o pareho lang ba?

MR. VICENTE.  Pareho lang ho.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, one million.  Tapos magkano po ang pagawa nyo ng bahay nyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Inabot ho ng two, almost two e.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.  So halos naubos na po yung pinangbenta nyo ng bahay nyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Hindi pa ho tapos.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Malaki ho ba ipon nyo nung panahon na yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala nga ho kong ipon dahil yung perang napagbilan ko ng bahay …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yun na rin po ang ano.

MR. VICENTE.  … yun na rin ang …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, yung kinikita nyo, halos yung pangkabuhayan.

MR. VICENTE.  Wala na ho akong kinikita nung maibenta yung mga units ko.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.  Yung pitong titulo ho, it refers to two lots.  Gano kalaki po itong titulo?

MR. VICENTE.  Walo ho.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Walong titulo.

MR. VICENTE.  Refers to two.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Two lots?

MR. VICENTE.  Two properties.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Na one thousand …

MR. VICENTE.  One property is seven titles and the other one, one title.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  And then kinonsolidate na lang po yon?  Bale gano kalaki po yung lugar na yon?

MR. VICENTE.  Three thousand four hundred square meters.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Simula po non, don na kayo tumira?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi lang ako nakatira, hanggang ngayon.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Simula noon hanggang ngayon, meron ho bang tumutulong pag nagbabayad kayo ng buwis o kayo na ho mismo?  Kayo ho ba pumupunta sa Marikina o may inuutusan po kayo?

MR. VICENTE.  Ako mismo nagpupunta ron kasi meron ho akong income don sa apartment ng pamilya.  Yung misis ko, meron din ho siyang apartment and then my daughter.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  May kasambahay ho kayo?  May katulong po o driver?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala.  Dalawang lalaki yon, gardener.  I’m in the hobby of doing bonsai.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Opo.  So, dalawang gardener pero wala kayong …

MR. VICENTE.  And that’s the reason kaya kailangan ko malaking lote.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kaya ko po tinatanong para ma-ascertain ko bilang Senator-Judge whether or not sayo talaga yon o kay Chief Justice.

MR. VICENTE.  Akin talaga yon kahit na bukas pumunta kayo sa bahay ko

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pero pwede po kasing pinagamit sa inyo at pinabantayan.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi po.  Akin yon.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Nung nagka-stroke po kayo, sino nag-alaga po sa inyo kung pwede kung lang po itanong?

MR. VICENTE.  Yung matandang asawa ko.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yung asawa nyo po nag-ano sa inyo.

Close ba ho talaga kayo sa mag-asawang Corona o hindi po?  Paki-describe po yung relationship nyo.

MR. VICENTE.  Ang relasyon ho naming nyan, nung grade school pa yan high school nako dahil seven years ang tanda ko diyan e.  Ngayon, nakita ko yan nong araw sa Ateneo, grade school.  E di syempre, malaki difference, hindi ko masyado pinagkakakausap yan.  And then, nagkita nga kami ng malaman ko siya may-ari nung property because of the broker.  Nung malaman ko, sana nalaman ko earlier para hindi nako nagdaan sa broker, para yung maitatawad ko sa presyo hindi na magbibigay ng commission.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Sino po yung broker?  Naalala nyo po?

MR. VICENTE.  Mrs. Something.  Andun sa Marikina nakatira.  I’ve forgotten the name.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kasi po kanina, late po ako dahil masama pakiramdam ko.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo, kaya nga ho kayo hinihintay kong …  (Laughter)

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Magaling po kayong witness.  Kaya lang po, medyo masama pakiramdam ko.  So, pinapakinggan ko po kasi yung—si Justice Cuevas, tinatanong nya relationship mo, sabi mo, inaanak, kinakapatid, dib a?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kaya lang, nung tinanong ka kung nag-uusap ba sa telepono …

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ko nga ho nakakausap yan.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pero bayad po kayo?  Wala kayong utang sa mga Corona?

MR. VICENTE.  Ay wala ho.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kasi, usually, pag 20 years kayong hindi nag-uusap, either may utang na tinataguan o kaya magkagalit.  So kung close po talaga kayo, ni sa mga party po ba o family gathering e hindi kayo nagka—

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho.  Dahil nung mawala yung father ko saka father niya, ay dahil magkabarkada ho yon e.  E hindi na ho kami masyadong nagkikita.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kasi po, don po nagkakaron po ng diskusyon ngayon kung bakit kayo nagtiwala at hindi nyo nilipat yung titulo, at sabi nyo close kayo.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pero ngayon sinasabi nyo po ay magkadugo kayo pero hindi naman kayo nag-uusap.  Twenty years na hindi kayo nag—

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho, ito ho.  Bale ang tinatawag natin sa Tagalog, kinakapatid.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Opo.  Pero second cousins din po.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So dalawa relasyon nyo?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi.  Ang mother niya, ninang namin sa wedding nung asawa ko.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But aside from that isa kang Coronado.  S sa dugo, magka-related din po kayo?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pero kung close kayo, in the sense na meron po ba kayong personal relationship?

MR. VICENTE.  Wala ho.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pero yet, nagtiwala pa pa ho kayo.

MR. VICENTE.  E tiwala nga ho ako dahil barkada ng tatay ko ang tatay niya e.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  Nang nakaraang mga araw po, napanood niyo po iyong madre sa TV.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  Noong napanood niyo, nakita niyo may away sila sa property.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  Hindi kayo medyo nagdalawang-isip, kailangan ko bang ilipat na iyong titulo na ito?

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi ho, dahil …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  Dahil naniniwala po kayo.

MR. VICENTE.  Malaki ang tiwala ko ho diyan e.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  Even if hindi kayo ganoon ka-close sa kanila.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Tatlong magkakapatid iyan e.  Kilala ko hong lahat iyon.  Si Arturo, tapos, si Ruben.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  So, ibig sabihin po, kilalang kilala niyo sila, wala lang kayong personal relationship, …

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  … because of your parents and their parents, …

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  Nagkakaroon kayo ng relationship, magkakakilala doon.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.)  Last po, hindi po kayo nag-isip na baka mabenta ulit ang lupa niyo kasi hindi po naka-anotate man lang e.

MR. VICENTE.  Hindi po.  Naniniwala ako doon sa absolute deed of sale na sa akin ho ang titulo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Iyong anak niyo po, nasa abroad pa po o nandito na?

MR. VICENTE.  Kaaalis lang ho.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kaaalis lang.

MR. VICENTE.  Two months ago.  Dati nasa Dubai yon, nagpunta ng Bahrain, ngayon nasa Kuwait.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Well, salamat, Mr. Vicente.  Iyon lang po, dahil magiging napaka-essential iyong testimonya mo sa desisyon naming kung kanino ba talaga ang property na iyon.

MR. VICENTE.  Salamat din ho at dumating kayo.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Salamat po.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, Senator Loren Legarda wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady from Antique, Malabon and the Philippines.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  After all the questions that have been asked, what we just need to ascertain is whether the property really belongs to Mr. Vicente, and whether, indeed, it was a simulated sale or whether the property actually belongs to him.  Kaya karagdagang tanong lang po, Mr. Vicente, banggit kayo ng banggit ng asawa niyo, hindi ako sigurado po kung nabanggit niyo ang pangalan po ng asawa niyo, sino po ang asawa niyo, yong pangalan po.

MR. VICENTE.  Pangalan.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Opo.

MR. VICENTE.  Apelyido po, Morales.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Hindi, kayo po, Mr. Vicente, ang asawa po niyo …

MR. VICENTE.  Estrelita Morales.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Vicente.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  How long have you been married?  Gaano katagal na po kayo?

MR. VICENTE.  Naku po, ang tagal na noon .

SEN. LEGARDA.  Do you live …

MR. VICENTE.  46 years.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Estrelita Morales Vicente.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  Kasama po niyo ang asawa niyo sa inyong bahay?

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.  Siya lang ho ang asawa ko sa bahay na iyon.

MR. VICENTE.  Mula po ba noong inyong ipinatayo ang inyong bahay ay kasama po niyo ang inyong asawa niyo sa bahay niyo?

SEN. LEGARDA.  Gaanong katagal na po kayo sa bahay niyo?

MR. VICENTE.  22 years nap o.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Mula noong binili niyo iyan …

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Mula kay Chief Justice Corona …

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  … o sa kanyang pamilya.  Paano niyo mapapatunayan kaya sa amin na talagang doon kayo nakatira at nasa inyo ang property, maliban sa pumunta kami roon na wala po kaming panahon.  Ang katanungan ko po ay mayroon kaya kayong kamag-anak sa gobyerno o kakilala dito na nakapunta na sa bahay niyo, sa Vicente side, sa Morales side o maski sino man na maaaring makatestigo na, ah, talagang sa kanila iyan, nakatira sila diyan, at hindi kay Corona iyan kundi sa Vicente family.  Is there anyone in this room or anyone at all that we could probably know who can say that you actually own the property or your house.

MR. VICENTE.  Ang mga kilala ko, mga wala na sa Supreme Court e.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Ano po.

MR. VICENTE.  Mga wala na sa Supreme Court.  Iyong dalawa nandoon pa, iyong isa wala na.  Conchita Carpio-Morales, bale iyong asawa, pinsang-buo ng misis ko.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Ulit po, Estrelita …

MR. VICENTE.  Conchita Carpio-Morales.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Estrelita Morales-Vicente.

MR. VICENTE.  Conchita Carpio-Morales.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Ombudsman.

MR. VICENTE.  Ombudsman.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Former Justice.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Conchita Carpio Morales.

MR. VICENTE.  Nagpupunta ho sa bahay.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Did he testify on that earlier?  Okay, so, you are saying it for the first time.  Okay, I went to the restroom earlier.

MR. VICENTE.  Nagpupunta ho sila sa bahay ko.

SEN. LEGARDA.  I see, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales is a first cousin of Estrelita ….

MR. VICENTE.  The husband.

SEN. LEGARDA.  … Morales-Vicente, ang asawa, because she is a Carpio.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And she’s been to your house?

MR. VICENTE.  Yes.

SEN. LEGARDA.  How many times?

MR. VICENTE.  Once.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Once.  She knows that you actually own your house and you live there.

MR. VICENTE.  Yes.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Is there anyone else?

MR. VICENTE.  Justice Del Castillo who is now sick at the Asian Hospital.  He is growing bonsai and I am growing bonsai also.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And he has also been to your house po.  Nagpunta na po.

MR. VICENTE.  Yes, he has been to our house.

SEN. LEGARDA.  So, a former Justice now Ombudsman and another Justice had been to your house.  Nakita po kayong nakatira doon at hindi kay Justice Corona iyon at kayong mag-asawa po ang nakatira doon for 22 years.

MR. VICENTE.  Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Iyon lang po ang aking katanungan.  Gusto ko lang pong malaman kung talagang kayo po ang may-ari noon.  Hindi po na sinususpetsahan po namin kayo, just to be able to clarify all and put all the statements together.

MR. VICENTE.  Salamat po.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Salamat po, Mr. Vicente.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, there being no other Senator-Judges to propound questions, may we move to discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.  Thank you.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, we believe that the chief counsel for the defense has a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The chief counsel for the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I was about to move for a resetting, Your Honor, because it is already 6:40.  Secondly, the witnesses whom we intend to present had already asked our permission to be able to leave.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, we have other matters.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, on the participation of lawyers of Chief Justice Corona in the press conference alleging that some Senator-Judges were offered P100 million each to defy the TRO issued by the Supreme Court, the impeachment court required the defense counsel, particularly Atty. Jose M. Roy III, to cite the source of their information and the names of the Senator-Judges offered.  Attorney Jose M. Roy III was cited for indirect contempt yesterday and the penalty to be imposed was discussed in caucus.  The impeachment court is now ready to rule, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Well, the ruling of this court is as follows:

In relation to the finding of this court, that there are sufficient and justifiable reasons for citing Atty. Jose M. Roy III for indirect contempt of court, Atty. Roy is hereby reprimanded for not being candid and for taking lightly his commitment to the court by failing and/or refusing to give the required information.  This court must assert its dignity and honor in these proceedings.  The implication of the statement of one of the members of the defense panel is rather serious because it, in effect, suggests that this court could be paid in making a decision.  And I do not think that is a proper thing to do even to think about this impeachment court.  We may be politicians but we have our own integrity and honor that we have earned over time.

The court would like to remind and sternly warn the parties that it will not tolerate any further act which would cause any disrespect to the court or any of its Senator-Judges.

So Ordered.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Thank you, Mr. President.

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  May I be heard, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. ROY.  Mr. Presiding Officer, my apology and the apology of the defense counsel is on record.  We stand by our actions.  I accept your judgment and I thank you for sparing defense counsel.  Be that as it may, it is my privilege to serve the penalty in behalf of the defense counsel.  I honor the judgment of the court, and we all stand reprimanded and we shall be guided accordingly.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, this morning, counsel for Chief Justice Corona filed a motion to cite the House Majority Floor Leader Neptali Gonzales Jr. guilty of contempt of court.  Mr. President, to allow our colleagues time to go over the pleading filed, I move that the matter be taken up at our caucus on Monday, 19 March, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Is there any objection? (Silence) There being none, the motion shall be considered by the Court in its caucus on Monday, March 19, 2012.

REP. TUPAS. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes.  What is the pleasure of Chief Defense Prosecution.

REP. TUPAS.  With respect to that motion to cite in contempt the Majority Leader, we will file an opposition before the caucus on Monday. That is all, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.   Majority Floor Leader.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-arms to make an announcement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-arms will now please 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. HONASAN.  Mr. President, there being no other Business for the Day, we move that we adjourn until 2:00 p.m. of Wednesday, 14 March, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two o’clock of Wednesday, March 14, 2012.  (Gavel)

It was 6:51 p.m.

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Monday, March 12, 2012

At 2:08 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile Presiding.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of the impeachment trial of the honourable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of Supreme Court is hereby called to order.  (Gavel)

We shall be led in prayer by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

PRAYER BY SENATOR DEFRENSOR-SANTIAGO

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Secretary will now call the roll of senators.

THE SECRETARY.  The honorable Senators Angara; Arroyo; Cayetano, Allan Peter ‘Compañero’; Cayetano, Pia; Defensor-Santiago; Drilon, Ejercito-Estrada; Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmeña, Pangilinan, Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 19 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  (Gavel)

Majority Floor Leader

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

THE SEARGENT-AT ARMS.  All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 29, 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 February 29, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Appearances, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Secretary may now call the case.

THE SECRETARY.  Case No. 002-2011 in the matter of impeachment trial of honourable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Appearances.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Prosecution.

REP. AGGABAO.  Good afternoon, Your Honors.

The prosecution is ready.  Same appearance, Your Honor.  We’re ready till 7 o’clock, as agreed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  As noted.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  For the defense, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, counsel for Chief Justice Corona filed a motion to suppress illegality obtained evidence seeking to expunge from the record all evidence offered, received and proposed in relation to the subpoenas addressed to PSBank Branch Manager Miss Anabelle Tiongson.  For its part, the prosecution entered its opposition thereto.  The Impeachment Court issued on March 6 its ruling on the motion and the parties have been notified of the ruling of the court, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence dated February 27, 2012 is hereby denied for lack of proof.  (Gavel)  The Clerk of Court is directed to include the entire resolution in the record of the Impeachment Court.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Just for the record, as requested by Senator Pimentel, this motion was voted on unanimously by the Members of the Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, also as directed by the Court, the House panel of prosecutors filed on March 2, 2012 their formal offer of documentary evidence while the counsels for respondent, Chief Justice Corona, also as directed by the Court submitted their comments/objections thereto on March 7, 2012.  The Impeachment Court has ruled and made this Representation read the dispositive portion of the ruling of the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  Please read the dispositive portion of the ruling of the court.

SEN. SOTTO.  In view of all the foregoing, acting on the formal offer of documentary evidence of the prosecution, and the comment, objections of the defense thereto, the court resolves to admit exhibits A to seven Os and exhibit seven Qs to 10 Ns of the prosecution, subject to the appreciation of the individual Senator Judges, as to their weight and sufficiency for the purposes for which they have been offered.  Further, the foregoing documentary exhibits are admitted as part of the testimonies of the witnesses who testified thereon.

The tender of excluded evidence consisting of exhibits seven Ps to seven P-7 is hereby disallowed for being improper as these documents have already been excluded by the court because they tend to prove bribery, a crime not alleged in Article 3 of the Articles of Impeachment.  The tender of excluded evidence serves no purpose because there is no appeal from the decision of this court.  The prosecution is deemed to have rested its case, subject to its reservation on the presentation of evidence on the dollar accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona, should the Supreme Court rule that the presentation of evidence of such bank accounts before this court will not violate the provisions of Republic Act No. 6426.

The initial reception of evidence for the defense is set on March 12, 2012 at two o’clock in the afternoon.

So, ordered.  March 12, 2012, Pasay City, the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

REP. AGABAO.  Your Honor, please.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, the prosecution wishes to be recognized.

REP. AGABAO.  Your Honor, please, may we just reiterate, Your Honor, that with the admission of our documentary exhibits, as well as the testimonial evidence of our witnesses, Your Honor, the prosecution is resting its case, subject to the reservation we have earlier made pertaining to the dollar account of the Chief Justice …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, just wait for the written resolution of this particular matter by the court, and you may make a comment or assert your reservation after you have read it.

REP. AGABAO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, in compliance with the directive given by the Presiding Officer, the prosecution filed a notice, manifestation, confirming their oral manifestation that they have terminated the presentation of evidence on Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Articles of Impeachment, and that they will no longer present evidence on Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the prosecution submits that the impeachment court need not vote upon the charges in the abovementioned articles.

On March 8, counsel for Chief Justice Corona filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss the charges against the Chief Justice under the same articles with prejudice in view of the prosecution’s failure to prosecute and present evidence in relation thereto.

I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you, regarding the motion of the defense to formally dismiss Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Articles of Impeachment, the Impeachment court, in a caucus, decided not to act—not to entertain and act on the motion to dismiss, with a clear understanding however, that no evidence from both prosecution and defense panels will be received by the Impeachment Court on Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8, and furthermore, that the Members of the Impeachment Court will not render any vote on Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8, and that no verdict of the Impeachment Court will be rendered on Articles I, IV, V, VI, and VIII.  So Ordered.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, the prosecution also confirmed their oral manifestation that they are reserving and not waiving their right to present evidence pertaining to dollar accounts of the respondent in connection with Article II.  On March 7, counsel for Chief Justice Corona filed its opposition thereto praying that the impeachment court deny the reservation to present additional evidence on the alleged dollar accounts.  I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the motion, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This matter has already been ruled upon previously by this Court when we ruled on the suppression of the evidence involved.  But nonetheless, I would like that both panels will read the ruling of the court with respect to the admission of the offered evidence by the prosecution as well as its ruling on the objections or comments filed by the defense on that offer of evidence.  So Ordered.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are in receipt of a request of issuance of subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum to the Secretary General of the House of Representatives, several Representatives, and the Executive Producer Program Manager of the news program Headstart of the ABS-CBN news or the official custodian of its news videos to appear for examination before the impeachment court as to their knowledge or personal knowledge regarding the verification of the verified impeachment complaint.  I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is in connection with the ABS-CBN.

SEN. SOTTO.  And also the subpoena for the House of Representatives and other Representatives on the verification of the verified impeachment complaint, Mr. President.

THE PERESIDING OFFICER.  Since the purpose of the subpoena is to present evidence on the circumstances on the verification of the articles of impeachment, which has been previously ruled upon by this court when it considered the motion for preliminary hearing filed by the defense, the request is hereby denied.  With respect to … what else has been …  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  All of the requests are denied, Mr. President, for the record, including the request for the ABS-CBN custodian.  So, finally, Mr. President, on March 9, the prosecution filed its motion requesting that the defense panel be directed to manifest the order of its presentation of evidence in order to afford the prosecutors the opportunity to prepare for the reception of evidence for the defense.  .. Mr. President, I move to submit the motion for consideration by the Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, to be fair, in order to have an orderly proceedings, the defense is hereby ordered to comply.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we are now ready for the presentation of evidence by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The defense may now start presenting their evidence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, may we be allowed to be heard in connection with the rulings made by the honorable impeachment court on our motion for the hearing of our affirmative defences, Your Honor.  We were made to understand, Your Honor, that the same is hereby denied, Your Honor.  We understood in the previous ruling of this honorable court earlier made or promulgated that what was denied is a preliminary hearing.  And this in conjunction with expediting proceedings, Your Honor.  We were then satisfied that the introduction of our evidence Your Honor, in connection with the affirmative defense shall be made in the trial on the merits of this case, Your Honor, and that we are prepared to do, Your Honor. May we have subpoenaed—we have requested the appearance of our witnesses and also requested for the subpoena of our other witnesses, Your Honor.

We do not—we have not received any final adjudication on the validity and/or plausibility of the affirmative defenses we have set up in our answer, Your Honor, and this is more, particularly, involved the existence, your Honor, of probable cause and other matters in relation thereto, which nullifies the entirety of the proceedings being held by this Court.

We are charged with notice, Your Honor, that there may be some objection to this because, allegedly, we have gone this far but we are entirely hopeless, Your Honor. We have filed the motion for preliminary hearing.  That was denied, Your Honor. And our understanding of that denial is, we are precluded from presenting evidence on the affirmative defenses at that time, Your Honor, but never at any instance before the case submitted for decision.  Hence, we proceeded in participating with the trial on the merits, Your Honor.  And there are so many instances, Your Honor, even in the ordinary court of justice, Your Honor, where a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses, or a motion to dismiss or a demurrer to the evidence had been held in abeyance only to be resolved at the time or after the parties have been heard in a trial on the merit.  That was our assumption, Your Honor. We have we no reason to entertain the belief, Your Honor, much less, concur with the present developments that our affirmative defenses have been totally denied, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Your Honor,  I hope you understand our position. The rules governing preparation of the complaint on impeachment or resolution on impeachment is the function of the House and that the function of trying and deciding the case is lodged in this court. Now, this particular impeachment case was filed under paragraph four of Section 3 of Art. XI and I would like to read to the public and to this Court the provision of paragraph four. “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith begin.”

As far as this court understands this provision, there are two parts: that the complaint must be verified and that it must be filed by at least one-third of the House.

If I remember correctly, and I have here the Articles of Impeachment. “Republic of the Philippines, House of Representatives, House of Representatives Complex, Constitutional Hills, Quezon City, In the Matter of Impeachment of Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Representatives Niel C. Tupas Jr. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, Lorenzo R. Tañada III, Reynaldo V. Umali, Arlene J. Bag-ao, and other complainants comprising at least one-third of the total Members of the House of Representatives are indicated below.” So, these—there are five named of Congressmen, and as far as we can see, the articles of impeachment field in this court has been verified.  Now, we have to ask all the members of that court, that prosecuting body, whether they indeed, they read these articles of impeachment or not.  That would be tedious and I think that what was contemplated as far as the understanding of this court, what was contemplated that as long as one, two, three, four, five or one hundred of those who filed this case, verified this complaint, that is the verified complaint spoken of in paragraph 4, Section 3 of article XI.  And so, therefore, when it reached this court, this court assumes jurisdiction and in fact we have gone through trial already, the answers and reply to the answers have been filed and we proceeded to the trial, the prosecution closed its presentation of evidence, it is now the turn of the defense to present its evidence, and I think it is the opinion of this court that it is too late to raise the question of verification at this point.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please, may we be allowed to say something on this particular issue, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The record will show, Your Honor, that right after we have filed our answer to the impeachment complaint, Your Honor, we have also availed of the remedy of filing a motion for a preliminary hearing on our affirmative defences.

We were then abiding by the jurisprudence on the point laid down in the case of Francisco, et al., vs. House of Representatives, wherein it is stated that if there is a defect casting doubt or legality or violative of the Constitution on the part of the impeachment complaint, the same may be raised in the House of Representatives and also in the Senate prior or during the trial of the case.  And if the Senate rules either way, then, the remedy is with the Supreme Court.  That was the  dictum laid down in that case, Your Honor.

Now, we were also guided by the fact, Your Honor, that in the same case, there was an adjudication to the effect that raising the issue of non-existence of probable cause goes into the very merits of the case, Your Honor.  And as held by the Supreme Court in that case, Justice Panganiban speaking for the court, its stated, that during the oral argument, may I be allowed to read for the record, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  “Senator Salonga and petitioner Francisco Chavez denounced the second impeachment complaint as violative of due process.  They argued that by virtue merely of an endorsement of more than 1/3 of the Members of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice was immediately impeached without being afforded the twin requirements of notice and hearing”.

In here, Your Honor, the complaint was filed by more than 1/3, Your Honor.  The proceedings were therefore null and void ab initio, and Justice Panganiban was then the Chief Justice.  I must agree.  The due process clause enshrined in our fundamental law is a condition sine qua non that cannot be ignored in any proceeding.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT.  The proceedings of which body?   The House or this court is going to be, is supposed to be null and void?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This Court.  Yes, Your Honor, including the proceedings before this court because there is not—the impeached public official is not precluded in raising the same issue before this honourable impeachment court, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT.  Well, this is a very ______ opinion between the defense counsel and this court.  It was then if you insist that we will make a finding of probable cause as a consequence of determining whether there has been a probable cause in the articles of impeachment submitted to this court, then we will make a ruling to that effect.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It’s not that a ruling, Your Honor, and the existence or non-existence of probable cause is being asked by this Representation, Your Honor, but it is a matter of fact that there was no determination of probable cause.  In other words, there were no evidences, there were no allegations that will prove the existence of probable cause, and yet, the public officer involved was immediately impeached.

Supreme Court said, that is violative of the right against due process because due process requires notice and hearing.  And it applies in all cases notwithstanding the fact that this is a proceeding which sui generis, Your Honor, and the Supreme Court went further, Your Honor.

Due process clause enshrined in our fundamental law is a condition sine qua non that cannot be ignored in any proceeding, administrative, judicial or otherwise.  It is deemed written into every law, rule or contract even tough not expressly stated therein, hence the House rules on impeachment, insofar as they do not provide the charged official with notice and opportunity to be heard prior to be impeached are also unconstitutional.

We are predicating our action on this particular statement of the Supreme Court, Your Honor.  In addition thereto, likewise, the honorable Justice Santiago in a concurring opinion, likewise stated, and may we be permitted to place it on record, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The impeachment complaint suffers from yet another serious flow.  As one of the amici curiae former Senate President Jovito Salonga pointed out, the signing of the impeachment complaint by the purported one-third of the Congressmen was done without due process.  The Chief Justice, against whom the complaint was brought, was not served notice of the proceedings against him.

In here, likewise, what is referred to as an impeachment complaint filed by at least one-third of the Members of the House of Representatives.  And the Supreme Court, going further, hereby stated, no rule is better established that under the due process clause of the Constitution than that which requires notice and opportunity to be heard before any person can be lawfully deprived of his right to be heard before any person can be lawfully deprived of his rights.

Indeed, when the Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, it means that every person shall be afforded essential element of notice of any proceedings, any act committed in violation of due process may be declared null and void, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is it the position of the defense counsel that indeed there is no probable cause in this case?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is our position, Your Honor.  And if we were allowed during the early days before the evidence of the reception in chief, Your Honor, we would have done so right at that moment.

We seem to be …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you see, under our Rules of Impeachment in this Senate, we do not have a provision governing preliminary hearing on defences on impeachment cases.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but that was …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And we devised—We are authorized by the Constitution to devise our own Rules of Impeachment.  This is not Rules that the Supreme Court can formulate for this House.  It is the formulation of this House itself.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are in total conformity with that, Your Honor.  We are likewise in full accord with the said pronouncement of the honourable Presiding Justice.  But what we are invoking is the right of the impeached public official, in this particular instance, the honourable Chief Justice Corona, to his right to due process, and right to due process recognizes that it is available in all kinds of proceedings including impeachment proceedings, Your Honor.  It does not exempt impeachment …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Must the determination of probable cause be done by the House of Representatives or could it be done by this Court?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It may be done, Your Honor, by the House of Representatives, and any ruling by the House of Representatives may be brought before the Senate Impeachment Court if the opportunity so arises and a ruling thereon may be made either a denial or a grant, Your Honor.  In which case, judicial remedies are afforded in favour of the aggrieved party if there is an abuse of discretion that brings about the power of judicial review on the part of the honourable Supreme Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  May we recognize Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentle Lady from Iloilo.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Mr. President, may I offer the humble submission that in my view there is no constitutional issue involved.  There is no constitutional issue of due process or equal protection.  Instead, there is specific rule in our Rules of Court, Rule 16, Section 6, which is entitled, Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses, and it quotes in part, “If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court”, I would like to emphasize this phrase, “in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.”

The annotations based on jurisprudence indicate that unlike a motion to dismiss, based on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, which may be resolved solely on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, a motion to dismiss raising an affirmative defense that there is no cause of action as against the defendants, poses a question of fact that should be resolved after due hearing.

Therefore, the issue is really whether the defense is, there is no cause of action as against the defendants and the question is a question of fact, then in that case, a hearing in the proper discretion of the court might be ordered, but otherwise, it is completely discretionary in the court.  A party effectively submits to trial court’s jurisdiction by praying for the dismissal of the complaints, on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction.

So, just to repeat for summary, to summarize, granting a hearing on a ground alleged as an affirmative defense is, as the rule say, in the discretion of the court.

That is my comment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, you are not questioning the jurisdiction of this court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If there is really no probable cause, Your Honor, therefore, the Impeachment complaint is a total nullity, then, there could be no jurisdiction that the Senate Impeachment Committee can acquire, Your Honor.  And may I …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And if the issue of probable cause could be decided on the prosecution’s side as well as in the court itself, that is the—this is my understanding of the rule in the ordinary courts in criminal cases.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We appear to be quite insistent on this particular matter, Your Honor, because we have sought guidance from the jurisprudence of the honorable Supreme Court in connection with this matter, more particularly, the point whether probable cause could be raised even after the remand of the impeachment case to this honorable Supreme Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   But in the case of Francisco, the Articles of Impeachment has not reached this court.  The case arose out of the proceedings in the House of Representatives, and so, therefore, the Francisco case is not on all force with respect to the factual situation in this particular impeachment proceeding.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor, but it is a guidance, since there is no categorical provision under the Rules of Impeachment of the Senate Impeachment Committee.  Many times we are at a lost, Your Honor.  Here is a problem, we wanted to argue either against or for, but there is no definite provision under the Rules of the Senate, Your Honor.  So, where do we go?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You know why is it like that, Your Honor?  Because there is no appeal in the decision of this court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There are no reversible errors.  There are no assignment of errors.  Once a verdict is pronounced, of acquittal or conviction, if it is acquittal, the government cannot appeal.  If it is conviction, the respondent cannot appeal.  There are no assignment of errors.  There are no reversible errors.

That is the reason why in an impeachment trial, as far as I know, there is no motion to dismiss.  There are no motions for preliminary hearings.  That is why the Constitution says, trials shall forthwith proceed.  It did not say begin.  Proceed.  Go ahead and try it, then, all the way to judgment, except that you have to respect the rights of private parties that may be involved.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We were this insistent, Your Honor, because we are worried about the resulting consequences of the aforesaid pronouncement, Your Honor, with due respect to the honourable court, on the impeached public official, Your Honor.  We have here a portion, Your Honor, and before we are considered terminated in our argument, Your Honor, may we read it for the record, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We understand your position.  You want to read your argument, go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question on the sufficiency of the complaint, in form, may again be brought to the Senate by way of proper motion, and the Senate may deny the motion to dismiss the complaint depending on the merits of the ground raised.  After the Senate shall have acted in due course, its disposition of the case may be elevated to this court pursuant to its judicial power of review.  So, we are referring to a situation where an apparent grave abuse of discretion existed on the part of the impeachment court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What this court wishes to avoid is a clash between the Supreme Court and this court because frankly, I must say that this court is not willing to surrender its power to make a judgment in impeachment cases.  And so, if the decision of this court with respect to the existence of probable cause is reviewable by the Supreme Court, then in the opinion of this Presiding Officer, and I think  as well as of this court, that will mean that the Supreme Court will override the judgment of this impeachment court.  And so, therefore, with most regret and with due respect to the Supreme Court, we will deny any interference in the judgment of this impeachment court.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, trial suspended.  I will consult the members of the court.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

It was 2:47 p.m.

At 3:09 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady Senator from Iloilo is recognized.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I will try and very humbly explain.  For the second time, I would like to try and very humbly explain why the ruling of the court, as articulated by our Presiding Officer is an all force with our Rules of Court.  Rule 16 governs motion to dismiss and deals with separate grounds for filing a motion to dismiss.  Here the pertinent grounds are related to each other.  You could file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim.  With respect  to jurisdiction of the person of the defending party, the Supreme Court has taught us, “It is a settled rule, the party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent, and, after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.”  So, what we are being taught is that, the only accepted jurisdiction of the court and if you have even filed affirmative defenses for the consideration of that court, but your affirmative defense is denied, after doing that you cannot turn around and then repudiate the same question of jurisdiction.  Your hands are already tied.  And then the other ground is that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim.  Once more, to jurisprudence, we can turn and find the following lesson.  “While jurisdiction maybe assailed at any stage, a party’s active participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing such lack of it.”  Again, the point is the same.  You have already accepted jurisdiction, you have tried to obtain relief, and if you don’t obtain it, you cannot now turn around and say, but after all you have no jurisdiction over me.  So, I am afraid that the ruling of the impeachment court that no preliminary hearing will be conducted on a special affirmative defense is on all force with the rulings of our Supreme Court, and the rulings as articulated by the President, our Presiding Officer have always been totally congruent with the rulings of the Supreme Court.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize Senator Escudero, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  With the permission of the Presiding Officer, may I address some questions to the lead defense counsel, Atty. Cuevas.

Sir, if I may ask.  It is clear that the impeachment court already made a ruling with respect to the motion for preliminary hearing and even on the affirmative defenses itself with respect to the jurisdiction of the Senate and procedure adopted by the House.  The basic concern, Atty. Cuevas, is you might call all 188 signatories, and you might end up being bugged down on this issue that has already been decided upon and ruled by the Senate.  That is a basic and valid concern by the impeachment court, Sir.  And secondly, if it was for the purpose of establishing the absence or presence of probable cause, as mentioned by Senator Santiago and ruled by the Court in its written ruling, that has already been disposed of by the impeachment court.  However, if the purpose is perhaps to  set the tone or by way of preliminary to lay the predicate for your general theory of the case, and you will not present 188, and perhaps one or two witnesses on this matter, perhaps some understanding or bending over backwards may be given, but the concern again, Atty. Cuevas, is baka iyong buong 188 ho e ipatawag ho ninyo, ano ho ang balak ninyo?

JUSTICE CUEVAS. That is far from my mind, Your Honor, because our attack is not on the number, first.  Now, secondly, I hope you pardon me for disagreeing with your dissertation that there was already a ruling on this particular case.  May I cite the January 12, 2012, dispostive portion.  “In view of all the foregoing, the motion for preliminary hearing filed by Chief Justice Renato Corona is denied for want of merit.”  So, what was denied from our understanding, and it is clear to us, is only the right to a preliminary hearing.  Not the affirmative defenses, if Your Honor please.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  The court will decide on that, Atty. Cuevas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.   No, I am just citing… We have every reason to rely on this.  If there was a categorical pronouncement, then probably, we could have taken other remedies, if Your Honor please.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  But may we know, Atty. Cuevas.  On this issue and on this matter and in the absence of a pre-trial wherein we would have obtained the list of witnesses, insofar as this issue is concerned, who and how many witnesses do you intend to present, if we may know.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, we have stated earlier that we will be presenting about 20 witnesses, Your Honor, on the entire impeachment proceedings, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  On this topic, Sir, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  On this topic, probably three up to five. Because, for instance, three-fourth—two-third, let’s us say, there are these numbers and two or three of them were intimidated or coerced to sign one way or the other, so, the number representing at least one-third is already obliterated, so to us, that will be a facade of false information.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Mr. President, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Because you have a definite number in order to determine what is one-third.  Now, supposing, of that one-third, one or two were merely coerced. They were compelled to do—to affix their signatures without being voluntary on their part, will that not at least change the color of their signature attached—affixed to the complaint?  That is—because we have every reason to rely on the jurisprudence on the point since there is no definite article, much less, any section of the impeachment rules by this Honorable Court, then, we have to resort—we to go to other sources, Your Honor, and we are not totally left on—totally left without any support whatsoever.  What we read into the records are questions where the impeachment complaint was filed by at least one-third, and to us, it is clear that the mere fact the complaint is verified complaint was filed by at least one-third does not exempt the petitioner or the complainant from observing the requirements prescribed by law in order to comply with the requirements of due process. That is our point because left with no alternative, where do we go? There is no appeal but there is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused. That is there for a ground for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the case.  If that is the ground then, how else could we assert it except by pleadings and if we do not agree with the decision of the—sorry to say, we do not agree with the decision of the Honorable Impeachement Court then, maybe other remedies are available to us.

SEN. ESCUDERO. Mr. President, for the record, I agree with the impeachment court with respect to the nonissuance of subpoena to Members of the House, however, nothing bars a Member of the House from testifying voluntarily if they are called by the defense as their witness. And insofar as allowing the defense to present evidence on this matter, for as long as it is on a short list and will not  entail the calling of all 188 of them, which should be unreasonable to say the least.  I think, counsel, will agree with me.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yeah, we have already—I am sorry.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  For the record, Mr. President Your Honor, that is the  position of this representation, so the defense can be given some leeway with respect  to developing their case.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am not crying for liberality in favor of the impeached public official.  Many times the prosecution have been crying for the extension of liberality on their part.  If there is anybody who should cry or call for liberality, it should be the impeached public official being the accused in a criminal case. Never is there a time where the prosecution asked for liberality.  I was a fiscal for more than 20 years, I never asked for any liberality.

SEN. ESCUDERO.   We submit and we thank the distinguished counsel for the defense for his—Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, now may we pose a question if Your Honor please. We have three members of the House of Representatives whom we intend to utilize as adverse witnesses, Your Honor. If we call for a subpoena, if we ask for a supboena to compel their appearance, Your Honor, it may again fall under the previous ruling of this Honorable Court but this time, we are not calling them as ordinary witnesses.  We are calling them as adverse party and the law allow us under the rules of court, Your honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who are the adverse party that you want to call?

JUSTICE CUEVAS. For instance, Congressman Abaya, Your Honor, Congressman Quimbo and Congressman Tañada, Your Honor.  Then, we will dispense with Congressman Gonzales.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, may we recognize …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are calling them not in their capacity as congressman, Your Honor, but in their capacity as complainants, so, they are adverse party, your Honor,  If the Court will not lend its assistance to us, we’ll have no alternative, we cannot compel them to come here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize the Minority Leader, Senator Cayetano and then, Senator Drilon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Minority Floor Leader.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Magandang hapon, Mr. President. Justice Cuevas, magandang hapon po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Magandang hapon din po.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Gusto ko lang pong maintindihan ng mabuti iyong posisyon ninyo at iyong pinaguusapan natin.  Naririrnig ko po iyong terms na “due process” and in very layman’s term, iyong makinig muna bago humusga.  Hindi po ba?  Tapos, iyong probable cause  no, iyong determination ng probable cause.

Basically, tama ho ba ang hinihingi nyo sa amin magkaroon ng preliminary hearing para i-determine precisely kung nagkaroon ang House ng determination ng probable cause o hindi.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Wala na po, because, that was denied already.  When we requested for—when we move or requested for a preliminary hearing, there was already this resolution of January 18.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So now you are asking us…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  To allow—I am sorry.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Go ahead, go ahead, Sir, doon naman papunta iyong question ko, please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We were praying for the liberality of this court and its magnanimity to allow us to present evidence even on trial on the merits to prove our point, Your Honor, which we were not able to do because our motion for preliminary hearing was denied, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  And, Sir, what you want to prove is that walang determination ang House ng probable cause, ergo, it is a violation of due process of your client, the impeached official, the honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  In a nutshell ho—go ahead po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Not only that it is a violation of due process right of the accused, Your Honor, but it is a constitutional mandate on the part of our judicial department that the accused should be entitled to due process.  Notify him, allowing him to be heard and then decide the case.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.  Sir, the reason I asked this question is because I am sympathetic in general.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  And I always used the example that we used in law school na ang Diyos nga mismo e, nakita nya na kinain ni Eva at Adan iyong mansanas pero hindi nya kaagad hinusgahan, tinanong nya, di ba, bakit kayo nagtatago anong ginawa nyo?  So, before he condemned, he asked them a question.

Having said that, Your Honor, if we look at Article XI, Accountability of Public Officials, Section 3, paragraph 4.  In the case of verified complaint or resolution of impeachment if filed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House of Representatives, the same shall constitute the articles of impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

So, my problem, Your Honor, in being sympathetic with your plight if this, if we granted you a preliminary hearing, or if we allow you to present evidence now, saan to pupunta?  ‘Pag nag-ruling po kami na walang probable cause or walang determination of probable cause, or hindi kayo dininig ng lower house o ng House of Representatives, sorry to use lower house, the House of Representatives, we will be in effect amending the Constitution.  We will be now saying that mali ang paragraph 4 ng Section 3 ng Article XI, because we will be basically telling the House kailangan nyo mag-hearing muna.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If we…

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  May I finish, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Go ahead, I am sorry.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But it is very clear here that when you have 1/3 of all members signing the verified complaint or resolution, it shall automatically constitute an article of impeachment.   So unlike a case in the fiscal’s office na kailangan ng piskalya i-inform pareho, making sa parehong side, and then, determine whether or not merong probable cause.  In the case of paragraph 4, ‘pag binasa ng Congressman at pinirmahan at umabot sila ng 1/3, iyon na po ang determination ng probable cause.  The Constitution itself does not call for—I will let you give your side,  Your Honor, after this no, but just to elaborate and please tell me if mali ang pagkaintindi ko or kung you have a different theory about—specifically, I am talking about paragraph 4, no, dahil ako ay naniniwala this is the mode na inakyat sa ating ang impeachment no.  So, Your Honor, ‘pag binasa ng congressman ito, ‘pag umabot ng 1/3 diretso na ‘to sa Senado.  ‘Pag hindi ito umabot ng 1/3, nagkakaroon ng proseso sa lower House under paragraph 1, 2, and 3.  Kaya during the impeachment of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Congressman TJ Guingona here, myself, Congressman Joel Villanueva, then Congressman now Senator Chiz Escudero, ito po ang tanong naming kay ano eh sa mga kadebate naming on the opposite side, sabi naming sa kanila – do you mean kaht na napakalakas ng pinayl naming resolution kahit klarong-klarong may probable cause, ‘pagka hindi kami naka 1/3 ibig sabihin ang finding nyo walang probable cause.  On the other hand, even if it is a scrap, a piece of paper na walang laman, if 1/3 signs, it will go to the Senate at meron ng probable cause iyon?  And there was always a unanimity there na ‘pagka iyong 1/3 nakapirma, pumunta na sa amin iyon, ang trabaho namin hind i-determine iyong probable cause, and i-determine namin number one, meron bang impeachable ground? May ground ba for impeachment under the Constitution?  Then number 2, proceed with trial whether or not nga guilty yung tao.

So, yun po ang problema ko.  Assuming I say—I ask for a reconsideration because I voted with the majority and I think the ruling of the Presiding Officer and of the Impeachment Court is correct.  But assuming, for the sake of argument, sabihin natin, dapat bigyan ng hearing, dapat payagan ang defense na magpakita ng ebidensiya na hindi nagkaroon ng due process or ng probable cause no.  Pero ang Constitution na po nagsabi e na kapagka yung one-third may nakapirma, due process na yon.  Dito na siya magpaliwanag.  Ika nga ng mga pulis, “Boss, sa presinto ka na magpaliwanag.”  Dito po ang sinabi, “Boss, sa impeachment trial ka na magpaliwanag wag na sa Committee on Justice.”

So, Your Honor, my question is and answer the way you would like to, Sir, are you saying that unconstitutional ang paragraph 4 or this paragraph is in fact violative of other parts of the Constitution?  Kasi if we return this to the Lower House, yung effect po we will be nullifying this mode of elevating an impeachment case to the Impeachment Court.

I’m through, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Pwede nako?

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Mr. Senator.

It is not merely Justice Cuevas exposing that view.  It is the honourable Supreme Court already.  In the two cases I have mentioned, the impeachment complaint was filed by at least one-third.  And the Supreme Court said, that is no exemption.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, Your Honor, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The determination of probable cause …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  … my question is, can the Supreme Court amend the Constitution?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It’s not amending.  That is interpretation.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But how can you interpret it any other way?  Ang nakalagay po dito, “In case a verified complaint, a resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all Members, the same shall constitute the Article of Impeachment.”

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Hindi po nakalagay dito, the House shall now have a hearing and determine probable cause.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  E wala rin naman hong nakalagay diyan na there is no necessity of determining probable cause.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Nakalagay po, Your Honor.  “And trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but in this jurisprudence it is stated, “It can be asserted before the Lower House.”  If it is denied, then you can go to the—even if the impeachment case was already filed.  The Impeachment Court may act on it either granting or denying.  So it is a reconciliation.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Your Honor, I will not answer that statement about the Supreme Court because I think in our ruling we mentioned about the ruling of Chief Justice Davide in the Estrada trial, but I’ll stop there.  And thank you for answering those questions, but I just want to put that on record that I support the decision of the court.  And I don’t think there’s any other logical interpretation of paragraph 4 which I read.  I mean, if we’re going to interpret it but would require the House to have a hearing, it will be the same as the other paragraph, Your Honor.

But anyway, I will not be—because of due process and we hear both sides, You’re not arguing with me, I’m not arguing with you, but I just want to put that on record, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With due respect, Mr. Senator, …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … if we follow that dictum, then there never can a time be when impeachable officers may be immune from impeachment proceedings filed by any disgruntled individual because all they have to do is gather at least one-third, and there is no more investigation, there is no more probable cause.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But, Your Honor, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It’s direct to the Senate.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  … that’s precisely …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If we follow that dictum, that will lead to disastrous consequences.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But, Your Honor, if you …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The security of technical provision will definitely be laid to rest and it may not be invoked by any impeachable public officer.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Just for the information of the court, Your Honor, that is precisely in the records of the debate of the Constitutional Commission. Yun po precisely ang dibate nila, na if you ask for a majority of Congress to impeach a public official.  It will be very difficult to impeach a public official, it will be very difficult to impeach a public official.  Pag isa, lima, sampu naman, it will be very easy.  So ano yung compromise when one-third affix their signature in a verified complaint or resolution?  Automatic na, punta na po ‘to sa Impeachment Court, at tinanong nga don, but will that be subject to abuse, etc.?  Sabi nila, it’s not easy to get one-third and we cannot assume that the House of Representatives will not act in good faith.

So, Your Honor, that’s the balancing of accountability and transparency here.  If you make it almost impossible, then you give the Supreme Court Justices immunity.

Ang Presidente po, anim na taon lang siyang immune sa suit.  Ang Supreme Court Justice ho pag 55 years old ka na-appoint, ang sabi po nila sa Supreme Court cases, in fairness to them, not only now, matagal na tong mga kaso na ‘to, hindi ka pwede mag-file ng disbarment, hindi ka pwedeng mag-file ng criminal case, kailangan impeachment muna bago mo sila kasuhan, dahil kung hindi, indirectly, tinatanggal mo sila.  So, kung pahihirapan naman natin ng husto kung paano sila i-impeach ay maghihintay tayo hanggang 70 years old na sila, hanggang mag-retire, at doon mo lang pwedeng kasuhan, wala ng remedy po ang taumbayan, ang mamamayan, wala ng pupuntahan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  No, Your Honor, I was just responding to your thesis that …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … it will be so easy—but I mean, I have been a Congressman for three terms and I have been monitoring Congress, I think, ilan pa lang po ang nai-impeach by this mode.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think, we have …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Thank you Mr. President. Thank you for this time.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Drilon …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think, we have sufficiently argued this case, but anyway, the Gentleman from Iloilo is recognized.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, I will be very brief.  The defense here, Mr. President, is making a plea that they be allowed to present evidence on their affirmative defences because allegedly, the January 18, 2012 ruling did not rule upon the affirmative defences but only the motion for a preliminary hearing.

Mr. President, the grounds relied upon by the affirmative defences is precisely the ground relied upon when the defense asked for a preliminary hearing.  And in fact, on page 2 of the resolution of January 18, it says, “The Chief Justice claims that since the verified complaint for impeachment lacks a proper verification, it should be treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no legal effect and should therefore be dismissed.”

The January 18, 2012 ruling of this court and Mr. Senate President, categorically validated the verification.  It ruled, “It appears—appearing that the filing of the verified impeachment complaint was made in accordance with paragraph 4, Section 3, Article 11 in the Constitution, there is no more need for a preliminary hearing to receive evidence on this matter.”

If there was no need to present evidence on the matter of the preliminary hearing, there is no need for—to present evidence on the affirmative defences.  So, it is not true that it was only the motion for a preliminary hearing that was denied.  It is the validity of the verification itself that was ruled upon, and purpose, obviously, of a hearing on the affirmative defences is to have the case dismissed because of lack of proper verification, which has already been ruled upon by this court on January 18, 2012.

Thank you, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If that commentary, Your Honor, was made by the members of the prosecution, we would have no objection, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  This is the ruling …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are worried, Your Honor, that this may be interpreted, Your Honor, as an argument by a prosecutor.

SEN. DRILON.  I take exception …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In this case, Your Honor, …

SEN. DRILON.  … to the statement of the defense counsel.  That is totally improper.  We are just reading …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is …

SEN. DRILON.  I am still speaking.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Go ahead.

SEN. DRILON.  Do not interrupt, because I was just explaining the ruling of the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request the Majority Floor Leader to reread the ruling of this court on what they posit?

SEN. SOTTO.  Resolution of January 18, 2012, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, read it.

SEN. SOTTO.  The Chief Justice claims that since the verified complaint for impeachment lacks proper or a proper verification, it should be treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no legal effect, and should therefore be dismissed—I will just read the pertinent portions—Mr. President, to continue in the resolution, during the impeachment proceedings of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada before the Senate, case no. 0012000, a motion to quash was filed by him, alleging among others, that the verification in the impeachment contract was not the verification prescribed by the Constitution–the impeachment complaint, the contract was probably a typographical error. The impeachment court at that time found the verification to be sufficient, and ruled that the perceived flaw in it was inconsequential and not fatal.  Speaking through Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., who was the Presiding Officer of that time, the impeachment court stated in a resolution dated 29 November 2000 that verification, like in most cases, required by the Rules of Procedure, is a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement.  It is mainly intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true and correct and not of mere speculation.  By Miriam Defensor-Santiago.  There appears to be no cogent reason to depart from this ruling.  On its face, there appears to be no patent or obvious defect in the verification contained in the verified impeachment complaint.  The wording or content of the same is substantially in compliance with the third paragraph of Section 13 of the Rules of Procedure in impeachment proceedings of the House of Representatives.  It is not necessary for the verification to be coached in the language of the Rules of Court inasmuch as this particular wording is not strictly required by the Constitution.  If this had been what was required, the Constitution would have specified the exact required wording of the verification.  A verification is an oath or affirmation.  Under the Constitution, there is only one instance wherein the exact form of an oath or affirmation is specified, and this is found on Section 5 Article VII when the President, Vice-President or the Acting President takes his oath or affirmation before entering on the execution of their office.  Since there is no precise wording required for the verification of a complaint in case of impeachment, under paragraph 4, Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution, the actual verification in the complaint, as per the Rules of Impeachment of the House of Representatives, is sufficient and adequate for the purpose.

In view of all the foregoing, the motion for preliminary hearing filed by Chief  Justice Renato C. Corona is denied for want of merit.

January 19, 2012, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right..  We have discussed this lengthily …

SEN. SOTTO.