Jan 31 Senate Impeachment Court Record

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
AT 2:00 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The Impeachment Trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Francis Chiz G. Escudero. Senator Escudero. Panginoon, nagpapasalamat Po kami sa Inyo sa muli Ninyong ipinagkaloob sa aming pagkakataon para makapagtipon sa araw na ito upang matupad ang isang bahagi ng aming sinumpaang tungkulin sa bayan. Hinihiling Po namin sa Inyo na sanay gabayan Ninyo ang bawat isa sa amin sa lahat ng aming pagsasalita at pakikinig upang sa gayon ay makapagpasiya kami nang naaayon sa Iyong katotohanan at katwiran. Patuloy Ninyo Po sanang ipagkaloob ang kahinahunan at kapayapaan sa aming kalagitnaan, ngunit higit sa lahat, patuloy Po sana Ninyong ipahiram sa amin ang buhay at lakas na siya naming magagamit sa araw-araw naming gawain. At bilang panghuli, sana Poy bigyan Ninyo rin Po kami ng kapayapaan sa aming pag-iisip na matanggap ang mga hindi namin kayang baguhin sa mundong ito. Kasabay niyan, sana bigyan Ninyo Po rin kami ng tapang at lakas ng loob na baguhin ang kaya at dapat naming baguhin sa mundong ito. At higit sa lahat, hiling Po namin na sana bigyan Ninyo kami ng pag-unawa na makita ang pagkakaiba ng dalawang iyan.
Naway sa bawat hamon at pagsubok na aming kaharapin, magtagumpay man kami o mabigo, hindi namin iisipin kailanman na itoy walang dahilan at walang kahinatnan. Hiling Po namin ito sa Ngalan ni Hesus na aming Tagapagligtas. Amen. The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now call the roll of Senators. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara ......................................................... Present * Senator Joker P. Arroyo ............................................................. Present Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ............................. Present * Senator Pia S. Cayetano ............................................................. Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .............................................. Absent ** Senator Franklin M. Drilon .......................................................... Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ................................................. Present Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero ........................................... Present Senator Teofisto TG L. Guingona III ....................................... Present* Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II .................................................. Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson .......................................................... Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ................................................. Present Senator Loren Legarda ................................................................ Present Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. ................................................ Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ..................................................... Present * Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ...................................................... Present Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III .................................................. Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .............................................................. Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. .................................................. Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ....................................................... Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ..................................... Present* Senator Manny Villar ................................................................... Present The Senate President ................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 17 Senators-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator 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 Sergeant-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. The Floor Leader.
___________________
*Arrived after the roll call **On sick leave
Senator Sotto. I move that we defer the approval of the January 30, 2012 Journal of the Senate Sitting as an Impeachment Court as it is being finalized. The Presiding Officer. The motion is to defer. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the January 30, 2012 Journal of this Court is deferred. The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Appearances? Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, may we ask the parties to enter their appearances. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate. For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearances, Your Honors. The Presiding Officer. Let it be recorded. Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Let it be recorded. Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are now ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Is the Prosecution ready? Representative Tupas. We are ready, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. You may now call your next witness. Representative Tupas. Before we call our witness, we just want to ask. Yesterday, we manifested that the Prosecution panel complied with the directive of January 24 when we were required to submit the list of our witnesses and documents. And we want again to know. May we know, Mr. President, if the Defense has already complied as of today? Because they have not yet complied as of the 27th and yesterday. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but, if Your Honor, please, the way we understood it, we have the whole day today. We are filing it today. The Presiding Officer. Are you ready to present a list of your witnesses? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, it is being finalized. Representative Tupas. We hope that we get it today, Mr. President, because we complied. With respect to the Prosecution, we complied on the 27th. But anyway, we can proceed now. We are ready to proceed. Mr. Cuevas. All the while I have the impression that you will utilize it as your evidence, that is why you are asking it. [Laughter]
Representative Tupas. We just want to know because we have 100 witnesses and we complied with it and all the documents. But anyway we can call now our first witness, Mr. President. This is our first witness for the day and the 10th. The Presiding Officer. So that we can minimize this exchange of words, I would suggest that henceforth, the parties would supply the other party of any pleading, any document that you will submit to this Court, if that is agreeable to both the panels. Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor, we are doing that. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, we submit to the discretion of the Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. So, proceed. Call your first witness. Representative Tupas. We are now ready to call our first witness for the day and the 10th since the beginning of the trial. The name is Director Benito Cataran, Director of the Corporation Registration and Monitoring Department of the Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC. May we call now Director Benito Cataran. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Defense counsel has the floor. Mr. Cuevas. Yesterday, Your Honor, we were made to believe that their next witness today will be the lady referred to by Mr. Ng, the Marketing Director of Megaworld because we did not continue further with our cross-examination in the hope and in the belief that that witness will be offered today. May we be informed? Representative Tupas. Yes. For the information of the Impeachment Tribunal and the Defense, we requested a subpoena yesterday and it was issued and I thinkwe were informed that the Marketing Director of Megaworld is directed to appear tomorrow by virtue of the subpoena issued by this Impeachment Tribunal. We may present the Marketing Director tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, are we still on Article II? Representative Tupas. That is correct, still Article II. The Presiding Officer. This witness is presented under Article II. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentlewoman from Taguig is recognized. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, just a clarificatory question on the witness from MegaWorld yesterday. I would like to know how we should treat his testimony in the light of the fact that it was established, I believe, through questions of some Senator-Judges that it was hearsay because he himself admitted that he is not familiar with certain information he testified to. So, do we treat that as hearsay? Do we consider that stricken off the record? I would like to know because it was a very lengthy testimony. The Presiding Officer. That was objected to by the Defense and then I asked a clarificatory question and indeed, he said that he was told. So, I ordered that it was subject to the hearsay rule, meaning that it was not disallowed to enter the record. And so I asked the presenting Counsel of the Prosecution to reform his question and so the record will bear out the results.
Senator Cayetano (P). Okay. So, perhaps, I will just reserve my right later on, just go over the record and see what is there. Because I do recall that it was not just one or two statements. It was quite a lengthy statement. I mean, it was a continuing response to a number of questions. I will just look at the records and then make my further comments then. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. At any rate, in the appreciation of the evidence, the Court can segregate the hearsay testimonies from the factual. So, I think we can dispose of that at a later date. This is an SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission officer now being presented as a witness under Article II. What is the relevance of this witness to Article II? Representative Tupas. I will just give the floor to Congressman Rey Umali, who will conduct the direct examination. Congressman Umali, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. But the Chair would like to know the relevance of the SEC in this proceeding. Will Counsel please explain? Representative Umali. Thank you, Mr. Senate President, Your Honors. Let me just explain, Your Honor, that the relevance of presenting this SEC official is to amplify on points pertaining to the Basa-Guidote Enterprise, Inc. which appeared in the SALNs or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth which was hesitantly presented by the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court. And in these particular SALNs, particularly Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L which were also adopted as common exhibits by the Defense, the name of Basa- Guidote Enterprise, Inc. where it showed that there was a cash advance of P11 million as reflected in the liabilities column of the SALNs, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Cash advance of the corporation, to whom? Representative Umali. Allegedly to Renato Corona, the respondent in this case, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How would the SEC know about the details of a cash advance by corporation to someone? Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Their duty is only to record the records of a corporation. Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor. That is why in this particular instance, the Prosecution will prove that as of 2003, calendar and fiscal year 2003, this Basa-Guidote Enterprise, Inc., Your Honors, had been revoked and, therefore, its corporate existence.... The Presiding Officer. Revoked? Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor, the corporate franchise.
The Presiding Officer. The license has been revoked Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. to operate as a corporation, but it was not dissolved as an artificial person. Was it dissolved as an artificial person by the revocation? Representative Umali. As a juridical person, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is right. Was it revoked?
6
Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. As a juridical person, I doubt it. Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. The only one that can dissolve it are the stockholders. Representative Umali. No, Your Honor. What happened here was for failure to comply with the reportorial requirements as required under the Corporation Code and this happened from 1990 to date, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. This is a legal question, whether the order of the SEC to prevent the corporation to transact any business because of certain non-fulfilment of regulation would mean a dissolution of a corporation, although this is a legal question. Let us hear the witness. Okay, you proceed. Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. It is up to the Defense Counsel to protect the interest of his client. Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor, please, may I be allowed to say a couple of words? The Presiding Officer. Yes, go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. If the witness on the stand, Your Honor, will be testifying on legal matters, I do not think that could be the subject of his testimony because as a witness, what can be covered by the testimony of the witness are only factual matters, never legal matters, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, the Chair asked what is its relevance and now it turns out that he is going to discuss a theory that has not been established, I do not know of any jurisprudence that can be cited about this, but I would like to give them all the opportunities to prove their case and let us hear the testimony of the witness. Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Cuevas. We will just make of record, Your Honor, our objection to this kind of testimony, because if it deals with legal matters, then the witness will be entirely incompetent, irrelevant. The Presiding Officer. You can register your objections. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the Clerk of Court swears in the witness, the Clerk of Court of the Impeachment Court would also like to inform the Body that they have served the subpoena to the Senior Vice President of Megaworld, 9:00 a.m. this morning-received 9:00 a.m. this morning, but was asked to appear at two oclock this afternoon today, not tomorrow. Two oclock in the afternoon, 31st day of January, just for the record.
The Presiding Officer. Was there any return showing that he received the service? Senator Sotto. Yes, 9:00 a.m. this morning, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. We will cite him for contempt. Mr. Cuevas. May we know if he is around, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. We will cite him for contempt for not complying with the order of this Court. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we were informed that he is here, just now. The Presiding Officer. He is here? Representative Tupas. Yes, we were informed. The Presiding Officer. We will put him on the witness stand first. Representative Tupas. We were informed, Mr. President, that he just arrived now, so, he is here. The Presiding Officer. So, what is the pleasure of the Prosecution now? Representative Tupas. We will just present first the SEC. The Presiding Officer. For the orderly proceeding in this case, why do you not finish with Article II in relation to the testimony of the previous witness? Because the testimony of this summoned witness is connected with that so that we can finish instead of jumbling the records. Is he here? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I move that we suspend the trial for a minute? The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended. The trial was suspended at 2:19 p.m. At 2:20 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. What is the question of the Prosecution? Representative Tupas. We will present witness, Mr. Noli Hernandez. He is here, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Swear the witness before you raise the question. The Secretary. Please raise your right hand. [Witness raising his right hand.] Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this Court? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. The Secretary. So help you God. Mr. Hernandez. So help me God. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. May we request that Atty. Joseph Joemer Perez be recognized to conduct direct examination, Mr. President.
8
The Presiding Officer. Attorney? Representative Tupas. Atty. Joseph Joemer Perez.
The Presiding Officer. Atty. Perez may proceed to do the examination. Atty. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, the testimony of this witness is being offered to prove that the Spouses Renato and Cristina Corona bought and acquired a penthouse unit with three parking slots in the Bellagio I Condominium in 2009, for the purchase price of P14.5 million after receiving a discount of around 40 percent equivalent to around P10 million, and other related matters. This Belagio property, Your Honor, was not reported nor disclosed in Coronas SALN for 2009, and in his SALN for 2010, Corona did not truthfully disclose this Bellagio property. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, first of all, will you please identify yourself? Mr. Hernandez. My name is Noli Hernandez. I am the Senior Vice President for Marketing and Sales of Megaworld Corporation. Mr. Perez. And your age? Mr. Hernandez. I am 42 years old. Mr. Perez. Nationality. Mr. Hernandez. I am a Filipino. Mr. Perez. Thank you. You mentioned that you are the Senior Vice President for Marketing and Sales of Megaworld Corporation. Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Sir. Mr. Perez. How long have you held that position? Mr. Hernandez. Well, I have been with Megaworld for the past 17 years, but I have been in this position for the past, I think, eight or nine years, if I am not mistaken. Mr. Perez. In that capacity as Senior Vice President for Marketing and Sales, will you state for the record your basic duties and functions? Mr. Hernandez. My basic duties actually include the packaging, the promotion, the marketing, and selling of all the projects that we have in Fort Bonifacio area. Mr. Perez. In the hearing yesterday, Megaword Finance Director Giovanni Ng stated that with respect to the pricing and discount for the Bellagio penthouse, bought by Renato and Cristina Corona, the person familiar with it would be you. Do you confirm this statement? Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. First of all, Mr. Witness, let us go to some preliminaries on the pricing of this Bellagio unit. In a high- rise condominium, such as the Bellagio, which are more expensive, the higher floors or the lower floors?
Mr. Hernandez. It is normally the higher floors, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. And Giovanni Ng testified that unit 38-B acquired by Corona is located on the highest or topmost floor. Do you confirm that? Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. In terms of mode of payment, when is the price higher, when the payment is in cash, or when the payment is in installment? Mr. Hernandez. When the payment is in cash, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. Your Honor, may I manifest that in his answer, Respondent Renato Corona admitted that he bought the Bellagio on installment basis. Mr. Ng, in terms of stage of development, when it is more expensive? When the building is still under construction, or when it is already completed? Mr. Hernandez. When it is already completed. Mr. Perez. And Giovanni Ng testified that the Bellagio was completed in late 2008 to early 2009. Do you confirm that? Mr. Hernandez. That is right. Mr. Perez. And when did Corona buy the Bellagio? Mr. Hernandez. Our records show that he bought it around September of 2008, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. At that time, what was the regular selling price for a penthouse unit per square meter? Mr. Hernandez. There is a price range of between P78,000 to P80,000 per square meter. Mr. Perez. You are referring to the regular selling price in Bellagio I? Mr. Hernandez. That is right. The Presiding Officer. How much? Mr. Hernandez. Between P78,000 to P80,000 per square meter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Perez. At P80,000 per square meter, can you tell us how much should be the price of a 303.5 square meter-penthouse? Mr. Cuevas. Should that not be a matter of computation? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor, precisely. Mr. Cuevas. Whatever the witness answer we will not be bound, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Mr. Hernandez. At that price, Your Honor, that will be P24 million.
10
The Presiding Officer. P24 million more or less.
Mr. Perez. Thank you. And why is it that the property with a regular price of P24 million, more or less, was sold at P14.6 million? Mr. Hernandez. Well, there are a lot of reasons for this and if I may be allowed to explain the circumstances surrounding the sale of this property at that price. First of all, I would like to make it of record.... Mr. Perez. Mr. Witness. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Mr. Perez. I will reform first the question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, he is answering the question. Let him answer. Mr. Perez. Go ahead. Mr. Hernandez. Okay. First of all, let me just make of record that the price of the unit that we should be talking about is not P24 million but instead we should be talking of P14.5 million. There is a reason for this and if I may be allowed to explain, Sir. This particular unit happened to be the last unit in that particular building, the Bellagio I. Mr. Cuevas. May we suggest, Your Honor, that the direct examination of the witness be by means of a question and answer and not in a narrative form, Your Honor, so that we can object when the time so dictates, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let him finish first his statement and you can raise your objection later on. Go ahead. Mr. Hernandez. Okay. As I was saying, Your Honor, the original price is P24 million but as I mentioned this was the last unit in that particular building. And back in 2008 the situation drastically changed for the marketing environment and this unit was delivered as a semi-bare unit. It was not really finished. We were about to finish the building, I mean, this particular unit but unfortunately there was a typhoon and the unit sustained some water damage, some leakage, Your Honor. And we deliberated on what to do next where we were thinking of maybe repackaging the whole thing or redesigning it or redoing the whole unit and we decided that it was going to cost us more to have it redone and it made more economic sense for us to give a steep discount and from P24 million I decided to just lower the price to P14.5 million. So, we weresorry, from P24 million it is now adjusted to P19.6 million, Your Honor. So, there was a reduction of about P5 Million because that was how much it was going to cost us to have it redone and to go to the market and sell this particular unit. And as I have mentioned, this was also the last penthouse unit in the building. So, we adjusted the price to P19.6 million so now we are left with only P5 million, from P19.6 to P14.5 which is the price reflected in the contract. The Presiding Officer. In other words, it was the decision of the selling company to reduce the price from P24 million to what? Mr. Hernandez. To P19.6 million, Your Honor.
11
The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel proceed. Is there any objection from the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. Well, the witness had already answered. I was trying to plead before this Honorable Court that his testimony be adduced by question and answer so that we can object when the time comes. Mr. Perez. Your Honor, I will ask questions. The Presiding Officer. From hereon then, the Counsel for the Prosecution is instructed to slice his questions into separate questions to arrive at the deSired answers. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. Mr. Witness, according to the Contract to Buy and Sell and the Deed of Absolute Sale, the purchase price for the penthouse was P14.5 million. Just to be clear, is this a regular price or discounted price? Mr. Cuevas. The witness is incompetent, Your Honor. There is no showing that he is in privity with this alleged contract. Mr. Perez. Your Honor, he just explained.... The Presiding Officer. Lay the basis. Counsel, lay the basis. Mr. Perez. Mr. Witness, you testified and you confirmed that you are familiar with the pricing and discount for this particular Bellagio penthouse. Now, I am asking you the P14.5 million, is this a regular price or discounted price? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Witness, did you prepare the contract to sell this unit? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir, I did not. The Presiding Officer. Who did? Mr. Hernandez. Our legal department prepared it. The Presiding Officer. You have nothing to do with the drafting Mr. Hernandez. I have nothing whatsoever to do with it, Sir. The Presiding Officer. and the preparation of the contract? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir. The Presiding Officer. How about negotiation of price?
12
Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Negotiation of price, Sir, yes. The Presiding Officer. You participated in the negotiation of price? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then, proceed from there, Counsel.
Mr. Perez. You mentioned that you participated in the negotiation for the price of this particular unit. I am asking you, is this price which was eventually indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale, is this a regular price or a discounted price? Mr. Hernandez. This is a discounted price, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. How much was the discount? Mr. Hernandez. Well, we have added some discounts to the contract price. So, basically, we were left with the....Because the client paid us in less than a year, our cash discount is 20 percent but because this project was due to be delivered in less than a year, the client was paying in about a year or so, we gave the standard shorter term discount of 15 percent. So that amounts to P3 million, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. You stated that the regular selling price was P24 million and the price indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale is P14.5 million. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Perez. So can you just clarify by informing the Court how much was the total discount given? Mr. Hernandez. Well, if you subtract P14.5 from P24.5.... The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. The regular price ordinarily was P24 million. You know, I am clarifying this not because of anything else, but the tendency of the question is misleading. According to the witness and the record will bear this out, that unit ought to be priced at P24 million. But because of certain circumstances, motu propio, the selling company reduced it to P19 million. Am I correct in this? Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Your Honor, P19.6. The Presiding Officer. And so that was the price, specific price, decided by no other one but the company. So, please be sure that you do not vary the testimony of the witness. Mr. Perez. Yes, Sir. So, you stated that the regular selling price was P24 million, it was reduced to P19.6 million. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Mr. Perez. But in the Deed of Absolute Sale, it stated P14.5 million. Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Sir. Mr. Perez. So, in total, how much was the total reduction? Mr. Hernandez. From P19.6, we gave an additionalbasically, P5 million additional discount. And, of course, out of that P5 million additional discount, P3 million or 15 percent was given because
13
the client was paying almost in cash, a short-term payment discount, that is what we call it. If he paid us cash, we would have given him 20 percent discount. Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, may we request that the Witness be directed to answer only the question and not... The Presiding Officer. Please answer the question of Counsel. Do not elaborate. Just answer. Listen carefully to the question. Mr. Perez. Actually, I share Justice Cuevas observation, so I will again ask: Mr. Witness, how much was the total reduction or discount given for this particular transaction? Mr. Cuevas. On the basis of what? The question is vague, Your Honor. Because there are several reductions, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Order. Let the witness answer. From P24 downward, what was the reduction of the price? Mr. Hernandez. From P24 downward, it is basically P10 million, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. Thank you. This P10 million discount.... The Presiding Officer. No, this is not a discount. Mr. Perez. Reduction. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, you are twisting the answer, and I am sorry to tell you that. The reduction done voluntarily by the selling company could not be considered a discount. They lowered the price themselves. That is not a discount to anybody. Discount means you are giving a privilege or a favor to somebody. Okay? Now, the discount started from the reduced price of P19 million. So, proceed. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. This reduction of around P10 million, is it common for Megaworld to make such a reduction? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. The witness is a very intelligent witness. Mr. Perez. If he knows, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. No, it is not a question of knowing. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. You are an intelligent witness. You can answer the question. It is clear. Mr. Hernandez. It was not very clear, Your Honor. Mr. Perez. This kind of P10-million worth of reduction, is it common for Megaworld to give this kind of reduction? Mr. Hernandez. Well, it is highly uncommon considering the circumstances which I have mentioned already.
14
The circumstances surrounding this account basically are uncommon. It was the first time that a penthouse unit ever sustained such a big damage because of a typhoon. So, this is not really common at all. The Presiding Officer. Why is it uncommon? Please explain, clarify. Mr. Hernandez. Normally, we never, we would not have given the P5 million, we never would have given that P5-million reduction in price had the unit not been damaged by the typhoon. There was water leakage. We were supposed to finish it. The Presiding Officer. So, actually, the discount was not because of any favor but because of a force majeure. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. That is correct. The Presiding Officer. Correct? Mr. Hernandez. That is correct. Mr. Perez. Thank you. Mr. Witness. Let us clarify the reasons you gave. You said that the unit was damaged because of a typhoon. Are you saying, Mr. Witness, that.... I reform, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, Counsel. He is your witness. Please do not argue with him. Do not cross-examine him unless you qualify him as a hostile witness. Do what is normal in direct examination. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Perez. I am not impeaching, Your Honor. I was just thinking a P10-million reduction is such a huge reduction to justify. So precisely, Your Honor, I am clarifying and allowing the witness to clarify the reasons. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, you said that the price was reduced because of, among others, damage due to typhoon. Does Megaworld sell damaged units? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. I do not want to object, Your Honor. It may appear that I may be.... The Presiding Officer. Does Megaworld sell damaged units? When? Mr. Hernandez. To customers, Your Honor. To buyers. The Presiding Officer. Well, he just said that they are selling a damaged unit. Mr. Perez. That is why I was trying to clarify, Your Honor. Whether it is a practice.... The Presiding Officer. Okay, the witness may answer.
15
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is it a practice for you to sell damaged units?
Mr. Hernandez. First of all, when we were about to.... The Presiding Officer. Witness, witness. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Listen carefully. Is it a practice by Megaworld to sell damaged units? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir. It is not. That is why we were going to rectify it. We were in the process of rectifying it. The Presiding Officer. Counsel. Mr. Perez. Mr. Witness, do you know if there is any agreement between Megaworld and the Coronas regarding any liability for such damage? Mr. Cuevas. No basis, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No basis, sustained. Mr. Perez. You stated, Mr. Witness, that the price for this property was reduced because of, among others, the damage sustained by the unit. And you further stated, it is on record, that Megaworld sold this unit to the Coronas. So, I am just asking if there is any agreement between Megaworld and the Coronas with respect to any liability with respect to the damage. The Presiding Officer. Liability of whom? Mr. Perez. Of the seller, Your Honor. Because as a seller, the seller gives warranties on the unit that it is selling. So, I am just asking, Your Honor, if any provision was made with respect to the damage. The Presiding Officer. Well, the best evidence of any contract would be the contents of the contract. Is it not, Counsel? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, I am asking if there is any agreement. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. As I said, the contract would show the warranties, the obligation of each party, the obligation of the seller, and the obligation of the buyer. It is all in the contract. And it is not proper to introduce parol evidence in a completed transaction covered by a contract. Mr. Perez. Your Honor, we are not party to the contract so.... The Presiding Officer. You are not party to the contract. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. So, we submit that the parol evidence will not apply. The Presiding Officer. Then produce the contract between the Coronas and the Megaworld for the consideration of this Court. Mr. Perez. We submit, Your Honor.
16
Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentlelady from Taguig.
Senator Cayetano (P). We have spent about 33 minutes on this issue of the condition of the condominium and the reduction and discounting of the price. May I know from Counsel what is the relevance to Article II as to the failure to disclose? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, the primary relevance would be to the truthfulness of the SALN for 2010. Senator Cayetano (P). Then the question is: Did you disclose or did you not disclose? Does it matter if it was P1 million more or P2 million more? Mr. Perez. It was disclosed, Your Honor, but the acquisition cost was not disclosed and the current fair market value was grossly understated. Senator Cayetano (P). Well, I will just put on record, Mr. President, that we spent over 30 minutes on this issue and I do believe that at the rate we are going, it will really take us a very long time to get to the bottom of Article II. So, maybe you can just try to.... Mr. Perez. I will try to abbreviate, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, you stated that the property suffered damage. May I ask if the Bellagio condominium was insured against such type of damage? Mr. Cuevas. Immaterial, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. It is normally insured. Mr. Perez. And, Mr. Witness.... The Presiding Officer. Witness, please answer. Did you answer already? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir, I did. Mr. Perez. With respect to the mode of payment, Mr. Witness, how many payments were made for this particular property? Mr. Hernandez. If I remember correctly, this was spread over one year. Mr. Perez. Over one year. Okay, thank you. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, over one year. Mr. Perez. Thank you. Mr. Hernandez. No, no. About a year or so. Mr. Perez. Yes. Mr. Hernandez. Less than a year. Mr. Perez. And you also mentioned that the circumstances drastically changed. What do you mean by these circumstances?
17
Mr. Hernandez. Well... Mr. Cuevas. The question is very vague, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, are you talking of the cause of the reduction in price motuproprio by the selling company? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, I heard the witness earlier said that the reduction was because the circumstances drastically changed. I am using his words. The Presiding Officer. The Chair asked a direct question. What was the cause of the reduction? Was it force majeure? And he said, yes. Mr. Perez. Primarily, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And I am sure, as a lawyer, you know the meaning of force majeure. Mr. Perez. I am just asking if by drastically changed.... The Presiding Officer. All right, I will allow you to answer. Proceed. Mr. Perez. What do you mean by these circumstances drastically changed? Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor please, at the expense of being repetitious, Your Honor, this was clearly stated by the witnessthe condition of the property being water-damaged and the...this had been very well explained, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Defense Counsel, bear with the Prosecution. Let the witness answer. All right, answer. Mr. Cuevas. Okay, thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Hernandez. Okay, as I was saying, the unit, being a penthouse unit, sustained some damage after a strong typhoon. The Presiding Officer. You know, Witness, Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer.so that we will shorten the proceedings, just give a detailed narration of the defects, if there were defects in this building. Mr. Hernandez. I really would not call them defects, Your Honor. There was a...It sustained some water damage because of the typhoon. This unit is a penthouse unit. So, before we could turn it over, before we could even finish the unit itself, it alreadythere was a typhoon and it sustained some damage, as I have mentioned. So, when we were computing the cost, how much it was going to cost us to redo the finishing, replace the flooring and so on and so forth, we decided thatwell, along came our client and basically we decided that it made more economic sense for us to just sell it as it was. So, I think, for us, it merited a drastic reduction in price. So, that was the first reason why we have decided to reduce the price. Mr. Perez. You stated that the Bellagio condominium was insured against damage. Did Megaworld report this damage with the insurance company?
18
Mr. Cuevas. Immaterial, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are you cross-examining your witness? Mr. Perez. No, Your Honor, just asking for clarifications.
The Presiding Officer. No, no, no, that is not clarification. You are, in effect....You are telling him, You are not telling us the truth. Mr. Perez. I am not, Your Honor. I am sorry to say. The Presiding Officer. The impression of the Court is that you do not believe the answer of your own witness. Please reform your question. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. You stated, Mr. Witness, that the Bellagio condominium was insured against damage. What steps did you take, if any, after that penthouse unit was damaged? Mr. Cuevas. No basis, Your Honor. There is no such statement on the part of the witness. He was asking whether it was insured? The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, was this unit insured? Mr. Hernandez. I do not have that information, Sir. But, normally, our buildings are insured while we are constructing them. It is not within my jurisdiction. The Presiding Officer. Even your witness is incompetent to answer the question. Did the company collect any insurance? Mr. Hernandez. I am not in a position, Sir, to actually know that. I am just saying that, normally, during construction the building is insured. But on top of this damage, I have to mention that the unit was actually on the finishing stage and this was just one of the reasons why we reduced the price. Apart from this damage, basically, we just computed how much it was going to cost us to have to redo everything. So, we just factored that in and we decided that it is wiser for us to sell it at a lower price, at a reduced price. Mr. Perez. We have no further questions, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You have no further question to this Witness? Mr. Perez. None, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Cross? Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. Mr. Hernandez. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Now, I heard you mention that the buyer here is one Renato Corona and Mrs. Corona, am I right? Mr. Hernandez. That is right, Sir. Yes, Sir.
19
Mr. Cuevas. Was this considered in reducing the price? Mr. Hernandez. Of course not, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. I see. So, definitely, the reduction is not because the buyer is a certain Corona or Justice Corona? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Whether it is Juan de la Cruz or anybody else, you would have reduced the price because of the condition of the unit when it was sold? Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Thank you. Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court whether the damages that you found in this unit was inventoried or listed? For instance, what is the extent of the damage and so on and which part of the unit was damaged? Mr. Hernandez. Well, I just consulted some of the people in our technical team and they came up with an estimate. And the estimate was around P5 million or maybe even more than that. Mr. Cuevas. So that even if it was bought by anybody else, you would have spent the same? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Either we do it ourselves and spend the same amount or even more, or find a buyer that would be willing to get to buy it as it was. Mr. Cuevas. Now, in the matter of fixing the The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. May I request the distinguished gentleman from Ilocos Norte to allow the cross-examination to push through first, before he can ask the question that he wants to make. Senator Marcos. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, I am showing to you Exhibit AAAA, which is also marked as Exhibit 25 for the Prosecution, for the plaintiff, which is also marked as Exhibit 25 for the Defense. Will you kindly go over this, Mr. Witness, and tell us whether you are familiar with that document? Senator Marcos. Mr. President, if I may? Mr. President, a point of order, if I may? The Presiding Officer. Who is raising the point of order? Senator Marcos. I am Senator Marcos, Sir. The Presiding Officer. What is your point of order? Senator Marcos. The point of order, Sir, is that precisely I am perplexed as to why we are listening to this testimony. I have hesitated to rise in these proceedings because I am a non-lawyer and there are many aspects to these that are strictly legal. However, as far as I understand, we are examining or talking about Article II which has to do with non-disclosure of the SALN and noninclusion of certain aspects in the SALN.
20
I cannot make the connection between the testimony that we are hearing today and have heard yesterday, and how it impacts upon how we decide, whether or not the SALN was disclosed or was inaccurate. And so, I would like perhaps to get some guidance, some enlightenment on how we are supposed to treat this testimony when we are deciding which way to vote for Article II. Now, on a related question by Senator Pimentel yesterday, when Atty. Perez was asked the same questions as to what I am asking now, he mentioned that it is not only Article II, but also Article III that this testimony refers to. But I looked at Article III, Mr. President, and all Article III talks about is the flip-flopping of the Supreme Court on the issue of the cityhood of 16 cities. I cannot figure out how the discount, and what the reasons the discount, sorry, the change in price, and what the reasons those changes were made from, impact upon the issue of Article II which is non-disclosure of the SALN and non-inclusion of the SALN. So, perhaps, the Defense can help me here because, as I said maybe my lack of legal training is showing through but Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Marcos. I hope you can enlighten me. Mr. Perez. Gladly, Your Honor. Senator Marcos. I am sorry, the Counsel for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer would like to clarify. He allowed, out of liberality, the witness to answer because the counsel for the Prosecution said he wanted to show that the actual price of the unit was not disclosed in the SALN of the Chief Justice. But the witness also clarified that there was no special discount, if I recollect the answer of the witness, given to the Chief Justice because he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So, I allowed the question to be answered. That is the reason we went into this thing. But, evidently, I see your point and you have a good point. That kind of a question will go into paragraph 2.4 which is improper because then you are now saying that the price is understated. And this witness contradicts this question because he said that was the real pricewhat was stated in the SALN. Senator Marcos. Thank you, Mr. President. Precisely my point that the Chair had already ruled that the evidence on paragraph 2.4 of Article II would not be admissible. And therefore, I do not understand how I will now, as a Senator-Judge, take this testimony that is being heard, that we have heard yesterday and today and what is the impact of this upon the disclosure or non-disclosure of the SALN or the inaccuracy or accuracy of the SALN. Mr. Perez. Your Honor. Senator Marcos. It goes directly to my duties as a Senator-Judge in deciding how to vote if the time comes for Article II. Mr. Perez. May I just make the connection, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. I think , Your Honor, it is not the private Prosecution that should be given the privilege and the right to argue the case for the probe body. Head of the panel, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You know, this is Well, let the members of the Congress forming the panel of Prosecutors answer the question of the Senator from Ilocos Norte.
21
Representative Barzaga. Well, if, Your Honor, please. The Prosecution was permitted The Presiding Officer. Who is Representative Barzaga. Prosecutor Barzaga, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let me finish first with the gentleman from Cavite. Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Barzaga. The Prosecution was permitted by this Honorable Court to present evidence with regard to the non-disclosure of the properties under the SALN of the Respondent. In this particular case, we are dealing with a property purchased from Bellagio. According to our witness, there was a reduction in price of P10 million. There is also a statement, Your Honor, that the Respondent has to shoulder P5 million for the repair of the unit. Insofar as that P5 million is concerned, Your Honor, that would be an improvement insofar as the property is concerned and, therefore, normally, it should be included as an added value to the property. Moreover, Your Honor, the SALN also indicates not only the real properties but also personal properties such as cash. And therefore, we would like to find out whether or not the SALN, as submitted by the Chief Justice, includes the necessary amount of cash to answer for the improvements or for the repair of P5 million. And therefore, any evidence insofar as this issue is concerned, is within the issue permitted by this honorable Court pertaining to SALN. Senator Marcos. That is maybe, Your Honor, but again, we, as the good lady from Taguig has brought up, we have spent a good amount of time talking about the discount, the reduction in price. What does this have to do with non-disclosure or non-inclusion in the SALN? Now, all the other points that the good gentleman has made are well-taken but that is not what has been discussed here. What we are discussing is something else entirely. I hope you can enlighten me because it goes directly, as I said, to our duties as Senator-Judges when we have to decide how does this testimony impact upon the situation as you are trying to explain it to us. The Presiding Officer. May I request that we limit ourselves to the two-minute rule so that we will not prolong the proceeding. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. We just wish to put into the Record some of our views in an effort to clarify the questions raised by the gentleman from Ilocos Norte. Mr. President, Article II of the Impeachment Complaint pertains to the Respondents failure to disclose to the public the SALN as required under Section 17, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution which, in turn, contemplates a truthful and accurate disclosure thereof. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the filing is not a ministerial act. It is not the act of filing itself which would satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. It is the filing of a truthful and accurate Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth. It must be truthful, it must be complete, it must be timely.
22
And these are the decisions of the Supreme Court in a number of casesFlores vs Montemayor, where there was a statement that the ownership of an asset that is not yet passed is not a valid excuse for omitting it in the SALN. That was the decision of the Supreme Court. In the case of Office of the Court Administrator vs Judge Usman, Every public official or government employee must make and submit a complete disclosure of his Assets, Liabiltiies and Networth in order to supress any questionable accumulation of wealth. And in another case, Ombudsman vs Pelio, the Court ruled that, There must be a timely disclosure of the assets. So, it is clear from these jurisprudence that it is not the ministerial act of filing that the government official complies with his duty. The SALN must be accurate, must be truthful and must be timely. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. At any rate, the Court understands the situation to mean that this witness is to be discharged because the Prosecution said they are through with the witness. So, what is the... No, let me dispose of this issue first. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, as far as we are concerned, we are through with the witness. The Presiding Officer. You are through with the witness. So, what is the pleasure of the gentleman from Taguig? Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, good afternoon, from Taguig and Pateros. I have a clarificatory question to the witness and since Sen. Bongbong Marcos ran out of his two minutes, I would just like to continue his clarificatory statement, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. I did not know that the gentleman from Ilocos Norte has not finished his two minutes. If he has not finished his two minutes, he has the right to finish his two minutes. Senator Marcos. I had, in fact, finished my two minutes, Mr. Senate President. So, I yield to the gentleman from Taguig. The Presiding Officer. I am sorry, I thought that you exceeded the two minutes. I must apologize. The gentleman from Taguig may proceed. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. Presiding Officer, let me agree with your statement previously with Senator Marcos, Sen. Pia Cayetano and Senator Drilon. I think this all started when we had a ruling regarding 2.2, 2.3, 2.4. Malinaw na malinaw po dito na hindi puwede magpasok ng ebidensiya tungkol sa ill-gotten wealth as a separate charge, at kahapon nilabas iyong written resolution. Ngunit puwedeng ipakita ng Prosecution ang kahit anong property na hindi isinama sa SALN under 2.2 and 2.3 or kung mali ang ipinasok, ibig sabihin sa presyo, description o kung anuman. Ito po ang sinasabi ni Senator Drilon. But we cannot ignore that while there is a trial ongoing here, there is a trial ongoing outside. And kahapon nung lumabas iyong discount because of the question of Senator Pimentel, parangang pinapalabas na discount ay merong deal na nangyari between Megaworld and the CJ na this is very unfair to both the Respondent and to Megaworld unless in fact iyon ang gustong i-prove ng Prosecution. So, I just have one or two questions sa witness and then sa counsel, ano. Witness, good afternoon. Was there a pending case between Megaworld and the Supreme Court when either CJ was the chief justice or was a justice of the Supreme Court, if you know?
23
Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. Actually, we actually have lost two cases in the Supreme Court. I have here the details. Senator Cayetano (A). So, you had the case pero natalo kayo? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. That is why we had to Senator Cayetano (A). So, just to ask you directly. Itong reduction o discount, this had nothing to do with the case or did this have something to do with the case? Mr. Hernandez. Nothing whatsoever, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Next question. Would you have offered the same price to any other buyer? Mr. Hernandez. I would have, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). When did the negotiations take place for the price, before you knew it was CJ Corona or Justice Corona at that time buying it, or you would have offered it to anyone, anyway? Mr. Hernandez. Honestly, Sir, at that time, I did not even know it was CJ Corona, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. So, meaning if I or anyone else came and said, Dahil damaged iyan, bilhin ko na iyan for P14 million, ibebenta niyo na po ng P14 million? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. It was brought to my attention. Senator Cayetano (A). So, whether it is the private prosecutor or the gentleman from Cavite. Sir, did I get the statement right of Congressman Barzaga, that you are asking this question not to dispute the price but to show that the price reflected in SALN is either non-existent or is wrong? Representative Barzaga. Well, actually, Your Honor, just by way of backgrounder, we were permitted to present evidence insofar as paragraph 2.2 and 2.3 is concerned. Senator Cayetano (A). That is correct. Representative Barzaga. And under 2.3, it is expressly provided, it is also reported that some of the properties of the Respondent are not included in his declaration of his Assets, Liabilities and Networth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Just to abbreviate, Sir. So, just for this property, so for the Bellagio property, nandito po ba sa 20ito po bang No. 5, iyong condo at P6.8 million, current fair market value, iyan ho ba iyong Bellagio? Ito po sa SALN sa Exhibit M niyo. Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. So, ang pinapakita niyo lang dito na P14 million ang selling price pero P6.8 million dito tapos ang acquisition cost wala. Representative Barzaga. Wala po.
Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. But hindi tayoyou are not asking that question or you are not going into whether there was a deal between Megaworld or CJ or whether it was ill-gotten. Representative Barzaga. Well, insofar as the issue of ill-gotten is concerned, we admit that we are not presenting any evidence insofar as ill-gotten wealth is concerned considering that we are
24
Senator Cayetano (A). Okay po. So, I think klaro and we can move on already from that issue because Id just like to, you know, make of note here, Megaworld is a publicly-listed company na naghihirap ang ating Pangulo at lahat ng ating mga economic team na magdala ng investments into our country so we have to be very careful. When we make accusations, let us make it very clear. Kung hindi, linawin din po natin dito. I am not referring only to the Prosecution but we have to be responsible here. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Is the Defense counsel through with his cross-examination? Mr. Cuevas. In view of this development, Your Honor, may I announce on record that I am through with the cross-examination of the witness. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Majority Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Estrada, Senator Recto and Senator Osmea wish to pose questions. The Presiding Officer. Who is the first one to be recognized? Senator Sotto. Senator Estrada, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate has the Floor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Witness, I would like to ask you a question: Are you comfortable in speaking in Tagalog or in English? Mr. Hernandez. Tagalog po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yesterday, I could not force your colleague in Megaworld since I think he was just half- Filipino.. Mr. Hernandez. Tagalog po is okay. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Tagalog. All right. Ginoong testigo, nakita mo na ba yung Bellagio unit? Mr. Hernandez. Nakita ko na po yung Bellagio unit. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Nakita mo na rin ba yung binili supposedly ni Chief Justice Corona, yung 38? Mr. Hernandez. Bago po ito nabili, nakita ko na po yung unit, na-inspeksyon ko ho siyang mabuti, at oho, napuntahan ko na siya. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ilang beses mo na nakita yung unit na binili? Mr. Hernandez. Yung partikular na unit ho na binili niya, isang beses ko lang ho pinuntahan because it came to my attention that it was damaged. It sustained some damage, so I went to see for myself.
25
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Sino ba ho ang lumapit sa inyo, si Chief Justice ang naginquire sa Bellagio o kayo mismo ang nagpunta kay Chief Justice para alukin ng condominium? Mr. Hernandez. This was actually his second purchase. That is why I. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, kilala mo siyang personal? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi ho personal. Hindi personal. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Pero nakapag-usap na kayo? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi ho kami personal na nakapag-usap. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, sino yung lumapit para bilhin itong 38-B na unit? Mr. Hernandez. Ang pagkakaalam ko ho ang nakipag-usap sa amin ay yung kanyang maybahay na si Ginang Cristina Corona. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kailan po? Mr. Hernandez. If I remember correctly, Your Honor, it is about September, middle of September. Senator Ejercito Estrada. At nagpahayag siya ng kanyang interes na bilhin ang isang unit? Mr. Hernandez. Opo. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Tinuro ba niya kaagad yung 38-B? Mr. Hernandez. Honestly, Your Honor, I just found out about itwhen I found out about it, they were basically in the advanced stage of negotiation. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Akala ko gusto mong tagalogin? O, sige na, sige na. Okey lang. Mr. Hernandez. Sa totoo lang ho nung.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Sige na, sige na, Inglesin mo na. Mr. Hernandez. Okay. By the time it came to my attention, there were some inquiries made already. And my staff basically was just asking me or just asking me that there is this buyer who is interested in the penthouse unit. I did not know exactly. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Who the buyer was? Mr. Hernandez. Yes.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. And it turned out to be Mrs. Corona? Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Base sa salaysay ni Giovanni Ng kahapon, mayroon daw mga technical defects yung unit. And as you have testified earlier, there were some technical defects. Pwede niyo bang i-eksplika sa amin ano itong mga technical defects na ito sa condominium? Mr. Hernandez. Well, Your Honor, hindi ko ho ito matawag na technical defects talaga.
26
Kagaya nga ho nun nabanggit ko kanina, mayroon hong bagyong dumaan bago namin ito natapos at nagkaroon ho siya ng damage. Now, prior to this, we were on the finishing stage also of the unit. We were finishing the unit. We were experimenting with a certain design and feel for the unit which did not quite turn out to bewell, we did not actually get to finish it because while we were finishing it, the typhoon came along and damaged the unit. So, nagkaroon ho ng water damage. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ano ba yung bagyo na tumama doon? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi ko na ho matandaan. That was in 2008 and alam ninyo naman po na ang unit na ito ay nasa penthouse, nasa bubungan, hindi pa ho na-turn over sa amin na maayos. Pinasok ho ng tubig nanggaling sa exit papunta sa helipad, sa. Senator Ejercito Estrada. 2008 nung tumama ang bagyo? Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. That was before typhoon Ondoy? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, I think, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kasi 2008, ang mga bagyo lang doon bagyong Frank. Pati ba yung typhoon Frank tinamaan yung condominium unit ni CJ Corona? So, you admit right now that one of the defects of the condominium unit was because of the typhoon? Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Hindi ho siya defect, nagkaroon ho siya ng damage. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Damage, not necessarily technical? Mr. Hernandez. No, no, not at all. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Marami na ba kayong.... Is it usual or unusual on your part na magbigay ng malaking, halimbawa, diskuwento sa mga sikat o kilalang personalidad? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi po namin normal na practice iyan. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Hindi ba normal sa isang taong katulad mo na isang marketing man na, halimbawa, mayroong isang sikat na personalidad, halimbawa, isang sikat na artista, ipagpalagay natin si Bong Revilla, na gustong mag-acquire, halimbawa, ng isang unit diyan sa Bellagio, siyempre karangalan ninyo iyan dahil isang sikat na personalidad, magagamit ninyo pa sa inyong marketing purposes, sabihin ninyo: Ah, diyan nakatira si Bong Revilla. Bili na kayo ng isang unithindi ninyo ba ginagawaat bibigyan ko kayo ng discount? Mr. Hernandez. I think the other developers are doing that. But, as far as we are concerned, our projects speak for themselves. Karaniwan ho, medyo nakakasama pa ho iyong ganoong sitwasyon sa amin. So, it is not really something that we look for. It is not something that we seek out. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, bilang isang marketing person, up to what extent...hanggang ilang porsiyento kayo allowed na magbigay ng discount? Mr. Hernandez. Sa totoo lang ho, it is a case-by-case basis. Of course, we arrive at a pricing based on several factors: (1) We have to determine our costsour construction cost, development cost, marketing cost, and so on and so forthand then we do our research, we take a look at the
27
prevailing market prices and we also add to that our target profit and we go from there. So, as long as I know the bottom line, Your Honor, I should be able to make some decisions. I am guided by these parameters and I do not deviate. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Doon sa, di ba dalawa iyong units doon sa 38th floor at iyong isa na-damaged kamo, iyong kay Chief Justice Corona. Iyong isang unit ba on the same floor na-damage din ba? Mr. Hernandez. Wala pong nakarating sa aking impormasyon tungkol doon. So, I think it is safe to assume that there was no damage to that particular unit and also by that time, that particular unit was sold already. This 38-B happens to be the last unit we sold in that building. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Do you conduct financial background on all your prospective buyers? Mr. Hernandez. We see no need to do that, Your Honor. It is a tedious process. And, as far as we are concerned, if you renege in your obligations, the unit stays with us. So, unlike when you go to a bank and you try to take out loans, the bank will have to do background investigation because if you occupy your house and you renege on your payments, the banks will have to go through a lot of trouble evicting you. We do not have that problem, Your Honor. So, for us, it is unnecessary. So, we do not. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Mr. Hernandez. Thank you. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, I think my time is up. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Osmea wishes to be recognized. Thereafter, Senator Recto and Senator Drilon. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cebu is recognized. Senator Osmea III. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Witness, ilan pong penthouse doon po sa Bellagio? Mr. Hernandez. Anim po. Senator Osmea III. Anim. On three floors. Mr. Hernandez. Opo. Senator Osmea III. So, ibig sabihin two per floor. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, po. Senator Osmea III. At siguro, iba-ibang presyo iyong tatlo, the one on the first floor of the penthouse would be priced at less than the top penthouse, di ba? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, po. Senator Osmea III. All right. Mayroon ho kayong price list? Mr. Hernandez. Wala po akong....
Senator Osmea III. Would you like to submit to the Court the price list, the asking prices for those penthouses?
28
Mr. Hernandez. Well, our price list basically ho is based on....
Senator Osmea III. No, do not.... Just submit it. Do not argue, please. We ask the Court that it subpoena the original price list for the Bellagio Condominium building. Can we have that by tomorrow, Mr. Witness? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea III. All right. Ngayon po, iyong damage, anong klaseng damage na-sustain ang penthouse ni Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Hernandez. Gaya po ng nabanggit ko kanina, nagkaroon po ng leakage. Senator Osmea III. Na ibig mong sabihin, water damage lamang. Mr. Hernandez. Water damage po. Senator Osmea III. Water damage, in my experience, is one of the least. Mr. Hernandez. Well, the floors were extensively.... Senator Osmea III. There is no construction damage, there are no cracks. Kung water damage lamang, paint lang iyan. Mr. Hernandez. Hindi lang ho iyon, medyo extensive ho iyong naging damage, besides hindi nga talaga tapos. Senator Osmea III. Do you have photographs of the unit as it was damaged? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir. I do not, Sir. Senator OsmeaIII. You did not file any insurance claims on it? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir. Senator OsmeaIII. You did not? Mr. Hernandez. Not that I know of, Sir. Senator Osmea III. Will you please check because it is very normal that if there is any sort of damage, there is a claim that is made and photographs are taken. You are under oath, Mr. Witness. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Senator Osmea III. Do you know that for a fact that no claims were filed? Mr. Hernandez. I do not know that for a fact, Sir. Senator Osmea III. All right. So, you said there was none so you were not telling the truth? Mr. Hernandez. I do not know that for a fact, Sir. All I said was that, normally, there should be Senator Osmea III. Never mind normally, I am asking you specifically in this case if any claims were filed? Mr. Hernandez. I am not aware, Sir.
29
Senator Osmea III. All right. Will you find out and let the Court know tomorrow. Mr. Hernandez. I will, Your Honor. Senator Osmea III. Thank you. Ano po normally ang construction cost ng multi-storey condominium building like the Bellagio? Mr. Hernandez. I am actually not a Senator Osmea III. You are not a finance man? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir, Im not. Senator Osmea III. Normally, the construction cost is about 70 percent to 80 percent of the total selling price, 20 percent is the normal profit made by a developer. Are you aware of that? Mr. Hernandez. I am not so sure, Your Honor. Senator Osmea III. All I am saying is that, if it was listedif the listed price was P24 million, it was eventually sold for P14 million, the developer sold this at a huge loss. Are you aware of that? Mr. Hernandez. I would not call it a huge loss, Sir. Senator Osmea III. Well, okay. So, youre aware of the numbers? So, what is to you a huge loss and what is the small loss? Mr. Hernandez. Well, as the figures will show, Sir, its about 40 percent, Sir. Senator Osmea III. What figures? You have not told us any figure. Are you talking about the difference between P24 million and P14 million? Mr. Hernandez. Well, yes, Sir, if that is one way to look at it. Senator Osmea III. That is one way to look at it. You have other ways of looking at it? Mr. Hernandez. Well, because if from the normal selling price of P24 million and we ended up selling it for P14.5 million, that is quite a reduction, Sir. But as I have mentioned earlier, there is a reason for this and I was explaining it. Senator Osmea III. Yes, and we are trying to prove if that reason is valid. Now, that is why we are asking for photos because in my experience, water damage is one of the least that can happen to your property as far as damage is concerned. Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Senator Osmea III. Because you justa coat of paint. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, if I may also add. I was saying earlier that on top of this, the unit was actually semi-bare at that stage. We were just about to finish it, we were going to complete it and then some parts of it were damaged. Senator Osmea III. You are saying that the unit was semi-bare. Mr. Hernandez. That is correct. Senator Osmea III. Will you please describe what semi-bare means?
30
Mr. Hernandez. Well, it is not 100 percent finished.
Senator Osmea III. Well, you know that. But I mean, you know, what is missing? The electrical were in place? Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Senator Osmea. The water pipes were in place? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Senator Osmea III. And did you not finish it before you handed it over to the new owner? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir, we did not have the chance to do that as I have mentioned because Senator Osmea III. You mean to say, the new owner moved in and did all the finishing himself? Mr. Hernandez. We just turned it over to the new owner, Sir, andwe sold it as it was.
Senator Osmea III. Would you show us the dates on which the turnover was made, please? Mr. Hernandez. Pardon, Sir. Senator Osmea III. Show us, show the court the date on which the turnover was made. Mr. Hernandez. I do not have it with me, Sir. Senator Osmea III. Yes, will you submit it to the Court? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir, I will. Senator Osmea III. Essentially, a developer will never turn over a unit that is not finished and not up to spec because the contracts would all reflect representations and warranties, particularly in a condominium building. So, we doubt very much if you are being very accurate this afternoon. In any case, my two minutes are up, Mr. Senate President. Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Recto, Senator Pangilinan, Senator Drilon and Senator Villar in that order. The Presiding Officer. Sen. Ralph G. Recto has the floor. Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. Senate President. Mr. President, I just have a few questions with the Prosecution to better understand the case of the Prosecution with regard to the SALN and the Bellagio property. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President. Am I correct to hear from the Prosecution earlier that you agreed that the Chief Justice included the Bellagio property in his SALN? Representative Barzaga. Yes.
31
Senator Recto. So it is found in the SALN. Representative Barzaga. In 2010, mayroon pong nakalagay roon na dalawang condominiums sa Taguig City. Senator Recto. Okay. So, you are saying that is in number five, year acquired, 2010, I suppose. Is that correct? Representative Barzaga. Yes. Senator Recto. Okay. Kung nandito, ano iyong problema? Representative Barzaga. anim na milyon mahigit. Unang-una, ang problema ang nakalagay po lamang diyan ay
Senator Recto. You are saying now, just to be specific about it, Mr. Senate President, under the issue of current fair market value, on number five of the SALN of the Chief Justice, it says: Condo, Taguig; 2010; installment; assessed value, 3,496,320, and then it says under the current fair market value, 6.8 million. Is that correct? Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Recto. Okay. And you were saying that he should have.... Representative Barzaga. Well, unang-una, ang selling price po ay P14.5 million. Pangalawa po, kung totoo ang sinasabi ng aming testigo na iyon ay reduced price at kinakailangang gumastos pa ang Punong Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema ng additional na limang milyon, dapat po ang value ng property is P14.5 as reflected in the Deed of Absolute Sale plus the P5 million na gagamitin sa pagpapaayos ng penthouse. Senator Recto. Kung ipapagawa.
Representative Barzaga. Kung ipapagawa po. Senator Recto. Okay, mahabang ano iyon e....Anyway, so the problem is, what you are saying is that, dapat inilagay niya sa acquisition cost P14.5 million. Do you have a problem with the P6.8 million under current fair market value? Representative Barzaga. Well, I think na malinaw naman po na kung ang current fair market value is only P6.5 million, no sane person would be selling the same property whose market value is only P6.5. The seller would be selling it for P14.5 million. Senator Recto. Mr. Prosecutor, let me invite your attention to Exhibit LLLLL. This is the exhibit given by the Prosecution. It says here in the Certificate Authorizing Registration...without this, you cannot register the property. In this Certificate Authorizing Registration, the selling price is here at P14.5 million. And I agree with you that the Chief Justice should have put it in the acquisition cost. But having said that, there is also an account here that says, market zonal value which is P6.827 million. Meaning to say, for purposes of real property tax payments, ito iyong public document. May isa pang dokumento ito e. Ito, for registration purpose and whichever is higher, that is the corresponding taxes that you pay so that you are issued a TCT or CCT. In this case the CCT. Samakatwid, hindi rin siya nagsinungaling when he put P6.8 million in the current fair market value. Then, ito ay mga local ordinance na ipinapasa sa schedule market of value, in this case in
32
Taguig, ang cost or ang value ng property doon ay ganito lang ang halaga. Samakatwid, based on the public documents presented by the Prosecution in this issue. Representative Barzaga. Ang nais po naming ipakita ay malinaw na malinaw sa dokumento na ang halaga ng ibinayad ni Chief Justice Corona ay P14.5 million. Kaya gusto po naming linawin, base ba sa kanyang SALN, mayroon bang sufficient siyang cash para bilhin ang property na worth P14.5 million? Senator Recto. Okay. Again, I would suppose at a future date, we will probably take a look at the SALN. Has the Prosecution showed any property not in the SALN at this point in time? Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Recto. How many? Representative Barzaga. Seven (7) properties in Marikina. Senator Recto. But that has not been presented yet to the Court. Representative Barzaga. The Register of Deeds has already been presented, the crossexamination of the Defense has not yet started. Senator Recto. Okay. So, if at all, you would be saying now the two items, para maintindihan na rin natin dito sa Korte at ng publiko. Sa ngayon sa SALN ng Chief Justice, lima ang property na nandito for 2010. Total throughout his life, he had eight properties, it appears. You are saying that in 2010, he has not put seven properties in Marikina? Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Recto. So, iyon ang hindi truthful ang declaration, wala pa dito. Representative Barzaga. Yes, and when we speak of truthful declaration, it presupposes that there should be a truthful statement insofar as the amount used for the purchase of the property is concerned. Senator Recto. And the other allegation now would be, why did he not use the acquisition cost, that is the point, right? Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Recto. At the appropriate time, I would like to reserve my right to ask questions on the Defense at the appropriate time with regard to this. Because we would still like to hear the Defense, how would they defend this in the SALN of the Chief Justice. But having said that, just a point of inquiry, Mr. President, I made this opportunity for me now to ask an inquiry of this Court. My understanding is that based on the Rules, there are eight (8) articles of impeachment. It has been reported in the papers that the Prosecution will present a hundred witnesses and I would assume based on our Rules that at the end of the Prosecutions turn of presenting a hundred witnesses, the Defense now will have the opportunity to present their witnesses and their evidence to support their positions, right? Is that correct, Mr. President? Is that the procedure that we are following? The Presiding Officer. That?
33
Senator Recto. That the Prosecution will present first testimony and evidence for the eight articles? The Presiding Officer. For all the articles. Senator Recto. For all the articles. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Recto. Before the Defense will have the opportunity The Presiding Officer. to present their controverting evidence. Senator Recto. Correct. And then the Defense at the end of the eight (8) articles, after the eight presentations on the part of the Prosecution, the Defense will have their turn, is that correct? The Presiding Officer. The Defense will now? Senator Recto. Will have their turn. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Recto. All right. The Presiding Officer. The procedure is, there are eight (8) articles of impeachment. The Prosecution will present their evidence for each of these eight (8) articles of impeachment. At which case, they will then rest their case and say that they have presented already their evidence and at that point it will be the turn of the Defense to present their evidence to disprove any and all of the eight articles and rest their case. Senator Recto. I understand, Mr. President, because that is not clear in the Rules as I read the Rules. The Presiding Officer. That does not have to be said, that is the normal procedure in adversarial proceedings. Senator Recto. I understand, Mr. President. However, the reason I asked this question is that it would be easier, I suppose, at least for me, maybe not for all the judges, especially the non-lawyers in this Chamber, that I think it would be more proper that the Prosecution present, let us say, Article II. The Defense now, at the end of the Prosecution presenting Article II, the Defense is given the opportunity to defend themselves in Article II. Thereafter, they can move on to the next article, the Prosecution can now present another evidence in the next article and then the Defense can now present their evidence in that particular article instead of the procedure we have that Prosecution will first present eight articles. The Presiding Officer. That will mean an amendment of the Rules of Impeachment of the Senate in which case we will have to re-publish. Senator Recto. I do not wish to spend so much time today in all these issues, Mr. President. While I agree that we vote at the end of eight articles, I think it would be best for all of us, if the Prosecution is allowed to present their evidence, their witnesses for a particular article, then give the Defense the opportunity to defend themselves per article as well. Then at the end, we vote accordingly. But I do not wish to belabor the point at the time of this Court, and maybe at the appropriate time, during a caucus, we can discuss this matter further. Thank you, Mr. President.
34
The Presiding Officer. Alam mo, Ginoong Senador, para maunawaan ng madla, itong proseso na ito ay ang order ng proof, pagpapatunay ay iyong sumasakdal ng nakasakdal, sila muna ang magpresenta ng lahat ng kanilang ebidensiya doon sa kabuuan ng kanilang paratang. Senator Recto. Naunawaan ko po. The Presiding Officer. At pagkatapos sasabihin, tapos na po kami. Ngayon, sasabihin naman ng Hukom, O,ikaw Depensa patunayan mo. Ipresenta mo ang iyong mga ebidensiya. Ngayon, habang nililitis natin ito, kaya mayroon tayong stenographer inire-record lahat iyong mga nangyayari dito sa ating Hukuman, at iyon ang batayan ng magkabila, pati na ang Hukom, na pag-aralan ang kabuuan ng kaso, at doon nila papasyahan kung sino ang nagsasabi ng totoo, at kung sino ang nagsasabi ng hindi totoo. Senator Recto. Tama po iyon. The Presiding Officer. iyong kaso. At iyan naman ang pagbabatayan ng hukom upang husgaan
Senator Recto. Naunawaan ko po. Kaya lang, para bang may mali, G. Pangulo, na posibleng ang Prosecution mag-oopensa ng isang daang Prosecution witnesses sa loob ng posible isang taon bago makasagot naman ang depensa. The Presiding Officer. Ay talagang ganyan po ang proseso. Kahit sa husgado ganyan po. Senator Recto. Nauunawan ko po. Ngunit, siguro sa tamang panahon ay baka maaaring mapag-usapan natin muli ito. Iyong common sense po natin dito tungkol sa trial na ito, dahil mahirap naman na pag-usapan natin iyong walong artikulo at baka makalimutan yong una. Hindi lamang tayo kundi ang mga nanunood sa atin dito. The Presiding Officer. Palagay ko po ay hindi natin makakalimutan sapagkat kailangan magkakaroon tayo ng sariling mga notes natin para doon sa mga ebidensiya na iprinisinta dito sa Article I, Article II, Article III, Article IV hanggang sa Article VIII. Senator Recto. Well, thank you, Mr. Senate President. Thank you for the response. The Presiding Officer. Iyong susunod po. Senator Sotto. Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Kagalang-galang na Senador ng Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Maraming salamat po, G. Pangulo. Magandang hapon, Mr. Witness. Mr. Hernandez. Magandang hapon, po. Senator Pangilinan. Just a follow-up doon sa tanong nung damage. Nagkaroon ba ng engineers report after an ocular siguro was undertaken? Mr. Hernandez. Nasabihan lang po ako ng mga tao ko, ng mga staff ko sa Marketing and Sales. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Pero hindi ba standard iyan na pagka mayroong mga damaged units na hindi pa nabebenta, nagkakaroon ng report? Mr. Hernandez. There should be some reports, po. But I have to....
35
Senator Pangilinan. So, can we likewise request for that report.... Mr. Hernandez. I have to find out if we still have it on file, Your Honor.
Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Again, you are under oath Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. and this is going to be a subpoena that you will have to follow and comply with. Doon sa usapin ng negotiations, nabanggit mo kanina, ikaw mismo ang nagne-negotiate? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi po ako. Hindi po ako. Actually, yung staff ko lang ho ang nagnenegotiate dahil ho sa telepono sinasabi ho sa akin kung ano yung request ng kliyente. At, of course, pabalik-balik lang ho basically ang negotiation. Tatawag sa akin kung ayos ho ba sa akin, kung acceptable sa amin, kung anong mga kundisyon. Senator Pangilinan. So, hindi ikaw ang personal na nakikipag-usap? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi po ako personal na nakipag-usap.
Senator Pangilinan. Pero nakausap mo si Gng. Corona? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi ko po siya nakausap. I think, I met her in some other meetings po, but not here, not in this particular transaction. Senator Pangilinan. Pero ang desisyon na ibaba ang presyo, sabi mo kanina, desisyon mo iyon? Mr. Hernandez. Opo.
Senator Pangilinan. That is your decision alone? Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. You do not consult with higher management? Mr. Hernandez. Of course, I had to speak with our finance people also, but I know naman po iyong parameters. Alam ko po iyong parameters na ginagalawan ko, at alam ko ho iyong pupwede kong gawin and hindi ko po puweding gawin. Senator Pangilinan. So, mayroon kang rekomendasyon. You cleared it with Finance. They said, okay. Mr. Hernandez. I think at that time, they had no choice but to say okay to me. We were also getting to be quite desperate at that time. Remember, Your Honor, this was 2008. Lehman Brothers has collapsed and we were there, this was the last unit, end of 2008. Senator Pangilinan. Okay. You already said that earlier. Thank you. Mayroon bang ibang buyers doon sa unit na iyon, na nakikipag-usap, humihingi ng discount or nagne-negotiate? Mr. Hernandez. Marami pong tumitingin at lahat ho ay humihingi ng discount. Senator Pangilinan. Marami, ilan? Lima? Sampo? Mr. Hernandez. It should be more than that, Your Honor. I do not remember the exact figure..
36
Senator Pangilinan. And they were all willing to pay the amount?
Mr. Hernandez. Well, hindi naman po lahat magkakaigihan kami ng negosasyon. Senator Pangilinan. So, more than 10? Mr. Hernandez. It should be more than 10, Your Honor, this was in 2008, I do not recall exactly. Senator Pangilinan. So, kahit na mayroong krisis marami pa ring gustong bumili? Mr. Hernandez. Iyon nga po ang isa sa mga dahilan kung bakit po ako nagdesisyon na ibaba iyong presyo for this particular unit because, Your Honor, there is a very thin market for this particular unit, a very thin market. Senator Pangilinan. But you said that there were a lot of interested buyers. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. People will come and take a look but at the end of the day, they just.... Senator Pangilinan. So, nang nagkaroon ng water damage, alam mo na ba o alam na ba ninyo na interesado si Ginang Corona dito sa property na ito? Mr. Hernandez. Well, nauna ho kasi ang water damage and then tiningnan ho iyan at Senator Pangilinan. Well, the question is, when there was water damage were you already aware that Mrs. Corona was an interested buyer? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir, I was told that there was a client that was interested, that was looking and interested to negotiate for it. So, I was very keen on moving the negotiation forward. Senator Pangilinan. So, at the time of the damage there were already initial negotiations with Mrs. Corona? Mr. Hernandez. Among other clients, yes, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. Doon sa six (6) units, were you also involved sa negotiation sa pagbenta noong six (6) other penthouse units? Mr. Hernandez. Normally, Sir, if there is a pressing need to call me about some issues Senator Pangilinan. In the same way that you were involved Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. Nagkaroon ba ngWould you knowsabi mo walang damage iyong iba, ano? Mr. Hernandez. Dalawa lamang po iyong units sa taas, pinakataas mismo. Senator Pangilinan. All of these other six (6) units have been sold? Rather five. Mr. Hernandez. At that time, yes, all the other five (5) units have been sold already. Senator Pangilinan. Would you know how much the other unit was sold for? Magkano iyong unit na nasa top floor, iyong isang unit? Mr. Hernandez. I do not have the exact price here but the price is between P78,000 to P80,000 per square meter, Sir. So, if we compute it.
37
Senator Pangilinan. So, that was probably sold for around P20 plus million? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. What about the lower floor, the same? Mr. Hernandez. Thereabouts, Sir, about the same. Senator Pangilinan. Around P20 million to P24 million? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, thereabouts. Senator Pangilinan. And so all the other five (5) units were sold at around P20 million to P25 million? Except for this unit, dahil nga sa damage, binabaan ninyo ng P19 million tapos binenta ninyo ng P14 million? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir, P14.5 million. Senator Pangilinan. So, sino ang nagdesisyon na si Ginang Corona ibigay ang huling buyer at hindi iyong ibang interested na buyers? Was it your decision? Mr. Hernandez. Basically po, it was my decision but we also have to take into consideration how we operate in our department. Usually, it is on a first come, first-served basis. So, nagkataon na siya iyong mas in-entertain namin para dito, nagkasundo na ho kami, mas intererstado siya and as I have mentioned at the time, we were quite desperate to dispose of it. There is a huge cost in carrying this particular inventory, it is big and as I have mentioned, this was in 2008. Times were getting to be difficult, people were losing their shirt, I was losing my hair, so, things were getting difficult for us. So, I had to make a decision. It was the tail-end of 2008 and I had to make that decision, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. All right. No other questions, Mr. President. Maraming salamat. Mr. Hernandez. Thank you po. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Senator Drilon, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo is recognized. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, actually, I have no more questions to ask. I just want to inquire. Senator Osmea requested for a number of documents. Two questions: will a subpoena be issued for these documents requested by Senator Osmea? And, second, will we now require the witness to come back tomorrow? The Presiding Officer. Well, the witness said he will bring the documents. Witness, are you going to bring the documents? Mr. Hernandez. First, I will have to find it, Sir, this was in 2008. I will have to check our records if we still have it because, again, we are not really....Even in our Contract to Buy and Sell or reservationContract to Buy and Sell, we are not selling on the basis of square meters. We are basing it basically, Sir, on a per unit basis. So, we play with the figures between P78 in this particular instance where the average....
38
The Presiding Officer. No, the question is, you were asked to bring some documents. Mr. Hernandez. I will have to find it, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Now, are you willing to bring them voluntarily or do we have to issue a subpoena to compel you? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir, it should be no problem if I find it, Sir, if it is still on our file. The Presiding Officer. How long a time do you need to find them? Mr. Hernandez. I should find out today, Sir, if I can bring it tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. All right. You will come back tomorrow to tell us whether you have found them or not. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And then if you do not, then we will subpoena the corporation to produce them. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Is that satisfactory to....Now, Senator TG Guingona? Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, Senator TG Guingona and Senator Villar. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to be clarified. I would like to ask the Prosecution. Let me just take off where Senator Drilon tried to define, using the Supreme Court decisions, the disclosure of a SALN. There are three elements of disclosure: one, truthfulness; two, accuracy; and three, timely. In 2008, the unit was purchased, am I correct, Mr. Prosecutor? You alleged. Mr. Perez. May I respond, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Whoever. I am here to find out, to be clarified. Anybody can answer.
Mr. Perez. The Contract to Buy and Sell was executed in 2008 while the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 2009, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. And the amount was P14.5? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Okay. Ang kailangang nakalagay dito sa SALN, nakalagay fair market value. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Okay. Ang ibig sabihin sa pagkaalam ko ng fair market value kung saan ang isang nagbebenta ng bagay at ang isang bumibili ng bagay ay nagkasundo. Mr. Perez. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. When there is the meeting of the minds between the buyer and the seller then you have a sale and, therefore, that sale is a reflection of the fair market value. Ganoon po ba?
39
Mr. Perez. Your Honor, may I.... Senator Guingona. Ganoon po ba? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Okay. So therefore, for this purpose, P14.5 would be the fair market value. Mr. Perez. For this particular transaction, yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Okay. And yet the said sale you alleged was not declared until the year of 2010? Am I correct? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. So sinasabi ninyo itong P14.5 million dapat lumabas noong.... Mr. Perez. 2009, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. 2009. Pero lumabas na lang noong 2010? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When was the Deed of Sale? Mr. Perez. 2009, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2009. What month? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, the Deed of Absolute Sale is undated but it was entered in the notarial book, series of 2009, and the Certificate Authorizing Registration, I think, was issued sometime in December 2009. The Presiding Officer. When was it received by the owner, by the transferee? Mr. Perez. We are not aware, Your Honor, but we are basing this on the provision of the Civil Code that there is constructive delivery when the formal instrument is executed. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. So, again, you are basing it on what provision? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, under the Civil Code. The Presiding Officer. You mean the constructive delivery? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When the title is issued or when the Deed of Sale was concluded? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, when ownership is transferred upon delivery, and there is delivery upon execution of the formal instrument. In this case, the deed of absolute sale. The Presiding Officer. Delivery even without the title? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Because under the Civil Code, delivery can either be actual or constructive.
40
Senator Guingona. Okay. So inaalis, sinasabi niyo po na dapat whatever you say about your delivery. Okay. Sinasabi ninyo na dapat nakalagay noong 2009, mayroong P14.5 sa SALN. Hindi po ba? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Iyon lang, wala? Mr. Perez. Wala po sa 2009.
Senator Guingona. At lumabas na lang noong 2010. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. So, again, going back to the three elements of truthfulness, accuracy and timeliness, hindi po pumasa? Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. It is not truthful, it is not accurate, and it is not timely. That is what you alleged. Mr. Perez. Opo.
Senator Guingona. Okay. Iyong sinasabi naman ni Senator Recto kanina na mayroong P6.8 na nakalagay dito nga sa 2010 na SALN, P6.8. So, pagdating ng 2010, ang nilagay, dineklara na, 2010. Pero hindi nilagay P14.5, kung hindi P6.8. Mr. Perez. Hindi po nilagay iyong acquisition cost. Senator Guingona. Iyong fair market value. Mr. Perez. Doon po sa fair market value naman, hindi po nilagay iyong tamang fair market value. Senator Guingona. So, iyong pinapakita ni Senator Recto, ang sinasabi niya zonal valuation. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor. But under the guidelines...if I may explain, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Teka muna. Mr. Perez. Opo. Senator Guingona. Ang zonal valuation, nakalagay dito P6.8. Iyon ang dineklara. Pero ang nakalagay sa column, fair market value. Mr. Perez. Opo. Senator Guingona. Ang pagkaalam ko, may diperensiya ang zonal valuation at may diperensiya ang fair market value. Hindi po ba? Mr. Perez. Tama po. Senator Guingona. Tama. Ang diperensiya noon iyong zonal ay iyan ang listahan ng presyo na binibigay ng BIR sa isang property para pag-compute ng mga capital gains tax. Hindi po ba? Mr. Perez. Tama po.
41
Senator Guingona. So, hindi pa rin akma na iyong zonal ay hindi fair market value? Hindi po ba? Mr. Perez. Tama po.
The Presiding Officer. Ano bang ebidensiya ng fair market value? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, in the 1994 SALN of Chief Justice.... The Presiding Officer. Normally, what evidence do we need to determine fair market value? Mr. Perez. Your Honor, as defined in the guidelines, it means actual value. That is the fair value of the property as between one who wants to purchase it and one who wants to sell it. So, actually kaya po namin tinatanong iyong testigo tungkol sa normal selling price because we believe that this is a consideration in determining the actual fair market value. We have to know the price at which Megaworld is normally willing to sell the property. Iyon po iyong connection that we were trying to show, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Villar. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Las Pias. He can help us in this because he is in this field. [Laughter] Senator Villar. Hindi naman po, mahal na Pangulo. Gusto ko lang magbigay ng konting kaliwanagan. Iba-iba ho ang policy ng mga developer diyan sa condominium, at maraming mga circumstances po iyan. Mayroon pong mga naghahabol ng benta, wika nga, pag yearend na malalaking discount. Mayroon namang namumuroblema, at mayroon namang mga, tama iyon, kung inabot ng bagyo, naSira, talagang mga special na presyo na iyan. At normally, maraming flexibility po ang mga manager diyan. Wala sila iyong mga hanggang 10 percent ka lang. Mayroong flexibility sila. Babanggitin ko po, at siguro ito na lamang example ko ang aking kontribusyon sa diskusyon na ito. Noong Disyembre po, sa mga nagbabasa po ng mga diyaryoat siguro milyun-milyon ang nakabasa nitoisang malaking developer ang nag-offer ng 40 percent discount to anybody, to everybody. Hanapin po ninyo iyong mga diyaryo noong Disyembre at makikita ninyo roon, dalawang pages iyon40 percent discount to everybody sa lahat ng units ng condominium nila. Alam ng ating witness iyon kung ano. Subalit, iyon lamang po ang aking kontribusyon dito. Na ang masasabi ko lamang po na napakaraming factors that govern pricing. Hindi po simple iyan. Hindi iyong puhunan lamang. Hindi iyong kung binagyo lamang, minsan ay iyong pangangailangan. For example, noong 2007, maaaring katatapos natin ng world crisis noon, medyo mahirap ang bentahan, agresibo po iyan. Kapag 2010, na medyo boom, halimbawa, eh mahihirapan kayong kumuha ng malaking discount. Dahil diyan, minsan ay pipila pa kayo. Pero kapagka naman ang isang developer ay gustong mag-agresibo, depende po iyan sa programa nila. Kamukha nung isa nga na tama naman ang policy. Hindi ko sinasabing maling policy. Kung gusto nilang mag-dominate ng market, malaking market share40 percent discount open to everybody. Hanapin po ninyo iyon noong Disyembre.... [Laughter]
42
Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.
Senator Sotto. Yes, may we urge Senator Villar to disclose the name? Tutal eh matindi ang plugging ng Bellagio, sobra ang plugging ng Bellagio. Senator Villar. Sabagay, alam nating lahat na isang napakagaling na developer at hinahangaan kong developerang SMDC ay nag-announce niyan. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Escudero and then Senator Lacson. The Presiding Officer. Senator Escudero. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, before I ask a couple of questions to the witness, may I raise a procedural matter. Mr. President, earlier, Senators Osmea and Pangilinan asked that the subpoena be issued or the documents be produced by the witness. Unlike a congressional or a Senate inquiry, the parties should be the ones to ask for it because otherwise how would we be able to identify this document and how would this be offered as proof later on after the trial? So, perhaps, the Prosecution should take this in advisement if they will consider the request for the issuance of a subpoena because I doubt if the Court can ask for the issuance of a subpoena sans a request by the parties. The Presiding Officer. With the indulgence of the Court, the Members of the Court. Ours is to receive the evidence from the Prosecution as well as from the Defense. So, that is why I ask the question, whether the witness being a witness of the Prosecution, would voluntarily submit the requested document. Now, if he will not, then, of course, we will issue the subpoena upon request of the interested party. We are not supposed to produce evidence for either side. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President, for that clarification. The Presiding Officer. Unless, of course, a Member of this Court would like to satisfy himself to test the credibility of the witness. That is for his personal use. In my opinion, there is no prohibition in the Rules for him to request that a compulsory process be issued. Senator Escudero. For his consumption, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga, with the permission of the gentleman who has the Floor. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, with the permission of Senator Escudero. Senator Escudero. I yield, Mr. President. Senator Pangilinan. Well, I think the good Presiding Officer already manifested that at some point, the Senator-Judges may, and so therefore, I will submit and concur to the observation. The Presiding Officer. Yes. A Member of the Court has requested that a compulsory process be issued against the witness. And that is a request by a Member of this Court. The Presiding Officer has to respect it because he might want to useuse it for his information or for purposes of challenging, confronting the witness to whom a question was addressed by him. So, we will allow the witness to produce the required document by the distinguished Senator from Cebu and if he does not, then, upon his request, the Presiding Officer will be compelled to formally issue the compulsory process.
43
Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, just one more point. We also requested for the engineers report. Apart from the request of Senator Osmea, this representation likewise requested that the engineers report be submitted. The Presiding Officer. Engineers report? Senator Pangilinan. As to the damage to that unit. The Presiding Officer. To whom shall we address that? Senator Pangilinan. Actually, the witness earlier manifested that he will try and secure that report. The Presiding Officer. Do you know that engineers report? Are you part of the Engineering Department of Megaworld? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir, I am not. The Presiding Officer. So, who will be in possession? Mr. Hernandez. I will make some inquiries, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Who will be in possession of the engineering report on any question regarding the structure, damage or deficiency in the structure owned by the Megaworld? Mr. Hernandez. Our Operations Department should have it, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Who in the Operations Deparment? Mr. Hernandez. The engineers there, Sir. The Presiding Officer. The Chief of the Engineering Department? Mr. Hernandez. The Operations Department, Sir, that is what we call it. The Presiding Officer. The Chief of the Operations Department. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir, I will get in touch with him to find out. The Presiding Officer. Can you identify him for purposes of directing the subpoena? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, his name is Philip Escando, Sir. He is the one heading our Operations Department. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, if I may just clarify. So, therefore, this is a submission actually of the witness in favor of a juror or member of the Senate and... The Presiding Officer. The Secretary is directed to prepare a subpoena for that purpose as requested by the Members of the Court. Senator Escudero. Again, Mr. President, if I may, I would rather consider this as a submission on the part of the witness upon the request of a Senator-Judge because, otherwise, we would be burdening the Prosecution of, again, calling the witness to identify the document. Can we just consider this, with the permission of the two gentlemen, as a submission on the part of the witness sans the presentation of this witness again to present the document since he is not competent anyway to identify the document because he is...
44
The Presiding Officer. And only for purposes of the Members of the Court to evaluate the testimony of the witness. Senator Escudero. So, it is a submission, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Just two questions of this witness, Mr. President. Una, ang sabi mo kanina, G.Testigo, na may bottomline ka, tinitimbang mo, may range ka na nagdedesisyon kung magkano ibebenta iyong unit. Isang simpleng tanong: Ibinenta ba ninyo ng palugi itong unit sa nakabili? Mr. Hernandez. Hindi po. Senator Escudero. So, kumita kayo ng pera dito? Mr. Hernandez. Kumita po, pero maliit. Senator Escudero. Pangalawang tanong, ang sabi mo may dalawang kasong pending noong mga panahong ito, pakibanggit po iyong detalye para lamang makita. Alam po baninyo iyong SCRA or G.R. number noong dalawang kaso? Mr. Hernandez. Nandito po siya dala-dala ko po. Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Honorable Judge Benedicto G. Cobarde, G.R. No. 156200, 2004. Senator Escudero. Anong petsa po niyan, iyong desisyon? May petsa po riyan. Mr. Hernandez. I think it is January 17, 2007. The Presiding Officer. Tungkol ba sa anong kaso iyan? Mr. Hernandez. If I may.... Senator Escudero. Tungkol po saan iyong kaso? Mr. Hernandez. This is aboutMegaworld filed a Motion for Restitution with the trial court, seeking to recover from respondents the principal amount of P5,853,793.00. I can read everything, with your permission. The Presiding Officer. It is a collection case? Mr. Hernandez. Well, I am not a lawyer, Sir, so I do not really know. I just know that we lost in two cases and we lost big. We lost P47 million. Senator Escudero. Isa-isa muna tayo. Dito sa kasong ito, magkano ang perang involved? Sa kasong ito, magkano ang involved na pera? Iyong binanggit ninyo, Megaworld v. Cobarde? Mr. Hernandez. Cobarde po. P21,725,438.00 Senator Escudero. At iyong pangalawang kaso, ano po ang G.R. number at title? Mr. Hernandez. The second case is G.R. No. 181206 in 2009. I am sorry, the P21,000,000 po is para dito sa G.R. No. 181206. At sa G.R. No. 175391 the amount involved was P26 million in total. Senator Escudero. Sino po ang nanalo sa kasong iyon?
45
Mr. Hernandez. Hindi po kami ang nanalo sa kasong iyon. Ang opposing party po namin. This is Megaworld Globus Asia Inc., v. Celerica Holdings Inc. Iyong pangalawa pong nabanggit ko is Megaworld Globus Asia Inc., v. Tanseco. Senator Escudero. Maliban sa dinisisyunan ng Korte Suprema iyan, may papel po ba si Chief Justice Corona sa pagdisisyun ng kasong iyan? Mr. Hernandez. Kasama po siya sa nagdisisyon sa kasong ito at puwede pong ma-examine. Senator Escudero. Hindi na. We will take judicial notice of the cases you mentioned that is why I asked for the case numbers and the title of the case. That would be all for the witness, Mr. President. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we suspend the Trial for 15 minutes before we recognize Senator Lacson. The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended. The trial was suspended at 4:06 p.m. At 4:33 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The hearing is resumed. Floor Leader, what is the status of the case? Senator Sotto. We are still with the witness at hand. Senator Lacson wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution is finished? Senator Sotto. Yes, both the Prosecution and the Defense. The Presiding Officer. The Defense has finished its cross-examination? Senator Sotto. Yes. The Presiding Officer. The Witness is under questioning by the Members of the Court. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The distinguished gentleman from Cavite has the floor. Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President.
I have a couple of questions which I will address to the Prosecution, please. The Presiding Officer. To the Prosecution. Senator Lacson. Upon questioning of Senator Guingona, you mentioned that Chief Justice Corona did not reflect the correct fair market value in his SALN. Representative Barzaga. Totoo po iyon. Kasi ang paniniwala po namin, when we speak of the fair market value, that would be the price where a person who happens to be the owner of the property is willing to sell the property and the buyer is the person who is willing to purchase the property under the same circumstances.
46
Senator Lacson. What is your competence in saying that CJ Corona did not reflect the fair market value? Ang pagkaintindi ko po, city assessor lamang ang puwedeng mag-testify tungkol sa fair market value. So, I am asking you, Mr. Prosecutor, ano po ba ang competence ninyo to testify as to the correctness of the fair market value of a property? Representative Barzaga. Nais ko pong sagutin, G. Senador, na mismo roon sa SALN mayroong nakalagay na acquisition cost. At dito po sa SALN ni Chief Justice Corona, wala pong amount na nakalagay sa acquisition amount na nakalagay sa acquisition cost of the property. At kung ako po ang Megaworld at ang fair market value ng aking property ay P6.5 million, kung ako si Chief Justice Corona, hindi ko bibilhin ito sa halagang P14.5 million at mayroon pa akong additional expense na P5 million Senator Lacson. Puwede po bang pakisagot diretso iyong aking tanong. Ano po ang competence ninyo para sabihing hindi tama iyong fair market value ng property? Representative Barzaga. It is the ordinary practice and usage. Senator Lacson. City Assessor po ba kayo ng Taguig? Representative Barzaga. Hindi po.
Senator Lacson. Hindi po ba ang my competence lamang na magsabi ng fair market value sa Taguig City ay iyong City Assessor? Representative Barzaga. Pero ang Senator Lacson. Hindi po. Sagutin ninyo muna po kung kayo po ay may competence. Representative Barzaga. Totoo po iyon. Senator Lacson. Sagutin ninyo muna kung may competence kayo o wala para sagutin iyong aking tanong na sa pagkaalam o sa pagsasabi tungkol sa fair market value. Mayroon po ba kayong competence? Representative Barzaga. Wala po. Senator Lacson. Salamat po. Representative Barzaga. Nais ko pong Senator Lacson. Sige po, dagdagan ninyo kung gusto ninyo. Representative Barzaga. Ang nais ko pong sabihin, iyon pong assessed value at saka iyon pong fair market value, iyon po ang fair market value insofar as for tax purposes. Senator Lacson. Alam ko po iyon. Nag-chairman po ako ng Ways and Means dati, kaya alam ko po iyong zonal valuation, zonal value, fair market value, schedule of market values and so forth and so on. The Presiding Officer. Hindi ba....mawalang-galang na G. Senador ng Cavite. G. Prosecutor, hindi ba ang fair market value ng maski anong pag-aari ng tao ay subjective? Depende doon sa tao na may-ari at iyong bumibili? Representative Barzaga. Totoo po iyon.
The Presiding Officer. Nasa utak lang iyon, di ba?
47
Opo.
Representative Barzaga.
The Presiding Officer. Hindi mathematically exact? Representative Barzaga. Yes. It is relative, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Lacson. But in the schedule of market values there is a list of fair market values of properties in a certain locality, hindi po ba? Representative Barzaga. Totoo po iyon. Senator Lacson. And it is the City Assessor who prepares the fair market value of properties in a certain locality? Representative Barzaga. Totoo po iyon.
Senator Lacson. So, hindi po ba nararapat na tawagin natin iyong City Assessor para siya iyong mag-testify kung tama nga ba ang inilagay ni Chief Justice Corona sa kanyang SALN doon sa figure under the column Fair Market Value, dahil wala nga po kayong competence para sabihin na tama o hindi ang fair market value? Representative Barzaga. Totoo po iyon. Senator Lacson. Salamat po. Dadako naman po ako doon sa testigo, sa witness. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. Mr. Hernandez. Good afternoon, Sir. Senator Lacson. In the subpoena issued to you this morning, were you ordered to bring copies of Supreme Court decisions involving cases of Megaworld with the Supreme Court? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir. I was not. Senator Lacson. Why did you bring them? Mr. Hernandez. I know what is at stake here, Sir. I know where this is leading to and as, well, as I think, this isI am speaking in behalf of the company, Sir. So, I know why I am here. Senator Lacson. So, you came prepared? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir, as far as I can.... Senator Lacson. Did you talk to any member of the Prosecution team before you came here? Mr. Hernandez. Well, at the holding area, Sir. They came in and they were asking me some questions but I was immediately summoned here. Senator Lacson. So, you were not able to confer with them? Mr. Hernandez. I was not able to talk to them at length. Senator Lacson. Did you talk to any member of the Defense panel before you came here? Mr. Hernandez. No, Sir.
48
Senator Lacson. Thank you. Since you are under oath, I take your word for it. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, I am just trying to recognize each of them, I might bump into one of them outside, but I have not Senator Lacson. Pakiulit nga po ninyo iyong G.R. No. na kung saandiyan sa dala ninyong dokumento na kung saan ang sabi ninyo parehong talo ang Megaworld? Mr. Hernandez. Opo. G.R. No. 175391 in 2007, Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. v. Celerica Holdings, Inc.; and Megaworld Globos Asia, Inc. v. Tanseco, G.R. No. 181206 in 2009. Senator Lacson. Wala na po? Mr. Hernandez. Mayroon pa pong isa na Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Hon. Judge Benedicto G. Cobarde, G.R. No. 156200 in 2004. Senator Lacson. Panalo po ba o talo ang Megaworld diyan?
Mr. Hernandez. Natalo po kami dito sa kaso pong ito in the amount of P47 million in total. Senator Lacson. Sa record po namin dito, panalo kayo rito. Mr. Hernandez. Nanalo ho kami noong una. If I may read this: The first Megaworld case decided by the Supreme Court penned by Justice Corona was in 2004, two years before the purchase of the McKinley lot and four years before the purchase of the Bellagio unit. Number one: Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Hon. Judge Benedicto G. Cobarde, G.R. No. 156200 in 2004, the Third Division rendered the Decision dated 31 March 2004 in favor of Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc., all the members of the Division concurred. The dispositive portion reads: Wherefore, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 28, 2002 and its Resolution of November 22, 2002 are hereby set aside. The Order of public respondent judge dated June 29, 2001 executing the compromise agreement as well as the writ of execution and notices of garnishment are hereby declared null and void. Pursuant to said Decision, Megaworld filed a Motion for Restitution with the Trial Court seeking to recover from respondents the principal amount of P5,853,793.01 plus interest which was the amount illegally garnished and obtained by the respondents. In 2007 or less than a year after the purchase of the McKinley lot and a year before the purchase of the Bellagio unit, the Division in which Justice Corona was a part of, issued an adverse decision dismissing the petition filed by Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. Number two: Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. vs. Celerica Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 175391 in 2007. The First Division of which Justice Corona was part rendered its Minute Resolution dated 17 January 2007 against Megaworld Globus dismissing its petition for review under Rule 45.
49
In effect, the Supreme Court affirmed the adverse decision against Megaworld Globus. The judgment award by the HLURB against Megaworld Globus is as follows: Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: Number one, declaring as cancelled and rescinded the contract to buy and sell entered into by and between the complainant and respondent, and number two, ordering respondent to pay the complainant the following sums: a) the amount of P14,522,955.68 with interest thereon at 12 percent per annum to be computed from the time of complainants demand for refund on December 12, 2000 until fully paid. The amount of P50,000 as exemplary damages, the amount of P50,000 as attorneys fees, and d) the cost of suit. Megaworld Globus paid the above amounts to respondent in addition to a three-bedroom condominium unit at the Salcedo Park as payment for the interest. The total amount paid to respondent including the amount of the condominium unit is about P26 million. About a year after the purchase of the Bellagio unit, the Supreme Court again issued an adverse decision against Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc.. It is significant to note that even before spouses Corona finished their amortization of the Bellagio unit, Justice Corona voted against Megaworld Globus in number three, Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. v. Tanseco, G. R. No. 181206 in 2009. The Second Division rendered the Decision dated 9 October 2009 penned by Justice Carpio-Morales against Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc.. Justice Corona concurred in the decision. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: Wherefore, challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is in light of the foregoing affirmed with modification. As modified, the dispositive portion of the Decision reads: The July 7, 1995 contract to buy and sell between the parties is cancelled. Petitioner Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. is directed to pay respondent Mila S. Tanseco the amount of P14,281,731.70 to bear 6 percent interest per annum starting May 6, 2002 and 12 percent interest per annum from the time the judgment becomes final and executory, and to pay P200,000 attorneys fees, P100,000 exemplary damages, and costs of suit. In satisfaction of the judgment, Megaworld Globus paid the total amount of P21,725,438.02 to respondent broken down as follows: Principal is P14,281,731.70; interest is P7,064,175.30; attorneys fee is P200,000.00; exemplary damages is P100,000.00; cost of suit is P79,531.00. The total amount paid by Megaworld Globus is P21,725,438.02. If we.... Senator Lacson. Mawalang-galang po, anong G.R. number ng binabasa ninyong kaso? Mr. Hernandez. Iyong last po is G.R. No. 181206. Senator Lacson. Hindi po, ang sinasabi ko ay iyong ponente o ponensiya ni Chief Justice Corona, iyong G.R. No. 156200. Doon po ba talo kayo? Mr. Hernandez. Nanalo po kami dito ng P5,853,000.00. Senator Lacson. Panalo kayo ng P25 million, naghabol pa kayo ng another P5 million dahil P29 million ang hinahabol ninyo. Doon kayo natalo sa additional na P5 million na hinahabol pa ninyo. Pero hindi na si Justice Corona ang ponente noon, hindi po ba?
50
Mr. Hernandez. Hindi na ho siya pero
Senator Lacson. Pero doon sa ponensiya niya, panalo kayo, iyong P25 million? Mr. Hernandez. This was in 2004 before he bought from us. Senator Lacson. Yes, yes, that is correct. Wala tayong disagreement doon. So, in other words, para ma-simplify lamang natin, para sa kaalaman ng korte, ng Impeachment Court, doon sa usaping P25 million, P25.1 million, sa ponensiya ni Justice Corona ay ni-reverse nila iyong compromise agreement ng mga partido, hindi po ba? Kaya nanalo kayo doon. Pero gusto ninyo pang habulin iyong additional na P5 million, natalo naman kayo doon pero hindi na si Justice Corona ang ponente doon. Mr. Hernandez. Hindi na po siya. Senator Lacson. Maraming salamat po. Iyon lamang po, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Ejercito Estrada asked for the floor before Senator Pimentel. The Presiding Officer. Senator Ejercito Estrada is recognized. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Only one question to the witness. Mr. Witness, you mentioned earlier that you lost in two cases? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. That was after the purchase of the two units developed by Megaworld, am I correct? Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. How many cases did you win? Mr. Hernandez. We won one, but that was before he purchased from us. That was only P5 million, P5 million something. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Are there any pending cases of Megaworld before the Supreme Court? Mr. Hernandez. I am not aware of that, Your Honor. All I know is that after he purchased from us in 2006, we lost the case right after in 2007. And then he bought again from us in 2008 and then we lost again a case in Supreme Court in 2009. This is a triple whammy for us, Your Honor.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. That is already recorded. Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What I am asking of you, do you have any pending cases before the Supreme Court? Mr. Hernandez. I am not aware of that.
51
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Pending now, do you have any idea? Mr. Hernandez. I am not aware of that, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Just in case you can gather some information, can you submit in writing tomorrow if you still have pending cases? Mr. Hernandez. I will do that, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Senator Pimentel has the floor. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President. Payong kapatid lang po sa Prosecution as your fellow lawyer kasi kahapon tinanong ko si Atty. Perez ano iyong theory of the case, sabi niya sa discount. Bakit kasi naka-focus kayo sa discount, sabi niya sa Article II at saka Article III. So, nakita na natin ang nangyari ngayon, hindi po kami nakumbinsi sa relevance nuong discount sa Article II. Kaya ang payong kapatid na lamang, huwag na po ninyong pilitin ang discount sa Article III. Kasi kung babasahin mo iyong Article III, talagang hindi po mapapasok doon, kasi ang pinag-uusapan sa Article III, flip-flopping sa letter, excessive entanglement ni misis at saka iyong talking to litigants. So, payong kapatid lamang ha, para hindi na tayo magkagulo katulad ng nangyari ngayong araw. So, let go of the discount kasi wala po siya talaga sa Articles of Impeachment, Atty. Perez. Mr. Perez. Yes, Your Honor, thank you for your suggestion. We were just referring to the provision in the Article referring to the moral qualifications of a justice in the Supreme Court. Senator Pimentel. I know, that is Article III, basahin niyo ulit kasi ginamit lang ninyo iyong canons tapos binigyan ninyo ng example or specific instances, tatlo, kung paano na-violate iyong canon. And ang acceptance of a discount ay wala doon. Kaya nga, please, huwag na po ninyong pilitin gamitin iyong discount sa Article III. Payong kapatid lang. Mr. Perez. Thank you po. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite. Senator Revilla. Just a few questions to the witness. Nabanggit mo kanina na ang original price ay P24.5 million. Is that correct? Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Revilla. At dahil sa damage ng bagyo, binaba mo ang presyo sa P19.6 million. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Revilla. At ayon sa testimonya mo kanina, binigyan ninyo din ng 15 percent discount. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Revilla. Correct. Ayon po sa computation, ang 15 percent ng P19.6 million ay P2.94 million. So, P19.6 million less P2.94 million is P16.66 million. Bakit po P14.5 million ninyo ibinenta yong unit? Nasaan ang difference ng P2.1 million?
52
Mr. Hernandez. Maliban po roon sa labing limang porseyentong ibinigay namin bilang discount doon sa shorter term payment scheme na kinuha ni G. Corona, nagbigay pa ho kami ng additional P1 million. Actually, po kung susuriin ang ibinigay namin sa kanila, ito lang ho iyong special discount talaga na naibigay namin sa kanila. As I have mentioned, nabangit din po ni Kagalang-galang na Senador Villar, noong mga panahon po na iyon, naghahabol po kami sa aming production, sa aming quota. And I also mentioned about the global crisis. Senator Revilla. Yes, you answered that already kanina. Mr. Hernandez. Yes. So we gave an additional 1 percent. Senator Revilla. Sinabi mo kanina is 15 percent, but the total is 25.5 percent. So, at P14.5 million ang selling price mo. So, iyon nga lumalabas na hindi siya 15 percent. Mr. Hernandez. Well, 15 percent ho siya. And on top of that nagbigay pa ho kami ng additional, and also marketing fee, we also subtracted that. That is about 5 percent. And also additional discount of 5 percent which is P1 million. That was basically the only special discount that I gave to the client. Because it was, as I have mentioned, getting to be very difficult at that time, really difficult. Senator Villar mentioned that earlier. In fact, just to also put on record, there was a case where we actually sold a house at 50 percent off in McKinley Hill. I just want to say this because kanina nabanggit.... Senator Revilla. Mayroon pa ba kayong ganyan? Baka gustong bumili ni Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada. Mr. Hernandez. Naubos na. May naghahanap pero naubos na. No, really, sa McKinley Hill ho, because this is becoming quite unfair to us also. This on the record. Let it be of record that we have two model houses in Mckinley Hill, two model houses, exact same layout, everything is pareho po. But the other one is finished. The other one is not. And due to some considerations that we had also, we were forced to basically sell it at 50 percent off. Magkatalikuran lang ho ito, exact same layout, the other one is furnished, the other one is bare. At iyon po talaga ang kailangan naming ipaliwanag na itong unit na ito ay halos bare naibigay. Senator Revilla. All right. Thank you, Mr. Witness. The Presiding Officer. No more? I would like to take advantage of this time to gently request the Prosecution. Before you bring your witnesses here, confer with them. I think there is nothing improper for you to confer with your witnesses so that you can order the presentation, and especially the manner of questioning them. I hope you do not feel that I am criticizing, but I noticed that you bring the witness, put him on the witness stand without any conferring with him as to how you are going to ask the question, and what is the subject matter upon which he was called to testify. This is normal among lawyers. Before they come to trial they confer with their witnesses. It is up to the other side, the Defense, to cross-examine the witness whether they have conferred with you and whether you teach them what to say and what they ought not to say, that is a proper line of crossexamination but that does not mean that you are not authorized to confer with your witnesses. Mr. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. May we be allowed, Your Honor, to conduct a very brief redirect examination. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.
53
Mr. Perez. Mr. Witness, you mentioned that noong panahon na ibenebenta ninyo ito, hirap na hirap kayo magbenta dahil sa Lehman Brothers crisis, tama po ba? Mr. Cuevas. Improper, Your Honor, for redirect because that was not touched on my crossexamination. The subject matter of redirect must be matters that have been taken up in the crossexamination. Mr. Perez. Your Honor, the cross-examination touched upon the discount and the reasons for the discount. The Presiding Officer. O, sige, para wala nang maraming salitaan, aprubahan ko iyon. Sige na. Mr. Perez. Okay. Again, Mr. Witness, you confirm that? Mr. Hernandez. It was getting difficult, yes. Mr. Perez. Yes. Because among others, the Lehman Brothers crisis? Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Mr. Perez. Mr. Witness, I have here that 2008 Annual Report of the Megaworld Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. I will refer you to page 21 of this Annual Report submitted by Megaworld Corporation to the Securities and Exchange Commission. I will just ask you first to read the highlighted portions very briefly. Mr. Cuevas. Again, improper for redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, Counsel. Are you trying to impeach your witness, or cross-examine him or contradict what he said in the cross-examination? Mr. Perez. I am just asking him to clarify, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. To explain. Mr. Perez. the consideration that he mentioned or the factor he mentioned to be included in the factors that were considered by the marketing. The Presiding Officer. May answer. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please, there is no showing that he is a party to this alleged report. It was not even touched. The Presiding Officer. Well, let the witness answer. Mr. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Hernandez. Results of Operation. Review of 2008 versus 2007. During the year 2008, the consolidated net income amounted to P3.79 billion; 25.1 percent higher than the previous years net income of P3.03 billion. Consolidated total revenues composed of real estate sales, rental income, hotel income, interest income, dividend income and other revenues grew by 18 percent from P14.64 billion to P17.3 billion resulting from strong property sales and increase in leasing and hotel operations. Development. Among product groupings, the bulk of generated consolidated revenues came from the sale of residential lots and condominium units at 71.9 percent of total amounting to P12.43 billion in 2008, compared to P10.61 billion in 2007, an increase of 17.2 percent.
54
For the year 2008, there were no seasonal aspects that had a material effect on the financial condition or financial performance of the group, neither were there any trends, events, uncertainties that have had or that are reasonably expected to have a material impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations. The group is not aware of events that will cause material damage in the relationship between costs and revenues. There are no significant elements of income or loss of income that did not arise from the groups tinuing operations. Mr. Perez. Are you aware of these disclosures when you testified to this Honorable Court? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, I hope the Curts pardons me. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. You are now trying to disown your witness? He is your witness. He has already testified. You are bound... Mr. Cuevas. It is not a question of.... The Presiding Officer. You are bound by what he said. Mr. Perez. I am just asking, Your Honor, if he is aware. There is nothing harmful with asking if he is aware of these disclosures. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but what is the purpose, Your Honor? He is practically impeaching the witness, Your Honor. First, it is improper on redirect. The Presiding Officer. That is true, you see. A redirect is to add to what you forgot in your direct to clarify. But you are actually resenting these documents to disown the testimony in chief of your witness. Mr. Perez. I will just withdraw the question, Your Honor, considering that the witness has already.... The Presiding Officer. Objection sustained. Mr. Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. Nothing further, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. No recross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No recross? Mr. Cuevas. No recross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, the witness is discharged. Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Joker Arroyo. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Chair discharged the witness but with the indulgence of the Court, let a member.... Senator Sotto. No, Mr. President, it has nothing to do with the witness. We agree with your ruling to discharge the witness. Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Your Honor.
55
Senator Arroyo. Senator Angara said I was cut off. [Laughter] Now, I am addressing this question to the House Prosecutors. We read in the papers that the House Committee on Justice of which most of you are members are preparing another impeachment complaint against a Justice of the Supreme Court. We cannot prevent you from doing what is your constitutional duty. However, as a matter of policy, we are disturbed because at the rate we are going in the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona, are we to understand that if you file or the House transmits the Articles of Impeachment against the Justice, you expect the Senate to also attend to that simultaneously with the one of Chief Justice Corona? Give me a clear answer so that we do not have to quibble over it. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, right now there is an impeachment complaint pending with the Committee on Justice and there is only one and that is the Del Castillo impeachment complaint. But with respect to the reported filing of another impeachment, as Chairman of the Committee on Justice, I am not aware of that. Senator Arroyo. So there is no pending mpeachment proceedings. Representative Tupas. There is a pending eachment. It was filed March of 2011, and it is still pending with the Committee on Justice. It is against Supreme Court Justice Del Castillo. That is only one which is pending, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. No, no. We are not involving that. The only thing that I would like to know, as far as I am concerned, is that, you do not intend to burden us with two impeachment complaints simultaneously. That is the question I would like to ask. Representative Tupas. We do not. We do not intend to burden the Senate because it is still with the House. In fact, it is still with the Committee on Justice. Senator Arroyo. All right. Because it seems that the newspapers have misquoted. I mean the reports are not very accurate. Thank you. Mr. Tupas. It is not accurate. Thank you. The President. The Floor leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we 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. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Wednesday, February 1, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none; the trial is hereby adjourned until two oclock in the afternoon of Wednesday, February 1, 2012. The trial was adjourt at 5:05 p.m.

Jan 31 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jan 31 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Nasa utak lang iyon, di ba?

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

You might also like