March 19 Senate Impeachment Court Record

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Monday, March 19, 2012
AT 2:13 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Francis G. Escudero. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Panginoon, sa muli Po Ninyong pagpapahiram sa amin ng panibagong buhay at lakas sa araw na ito, tanggapin Po sana Ninyo ang aming pagpapasalamat at pagkilala sa Inyong biyaya. Sa muli Po naming pagtitipon ngayon, Ikaw Po sana ang aming maging gabay at panuntunan. May You grant us the spirit of fairness, right thought and speech. Teach us to look at, weigh and appreciate different perspectives based on truth and reason. Please impart Your supreme wisdom among all of us and guide us to make the best use of our own. This we pray in Jesus Name. Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen.
2
The Secretary will please call the roll of Senators. The Secretary, reading:
Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... The Senate President .........................................................................
Present Present* Absent Present* Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present* Present* Present
The Presiding Officer. With 18 Senator-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. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 15, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the March 15, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved.
______________
*Arrived after the roll call
The Secretary will now please call the case. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Appearances, the Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May we ask the parties to enter their appearances, Mr. President? Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President. For the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Defense. Mr. Bodegon. Good afternoon, Mr. President and members of the Impeachment Court. For the Defense, Your Honor, same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, for a manifestation, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago? The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo is recognized. Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you, Mr. President. It appears to me that we have come to the point in this Impeachment Trial when we are faced with the centerpiece of the Prosecution, meaning to say, the accusations against the filing of the SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) by the Chief Justice. It appears to be the showpiece of the Prosecution and therefore we must take time, not only take time out of number crunching which we are doing last week and see what the Constitution and what the Supreme Court have said about the filing of the SALN. First, let me begin with Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. I will read it verbatim: Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to discloseI repeatwhen he failed to disclose to the public Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Notice that this heading under the Articles of Impeachment only uses the phrase failed to disclose. If he had disclosed and we are going to apply this Article literally and very strictly, then there is no more case. Because it turns out now that he disclosed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities as provided by law as I shall explain later. So, in my view, Article II is suffering from at least incompetence in phraseology. Because if we were to apply it strictly, if there is evidence and evidence has been shown in this Court that Defendant failed to disclose, meaning to say, failed to show his statement or make his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth unavailable or inaccessible to the public, then he would have committed the impeachable offense. But if he already took steps to do otherwise, then the whole case falls. What
I am saying is that Article II should have said, When he failed to disclose and he failed to declare. Because declare and disclose are two separate things. As we shall see when we look at the Constitution, Article XI, Section 17, A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth. Notice therefore that the first requirement by the Constitution is to file a declaration. You declare what your assets and liabilities are. And then in the closing sentence, the Constitution says, The declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. This is the second requirement, the requirement that it should be disclosed. There are therefore two requirements: first, that he declared; second, that he disclosed. It appears now that the Chief Justice both declared and disclosed. So the case is closed. But in the spirit of liberality, we have taken note of the explanation of the Prosecution of its Article II on the Articles of Impeachment. Now, let us look at what our Supreme Court has ruled concerning the filing of the SALN under this constitutional provision. In the 2003 case of Francisco vs. Nagmamalasakit, et cetera, Supreme Court said, A determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense is a purely political question. We cannot settle it by citation of authorities or by citation of cases. It is a purely political question, said the Supreme Court. The Constitution enumerates six grounds for impeachment. Two of these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust, elude a precise definition. But the issue calls upon the Court to decide a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power. Therefore, we are making history with this particular Impeachment Case. We are deciding a political question. What are the failures or the omissions in the filing of the SALN that would constitute an impeachable offense? Notice that in the United States Constitution, it is possible to impeach a high public official for crimes and for misdemeanors. We did not use the phrase and for misdemeanors because misdemeanors in common law systems are mere faults or failures to observe minor ordinances. So our Constitution contemplates a very high crime. We have to see then what is the meaning of a high crime. In the records of the Constitutional Convention, we find at least this sentence: For graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust to be ground for impeachment, their concrete manner of commission must be of same severity as treason and bribery, offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation. They kept on repeating this clause in the Constitutional Commission, offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation. That is in pare materia with all those other obviously high crimes that are enumerated in our Constitution. Our question therefore is not about how do you distinguish this value from that value, assessed value, acquisition cost, fair market value. We are not number crunchers. This is a quasi-judicial and quasipolitical proceeding. This is not a quasi-accounting proceeding. So the question is, whether there is any discrepancy or omission in the SALN of the Defendant Chief Justice that strikes at the very heart of the life of the nation. Now I come to a famous or, according to your view, an infamous statement that was made by an American president during the attempt to impeach one of the most famous justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice William Douglas, in April 1970. At that time, Gerald Ford, ultimately President of the U.S. who was just a representative, and he maintained this famous, infamous statement. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the Houseor in our case, one-third (1/3) of the House considers it to be at a given moment in history. So we are actually writing the book for what is an impeachable offense. Conviction results
from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds (2/3) of the other bodymeaning to say, two-thirds (2/3) of the Senate, just like the Philippine Senateconsiders to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office. So it is for us to decide what is impeachable in terms of the SALN. Now, I have already made a passing mention of the Constitution. Let us go to the laws that are meant to implement the constitutional provision. The first law is called the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019). Section 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Every public officer within the month of January every other year shall file a Statement of Assets and Liabilities, in the proper case, with the Office of the President, or in the proper case, with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House or the corresponding Chamber. Next law. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (R.A. No. 6713). The provision of the first law that we cited, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, was expanded by the Code of Conduct and it said, the two documentsmeaning to say, the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Statement of Financial Disclosure. It says, and I am quoting: These two documents shall contain information on the following: (a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value. That is all that the law said. It did not indicate how we arrived at these values. It just says that the SALN should contain information on real property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed value and current fair market value. Who determines this? The proper public officials. So there is no need for this Impeachment Court to argue lengthily on what is acquisition, what is assessed, what is current fair market value. These are determinations made by the proper legal officer. And further, the Code of Conduct provides the SALN shall be filed by, in the case of senators and congressmen, with secretaries of the Senate and the House respectively. In the case of justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court. We have already heard evidence that the Chief Justice filed his declaration and he filed it with the correct official, the Clerk of Court, from whom the public may see fit by the proper procedures to get a copy. Not only do we have these two laws to guide us. We have to look at its Implementing Rules and Regulations, particularly of the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct Implementing Rules and Regulations reflects the law itself, meaning to say, the Code of Conduct in providing that the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth shall contain information on the following and, it repeats, real property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed value and current fair market value. In the Implementing Rules and Regulations, we find this following statement: In the event said authority determines that a statement is not properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action. The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it, shall not be subject to any sanction provided in the Code. This is the basis for the theory by some that since any failure or omission in the SALN has now been decriminalized, it should no longer be considered an impeachable offense because of this provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Code of Conduct, and there are certain provisions that are provided for failure to do so. Now, we have looked at the two laws. We have first looked at the constitutional provision. We have looked at the provisions of the two major laws: the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.
Now, let us look at even lower level of legislation, the Civil Service Rules. You all know by now that the recent guidelines issued by the Civil Service Commission are supposed to govern declarations made for 2011 and thereafter, and there are definitions of terms in this guideline. But the most salient provision of the guideline is: For computation purposes of real properties, acquisition cost shall be used. That is what the law says, you use acquisition cost. In the past, people did not know what to put in their SALNs, and the law did not say anything. Then, eventually, the law said, you can put either acquisition cost, assessed value, or fair market value. Civil Service Commission, in practice, ruled although the conjunctive issues for these three valuesthe conjunctive and actually should be interpreted as or. So you could just choose any of the three. But now, we have in this new guideline by the Civil Service Commission that when we compute our real properties we should use acquisition cost. There is no more question about this. If the public officer fails to comply with the law, he can be charged under the Penal Code with the crime of falsification for untruthful statements or for perjury. So, we have taken a look now by this time at the Constitution, the applicable laws that are meant to enforce the Constitution. But let me go more deeply into the matter of the failure to disclose, or the failure to declare, or the omission of any declaration. The Civil Service Commission issued the recent guidelines that will govern 2012 and onwards. And it declares that for computation purposes of real properties acquisition cost shall be used. So, you and I as members of Congressof the House of Representatives and of the Senate beginning from 2012, should now use acquisition cost for our SALN. But, before this guideline by the Civil Service Commission, our bureaucracy was governed by the older guideline issued by the Civil Service Commission in 20062006 Resolution of the Civil Service Commission does not provide any guideline. The SALN filed by Chief Justice in 2011, but covering the period of 2010, as well as all his previous SALNs, was filed according to the old resolution of the Civil Service Commission. I have already said, and I repeat, according to Civil Service Commission, at that time under the old guidelines which are very deficient, or let us just say, not specific, it is not necessary to fill up all three values. You could just choose among fair market value, assessed value, and acquisition cost. Now, let us come to the question, how should the current fair market value be computed? We have already been told that there are provisions in the Local Government Code because the municipalities formulate a schedule of fair market values, and this is what is applied by the city assessors. In our present case, the defendant based the valuation of assets in his SALN from the fair market valuation, enacted by the local ordinances. However, the Prosecution contends that the Defendant should have used the value by which a buyer is willing to buy the property and the seller is willing to sell. This is the argument that uses the antique, the age-old, centuries-old possibly, definition by an English writer called Sedgwick in his book, Sedgwick on Damages, and cited in a 1919 case by the Philippine Supreme Court, defining market value as that reasonable sum which property would bring on a fair sale by a person willing but not obliged to sell to a person willing but not obliged to buy. I do not see what would be the utility of discussing what should be fair market value. We should be discussing the question of whether the defendant committed an impeachable offense when he allegedly, erroneously declared, misdeclared certain entries; or completely omitted certain entries in his SALN. Let us see what theand I come now to the gist of what I really wanted to say. Let us come now to what the Supreme Court has to say. When you fail to properly and completely file your SALN, what are you committing? What crime are you guilty of?
In the most recent case, 2011, Presidential Anti-Graft Commission vs. Pleyto. PAGC vs Pleyto, promulgated in 2011, the Supreme Court answered: The failure is not dishonesty but only simple negligence. That, Prosecution Panel, should be the topic of your next oral manifestation and particularly your written manifestation or memorandum at the end of this Trial. Here is the Supreme Court speaking and only as of 2011 Pleyto SALNs are prepared by a family bookkeeper/accountant. Also, his wife has been running their financial affairs, including property acquisitions, which form part and parcel of her lending business. Thus, he was not directly involved and he failed to keep track of the real property acquisition. Here is the important sentence. Consequently, petitioners SALN was not filed in proper form containing several inaccurate information. The Court had no doubt that the SALN was inaccurate. But, it went on to make distinctions among these three terms: gross misconduct, dishonesty and negligence. It cited the two (2) standard laws, remember, that we began with: The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and then the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards. This is what the Supreme Court said: For gross misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the acts complained of were corrupt,were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. That is what you have to prove, Prosecution. The Supreme Court went on. And as for dishonesty just committed by intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion. And then finally, negligence. Negligence in the Supreme Court is the omission of the diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of the time and of the place. In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation, and there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. The Supreme Court goes on. Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee, together with the accessory penalties. Hence, a finding that a public official is administratively liable for such charges must be supported by substantial evidence. Prosecution, you have to show at least substantial evidence because this sentence was made in a decision that involved an administrative case. But we are trying an impeachment case. The Supreme Court held that Pleytos failure in properly and completely filling out his SALN was not intentional. The Supreme Court said, Clear from the foregoing legal definitions of gross misconduct and dishonesty is that intention is an important element in both. Missing the essential element of intent to commit a wrong, this Court cannot declare petitioner guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty. An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence. And so in the Pleyto case, the Supreme Court said, Thus, at most, petitioner is only guilty of negligence. You have your work cut out for you. Prosecution Panel, show that an omission or a misdeclaration was deliberately intended by the Defendant. You must show essential element of intent to commit the wrong. Now in another case, the Court found that the defendant was guilty and should be removed from service. The Office of the Ombudsman vs. Racho, also a 2011 case. We have two cases to choose from because the latest case always controls the jurisprudence. In this other case, Ombudsman vs. Racho, the Court found Racho guilty of dishonesty for nondisclosure of his bank deposits in SALN.
Here is a note of caution to the Defense. Defense Panel, has your client, the Defendant, disclosed in his SALN all his bank depositspeso and dollar deposits? Because if he did not, but he admits that he made those deposits, then under the ruling in Ombudsman under ratio decidendi, then your client is guilty. In this particular case, the Supreme Court defined dishonesty. It said: Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact or practicing or tempting to practice any deception or fraud. And then finally, just for emphasis, one more case that challenges the position of the Defendant, Carabeo vs. Court of Appeals in 2009. He was officer-in-charge of the Treasurer of Paraaque City. He accumulated several properties and was able to travel abroad fifteen (15) times. He did not disclose this in his SALN. He alleged as a defense that he can simply correct the entries made in his SALN. But the Supreme Court said that while the law indeed allows for corrective measures, the defendant was charged not only with a violation of the Anti-Graft Act but also violation of the Penal Code. He failed to show any requirement that prior notice of the non-completion of the SALN, this correction precede the filing of charges for violation of its provisions I will now stop myself. I will challenge these two (2) Panels. Number 1, Prosecution, show that there is intent to commit dishonesty on the part of the Defendant and you have won your case. On the part of the Defense, show that your client has in good faith declared in his SALN all his deposits, both peso and dollar deposits. And if he did not, why not? Please take these decided cases that I have cited accordingly. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Joker Arroyo wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol, Senator Arroyo. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. I would not have spoken this afternoon. Senator Defensor Santiago raised certain questions. I will just follow that up. My question is this for both Panels: Is a correctible offense an impeachable offense? I think that the two (2) Panels should think because offhand, that is what I am thinking. We do not have precedents. We do not have the law which implements the constitutional provision that allows correction. So this is myyou do not have to answer it. I am raising the question for both sides to study it. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano wishes to be recognized, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The lady from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, just a very simple follow-up, follow-through on the challenge posed by SenatorJudge Miriam Defensor Santiago, and actually also Senator-Judge Arroyo. I would like to know from both the Prosecution and the Defense if they, in fact, agree with thewell with the challenge posed by
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago. In other words, I think it is very straightforward and can we simplify this because I saw the Prosecution nodding. And if, in fact, you will agree with Senator-Judge Santiago that, in fact, what you will simply prove is that there was intent to commit a dishonest act inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling on Pleyto, then we are properly guided. Because I saw you nodding. And while you are discussing among yourselves, I also pose the same question to the Defense thatdo you agree, are you prepared to make a statement that if, in factthat you will prove that the Defendant had disclosed all of his bank accounts in good faith, and if not, why not? Are you prepared to make a statement? Because that to me, as a Senator-Judge, simplifies the issue. And although Senator-Judge Arroyo did not ask for an immediate answer to his question as to whether a corrective statement or disclosure that has a corrective remedy is impeachable, I would also like to know your statement on this, your reaction to this if now or if not, at a later date. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we will submit a memorandum with respect to that issue. Senator Cayetano (P). Okay. Representative Tupas. Thank you. Senator Cayetano (P). And may I hear from the Defense? Mr. Bodegon. Essentially, we seem to agree with the positionpresentation of Senator-Judge Santiago, Your Honor. In fact, the direction which we are taking in presenting our evidence is towards that. We just would want to state that under the SALN form, there is no requirement that we must have to indicate any bank deposits or bank accounts. And the Chief Justice has not yet made any pronouncement on this point, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). But it is very clear to all of us because that statement suddenly if taken just withinif I take that statement in isolation, you are saying that the SALN does not declare a disclosure of assets. Because obviously your bank accounts are part of your assets, correct? Mr. Bodegon. No, Your Honor. It is just that my readingand I am not quibbling over this does not require a listing of bank account. Senator Cayetano (P). Of this specific account. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). So, let me rephrase my question, if I may. My understanding of Senator Santiagos statement is that, there is a requirement that the Defendant discloses their assets that are in the bank accounts. Now, I will not quibble also as to whether that specific account needs to be mentioned. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). But the assets, whether it is in your baul at home or it is in a bank account, the totality of that, at the very least, must be declared. Mr. Bodegon. Must be declared. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). That one, we have no argument on that. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). All right.
10
Thank you very much. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, another question. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, just another point that I would like perhaps both the Defense and the Prosecution to comment on if they should submit a memorandum. May we also have your views on the standard of conduct required of a member of the Judiciary? Is it the same as to the standard of conduct, for example, of an executive official or perhaps that of a member of the Legislature? We would like to see if you are comparing apples to apples. In other words, yung requirement ba, yung standard of conduct ba ng nasa Hudikatura, parehas ba yan ng isang dating undersecretary ng Public Works, for example? Hopefully, we can have that likewise in the memorandum. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we will include that in our memorandum. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Floor Leader. I think we better start with the trial. All of these are matters ought to be submitted after the closure of the presentation of the evidence on both sides. The procedure in this trial is for the Prosecution to present its case and for the Defense to present its defense. Then if there is a need for rebuttal, then so be it. And the memorandum, if at all, will come after the presentation of the Prosecutions case and the Defense rebuttal of the evidence of the Prosecution, that is where we are at the moment. So, the gentle lady from Iloilo is again recognized. Senator Defensor Santiago. Just one word. In response to the Defense Counsels manifestation that it is their belief that the law does not require an itemization or a specification of the bank deposits of the filer or the declarant, I repeat, in the case, also 2011, I am citing the Pleyto case of 2011. In this case, it is also 2011, Office of the Ombudsman vs. Racho, 2011. In this case, the Court found Racho guilty of dishonesty for nondisclosure of his bank deposits in his SALN. The Court held that, In this case, Racho not only failed to disclose his bank accounts containing substantial deposits, but he also failed to satisfactorily explain the accumulation of his wealth or even identify the sources of such accumulated wealth. And therefore, in view of this pronouncement by the Supreme Court, Defense will now have the burden of proving that failure to disclose bank deposits is not necessarily an indication of bad faith to omit a significant amount of the assets of the Defendant. Mr. Bodegon. We agree, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, the Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are now The Presiding Officer. May I suggest that we go on with the trial
11
Senator Sotto. Yes. We are now ready The Presiding Officer. and let us hear the Defense present the case for the Respondent. We cannot judge this on the basis of manifestations or just the evidence presented by the Prosecution, unless the Defense is ready to say that We waive our right to present evidence. And I do not think that they are going to waive that. Mr. Bodegon. We are not, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, there are issues here that must be clarified and that is what we are waiting for. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are now ready to The Presiding Officer. As far as the Presiding Officer is concerned, there is only one standard for high officials and lowly employees of this government and that is found in the first sentence of Section 17 of Article XI, To tell the truth and nothing but the truth in the declaration of assets, liabilities and net worth. So, proceed. Senator Sotto. We are now ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the Defense, Mr. President. Mr. Bodegon. Before we proceed, Your Honor, I just would like to make a manifestation. It is unfortunate and we apologize that our Chief Defense Counsel is presently ill, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Indisposed. Mr. Bodegon. Indisposed, Your Honor. So, in the meantime, I will be acting lead counsel for the Defense, if the Honorable Presiding Officer would permit. The Presiding Officer. So, proceed. We cannot control who is going to handle the defense of the Respondent. You are the panel designated by him to present his case, do so. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. We have specific assignments in the presentation of evidence, Your Honor. So, for the first, may we request that Atty. Tranquil Salvador be recognized. The Presiding Officer. Atty. Tranquil Salvador has the floor. Mr. Salvador. Magandang hapon po, Senate President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Salvador. If I may proceed, Your Honor. Last Thursday I think the parties have agreed to enter into a stipulation on a singular document, Your Honor, in connection with the subpoena duces tecum that was issued by this Honorable Court. And for the record let me state it. It pertains to Tax Declaration No. F-1000235345 pertaining to CCT No. 85716 issued by the Register of Deeds of the city of Makati, particularly pertaining, Your Honor, to Unit No. 31-B of The Columns Ayala Avenue, Makati City. And in the light of this stipulation with
12
the opposing counsel, let me put it of record that the document was previously marked as our Exhibit 150. And, Your Honor, and I will refer to the market value and assessed value duly marked and stipulated on by the parties. The market value is P1,210,000.00 which was encircled and marked as our Exhibit 150-A. I will also refer to the dorsal portion of the same document which is the assessed value in the total amount of P726,000.00, Exhibit 150-B marked and bracketed. The Presiding Officer. But what is the acquisition value? Mr. Salvador. The acquisition value asthere is no acquisition value, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. There is no acquisition value? Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, I am referring to the Tax Declaration. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, there is no acquisition value. Mr. Salvador. Indicated here, no, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How was that acquired? Was it by donation, inheritance or what? Mr. Salvador. This is by purchase, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. By purchase. Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, there is an acquisition value if you buy a property? Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead. Mr. Salvador. In that light, Your Honor, before I further proceed, the witness who should have identified it considering the stipulation as to the authenticity of the document and as to the competency of the witness is Engr. Mario Badillo, the head or the City Assessor of Makati, Your Honor. If allowed to testify, he should have established the accuracy of the entries of the SALN as of December 21, 2010 and likewise, the assessed value and fair market value as approved and determined in the Assessors Office of the City of Makati, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I think there is no problem about that. Is there, from the side of the Prosecution? Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Panganiban. Good afternoon, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Panganiban. That is not exactly the stipulation that we are offering. The Presiding Officer. What is the stipulation? Mr. Panganiban. The stipulation that we are offering is to the effect that we are not questioning the authenticity of the tax declaration but that does not go into the accuracy of the values reflected in the SALN. That is our position, Your Honor.
13
Mr. Salvador. So, in that case, would you want us to present the witness? That statement was in connection, Your Honor, with all due respect, was for the purpose for which the witness would have been presented. Mr. Panganiban. Because Mr. Salvador. And for us, if I may, it would be necessary such that at the end of the day, if we are to submit our formal offer of evidence, there is some reference point that we have to start with in connection with the submission of our evidence. The Presiding Officer. What is your pleasure? Do you want to present your witness now? Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, we would like to but in the light of their request last time, to agree and stipulate on this tax declaration and in the light of the observations of some Senator-Judges to expedite this, we decided to stipulate with them. I think we are in agreement on the document, right, as to the authenticity? Mr. Panganiban. As to the tax declaration, yes. Mr. Salvador. Yes, as to the tax declaration. Their statement of the purpose is if he would have been placed on the stand is the purpose, and that is for purposes of the record. Okay. Unless you want him to be presented right now, Your Honor, I will have to do that. He could stipulate that with me only for purposes of the record. Mr. Panganiban. Your Honor, may I say something? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Panganiban. We want to spare the Honorable Court with all these markings and trivialities, Your Honor. We will stipulate on the tax declaration and only on the tax declaration. If it goes into the accuracy of the SALN, we are not going to stipulate on that because the assessor, Your Honor, is not the one who executed the SALNhas nothing to do with the SALN of the Chief Justice. But he has got something to do with the tax declaration for which we admit, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, if I may? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Salvador. I think my statement was if the witness would have testified, it was the purpose for which it was offered. I think we are in agreement as to the authenticity of the document and following Rule 132, Section 23, I think the entries therein are deemed as prima facie and that is the reason why we entered into a stipulation. The Presiding Officer. To stop this argumentation Mr. Panganiban. Opo. Opo. The Presiding Officer. there is no stipulation so far agreed upon because your minds do not meet. Mr. Salvador. Opo. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution will agree to stipulate with you only to the extent of the authenticity of the document and as far as the figures that was entered in that document. But as far as the accuracy of that document, they do not accept that.
14
So, since that is the situation, then you present your witness. Mr. Salvador. Opo. Thank you, Your Honor. Can we request a one-minute break? We will call the witness. The Presiding Officer. All right. One-minute break. The trial was suspended at 2:57 p.m. At 3:03 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. The trial is resumed.
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Franklin Drilon for an Offer? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo is recognized. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, during the break we talked to both parties, in an effort to make them agree on a stipulation in order to dispense with the presentation of this particular witness. And both parties agreed to the following stipulations, subject to their confirmation on record: Stipulation is that the entries in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of the Chief Justice for the year ending December 31, 2010 marked as Exhibits 13 and 14 particularly the one that refers to a condo in Makati acquired in 2003, the entries under the column Assessed Value and Current Fair Market Value in the amounts of P726,000 and P1,210,000, respectively, are based on the Tax Declaration, which is marked Exhibit 150. Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. And if I can make a very short addition to that, to the extent that it is copied from the Tax Declaration. Senator Drilon. No, it is based onyou know, if you change that then, you know, you might expectthere is no difference between what you are saying... Mr. Salvador. Senator Drilon. Mr. Salvador. Senator Drilon. Mr. Panganiban. Senator Drilon. President. Mr. Panganiban. Yes. ...and what I have proposed, which you have agreed upon during the break. In that case, Your Honor, we will agree with that. What about the Prosecution? We likewise confirm that, Your Honor. With that, maybe we can dispense with the presentation of this witness, Mr. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. All right, are you satisfied? Mr. Salvador. We are, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Did the statement of the gentleman from Iloilo accurately reflect the thinking of both the Prosecution Panel and the Defense Panel?
15
On the part of the Prosecution, we confirm that, Your Honor. How about the Defense?
Mr. Panganiban.
The Presiding Officer.
Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. My understanding isis that it was copied and it is accurate. To that extent, I agree, Your Honor. Mr. Panganiban. Your Honor, I will have to object to the word accurate because that is the word that we are trying to avoid here. You cannot say that it is accurate because it does not reflect the current market value, Your Honor. Counsel is changing the stipulation. That is my manifestation. Mr. Salvador. No, Your Honor, that was based on the offer. But in that case, Your Honor, in order to expedite, we will agree on that based on the statement of Senator Drilon. The Presiding Officer. When you say current market valuemarket value today or yesterday or in 2010? Mr. Panganiban. As of the time that the SALN was filed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Why do you say that? Mr. Panganiban. Because the SALN is dated at that time. For example, the SALN in question, it is a SALN dated December 31, 2010. So the current fair market value, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. At that time Mr. Panganiban. It should be as of December 31, 2010. That is our position, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. And what was written in the SALN? Mr. Salvador. What was written in the SALN were figures lifted from the Tax Declaration of the property. The Presiding Officer. All right, I understand. Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So there is no meeting of the minds. Senator Drilon. No, there is a meeting of the minds, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Drilon. So that withboth of them have agreed to the stipulation as this Representation has read, if the Defense can confirm that. Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, there is just one little addition as to the accuracy thereof.
Mr. Panganiban. We will not agree to the accuracy, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. That is why we have notthat is why we said the stipulation is based on there is no statement of accuracy because the other side will object to it. Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, ifokay, for example Senator Drilon. Well
16
Mr. Salvador. Yes, ... If it is what is based is accurate, then we will. We will stipulate on that. Senator Drilon. Then I thinkI do not think we can have any stipulation with all those qualifications. We just proceed. The Presiding Officer. Present your witness.
Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. The Clerk of Court. Please stand up and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment proceeding? Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Clerk of Court. Do you? Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. Mr. Salvador. Mr. Witness, can you give us your name? Mr. Badillo. I am Engr. Mario Badillo, City Assessor of Makati. Mr. Salvador. Your age? Mr. Badillo. Fifty-nine years old. Mr. Salvador. And your status?
The Presiding Officer. Are you married? Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, if I may proceed with the Offer? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, this Witness is presented to establish the accuracy of the entries of the SALN as of December 31, 2010 and assessed values and fair market values based on the values approved and determined by the Assessors Office of the City of Makati. If I may proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed. Mr. Salvador. Okay. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us the reason why you are here before this honorable Court? Mr. Badillo. This is in compliance with the subpoena of this honorable Impeachment Court to bring the original and certified true copy of Tax Declaration No. F-01-00235345, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. So you have that copy with you today?
Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor.
17
Mr. Salvador. Okay. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us who is the declared owner as appearing in the Tax Declaration? Mr. Badillo. The declared owner is Ms. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. Could you please tell us the location of the property as declared in the Tax Declaration? Mr. Badillo. The location of the property is The Columns corner Ayala Avenue, Gil Puyat Avenue and Malugay Street, Bel-Air Village, Makati City, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, for purposes of the record, this has beenthis document, Tax Declaration, has been previously marked as our Exhibit 150. The Presiding Officer. And are you marking it as such? Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, previously marked. Pre-marked as 150. The Presiding Officer. Already entered in the record? Mr. Salvador. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Okay, proceed. Mr. Salvador. And, Mr. Witness, I am referring to the dorsal portion of the document that you are in possession right now, and I am referring now to the market value. Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. Could you please read to us the market value as declared in the Tax Declaration? Mr. Badillo. The amount of the market value is P1,210,000, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. Okay. And, Your Honor, may we request, and as has been previously marked, this market value has been encircled and marked as our Exhibit 150-A. Mr. Witness, I am referring to the assessed value on the lower right hand dorsal portion of the same document, could you please tell us the assessed value of the property? Mr. Badillo. The assessed value is P726,000, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. Okay. Your Honor, may we request that this amount be encircled and be bracketed as our Exhibit 150-B. And just a few more questions, Mr. Witness. There is a signature on the lower left hand portion on top of the typewritten name Engr. Mario V. Badillo. Whose signature is that? Mr. Badillo. It is my signature, Your Honor. Mr. Salvador. Okay. Your Honor, I have no further question.
The Presiding Officer. Mark the documents accordingly. But the Court would like to be clarified, when was this assessed value undertaken by the City of Makati?
18
Mr. Badillo. January 11, 2008, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And how about the market value?
Mr. Salvador. The Witness is now referring to the documents that is now in his possession. Mr. Badillo. I think 2006, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Huh? Mr. Badillo. 2006, Your Honor, under the name of Community Innovation Incorporated transferred to The Presiding Officer. When was that market value determined? Mr. Badillo. 2008, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2008? Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. as of December 31st, 2010? Can you certify that that is the market value of the property
Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And what basis can you do that? Did you do an appraisal? Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor, since 2008 up to 2010, the same market value, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. It remained the same. Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. After December 31, what was the market value? Mr. Badillo. The same, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The same. Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Until when? Until now? Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Thank you. Proceed. Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, no further questions and ready for cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Panganiban. We will conduct no cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Witness is discharged. Mr. Salvador. Thank you, Your Honor.
19
Mr. Badillo. Thank you po. Mr. Bodegon. For our next witness, Your Honor, he will be presented by our Atty. Dennis Manalo. So may we request that he be recognized. The Presiding Officer. Atty. Dennis Manalo is recognized. Mr. Bodegon. May we request for a one-minute suspension, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. By the way, Counsel Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. witnesses? why is it that you have different lawyers presenting different
Mr. Bodegon. Because we have made separate assignments, Your Honor, for the different witnesses. The Presiding Officer. For the preparation of the witness. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Bodegon. May we request for a one-minute suspension, Your Honor, because Attorney Manalo is fetching the witness? The Presiding Officer. All right. Trial suspended for one minute to wait for the witness. Mr. Bodegon. Thank you, Your Honor. The trial was suspended at 3:14 p.m. At 3:16 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. We are ready for the next witness, Mr. President. The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please stand up, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding? Mr. Alcantara. I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you, God. Mr. Manalo. I am Atty. Dennis Manalo, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Atty. Dennis Manalo will conduct the examination of the Witness. Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, the Witness is offered to prove the basis of the noninclusion of the Ayala Heights and La Vista properties in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2010. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
20
Mr. Manalo. To prove further, Your Honor, that there was a transfer of the title of the Ayala Heights property in the name of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona to a certain Amelia E. Rivera et al. on the 12th day of March 2010 based on the title of this property and the Certificate Authorizing Registration. To prove further, Your Honor, the transfer of the title of the La Vista property in the name of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona to a certain Carla C. Castillo on the 22nd day of October 2010 based on the title and the Certificate Authorizing Registration. The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead. Mr. Manalo. Now, the second part, Your Honor, of the testimony will delve on the basis, on the noninclusion of the properties in Cubao and Kalayaan Avenue in the SALNs of Chief Justice Corona. The property in Cubao, Your Honor, we will prove that it is in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III and Carla C. Castillo and the property in Kalayaan Avenue is also in their names. The Presiding Officer. In their names, what is their? Mr. Manalo. Them, referring to Constantino C. Castillo and Carla C. Castillo. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Manalo. And lastly, Your Honor, to prove the basis for the noninclusion of the parking space in the Burgundy Condominium in the SALN of Chief Justice Corona beginning 2003. The parking space of the Burgundy property in the name of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona being a part of the technical description of the TCT. That is our purpose for presenting this Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Justiniano. Your Honor, if the Witness will be identifying documents, maybe he can just show us and we can just submit the authenticity of the documents, Your Honor. This Witness was presented by this representation before and I am sure he would not have any problem identifying the documents. Mr. Manalo. If the Counsel will agree to the purpose of our presentation, then we are willing to The Presiding Officer. Proceed to present the Witness and let them agree or disagree.
Mr. Manalo. Okay, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, please state your name and other personal circumstances for the record. Mr. Alcantara. I am Atty. Carlo V. Alcantara, of legal age, married and presently the designated Acting Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City Registry of Deeds, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Manalo. And how long have you been the Acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City, for the record, Mr. Witness? Mr. Justiniano. May I interrupt? I will admit the qualification of the Witness to expedite the proceeding. As I have said, he was my Witness before. The Presiding Officer. Including his tenure as Acting Register of Deeds? Mr. Justiniano. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So ordered.
21
Proceed. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, can you just briefly explain your duties and functions? Mr. Justiniano. We can also admit that, Your Honor. In fact, I presented that during the time when I presented him to the witness stand. The Presiding Officer. All right. His duties and functions and authority are admitted by the Prosecution. Mr. Justiniano. Admitted, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, as the Acting Registrar of Deeds, do you have in your record a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. We have on record the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. And what is the status of that title? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title is a cancelled title, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that this document presented by the Witness be marked as our Exhibit 183, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, but before we mark it, I just want to find out when was it cancelled? When was that title cancelled? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title was cancelled on April 13, 2010, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And why was it cancelled? Mr. Alcantara. The reason, Your Honor, for the cancellation of this title is the registration of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona in favor of spouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the date of the Deed of Sale? Mr. Alcantara. The Deed of Sale, Your Honor, refers to a The Presiding Officer. What is the date? Mr. Alcantara. Datethe Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, is February 26, 2010. The Presiding Officer. Is that a unilateral contract or bilateral contract? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is a bilateral contract. The Presiding Officer. Between the buyer and the seller? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And who notarized it? Mr. Alcantara. This document, Deed of Absolute Sale, docketed as Document No. 138, Page No. 29, Book No. IV, Series of 2010 was notarized by Atty. Wenna T. Tan, Notary Public for Quezon City, Your Honor.
22
The Presiding Officer. And that is registered in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City for purposes of cancelling the title in the name of the spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. May we request that the document be marked as our Exhibit 185, that the rubber stamp Cancelled be marked as our Exhibit 185-A, and that the annotation in the title of the sale of the Deed of Absolute Sale, in favor of Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 185-B. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. certificate of title? Mr. Witness, do you have a copy of the title that replaced this particular
Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, we have a certified true copy of the title in the name of spouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is the replacement of the TCT cancelled by that Deed of Sale? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Already marked as exhibit, okay. What is the number of that TCT? Mr. Alcantara. The number of the title, Your Honor, is Transfer Certificate of Title No. 0042010001387, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And what is the date of issuance? Mr. Alcantara. The date of issuance, Your Honor, is April 13, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. The Presiding Officer. And who signed that Deed of SaleTCT? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this Transfer Certificate of Title was signed by Carlo V. Alcantara, the Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City. The Presiding Officer. At that time? Mr. Alcantara. At that time, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed, Counsel. Mr. Manalo. We request, Your Honor, that the title mentioned by the Witness be marked as our Exhibit 186, the name of the owner therein, being the spouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia Rivera, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 186-A. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. And that the date and time of entry of this title being 13th day of April, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 186-B. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.
23
Mr. Manalo. Do you have with you the Certificate Authorizing Registration of this particular transaction, Mr. Witness? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, I have with me transfer certification, the Certificate Authorizing Registration No. 2009 The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of that authorization? The TCT was already issued and the presumption of regularity of the issuance of that title exists. Mr. Manalo. We will move on to the next document, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Manalo. Do you have a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 0042010010259 for the La Vista property? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. I have certified true copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 004-2010010259, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In whose name? Mr. Alcantara. This, Your Honor, is registered in the name of Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castillo III, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That isis that an OCT or TCT? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is a Transfer Certificate of Title. The Presiding Officer. And who transferred the property to the named owner? Mr. Alcantara. This property or title is a transfer from the title of Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When? Mr. Alcantara. This title was issued on November 9, 2010 at 3:26 in the afternoon, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the operating document that caused the transfer of that property to the present owner? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the basis for the cancellation of the title of Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato Corona, is the registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Ma. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona, in favor of Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castillo III, for the sum of P18 million. The Presiding Officer. Eighteen million pesos. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Incidentally, what was the consideration of the transfer of property, the Corona property, to the Riveras? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the Transfer of Title from Renato Corona The Presiding Officer. To the Riveras. Mr. Alcantara. to the Riveras is P8 million, Your Honor.
24
The Presiding Officer. Eight million pesos. And this one is P18 million? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the Transfer Certificate of Title referred to by the Witness be marked as our Exhibit 187 and that the name of the owner Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castillo III, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 187-A, and the date of entry of this Title on November 9, 2010 at 3:26 in the afternoon be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 187-B. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Who was the signatory to that new TCT? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the signatory to the new TCT is Carlo V. Alcantara, Deputy Register of Deeds, Quezon City, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Manalo. That is you, am I correct, Mr. Witness? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. Now, do you have a copy, Mr. Witness, of the Transfer Certificate of Title N-327732 in the name of Constantino T. Castillo, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo? This is the property located in Cubao, Quezon City. Mr. Alcantara. I believe that was the subject of marking during my presentation as witness for the Prosecution, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you Exhibit BBB of the Prosecution which you have earlier identified when you testified the last time. Is it the document which I am referring to as the title? Do you confirm the existence of that title in your office? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. And under whose name is that title? Mr. Alcantara. Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-327732 is registered in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And who transferred the property to them? Mr. Manalo. The Witness, Your Honor, is just going over his record. Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this was not part of the subpoena duces tecum issued to me and I do not have the recollection as to the previous title of this property, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, will you be able to get, for the record, the document that will evidence the reason for the issuance of this title? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Can you present those documents?
25
Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That certificate of title was from what previous title? Mr. Alcantara. The previous Certificate of Title No. 125683, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And do you know in whose name that previous title was? Mr. Manalo. Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Manalo. Earlier this Witness testified for the Prosecution and they marked in evidence the Deed of Absolute Sale which was the reason for the issuance of this title. May I confront the Witness with the document so he can just confirm that this is the document which was the basis for the issuance of the title? The Presiding Officer. Without the objection of the Defense, you may proceed. Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you the Deed of Absolute Sale marked by the Prosecution as Exhibit DDD which you have earlier identified when you testified before, a Deed of Absolute Sale between Daniel G. Encina and Constantino T. Castillo. Is this the document which you have earlier testified to which resulted in the issuance of this title? Please take a look at the document, Mr. Witness. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Daniel G. Encina in favor of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Carla R. Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Encina was the owner? Mr. Alcantara. The previous owner, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Under TCT? Mr. Alcantara. Under Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-20758 (129302), Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that was sold to the Castilloscouple? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, Constantino T. Castillo III married to Carla R. Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When was the sale made? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the Deed of Absolute Sale is dated December 15, 2003, Your Honor. And this Deed of Absolute Sale was registered on February 23, 2004. The Presiding Officer. 2004. And as a consequence, a new TCT was issued? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And what was the consideration for the transaction? Mr. Alcantara. The consideration, Your Honor, for this sale is P10,500,000. The Presiding Officer. Paid for by the buyer?
26
Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed, Counsel.
Mr. Manalo. We wish to mark the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, as our Exhibit 188. We also wish to have the names of the parties in the contract submarked as our Exhibit 188-A and the date of execution of the contract be marked as our Exhibit 188-B. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. We request as well, Your Honor, that the Transfer Certificate of Title No. N327732 in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, which was the result of the Deed of Absolute Sale identified by the Witness, be marked as our Exhibit 189. The name of the registered owner be marked as our Exhibit 189-A and the date of entry of this title in the Register of Deeds at Quezon City on 17th day of March 2009 at 1:40 p.m., in the afternoon be marked as our Exhibit 189-B. The Presiding Officer. This is another transaction? Mr. Manalo. No, Your Honor, it is the same TCT identified by the Witness. It is the property in Cubao, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, do you have with you a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title N-260027 for the Kalayaan Avenue property in the name of Constantino Castillo III and Carla C. Castillo? Mr. Alcantara. I believe, Your Honor, I have also testified on that Transfer Certificate of Title for the Prosecution, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you the Prosecutions exhibit marked FFF. Is this the Transfer Certificate of Title that you have referred to as part of your earlier testimony? The Presiding Officer. In whose name is that Transfer Certificate of Title? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-260027 is registered in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Carla R. Corona. The Presiding Officer. And what was the title from which that new TCT was originated? Mr. Alcantara. This title originated from RT-20758 (129302), Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In whose name? Mr. Manalo. May I propound the question, Your Honor, so that the Witness can answer? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, do you also recall bringing with you when you testified the document evidencing the underlying transaction that caused the issuance of this title? Mr. Alcantara. I believe, Your Honor.
27
Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you a document marked by the Prosecution as Exhibit ZZ. Is this the Deed of Absolute Sale which you have earlier identified covering this particular title? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Myrla Melad-Bajar married to Beneroso E. Bajar, Your Honor, as vendor and Constantino T. Castillo III married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo as vendees, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the date of that document? Mr. Alcantara. The date of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, is March 11, 2009. The Presiding Officer. And the consideration? Mr. Alcantara. The consideration, Your Honor, is P15 million. The Presiding Officer. And who notarized it? Mr. Alcantara. This Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by Atty. Myrna S. Valdez-Cruz, Your Honor, and docketed as Document No. 077, Page No. 016, Book No. 1, Series of 2009. The Presiding Officer. All right. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Manalo. Your HonorMr. Witness, in the title of this property, is there an encumbrance annotatedcan you justbased on the title? The Presiding Officer. The question is, is there an encumbrance annotated at the back of that new Transfer Certificate of Title? Mr. Manalo. Let me refer you again to the document marked as Exhibit 189 which is the property in Cubao, a common exhibit between the parties. Can you take a look at this document and confirm if there is an encumbrance in this title? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, there is an existing real estate mortgage annotated on this title under entry No. 2504T-327732. The Presiding Officer. Who is the mortgagor? Mr. Alcantara. The mortgagor, Your Honor, are the registered owners, Constantino T. Castillo III married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And the mortgagee? Mr. Alcantara. The mortgagee, Your Honor, is the Bank of Philippine Islands, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the total amount secured by that mortgage? Mr. Alcantara. The mortgaged amount, Your Honor, is P12 million, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Twelve million pesos? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the date of that mortgage? Mr. Alcantara. The date of the instrument or the Real Estate Mortgage is 5-15-2009 May 15, 2009, Your Honor. And it was registered on May 19, 2009.
28
The Presiding Officer. After the transaction between the seller and the buyer of the property? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, after the sale. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the encumbrance identified by the Witness be submarked as our Exhibit 189-C. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. By the way, that encumbrance still exists until today? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, that is an existing encumbrance on the said The Presiding Officer. And it has never been paid? Mr. Alcantara. As far as the records of the Registry of Deeds is concerned, no cancellation yet has been registered on that encumbrance, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Twelve million pesos? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Thank you. Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, may we request that the Transfer Certificate of Title for the Kalayaan Avenue property in Quezon City No. N-260027 identified by the Witness be marked as our Exhibit 190. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. That the name of the registered owner be submarked as Exhibit 190-A and the date of entry in the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on the 23rd day of February 2004 at 9:43 a.m. be submarked as our Exhibit 190-B. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. We likewise request, Your Honor, that the Deed of Absolute Sale identified by the Witness to be part of the record in the Register of Deeds of Quezon City for the previous title marked which is a Deed of Absolute Sale by and between Myrla Melad-Bajar and Constantino T. Castillo be marked as our Exhibit 191, the name of the parties thereto be submarked as our Exhibit 191-A and the date of the Deed of Absolute Sale being March 17, 2009 be marked as our Exhibit 191-B. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. I am sorry, it is not March 17, it is March 11, 2009. Mr. Witness, do you have a copy of Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812 for the Burgundy Condominium in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona? Mr. Alcantara. I believe, likewise, Your Honor, I have already testified on that title previously for the Prosecution. Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you a copy of this TCT marked as Exhibit OO of the Prosecution. Do you confirm that this is the title of this particular property?
29
Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812 registered in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, Your Honors. The Presiding Officer. Is that an original title or transfer title? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is a certified true copy of the Condominium Certificate of Title No., Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Original issue? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. From the developer? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, can you please take a look at the technical description of the property and kindly confirm to the Honorable Court if the description includes the parking space for that particular condominium? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, there is an annotation on this Condominium Certificate of Title pertaining to an Agreement. This Agreement was entered under Primary Entry No. 4175, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. Please read it. Mr. Alcantara. Primary Entry No. 4175N-35812, Agreement, executed by Burgundy Realty Corporation, referred to as the First Party, and Spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, referred to as the Second Party. Whereas, the First Party is the owner-developer of one (1) Burgundy Plaza while the Second Party is the owner of 21-D and Parking Slot identified as Parking Slot Upper Third Floor, No. 11, and for this purpose, the First Party and the Second Party have agreed that the Second Party alone shall use Parking Slot U3F-No. 11 under Document No. 257; Page No. 52; Book No. 59; Series of 2003, of Notary Public for Quezon City, Atty. Jose F. Ordona. Date of instrument: October 8, 2003; and date of inscription: December 11, 2003, Your Honor. This was signed by Atty. Constante P. Caluya III, the Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Does that mean thatfirst of all, the question of the Chair is, is that an inscription at the back of the title of the condominium unit? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. As an encumbrance? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that in effect, that parking lot does not belong to the owner of the unit but only to use it Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, the exclusive The Presiding Officer. as an owner of the unit?
30
Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. It remains to be the property of the owner of the condominium development? Is that it? Mr. Alcantara. The annotation simply refers, Your Honor, to the right of the The Presiding Officer. Right of use? Mr. Alcantara. Use, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, usufruct. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed, Counsel. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that this Condominium Certificate of Title No. N35812 in the name of the spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona be marked as our Exhibit 192 and the annotation of the Agreement between Burgundy Realty Corporation and the Spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, referring to Parking Slot No. U3F No. 11, be sub-marked as our Exhibit 192-A? The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. And the date of the instrument and date of inscription of said annotation be submarked as our 192-B. I have no further questions for the Witness, Your Honor. Mr. Justiniano. No cross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are you marking it? Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Okay. No further question. Mr. Manalo. No, no. Wait. Just a moment, Your Honor. I think there is a matter that we have to mark. May I just ask a question, Your Honor, with regard to Exhibit 192? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Manalo. Apparently, there is matter here. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, please look at the date of entry of the title in the Register of Deeds. The date of entry isthe year is in 1993. However, the inscription is in 2003. Can you please explain the apparent contradiction in the year? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812 registered in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona was issued or entered at the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City on December 11, 2003, Your Honor, at 2:15 in the afternoon, Your Honors.
31
Mr. Manalo. The first page of the document, if you will see the form, the form does not say 2000. It says 90, 1993. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, this is an old form and we did not correct. As far as the form is concerned, we simply indicated the year when the title was issued. So, on the original form, on the form itself, on the judicial form, it is dated in the year 1900 instead of 2003, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Manalo. Thank you for the clarification. May we just have that particular portion read by the Witness sub-marked as our Exhibit 192-C? The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. With the clarification, Your Honor, we have no further questions for this Witness. The Presiding Officer. Is there any Mr. Justiniano. No cross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. cross-examination? Mr. Justiniano. No cross-examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Who wants tothe gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, just a clarificatory question with respect to our Acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. You mentioned earlier na there is this property in Quezon City sold to Carla Castillo, is that not right? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. And this was sold October 18, 2010? Is this the La Vista property? I am sort of confused. Would youor is this a different property? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the La Vista property is a property with an area of 1,200 square meters. This was previously owned by spouses Cristina Corona, married to Renato Corona, and this was sold to Ma. Carla Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castillo III, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. When was this sold? Mr. Alcantara. The date of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, is October 18, 2010, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So, this is the La Vista property that is 1,200 square meters? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. It was acquired in 2003 by the Coronas, if I am not mistaken, and then sold in 2010?
32
Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Pangilinan. Who did they acquire it from? Would you have records? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this property was previously covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-96031 (270444) previously registered in the name of Victor N. Bocaling, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Okay. So that is a La Vista property purchased in 2003 from Bocaling and then sold in 2010, October to Carla Castillo for P18 million? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So there is no other property sold in La Vista to other persons by the Coronas? I mean, based on your record. Mr. Alcantara. I believe, Sir, this is the only property in La Vista previously owned by the CJ the Chief Justice, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Well, this is the question that is requested of me to be raised to you by Senator Lacson. Is this the Maranaw property? Would you know? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, I have no particularity of the property. Our record simply indicates that this is the La Vista property, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Is there any other property in Pansol apart from the La Vista property on your record? The Presiding Officer. Pansol. Pansol is another street? Another street in La Vista or? Senator Pangilinan. Is Pansol in La Vista or is this another Senator Sotto. It is a barangay in the 3rd District, Mr. President. Barangay in the 3rd District of Quezon City, Barangay Pansol. Senator Pangilinan. So that would have been thejust to clarify, that would have been the P8 million property sold to the spouses Rivera in Barangay Pansol? Mr. Alcantara. This is a property, Your Honor, covered previously by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corono and Cristina Corona which was the subject matter of the sale in favor of spouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor, The Presiding Officer. And that is located in Pansol? Mr. Alcantara. for the amount of P8 million, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Located in Pansol? Senator Pangilinan. That is located in Pansol? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, specifically identified on the technical description, this is a property located in Barangay Matandang Balara, Quezon City, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Ah, Matandang Balara. Senator Pangilinan. And that was how much, P8 million? Mr. Alcantara. For P8 million, Your Honor.
33
Senator Pangilinan. Okay. And apart from this Matandang Balara, is there a property in Pansol? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, if we check the CAR, the Certificate Authorizing Registration of the sale between Cristina R. Corona in favor of Ma. Carla C. Castillo involving Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-254901, the location of property as specified in the Certificate Authorizing Registration is Pansol, Diliman, Quezon City, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Referring to the La Vista Property? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So La Vista is the subdivision, perhaps Pansol is the barangay. Perhaps no? Senator Sotto. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Manalo. We move, Your Honor, that the Witness be discharged. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Escudero wants to be recognized before we discharge the Witness. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon. I just want to clarify. The Pansol or La Vista Property is the one that was sold for P18 million. Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the La Vista property was sold for P18 million, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that is what is known as located in Pansol. Mr. Alcantara. The La Vista property, this was indicated as La Vista property with an area of 1,200 square meter, Your Honor, and this was the subject matter of the sale for P18 million, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What about the property which was supposed to be in Pansol? Are they the same? Mr. Alcantara. They are different, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Senator Escudero, Mr. President. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, just a clarification. Mr. Witness, when you were first called here, ito rin ba yung mga bagay-bagay na nagtestify kayo? Mr. Alcantara. Ito rin po, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Lahat, yung mga documents na pina-identify pati yung mga Transfer Certificates of Title, yun din yung tines-tipayan(testify) po ninyo noon? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Lahat? So we are talking about the same documents and the same exhibits? Mr. Alcantara. I believe, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Wala kayong bagong prinisentang dokumento sa amin?
34
Mr. Alcantara. Wala po, Your Honor.
Senator Escudero. So lahat nung prinisenta niyo noon noong pinatawag kayo ng Prosecution, yung din ang prinisenta niyo ngayon? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Walang labis, walang kulang? Defense Counsel, would that be correct? Mr. Manalo. There is one title, Your Honor, the title of the property inRiveras. This was not marked in the previous testimony. But as to the other documents, Your Honor, there were no submarkings for the registered owners and the date of entries of these titles in the documents marked by the Prosecution. And to us, Your Honor, this data is material to our defenses, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. So at that time you came here, you knew it was already registered in the name of another person, but that no question was propounded to you as to that fact. Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, I remember that the Chief Prosecutor or Chief Defense questioned the presentation of the titles not registered in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona, married to Cristina R. Corona, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Pero wala iyong TCT na nasa record naman ninyo na nasa ibang pangalan na. Mr. Alcantara. We submitted likewise, Your Honor, the copyor we presented also the titles which are not registered in the name of spouses Renato Corona Senator Escudero. At that time? Mr. Alcantara. At that time, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honor. Thank you. Just to clarify. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. I just got a little more confused after the Senate President raised the question of whether Pansol and La Vista is the same property because the Witness said it is not. Are we talking of three (3) properties hereLa Vista, Pansol and Matandang Balara? Is that right or just two properties? Mr. Alcantara. Two (2) properties, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So, the La Vista property is not the Pansol property. Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, as I have mentioned earlier, the La Vistathe Certificate Authorizing Registration also classified this property as under Pansol, Barangay Pansol, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So that is one (1) property.
35
Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Because when the Senate President asked you: Are these the same? You said: They are different. So I got confused. Is La Vista and Pansol the same property? Mr. Alcantara. Based on the entries on the Certificate Authorizing Registration for this 1,200square meter lot, Your Honor, they are the same. Senator Pangilinan. So they are the same, okay. So the other one (1) is Matandang Balara. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So that these are just two (2) properties? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Okay. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. We may discharge the Witness, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged. Mr. Alcantara. Thank you, Your Honors. Permission, Your Honors. Senator Sotto. Mr. President I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes.
The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for 15 long minutes. The trial was suspended at 4:05 p.m. At 4:39 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Defense? Mr. President, may we continue with the presentation of evidence by the Trial resumed.
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. Before I call on the next Counsel to present the witnesses, Your Honor, may we just be permitted to mark in evidence several Supreme Court resolutions bearing on access to SALNs of justices and judges, Your Honor? These documents have been premarked in the presence of Counsel for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Bodegon. As our Exhibit 182, Your Honor, this Resolution, the Supreme Court En Banc, dated May 2, 1989, on the request of Jose Alejandrino. The Presiding Officer. Are you going to mark it as what? Mr. Bodegon. As Exhibit 182, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.
36
Prosecution, do you have any objection? Representative Primicias-Agabas. None, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right.
Mr. Bodegon. For the next Supreme Court Resolution, Your Honor, we marked as Exhibit 183 and this refers to the Resolution dated September 22, 1992, in AM No. 92-9-851-RTC. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Bodegon. And as our next exhibit, Your Honor, is this resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated November 11, 1993, in AM No. 92-9-851-RTC. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Bodegon. Thank you, Your Honor. May I now call on our next Counsel, Your Honor, to present our next witnesses? May I request that Atty. Noel Lazaro be recognized? The Presiding Officer. Atty. Noel Lazaro is recognized. And he can propound the questions to the Defense witnesses. Where is your witness? Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer, and the Honorable Members of this Impeachment Court. I am Atty. Noel V. Lazaro, Your Honor, a member of the Defense Panel of Mr. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. I am tasked to present our next witness, Your Honor, in the person of Atty. Randy Rutaquio, Your Honor. He is the The Presiding Officer. Randy? Mr. Lazaro. Randy A. Rutaquio. The Presiding Officer. Rutaquio. Mr. Lazaro. He is the Registrar of Deeds of Taguig City, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. R-O-T-A Mr. Lazaro. R-U-T-A-Q-U-I-O, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Call the Witness in and swear him to testify in this Court. Mr. Lazaro. We have sent for someone already, Your Honor, to fetch the Witness. The Presiding Officer. All right. We will wait a few minutes. Mr. Lazaro. May we ask for a couple of seconds, Your Honor, please? The Presiding Officer. No need. We will wait for him. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. The Clerk of Court. Please raise your right hand, Mr. Witness. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding?
37
Mr. Rutaquio.
Yes, Madam.
The Clerk of Court. So, help you God. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor please, may we ask if the The Presiding Office. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Private Prosecutor is already present. Mr. Panganiban. Your Honor, I am Jose Benjamin Panganiban. Respectfully appearing as Private Prosecutor under the direction and control of the Honorable Public Prosecutors. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Paero. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor, the testimony of the Witness is being offered to prove the following: number one, that Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000062 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona on January 25, 2010, by the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City; Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000063 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City; Condominium Certificate of Title No. 1642010000064 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City; and Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000065 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds for Taguig City, all of these titles, Your Honor, were issued on January 25, 2010, and these titles are collectively known as the Bellagio property. The Presiding Officer. They all Mr. Lazaro. They are all issued The Presiding Officer. pertain to the Bellagio Condominium unit. Mr. Lazaro. Yes please, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lazaro. And that having been issued on such date, the same has been timely and accurately declared in the SALN or the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When you say accurately, what do you mean by that? Mr. Lazaro. These were declared in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth of the Chief Justice, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. According to the form. Mr. Lazaro. Yes please, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The SALN reflects the assessed value, the fair market value and the acquisition cost?
38
Mr. Lazaro. Only the assessed value and the fair market value as determined, Your Honor, by the filer of the SALN. The Presiding Officer. The acquisition cost is not reflected? Mr. Lazaro. It is not reflected, Your Honor. However, the Deed of Absolute Sale which is a duly notarized document was publicly disclosed, Your Honor, and filed before a government agency, more particularly the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Taguig City. And the same Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, was also considered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a government agency which assessed the corresponding taxes on this particular transaction, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The SALN did not call for the reflection of acquisition cost of the real property involved? Mr. Lazaro. There was, I understand, Your Honor, a column on acquisition cost. The Presiding Officer. But it was notthat is blank. Mr. Lazaro. It was, however, left blank, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Panganiban. May I say something, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Panganiban. For just a minute. I understand, Your Honor, that this Witness was also our Witness and I would like to inquire from the distinguished Counsel, will this Witness testify on matters which were not covered by his testimony when we presented him as our own Witness? Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Paero. Your Honor please, if I am allowed to finish the purposes of the offer, it will become apparent that there will be new matters that Witness will testify on, Your Honor. Mr. Panganiban. We submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the Counsel for the Defense proceed. Mr. Lazaro. May I proceed, Your Honor? The testimony of the Witness is also being offered to prove that along with the issuance of the titles I have just mentioned, there were underlying or relevant documents in his office, more particularly the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Certificate Authorizing Registration pertaining to this Bellagio property. As a second purpose, Your Honor, the testimony of the Witness is being offered also to prove that a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2093-B, registered under the name of Ma. Charina R. Corona, was issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Taguig City on October 23, 2008. And that along with this Transfer Certificate of Title, there are relevant documentations to support this, more particularly the Deed of Absolute Sale entered into by and between MegaWorld Corporation and Ma. Charina R. Corona, dated October 21, 2008, as well as a Special Power of Attorney signed by Ma. Charina R. Corona, in favor of her parents, Renato C. Corona and/or Ma. Cristina R. Corona to be her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, among others, to purchase and register a parcel of land, particularly described as Lot No. 1, Block No. 16, Phase No. 2 in McKinley Hills Subdivision.
39
This Special Power of Attorney, Your Honor, was executed and duly authenticated before the Consulate General of the Philippines located in San Francisco, California, represented by Consul Arvic V. Arevalo on September 15, 2008. The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance to this Impeachment Trial of that property in the name of Charina Corona? Mr. Lazaro. These documents, Your Honor, are being offered to prove the fact that this property was not included in any of the SALN of the Chief Justice because it is, in fact, owned by another person The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lazaro. under the name of Ma. Charina R. Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Lastly, Your Honor, the testimony of the Witness being offered to prove such other relevant matters as may be applicable to the defense of Mr. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. May I proceed, please, Your Honor? Good afternoon, Attorney Rutaquio. Mr. Rutaquio. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Lazaro. This is not the first time that you testified Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lazaro. before the Honorable Impeachment Court, correct? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lazaro. You have testified before when you were called upon by the House Panel Prosecution, is that correct? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor, with that manifestation, may we ask for confirmation or stipulation from good Counsel whether he is willing to stipulate as to the position, qualification, competency and functions of the Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are you adopting the testimony of this Witness based on the direct examination of the Prosecution? Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor please, no, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No. Mr. Lazaro. There will be The Presiding Officer. There will be variance.
40
Mr. Lazaro. There will be variance, Your Honor, but I do not think there will be variance as to the position being held by the Witness along with his functions and responsibilities. Mr. Panganiban. We will gladly stipulate on that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Prosecution, what is your pleasure? Mr. Panganiban. We stipulate, Your Honor, on the qualifications of this Witness. The Presiding Officer. You agree with thedo you mutually agree regarding the competence of this Witness? Mr. Panganiban. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Noted. Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, part of the functions of your office is the issuance of relevant titles to buyers of certain properties. Would you confirm that? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. And before your office issues a definite title on a particular application, are there any other documents that your office requires from applicants? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. Actually, there are certain documentary requirements such as the submission of the original title, the owners duplicate title, the original Deed of Conveyance or Sale and the Tax Declaration, the tax clearance from the local government and then the Certificate Authorizing Registration from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Mr. Lazaro. Do you require any other evidence of mode of acquisition between parties or among parties? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. If it is a corporation, if one of the parties or both parties are corporations, then we require the submission of the secretarys certificate or board resolution. If there is alsoif one of the parties is represented by an attorney-in-fact, then we would require a special power of attorney. Mr. Lazaro. You have testified before when you were called by the Prosecution and identified certain documents. I am showing you this document previously marked as Exhibit Double D (DD) which is a Condominium Certificate of Title No. 164-2010000065 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds for Taguig City under the name Randy A. Rutaquio, Registrar of Deeds. Please kindly go over this document and just tell us or confirm whether that is the same document that you testified earlier. Mr. Panganiban. This is a common evidence on the part of the Prosecution and the Defense. So, we admit the existence and genuineness, authenticity of this document. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lazaro. I understand that, Your Honor, but we will just ask the Witness to reconfirm it because there will be submarkings that we are going to ask, Your Honor. May I proceed, please, Your Honor?
41
The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. May I have the answer, please? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. This is the same document. Mr. Lazaro. And that document was issued when, Mr. Witness? Mr. Rutaquio. It was issued on January 25, 2010. Mr. Lazaro. May we ask, Your Honor, that this document previously marked as Exhibit AA We will just do the request, Your Honorpermission to approach the Witness, please, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, I am showing you another document marked as Exhibit AA or double A (AA) which is a Condominium Certificate of Title No. 1642010000064 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds for Taguig City and represented by Randy A. Rutaquio, Registrar of Deeds. Please go over this document and reconfirm whether this is the same document that you earlier identified when you testified before the Honorable Impeachment Court. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir, this is the same document. The Presiding Officer. The same document that was presented to you by the Prosecution and the subject matter of your testimony? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Rutaquio. When I was presented as a witness for the Prosecution, this is the same document. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor, this same document which is marked as Exhibit double A (AA) was previously marked as Exhibit 17 for the Defense. And the document identified by the Witness as Exhibit double B (BB) was also previously marked as Exhibit 18 for the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, that document marked as Exhibit double A (AA), when was that issued? Mr. Rutaquio. It was issued on January 25, 2010. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor, may we ask that the date read by the Witness as January 25, 2010 on the document marked as Exhibit AA be marked as Exhibit 17-A for the Defense, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. And also the date read by the Witness as January 25, 2010 on the document
42
previously marked as Exhibit double B (BB) be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 18-A for the Defense, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. Now, Mr. Witness, I have here another document previously marked as Exhibit Y for the Prosecution. It is a Condominium Certificate of Title No. 1642010000062 issued to spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona by the Registry of Deeds for Taguig City represented by a certain Randy A. Rutaquio. Kindly go over this document and reconfirm whether that is the same document that you testified on earlier. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, this is a common exhibit. Why can you not just agree? Mr. Panganiban. That is exactly our point, Your Honor. All these documents The Presiding Officer. They are the same documents. Mr. Lazaro. We will just go directly with the sub-marking, Your Honor. This is just to give the Witness an opportunity, Your Honor, to examine the same document. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir, this is the same document. Mr. Panganiban. The sub-markings need not be made in open court, Your Honor, because these had been previously marked for the Prosecution. They have marked these exhibits for the Defense and I do not see why we should burden the Honorable Court the time, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Anyway Mr. Lazaro. With due respect to my compaero, it has been a practice to allow the submarkings, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I do not know the purpose of the sub-marking. But the entire document contains date, information and the best evidence of those information is that document and nothing else. Mr. Lazaro. The sub-marking, Your Honor, is to highlight the date of the issuance of these titles, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, continue. Do it. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, please, Your Honor. Now, with the manifestation of Counsel, may I just ask, Your Honor, that the document marked as Exhibit Z previously marked as Exhibit 16 for the Defense be sub-marked on the portion bearing the date January 25, 2010. We request that the same date be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 16A, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. And also the document marked previously as Exhibit Y for the Prosecution and Exhibit 19 for the Defense be sub-marked on the portion bearing the date January 25, 2010 and this date we request to be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 19-A, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.
43
What is that? Is that the parking lot? Mr. Lazaro. This is, Your Honor, the condominium unit as well as the parking lots, Your Honor... The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lazaro. ...collectively known as the Bellagio property. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lazaro. There are four titles issued to this property, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Which is the main title of the Bellagio property? Mr. Lazaro. The main title, Your Honor, is Condominium Certificate of Title No. 1642010000062, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And the other condominium titles are allall refer to parking lots. Mr. Lazaro. Yes, please, Your Honor. The three other titles refer to the parking areas, Your Honor... The Presiding Officer. All right. Just Mr. Lazaro. ...more particulary No. 50, 51 and 52, please. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, you mentioned a while ago, Mr. Witness, that there are The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Does those parking lots given separate values under the contract of acquisition? Mr. Lazaro. Under the lone Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor... The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Lazaro. ...these properties are lumped together under one consideration, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Consideration. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, there is no separate consideration for the three parking lots? None. Mr. Lazaro. Under this Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, that is correct. There is just The Presiding Officer. What is the consideration stated in the Deed of Sale? Mr. Lazaro. After specifying, Your Honor, the properties including the condominium unit as well as the parking areas, paragraph specifically pertaining to the consideration states that the same is P14,510,225, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is the totality of the consideration for the four (4) titles. Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor please.
44
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Witness, you mentioned a while ago that there are accompanying documents that you require before you issue a title. For this particular Bellagio property, can you tell the Honorable Court whether there are documents that you actually required or examined? Mr. Rutaquio. Can I have the Deed of Sale, Your Honor? Mr. Lazaro. What is your answer, please? You want to verify first? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes. Mr. Lazaro. All right. Your Honor, permission again to approach the Witness. The Presiding Officer. You do not have to ask the permission of the Court. Just go near the Witness. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor please. I am showing, Your Honor, the Witness a document entitled Deed of Absolute Sale previously marked as Exhibit CC notarized on December 16, 2009, executed by and between Megaworld Corporation and Spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. We require the usual requirements that the buyer and seller file with our office like the Certificate Authorizing Registration and the tax clearance. Mr. Lazaro. All right. Thank you, Mr. Witness. If Your Honor please, the Defense requests that this Exhibit Double C (CC) marked earlier be also marked as our common evidence for the Defense. And that the same be marked as Exhibit 193 for the Defense, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, aside from that Deed of Sale, would you confirm with the Honorable Court whether you have also required a Certificate Authorizing Registration? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. If you are shown that Certificate Authorizing Registration relative to this particular Bellagio property, would you be able to identify it? Mr. Rutaquio. Definitely, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. I am showing you a document premarked as Exhibit 171 which is a Certificate Authorizing Registration 2009 No. 00185250 issued at Taguig City on December 17, 2009. Please go over this document, Mr. Witness, and tell us whether that document is among those documents that you required or examined before issuing the relevant titles for the Bellagio property. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. This is the same Certificate Authorizing Registration that we presented before. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
45
Now, earlier, you also identified and testified on a document entitled Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2093-B and previously marked as Exhibit Double G (GG) for the Prosecution. Please go over this document issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Taguig City and please tell this Honorable Court whether this is the same document you remember having testified on. The Presiding Officer. Is that a title of a parking lot? Mr. Lazaro. This is a Transfer Certificate of Title, Your Honor, of the so-called McKinley property, registered under the name of Ma. Charina R. Corona. The Presiding Officer. That is a separate property? Mr. Lazaro. This is a separate property now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor, this is the same document. Mr. Lazaro. This same document, Your Honor, has been previously marked as Exhibit 158-A for the Defense, Your Honor. We also request that the same be sub-marked, particularly on the portion showing the name Ma. Charina R. Corona, of legal age, Filipino as Exhibit 158-B for the Defense, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. I am showing you again another document, Mr. Witness, which was previously marked as Exhibit 30 for the Defense. And this is actually a Deed of Absolute Sale entered into by and between Megaworld Corporation and Ma. Charina R. Corona on October 21, 2008 involving 1/Block 16 of TCT No. 989 with lot area of 203 square meters and notarized on October 21, 2008. Please go over this document and tell us whether that is the same document that you required of the applicant. The Presiding Officer. Is that another property? Mr. Lazaro. This is the same property, Your Honor, relative to the McKinley property. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lazaro. But this is, however, a Deed of Absolute Sale supporting the issuance of the Transfer Certificate of Title, Your Honor, in favor of Ma. Charina Corona. The Presiding Officer. What was the consideration for that, the stated consideration? Mr. Lazaro. This is in the amount, Your Honor, of P6,196,575.00. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, please kindly go over the same document and please tell this Honorable Court who is the buyer in that Deed of Absolute Sale. Mr. Rutaquio. The buyer is Ma. Charina R. Corona. Mr. Lazaro. May I request, Your Honor, that the portion read by the Witness as Ma. Charina R. Corona as the buyer of this subject Deed of Absolute Sale be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 30-A.
46
The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.
What is the utility of remarking these terms or names already mentioned in the document marked as your exhibit? Mr. Lazaro. This is for emphasis to highlight the fact, Your Honor, that the property was actually acquired under this particular name, Your Honor. There was a suggestion The Presiding Officer. The Deed of Sale speaks for itself. Mr. Lazaro. Yes, Your Honor. But in our reference when we make a formal offer of evidence, Your Honor, it is convenient to advert to a particular marking, so that things will not get mixed up, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor please. Now on page 2 of this same document, there appears to be several parties involved in this transaction. Kindly go over that page and tell this Honorable Court who the buyer was in this particular transaction. The buyer, please. Mr. Rutaquio. The buyer is Ma. Charina R. Corona. The Presiding Officer. And the seller? Mr. Rutaquio. The seller, Your Honor, is Megaworld Corporation. The Presiding Officer. They are the parties to the document. Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor, if I may answer for the Witness. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor please, we also request that the same name read by the Witness Ma. Charina R. Corona be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 30-B. The Presiding Officer. Mark it. Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, I am showing you another document previously marked as Exhibit 39 which is actually a Special Power of Attorney dated September 15, 2008 executed by one Ma. Charina R. Corona. Please go over this document and tell us if that happens to be one of those documents you required of the applicant. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. This is the Special Power of Attorney which was filed in our office. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Mr. Witness. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Mr. Lazaro. Yes, please, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who signed the Deed of Sale for the buyer? Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. Under this particular document?
47
The Presiding Officer. No, in the Deed of Sale. Mr. Lazaro. Yes, Your Honor. This Deed of Absolute Sale by and between Megaworld and Ma. Charina R. Corona, the signatories arefor Megaworld Corporation, Your Honor, was Giovanni C. Ng, a Finance Director for the company. And on behalf of the buyer, the signatory is Renato C. Corona who is designated in this very same document as Attorney-in-Fact, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So that actually the named parties to the Agreement were Megaworld and this Mr. Lazaro. And Ma. Charina R. Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. and Ma. Charina Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. represented by Renato C. Corona by virtue of this Special Power of Attorney. Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that Special Power of Attorney is executed abroad? Mr. Lazaro. That is also correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Authenticated? Mr. Lazaro. Executed and authenticated... The Presiding Officer. According to the Mr. Lazaro. before Consul Arvic V. Arevalo of the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco, California, United States, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who authenticated the notary public? Mr. Lazaro. It says here, Your Honor, Before me, Arvic V. Arevalo, Consul of the Republic of the Philippines for Northern California, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Northern Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, duly commissioned and qualified, personally appeared on September 15, 2008 Ma. Charina R. Corona. The Presiding Officer. So, it was the consul who actually notarized the Special Power of Attorney. Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor. That is one of the modes of authenticating this particular document, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, no, no, no. This document was executed outside of the country... Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. governed by the laws of that country. Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And who was the notarial officer who notarized that document?
48
Mr. Lazaro. There is no particular notary public, Your Honor. But I understand that one of the modes of authentication, Your Honor, is that the consul himself can conduct the oath and authenticate the document. The Presiding Officer. Yes, he authenticates the signature, but can he notarize? Mr. Lazaro. He attests to the genuineness, Your Honor, of the signature The Presiding Officer. Of Charina. Mr. Lazaro. of Charina, Your Honor. He is also commissioned and qualified to do, Your Honor, this authentication. The Presiding Officer. Yes, that is for authenticating the signature. But to make that a valid document, is it required to be notarized by an authorized notarial officer in the state where it was executed? Mr. Lazaro. It does not appear here, Your Honor, that there was such independent act of notarization, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, that is the Mr. Lazaro. Yes. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution will have to study the law Mr. Lazaro. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. governing notarial requirements of the special powers of attorneys like that Mr. Lazaro. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. in the state where it was executed. Because my understanding of the system of authentication is if there is a notary public, the notary publics signature must be authenticated by a designated officer of the state where the document is executed. And then the Counsul General will authenticate, or the State Department, if it is to be presented in another country, will authenticate all the signatures appearing in that document. Anyway Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor, we understand that. The Presiding Officer. that is the problem that you will explain later on. Mr. Lazaro. We will do so, Your Honor. May I proceed, please. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Now, you identified the Special Power of Attorney executed by Ma. Charina R. Corona, and this has actually a cover acknowledgement. By the way, Your Honor, the document referring to the signature of the Consul is entitled, Acknowledgment, and this appears to be the same form as the one when a separate notary public makes a separate administration of an oath, Your Honor, because it also says here, Known and known to me to be the same person who executed the attached instrument, informing her of these contents and that she acknowledged that the same is of her own free will and act.
49
Now, please go over this document, Mr. Witness, and please tell this Honorable Impeachment Court whether this is also one of the documents that you required of the applicant. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor, this is the document which was filed in our office in connection with this particular Deed of Sale. Mr. Lazaro. We ask, Your Honor, that this document just identified by the Witness as one of those documents that his office required of the applicant be marked as Exhibit 194 for the Defense, Your Honor. Now, Mr. Witness, I am also showing you a document entitled Certificate Authorizing Registration 2008, 00093558, previously marked as Exhibit 172 for the Defense dated October 22, 2008. Please kindly go over this document and tell this Honorable Court whether this is one of those documents that you examined after requiring the applicant of the same. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor, this is one of the documents submitted to us as a requirement for the Deed of Sale. Mr. Lazaro. In this certification issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, there appears to be a transfer from Megaworld to a particular person. Can you please tell us the transferee of that particular property covered by that Certificate Authorizing Registration? Mr. Rutaquio. The transferee is Ma. Charina R. Corona. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor, we request that this name just read by the Witness be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 172-A for the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. Just for consistency of marking, Your Honor, instead of 172-A, we will just ask that this same portion be marked as 172-E, Your Honor, because there were previous markings already. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor please. Now on page 3 of this four-page document pre-marked as 172-C The Presiding Officer. That is the Deed of Sale? Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor please, this is the Certificate Authorizing Registration involving the same property bought by Ma. Charina Corona. Thank you, Your Honor please. Mr. Witness, showing you this Exhibit 172-C which contains a list of transferor and transferee of the same property covered by the Certificate Authorizing Registration, can you please indicate or point to us who the transferee is? Mr. Rutaquio. Your Honor, the transferee is Ma. Charina R. Corona. Mr. Lazaro. We request, Your Honor, that this particular portion read by the Witness be bracketed and marked as Exhibited 172-F for the Defense, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark is accordingly.
50
Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, in your examination of the record covering this Bellagio property and McKinley property, did you come to know whether there are other documents either cancelling or amending these particular properties? The Presiding Officer. Which property? Mr. Lazaro. The McKinley property, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In the name of Charina? Mr. Lazaro. In the name of Charina. Mr. Rutaquio. They are existing titles, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Mr. Witness, I have no further questions. Thank you for the time. Your Honor, that would be all for the Defense, please. The Presiding Officer. Any cross? Mr. Panganiban. Your Honor, may we ask for suspension of proceedings for one (1) minute only, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Trial is suspended for one (1) minute. The trial was suspended at 5:28 p.m. At 5:33 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Mr. Panganiban. Your Honor, may I make a short manifestation? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Panganiban. The Prosecution Panel decided not to cross-examine this Witness, Your Honor, The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Panganiban. to abbreviate the proceedings. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Chair would like to know, were the considerations stated in these Deeds of Sale, paid in cash, paid in by way of managers check or did the document describe the manner of payment? Witness? Mr. Rutaquio. No, Sir. It is notit cannot be The Presiding Officer. They just stated the amount or Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. Only the amount is stated in the Deed of Sale. The Presiding Officer. . the consideration without describing the manner of payment. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Without describing whether the payment is in cash or in checks.
51
The Presiding Officer. All right. Any further questions to this Witness? Any further question? Mr. Lazaro. For the Defense, nothing more, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Prosecution? No more? Mr. Panganiban. No more, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Witness is discharged. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the Defense has another witness but it seems that this will be taking up a lot of time of the Court. Mr. Bodegon. Your Honor, may we therefore move for continuance? Senator Sotto. We can do it tomorrow, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. We object. We object, Your Honor. Can wejust for one-minute suspension, Your Honor? One-minute suspension, may we ask? The Presiding Officer. All right. Trial suspended for one minute. The trial was suspended at 5:36 p.m. At 5:37 p.m., the trial was resumed. Senator Sotto. We are ready to resume, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Senator Sotto. After consultation with the Defense and the Prosecution, the Defense has agreed to present another witness for today. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. But not as long as the supposed earlier witness that was The Presiding Officer. How long will this witness take? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, it should take only a few minutes. We will try to present two witnesses who will testify briefly. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Although we were hoping to save them for another day so that the continuity of the story would be maintained. But in order to accommodate the request of the Counsel for the Prosecution, we will present witnesses. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
52
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Can we have a minute to call the witness, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Roy. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for few seconds. The trial was suspended at 5:38 p.m. At 5:40 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial is resumed. Mr. Bodegon. Thank you, Your Honor.
For our next witness, may we request that Atty. Judd Roy be recognized, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Atty. Roy is recognized. The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment proceeding? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. Mr. Roy. May it please the Court? Good afternoon, Your Honors. We are presenting Mr. Benz Lim to establish the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of The Columns property indicated in the SALN of the Chief Justice. The issue we wish to address with his testimony is to justify why the inclusion in the SALN is on a different date whereas the titling of the property occurred much earlier. We offer the testimony of Mr. Benz Lim to show that there were just and valid reasons warranting the non-inclusion of The Columns property in the SALN of the Chief Justice. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Lim, good afternoon. Mr. Lim. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Can you please state your personal circumstances? Meaning to say, what do you do? Are you married? And so forth. Mr. Lim. My name is Benz John Ignacio Lim. I am 25 years old, single. I am currently employed in Ayala Property Management Corporation, and I was assigned as a property manager in The Columns Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Lim.
53
The Presiding Officer. Your residence? Mr. Lim. I live in Tondo, Manila, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lim. Mr. Lim, you mentioned that you are employed by thewhat was the company? Ayala Mr. Lim. Ayala Property Management Corporation, Sir. Mr. Roy. Yes. Can you tell us what is the nature of the companys business? Mr. Lim. Ayala Property Management Corporation, Sir, is a property management company which is under Ayala Land Inc.; is a subsidy of Ayala Land Inc. Mr. Roy. Can you please tell the Court in what capacity you are employed or connected with this company? Mr. Lim. I was hired, Sir, as a property manager and I was assigned to The Columns Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, when you say you were hired as a property manager, what do you mean? What does a property manager do? Mr. Lim. A property manager, Sir, is the one who manages the common area of the property itself. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, you informed us that you were assigned to? Mr. Lim. The Columns Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation. Mr. Roy. The Columns Ayala. Yes.
Mr. Lim. Yes. Mr. Roy. Is this Columns this is a condominium? Mr. Lim. Yes, Sir. It is already under condominium corporation. Mr. Roy. All right. It is a condominium. And is it owned by the company you represent? Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor, it was already under the condominium corporation, the association itself. Mr. Roy. Wait a minute. Anyway, you were assigned to this company, to this Columns project? Mr. Lim. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. Now, what is it specifically that you do for The Columns Condominium? Mr. Lim. I am the one, Sir, who manages all the common area of the property, Sir. Mr. Roy. Would I be correct in describing you as the general manager or the building administrator?
54
Mr. Lim. Building administrator, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. As building administrator, Mr. Lim, what are your duties in relation to the residents of the Columns Condominium? Mr. Lim. Basically, Sir, we are the one who handles a common area of the building itself. Now, we also entertain complaints from the unit owners. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. I understand. Now, when you receive complaints from the unit owners, what do you normally do with these complaints? Mr. Lim. It depends on the complaint, Sir. Basically, if the complaint is based on the common area, for example, for the cleanliness or any equipment of the building, we handle it. Mr. Roy. Can you tell us, Mr. Lim, if you perform any financial functions in the discharge of your job or work as a building administrator? Mr. Hernandez. Objection, Your Honor, the question is leading and the Witness has already stated that his only duties are to manage the common areas and act on complaints. The Presiding Officer. May answer. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, please, Mr. Lim, tell us if there are any financial functions related to your work. Mr. Lim. Actually, Sir, the only financial function is thebasically, we are under association already. So, under association, we bill condominium dues. Mr. Roy. I am sorry? Mr. Lim. We bill condominium dues. Mr. Roy. You bill condominium dues. Mr. Lim. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. What does that mean, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. The association dues itself, Sir, of the building itself. Mr. Roy. What do you do with these association dues? Mr. Lim. That fund, Sir, are the ones we use for the managing of the whole common areas of the building. Mr. Roy. So, do I understand it that the association dues is a fund which you use for the upkeep? Is that correct? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, where are these association dues kept? Mr. Lim. Basically, Sir, we havethe association has ownedhas its own bank. We bill it, then we collect it.
55
Mr. Roy. When you say, we bill it, what do you mean we bill it? We bill, what? Mr. Lim. We bill the association dues, Sir, then if the unit owner is paid already, then we put it in the bank of the association. The Presiding Officer. You bill the individual condominium owners. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And then you put that in the bank account.
Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. To be used for the management of the common areas. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Like disposal of garbage, janitorial services, electrical repairs, repairs for other facilities of the building. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Now, Mr. LimThank you, Your Honor. Are youWho is responsibleI am sorrywho is responsible for billing the homeowners or the residents? Mr. Lim. The property manager itself, Sir. Mr. Roy. Are you referring to yourself? Mr. Lim. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, if a resident refuses to pay, what do you do? Mr. Lim. Normally, Sir, on the condominium laws, we send billing then if we did not receive any payments yet, we send demand letters. Mr. Roy. A demand letter. Who is the signatory of your demand letters when you send them, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Basically, the property manager himself, Sir. Mr. Roy. Are there any other demand letters sent aside from those signed by the property manager? The Presiding Officer. Counsel, just a minute. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of all of this line of questioning? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I am coming to that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You presented this Witness to explain why the condominium was bought on a prior year only to be reflected in the SALN in a subsequent year.
56
Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The point that will be shown is that there were some issues that precluded. The Presiding Officer. All right. Go to the point. Mr. Roy. Yes. I would like to show you a document. Do you recognize this document? May we please make of record that I am sending a document to the Witness and I invite Counsel for the Prosecution to inspect the same. Mr. Hernandez. There is no basis for the document, Your Honor, without introduction. The Presiding Officer. No, let the Witness answer. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, he just said that they prepared demand letters. Do you recognize the document, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Can you tell us what this document is, if you know? Mr. Lim. This is the final demand letter, Sir, sent by our corporate secretary of the association to Mrs. The Presiding Officer. Final demand to whom? Mr. Lim. to Mrs. Corona, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Who is Mrs. Corona? What is her name? Mr. Lim. To Mrs. Cristina Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Was she occupying the property? Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who was occupying the property? Mr. Lim. None, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Nobody? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the document identified by the Witness and the Counsel be adopted as Defense Exhibit No. 195. The Presiding Officer. You are marking that document as exhibit? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, as Exhibit No. 195. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Roy. All right. Can you tell us please, Mr. Witness, who executed this document? Who signed it?
57
Mr. Lim. Our corporate secretary of the association, Sir. Mr. Roy. May we know the name of the corporate secretary? Mr. Lim. Atty. Joselito John G. Blando. Mr. Roy. Did he prepare this document on his own initiative? Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor. This was approved by the board. Basically, when we have a board meeting, the board approved that we send final demand letters using our corporate secretary to the delinquent owners for them to pay the association dues. Mr. Roy. Going back to the document, Mr. Witness, do you confirm that what I see on this document which says, Under these circumstances, final demand is hereby made upon you to pay your outstanding obligation to our client in the amount stated above within ten (10) days from your receipt of this letter? Do you confirm those words on the document? Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor. Basically, this was issued by our corporate secretary. Mr. Roy. Do these words appear on the document, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Mr. Lim, can you tell us what is the amount of thethat is being demanded by the condominium corporation in relation to this letter? Mr. Lim. One hundred twelve thousand two hundred thirteen and seventy-nine cents (P112,213.79). Mr. Roy. One hundred twelve thousand Mr. Lim. One hundred twelve thousand two hundred thirteen point seventy-nine. Mr. Roy. Was this amount paid, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Only the principal amount, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. I am showing you photocopies of receipts apparently issued by The Columns Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation. And I invite the Counsel for the Prosecution to inspect the same. Your Honor, we are showing the Witness one sheet of paper which contains the photocopies of two official receipts. The upper halfcan you please tell us whatcan you please explain to us what is this upper half of the document, of the paper? Mr. Lim. The upper half, Your Honor, is the original receipt No. 24141 paid by Mrs. Cristina Corona, Unit 31-B Tower I, amounting The Presiding Officer. How much, how much? Mr. Lim. Amounting to P78,162.36.
Mr. Roy. All right. May we request that the upper half of the document be marked as Defense Exhibit 195-A, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Roy. Thank you. Okay, mark it accordingly.
58
Now, Mr. Witness, can you please explain to us what appears on the lower half of the document? Mr. Lim. This is another payment, Sir, Official Receipt No. 24142 paid by Mrs. Cristina Corona, Unit 31-B Tower I, amounting to P30,132. Mr. Roy. May we request that the bottom half of the document be marked as Exhibit 195-B. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Are those two receipts bearing the same dates? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. They bear the same dates.
The Presiding Officer. Mr. Lim.
Yes, Your Honor. Okay.
The Presiding Officer.
Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, just a manifestation. The documents presented were not originals. They appear to be photocopies of an original document that was not presented. Mr. Roy. We concur, Your Honor. We will produce the originals as soon as we are able, for the inspection of our Counsel. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, Mr. Lim, you said that in the first receipt, the amount paid was P78,162.26. Mr. Lim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. And then you said that in the second receipt, the amount paid was P30,132. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. Can you tell us, Mr. Lim, what was the total payment made by Cristina Corona based on these two receipts? Mr. Lim. Mostapproximately, Sir, at P108,000.
Mr. Roy. One zero Mr. Lim. Zero eight thousand.
Mr. Roy. One zero eight thousand. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. Now, am I correct, Mr. Lim, that you mentioned earlier that your demand letter was for the amount of P112,000? Was that corrector so? Mr. Lim. Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. I think the amount mentioned was one hundred Mr. Lim. One hundred twelve thousand two hundred thirteen point seventy-nine. Mr. Roy. But these two receipts amount to only P108,000.
59
Mr. Lim.
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. Am I correct, therefore, that there is a deficit of about P4,000 more or less? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. So, does Mrs. Corona owe the condominium corporation P4,000 more or less after these payments? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, upon not approval of the waiving of interest and penalties. Mr. Roy. What do you mean waiving of the interest and penalties? Mr. Lim. Basically, Your Honor, in the condominium laws, we put interest and penalties for delinquent members who are not paying their delinquent dues. They are not paying their delinquent dues, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. And were there interests and penalties charged to Mrs. Corona? Mr. Lim. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, for the P112,000. For the P112,000 you mentioned earlier.
Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. That is inclusive of interest and penalties. Mr. Roy. Your testimony is that it included penalties and interests. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. But you also testified that based on these receipts, she paid less than P112,000. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. Can you tell us, please, Mr. Lim, what happened to the penalties and interests being claimed from Mrs. Corona if you know? Mr. Hernandez. Already answered, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor, he answered the basis of the penalties. The Presiding Officer. Let him answer so that we can finish.
Mr. Lim. Mrs. Corona approached me and asked me if I can waive the interest and penalties. Most likely, Your Honor, the procedure is that the unit owner must write a letter to the board of directors to request to waive the interest and penalties. Mr. Roy. Mr. Lim, may I ask you to stop there. You said, she must write a letter. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. Did she write a letter? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Roy. I am showing you a letter. Do you recognize it? The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute.
60
Mr. Roy. Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Counsel, what is this line of questioning got to do with the reflection of this condominium? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the letter will contain precisely the reason for the delay in accepting the delivery. The Witness is about to testify why there was an underpayment, and the reasons for that are contained in the letter. The Presiding Officer. In other words, the condominium unit was not yet delivered to the Coronas? Mr. Roy. That is the question in this case, Your Honor, because the title The Presiding Officer. What do you mean the question? Mr. Roy. The title was transferred early on. But there wereI think in 2004 or 2005but there were outstanding issues which the owner or the registered owner, in this case, Mrs. Corona, could not settle with the Condominium Corporation. That is contained in the letter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But if the title was already transferred to the Coronas, then formally they are the owners. Mr. Roy. There was no acceptance, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But they have been billing them with dues already, and they paid. Mr. Roy. If you will allow me to continue, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, may I just make a manifestation before we proceed? The letter that was presented by the Witness appears to be a photocopy again in violation of the Best Evidence Rule and it appears to be a self-serving letter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. They already promised to produce the original. If they cannot produce it, then you make the proper motion at the proper time. Mr. Hernandez. We submit, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. At any rate, Your Honor, the Witness will identify this as a photocopy. Do you recognize this photocopy, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. It is a photocopy of what, if you do not mind? Mr. Lim. This is the letter of Mrs. Cristina Corona to the board of directors of The Columns, Ayala Avenue Condominium Corporation, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. What is the purpose of this letter, Mr. Lim? Mr. Hernandez. Objection, Your Honor. The best evidence would be the letter.
61
Mr. Roy. All right. Very well. Do you confirm, therefore, that the letter contains this paragraph: This is also to request for the waiver of penalties and interests incurred from commencement of payments which Mr. Benz Lim allowed pending confirmation by the board members. In applying for this waiver, I would like the board of directors to be informed of the ordeals that I have gone through with this unit. When I first inspected my unit, I couldnt because The Columns administration had turned it into a bodega (storage place) filled with debris from other units. Dirty brooms, mops were on my kitchen countersthe tools, brooms and mops were on my kitchen counters. The toilets were stinking. The kitchen sink was a mess. It is also disinfected now because I spent time, money to clean up their mess and to disinfect the kitchen counters. Further, this unit has had a history of various defects: undersized electrical wires, leaking roof, damaged floors, unfinished window jambs, et cetera, et cetera. Do you confirm that that appears in the photocopy I am showing you, Mr. Lim? Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, the same objection. Whether or not it appears in the document will be borne by the document, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. It is merely confirmatory, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Sustained. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Now, what did you do when you received this letter, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. I forwarded this to the board of directors dated May of 2011 on our board meeting. Basically, the board approved the request to waive the interest and penalties. Mr. Roy. What do you mean the board approved the request? What did that mean? How much was waived? Mr. Lim. Basically, Sir, it is amounting to P18,000, approximately. Mr. Roy. So, you arelet us go back. You testified that the demand was for P112,000 and some change. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Now, you are telling me that they waived P18,000 and some change? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. That means that the only obligation to you must have been about P98,000I am sorry, P94,000, am I correct? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. I would like to explain for that, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Would you please, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. The payment that was paid by Mrs. Cristina Corona dated April 6, 2011, which I explained it, this is from the third quarter of 2009 going to the first quarter of 2011, soah, second quarter of 2011. Basically, the P112,000 that our corporate secretary of the association given the demand letter is that that is only from third quarter of 2009 to first quarter of 2011, Your Honor. So
62
basically, Mrs. Cristina Corona paid also the next billing which is second quarter of 2011 amounting to P15,000 which is not included for the interests and penalties because this is a due billing. This is only the updated billing. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The dispute is about the condition of the unit. Is this correct? Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I am asking the Witness. Mr. Roy. I am sorry. Mr. Lim. Can you repeat the question, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. The dispute between the developer and Mrs. Corona was about the condition of the unit she bought from the developer. Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea for that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Because the letter says about the dirty condition of the unit. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. But basically, the letter is forwarded to the board of directors which is The Presiding Officer. I will put this question to you. The unit was bought by Mrs. Corona? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Fully paid? Mr. Lim. For that, I do not have any idea, Your Honor. This is for the developers concern. The Presiding Officer. But it was already owned by her so much so that association dues were being billed on her. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And so the only question is her acceptance of the unit. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. And yet, this was not included in the SALN of the Chief Justice. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. He would not know, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You did not consider that a value to be included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities
63
Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if you will recall, during the Prosecutions evidence in chief, the testimony was that there was no formal acceptance of the delivery, and that the documents of the developer will show The Presiding Officer. Correct. Correct. Mr. Roy. Yes.
The Presiding Officer. But there was already a value transferred to the seller. Mr. Roy. But that value was under dispute because of the defects, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. But did not Mrs. Corona pay money for the unit? Mr. Roy. Yes. And she was asking for it back, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why did you not report that in your SALN as a collectible? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, because they wanted the money returned. The unit was defective. The Presiding Officer. transaction so that Precisely. In other words, you considered that there was no
Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. the developer owes you money. Mr. Roy. That is precisely correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is an asset. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So proceed. Mr. Roy. So, Mr. Lim, do you know if there were any dues collected from or demanded from Mrs. Corona before 2009? Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea, Sir, because I just started to be a property manager of The Columns Ayala Avenue since 2010. Mr. Roy. I see. And yet, you have access to the records of the corporation. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. By the way, Mr. Lim, did you present Mrs. Corona with the statement of account for the P112,000 that was the subject of your demand letter earlier? Mr. Lim. I remember, Sir, this was attached to the final demand letter sent by our corporate secretary. Mr. Roy. Yes. In fact, it is my mistake. I am showing you nowjust to complete the documentation, Your Honorthe Statement of Account that was the basis for the demand letter.
64
Mr. Hernandez. Same manifestation, Your Honor, the document presented is a photocopy. Mr. Roy. There you go. Sorry, I brought the wrong one. Is this the statement of accounta photocopy of the statement of account? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. All right. May we request that the statement of account be markedsorry. No. No. 196? Yes, 196-A. Yes, unless it was marked differently. No? 196-A because this is attached to the letter. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Counsel. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Until now this Court cannot understand your line of questioning. The question isthere is a value involved here. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Was that included in the SALN of the Chief Justice? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, it was. The Presiding Officer. It was included. Mr. Roy. Yes. The Presiding Officer. In what way? Mr. Roy. It was included later, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, no at the time Mr. Roy. It was declared. At that time there was no mention of The Columns. The Presiding Officer. At the time of the acquisition. At the time of the payment. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the payment was made in installments and then the title was transferred. But the transfer of the title, if I recall, 2004 or 2005. Anywaybut if I recall correctly, Your Honor, the property was not formally accepted until this time when The Presiding Officer. But was the installment payment completed? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But it was not accepted? Mr. Roy. To the best of my knowledge, yes, that is the way it happened, Your Honor. Not accepted by the buyer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When was the completion of the installment? Mr. Roy. At around that time when the title was transferred, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But that is already a value fullythat ought to be reflected in the SALN.
65
Mr. Roy. But that is also a defective sale, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. It does not matter. There is a value, then if the owner wanted to rescind the contract, he could have entered it as a receivable. Mr. Roy. That is what happened in the interregnum, Your Honor. There was a dispute. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, proceed. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Senator Osmea. Senator Osmea. May I just be clarified on a couple of points? First, some questions to the Prosecution Counsel. The sale for The Columns took place on what year, Sir? Mr. Hernandez. 2004, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. October 2004. And the declaration of the purchase and the acceptance of The Columns as an asset occurred on what year? Mr. Hernandez. It was declared in 2010. Senator Osmea. So, there was 10 years. Mr. Hernandez. Six years, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Six years, I am sorry. Six years that lapsed between the time that he closed the sale and the time he declared it in his SALN. Mr. Hernandez. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. How was the sale effectuated? Was this a cash sale? Was it a deferred payment sale? Was it financed by a bank? The developer financed? Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, I am not too sure about the terms. All I have before me is the Contract to Sell which is dated January 2004 and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 2004, so it is a transaction spanning less than a year. Senator Osmea. And the price was 3.168. Mr. Hernandez. Three point five eight-eight, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Three point five eight-eight. Mr. Hernandez. Yes. Senator Osmea. All right. Maybe I will ask the Defense Counsel. How was The Columns paid for? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the only thing I have in my possession right now is a Deed of Absolute Sale but I suspect that this was also in installment.
66
Senator Osmea. No. Do not suspect. You are supposed to know and I presume you are not telling us the truth. Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Did he pay cash? I am asking you, did he pay cash? Mr. Roy. I am not informed, Your Honor. That would have been between the buyer and the developer. I took the Deed of Sale and confirm that the price Senator Osmea. So, you are blissfully ignorant. Will you tell us tomorrow whether he paid cash? All right. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, definitely. Senator Osmea. Mr. Lim, do you know if cash was paid? Were you already with Ayala Corp? Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea. No answers. Senator Osmea. All right. Anyway, some value was exchanged before it Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may. Senator Osmea. Yes. Mr. Roy. I have just been informed that this was acquired on a deferred payment basis. Senator Osmea. Yes. So, how much down was paid? We would like to know the payments that were made. Mr. Roy. That will have to wait until tomorrow, Your Honor, but I will provide you with those details. Senator Osmea. Yes. Senator Ping Lacson might have some information. Senator Lacson. With the permission of Senator Osmea, I have here the records. The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on October 1, 2004. The Condominium Certificate of Title was issued in the name of Cristina Corona, married to Renato Corona, on November 3, 2004. So as of November 3, 2004, the Coronas already owned the condominium unit. Is that correct? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the Coronas were already the registered owners of the condominium unit. Senator Lacson. That is correct, as of November 3, 2004. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. Senator Lacson. That is it. Senator Osmea. Yes, but we are trying to find out how the Coronas paid for this. Obviously, if title transferred to them in November 2004 as far as the developer is concerned, and in this case Ayala Land, I thinkam I correct, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
67
Senator Osmea. Ayala Land was fully paid. It might have been financed through a bank loan. Will the Prosecution be able to find out how this was paid by inquiring of Ayala Land? Mr. Hernandez. We will. We will try, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. No, do not try. Get the information. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may I also Senator Osmea. Now, obviously, some value was paid and this was not 100 percent financed. Is that correct, Mr. Lim? There is usually a downpayment when Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea for that, Sir. That is for Sales. Senator Osmea. So we would like to have that information tomorrow because I think the Senate President is correct. There was value that was expended in 2004 and it was not reflected in his SALN. And it is totally irrelevant whether he accepted the unit or not. Title had been transferred, there is value, and if he does not want to take acceptance of that, he could have recorded as an accounts receivable from Ayala Land, but it cannot be zero. So there is falsification there. And for it to last all the way up to 2010 is absolutely ridiculous. So therefore, we expect tomorrow, Mr. President, the information from Ayala Land. Thank you, very much. The Presiding Officer. Okay, so ordered. Proceed. Senator Sotto. Senator Guingona. The Presiding Officer. Senator Guingona. Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President. I just want to be clear on the letter, Mr. Defense Counsel. It seems that Mrs. Corona was just asking for a waiver of interest and penalties, am I correct? Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. And nowhere in the letter did she categorically say that she refuses to accept the unit. Mr. Roy. That is the subject of a different series of letters, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. In the letter, does she state that she refuses to accept? Mr. Roy. In this letter, Your Honor, she says that she has been asking for a re-inspection of the unit. Senator Guingona. So she does not categorically state that she refuses to accept. Mr. Roy. Well, not in those words, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Okay, thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed, Counsel.
68
Senator Lacson.
Senator Lacson. Even if the Chief Justice did not declare the property in his 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009 SALNs, he corrected it in 2010. Well, there was no intention to hide it. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, yes, you could view it that way but we will try to establish that he entered it in 2010 because at that point the issues regardingare settled Senator Lacson. That is my point. Mr. Roy. Yes.
Senator Lacson. He had no intention to hide the property. Mr. Roy. Yes. Yes, that is true, Your Honor. Senator Lacson. And therefore, even without this Impeachment Trial, he already corrected Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Lacson. in hissubsequently, I mean, in his 2010 SALN. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Lacson. Are you arguing with me? Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor.
Senator Lacson. Thank you. Mr. Roy. Not at all. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Drilon. Sir. The Presiding Officer. Senator Drilon. Senator Drilon. Yes, Mr. Witness, is it correct to state that you charge association dues only to the owners of the unit? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And there was mention in the course of your testimony that Mrs. Corona had a lot of complaints about the unit. Mr. Lim. I just got an idea from the complaint, Sir, when she wrote the letter. Senator Drilon. So, you had no personal knowledge of this complaint. Mr. Lim. I do not have any idea, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, she complained about the condition of the unit, is that correct? Mr. Lim. Based on the letter, Sir, she stated it, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And I assume she had access to the unit. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
69
Senator Drilon. All right. Did she have a key to the unit? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And would you know when the key was delivered? Mr. Lim. For that, Sir, I do not have an idea. Senator Drilon. Would youwho in Ayala Land would know this or the developer? Mr. Lim. Basically, Sir, we in Ayala LandAlveo have control team whothese are the team who arein front of the unit owner, they inspect the unit before turnover. And then, they are the ones also giving the keys and signing the acceptance forms. Senator Drilon. Now, who in Ayala Land would know this? Mr. Lim. Basically, Sir, this is handled by Alveo, the developer itself, and CRU, Clients Relations Unit. Senator Drilon. The names, please. Mr. Lim. Ms. Carmina Cruz, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And since you could not testify of your own knowledge, can you ask them, instead of our requiring these people to come around? Unless the Prosecution would object, we can take your word on the delivery, unless you want to bring along the person who brought the key and gave the key to Mrs. Corona. Are you willing to do that? Mr. Roy. If I may, Your Honor? Senator Drilon. Yes, yes. Mr. Roy. We have subpoenaed or requested for a subpoena of the developer to come and send their representative. Senator Drilon. Particularly on the person who delivered the key. Mr. Roy. The issue of delivery will be central in that presentation, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. That is right. Just a factual testimony as to when the key was delivered. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. I am sure that the Witness we subpoenaed will be in a better position to respond. Senator Drilon. Now, I am looking at Exhibit NNN-3. This document is marked in evidence. This is the Contract to Sell, marked in evidence on January 24, 2012 and accepted by this Court as evidence for the Prosecution. This is the Contract to Sell. On Annex 3 of this Contract to Sell, this pertains to The Columns, and there is a deposit here of P25,000 made on January 29, 2003, a downpayment of P543,181.82 on March 28, 2003. There is also a delivery date of the unit indicated June 2006 and across that is a signature of Cristina R. Corona. Would you know if this is the actual delivery date, Mr. Witness? Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea for that, Your Honor. That is already for Sales. The one who handles that is Sales, Sir, Sales of Ayala Land, Sir. Senator Drilon. You are not involved in that?
70
Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. Okay. So, on what date did Mrs. Corona agree to pay the dues, effective what date? Mr. Lim. Basically, Sir, we charged it third quarter of 2009 going up to date. I just do not have an idea, Sir, because I was assigned as a property manager starting 2010 already. So, basically, I also do not have an idea of when is the exact acceptance date. But based on our records, we charged the association dues starting third quarter of 2009. Senator Drilon. And she paid association dues effective third quarter of 2009? Mr. Lim. Based on our records, yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. But you were charging her association dues long before that? Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea for that, Sir, and we do not have records of it, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. You do not have records for that or you just do not know of your own personal knowledge, Mr. Witness? Mr. Lim. I just do not know, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Of your personal knowledge? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. I assume Counsel would present that kind evidence with the proper witnesses. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I think there is a misapprehension that must be clarified first. The Columns did not exist even in 2004, Your Honor. This was a preselling agreement. It came into agreement much later, Your Honor. That is why there were no dues being collected monthly until many years later. Senator Drilon. In fact, it is a contract to sell. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. Now, with respect to the acceptance of the keys, I can tell you tentatively that it was no sooner than late 2009 or early 2010. I will endeavor to find the correct Senator Drilon. You are not testifying of your own knowledge as a witness, no? Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. I am just relaying information that I received, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. That is not evidence here, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Roy. I am just trying to assist you, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. I do not need your assistance, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. It seems not. Senator Drilon. We will wait for the witnesses to be presented and we will ask the question, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. When was the building finishedconstructed and finished?
71
Mr. Lim. Based on our records, Sir, there are three towers in The Columns2006 for Tower 1, 2007 for Tower 2, and 2008 for Tower 3. The Presiding Officer. Where was the unit of Mrs. Corona? Mr. Lim. In Tower 1, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Tower 1, the first one? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that was finished when? Mr. Lim. Based on our records, it was 2006, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. Senator Pimentel, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Senator Pimentel. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President. For the Defense Counsel. Mr. Roy. Yes, sir. Senator Pimentel. Did I hear you correctly earlier that you stated that Mrs. Corona wanted her money back? Mr. Roy. Well, yes, in effect, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Did she take steps? Did she write a demand letter or even file a case? Mr. Roy. There was an exchange of letters but my recollection is that there was reluctance on their part to file a case, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. What do you call this action? What is the technical name for this kind of action? Mr. Roy. Cancellation or rescission, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Rescission, right? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Do you still remember the article in the Civil Code? Mr. Roy. I am afraid you might have me at the disadvantage, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Now, anyway, just for the benefit of Mr. Roy. 1191, I think so, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Or 1151? Mr. Roy. Somewhere there. Senator Pimentel. Somewhere there in the Civil Code.
72
So the only action taken by Mrs. Corona was to write a letter. Did you present the letter? Mr. Roy. Not yet, Your Honor. This is the letter to them.
Senator Pimentel. No, yung asking for the return of the amounts that she has paid for the unit. Mr. Roy. There is a different witness for that exchange, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. And he will do it. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Counsel. Mr. Roy. I have concluded my direct examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Cross. Mr. Hernandez. May we conduct cross-examination tomorrow, Your Honor? We do not have copies of the documents presented. Mr. Roy. We have no objection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. This Witness is discharged. You come back tomorrow. Senator Osmea. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Senator Osmea. Senator Osmea. Thank you. Mr. President, may I direct some questions at the Witness himself? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Osmea. Mr. Lim, good afternoon. Mr. Lim. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Mr. Lim, just to refresh your memory. There are three towers in The Columns. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. The first one was finished and occupancy started in 2006? Mr. Lim. 2006, yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. The second one in 2007? Mr. Lim. 2007. Senator Osmea. And the third one in 2008?
73
Mr. Lim. 2008, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. And the unit that was purchased by Mrs. Corona was in the first, second or third tower? Mr. Lim. In the first, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. In 2006? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. Now, you were hired just recently. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. You belong to a company that is a property management company. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Is that property management company owned by Ayala? Mr. Lim. Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor. This is a subsidy of Ayala Land Inc. Senator Osmea. All right. Now, you are familiar with the Condominium Law... Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. ...essentially what a person buys is air-ere, air between the four walls, the ceiling and the floor. Do you know that? Mr. Lim. Can you repeat the question, Your Honor? Senator Osmea. You know that a unit owner in a condominium building is actually only buying the air which his unit is supposed to occupy. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. The common areas, the ceilings, the walls, the floors, the pipes, the electric, the corridors, they are all owned by the condominium corporation, correct? Mr. Lim. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. And that is what they call commonly owned areas. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. And that is what you are responsible for. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. That is exactly. Senator Osmea. All right. NowSo, when a tenant complains about an undersized electrical wire, that would be the fault of the developer. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. And would these wires be any different from the wires in the other units of the building or would they not all be the same sizes?
74
Mr. Lim. It depends on the unit size, Your Honor, but basically it is similar. Senator Osmea. You mean the bigger the unit the heavier the wire? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. So, therefore, were there complaints from any other unit owners in the building about the size of the electrical wires? Mr. Lim. There are seldom, Your Honor. On my tenure, there are about less than 10, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. who complained about the size of the electrical wires. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Were these corrected by the developer? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. And did you correct also the complaintand attend to the complaint of Mrs. Corona about the undersized electrical wires? Mr. Lim. For that, Your Honor, I do not have an idea because maybe that is all Senator Osmea. So, we shall ask the... Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Ayala Corporation. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Now, the unit of Mrs. Corona is on 31st floor? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Is that the top floor? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. So, that is the second penthouse she buys in the area. And she had a leaking roof? Did she complain about the leaking roof? I just heard earlier that Mr. Lim. Actually, Sir, I do not have any idea for that. When she wrote the letter, that was the time I had an idea. But basically the upper floor of Mrs. Corona is a roof-deck already, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Was what? Mr. Lim. Is a roof-deck already, roof-deck. Senator Osmea. Yes, it is a roof-deck that is why she complained of a leaking roof. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. But I do not have an idea for that because I do not see it personally. Senator Osmea. So, you do not know if it is actually repaired. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
75
Senator Osmea. All right. We will check with the developer. Now, the billing of P112,000, ano powhat did that cover? Did that cover 12 months of condominium fees, six (6) months, two (2) years? Anong breakdown po ng P112,000? Mr. Lim. The breakdown of that, Sir, is from third quarter of 2009 to first quarter of 2011. Senator Osmea. So, third quarter of 2009... Mr. Lim. So, approximately one year and a half, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. ...to first quarter... Mr. Lim. ...quarter of 2011. Senator Osmea. 2011. So, that is about six (6) quarters? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Three (3), four (4)seven (7) quarters, am I correct? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, seven (7) quarters. Senator Osmea. Seven (7) quarters. At how much per quarter? Mr. Lim. Approximately P15,000, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Fifteen thousand per quarter. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We will wait for theWe hope that the Prosecution or the Defense can invite the developer, Alveo Land, tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution wants the cross-examination to be started tomorrow? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. May we have Senator Marcos first, Mr. President, before we dismiss? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte. Senator Marcos. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to direct just some very simple questions to the Witness. The dates are very important, Mr. Lim, ano which years, et cetera. Am I correct in understanding that 2003, the preselling for The Columns began? Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea for that, Sir. That is for Sales already. Senator Marcos. Tower 1 where the Unit 31-B which was bought by Cristina Corona was completed in 2006? Mr. Lim. I do not have an idea also for that, Sir. Senator Marcos. Did you not testify to that earlier on that it was completed in 2006?
76
Mr. Lim. The whole building itself, Your Honor, 2006. Senator Marcos. Iyong Tower 1 where Unit 31-B is located. Mr. Lim. 2006, Your Honor, the whole building itself. Senator Marcos. So the entire project was finished in 2006. Mr. Lim. The Tower 1, Your Honor. Senator Marcos. The Tower 1 where the Unit 31-B is located. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Marcos. Very well. But the duties that were being charged were first charged in 2009, is that correct? The dues that were beingsorry, not duties. The duesthe condominium dues? The first time they were charged to Mrs. Corona were in 2009? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Marcos. Why is there a three (3)-year interregnum between the time that the unit was finishedI would presume when you say finished, it is ready to be moved into and since they already had a contract to buy the unit, why did they not startwhy did the management corporation not start charging condominium dues in 2006 when the unit was completed? Mr. Lim. I am sorry, Your Honor, but I do not have an idea for that. But, basically, maybe there is a complaintMrs. Corona has a complaint with the developer itself. Maybe that is the reason why. Senator Marcos. What other possible reasons could there be for that three (3)-year delay between the time that the unit was completed and dues were starting to be charged or demanded by the management corporation of Mrs. Corona? Mr. Lim. Basically, Sir, on our bare records only, we started billing 2009. For that, Sir, I do not have an idea already. Senator Marcos. Very well. Perhaps the Defense can help us out here because I think that is a critical period, the three (3)-year period, and it will give us a better indication as to whether or not or whenwhat year that Mr. Roy. As I understand it, Your Honor, the obligation to pay dues commences from the time that you are recognized as the owner of the unit. Before that time, it is whomever the owner of the unit is that pays dues to the condominium corporation. As you know, membership in the corporation is premised on ownership of the unit. Without that nexus, there is no obligation to pay dues. Senator Marcos. Very well. So the implication that is being made, at least by the Defense Counsel, was that the management corporation did not in fact recognize Mrs. Corona as the owner, is that what you are saying? Mr. Roy. That is the implication I am trying to do, Your Honor. Senator Marcos. And, Mr. Lim, the reason that you cite for that non-recognition until 2009 of Mrs. Corona as the owner, that came about because there were still complaints and deficiencies being pointed out by the prospective owner.
77
Mr. Lim. I am not so sure for that, Your Honor, but maybe that is a reason. Senator Marcos. Okay. Very well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Pia Cayetano, please? The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I direct my question to the Witness. Just a follow-through on the line of question also of Senator Marcos. So this particular condominium project was completed sometime in 2006? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, for Tower 1. Senator Cayetano (P). Okay, Tower 1. And the procedure is for the developer to inform you as Project Manager that you should start billing the various owners of individual units, is that how the billing for the condominium dues works? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Okay. So sometime in 2006, you started sending out billings to different condominium unit owners, correct? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, that is the procedure. Senator Cayetano (P). And so at different periods of time, you would be informed by the developer something like somebody already purchased this unit then you can start billing this other unit? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Okay. And you did not receive such instructions from the developer until 2009 for the particular unit we are discussing, the one owned by Mrs. Corona? Mr. Lim. I just want to clarify, Your Honor. I started working in Columns starting 2010. Senator Cayetano (P). 2010, correct. But what does your record show? Mr. Lim. 2009, Your Honor, third quarter. Senator Cayetano (P). That sometime in 2009, you as Project Manager, started billing them. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Which means you got some kind of information or direction from the developer that start billing this unit because there is already an owner. Something to that effect. Mr. Lim. Something to that. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And so henceforth, that was the first time from your records that you started billing. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, third quarter of 2009, Your Honor.
78
Senator Cayetano (P). And prior to that, you were testifying earlier, if I remember accurately, that you, as Project Manager, you do not know personally nor do you have records as to what the status is before 2009 when the billing for condominium dues first started. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Okay. Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, yes. In the light of the fact that the Prosecution Panel will crossexamine tomorrow, we may excuse the Witness temporarily, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Witness is excused and ordered to return tomorrow at two oclock in the afternoon. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, perhaps we may continue with the other witnesses tomorrow. Mr. Roy. May I please the Court? Mr. President, with your permission, we would like to rest for the day and present our other witnesses tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, last March 15, 2012, Counsel for Chief Justice Renato Corona filed a Motion asking the House of Representatives or the House of Representatives Majority Floor Leader Neptali Gonzales Jr. be directed to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt and thereafter, if the evidence warrants to declare Representative Gonzales guilty of contempt of court. Mr. President, I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the Motion. The Presiding Officer. In accordance with the decision of the caucus this noon on this matter, the Motion of the Defense is denied. That is the ruling of this Court. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. May we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement? The Presiding Officer. Sergeant-at-Arms, you now make the announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, there being no other business for the day, I move that we adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Tuesday, March 20, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two oclock in the afternoon of Tuesday, March 20, 2012. The trial was adjourned at 6:41 p.m.

March 19 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

March 19 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

The Presiding Officer.

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor.

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012