May 14 Senate Impeachment Court Record

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Monday, May 14, 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 Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Sergio R. Osmea III. Senator Osmea. Dear Lord, as we approach the finish of this Impeachment Trial, we must not forget to express our deepest appreciation to You for the strength, the light, and the courage You so lovingly bestowed on each and every participant in this prolonged exercise: the members of the Philippine Senate so ably led by its Presiding Officer, the members of the Prosecution and Defense panels and their staffs, the members of the Senate Secretariat, the witnesses for both the Prosecution and Defense, the members of media for faithful reporting, and last but not the least, the Accused himself and the members of his family. Whatever the outcome might be, whatever the decision will be, may we all acknowledge Your interventions in the smooth execution of this constitutional exercise which is testament to our deeply embedded values of democratic governance. May Your grace and blessings upon the Filipino nation be never ending. Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen. Thank you.
2
The Secretary will please call the roll of Senators. The Secretary, reading:
Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Present Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Present Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Present Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Present Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Present The President ..................................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 23 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 May 8, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none; the May 8, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
The Presiding Officer. Appearances? The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. May we ask the parties for their respective appearances? Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President. On the part of the House Prosecution Panel, same appearance. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Defense. Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the Defense, the same appearance. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we have received the letter from the Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio-Morales, requesting that she be allowed to testify ahead of all other witnesses during todays hearing in view of heavy volume of work and equally urgent professional work that needs her immediate attention. So, I move, Mr. President, that this matter be submitted to the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, we wanted to accommodate the request, Your Honor, but we assure the Honorable Ombudsman that we will call her today, only that we be permitted to call ahead of her other witnesses whom we have subpoenaed for todays hearing, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But Walden Bello is not here. Mr. Cuevas. We have NoliEmmanuel Santos, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But whatever these witnesses will say in this Court will still be dependent upon the findings of the Ombudsman if indeed she conducted an investigation of the complaint of these witnesses that were subpoenaed and who are complainants before that office. So why not hear the Ombudsman first and if there is a need to ask the other witnesses to corroborate her, then so be it? Mr. Cuevas. Okay, then subject to the discretionwe yield to the discretion of the Honorable Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I would suggest that we hear the Ombudsman first because if there is no need to present these other witnesses, if the Ombudsman has made a substantial presentation or no presentation at all, then even if we do not hear these witnesses, this Court will already be given an opportunity to see the pendency of the evidence being presented today.
Mr. Cuevas. Okay, then, Your Honor, we submit to the discretion of the Court. We made known our option but if it does not meet the conformity of the Court, we submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, I felt, this Chair feels that given the fact that we are calling one of the highest functionaries of the government, she is no less than the Ombudsman with power to investigate cases in the entire government from top to bottom, then I think we should hear first if indeed there is any evidence at all that is available from her against the Respondent. So let the order of presentation start with the Ombudsman. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, before we proceed. Earlier today also we received a letter from Ms. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel requesting clarification as to the purpose and expected content of the testimony she is directed to provide considering that she has not made any allegation or reference to foreigndenominated accounts amounting to $10 million belonging to Chief Justice Corona in her letter-request to the Ombudsman or in any other form. May I move that the Presiding Officer also rule on the request? The Presiding Officer. Well, while we respect the position of the subpoenaed Witness, Madam Baraquel, the Court is not in a position to determine what the Defense will be asking from her. That depends upon the Defense. So I do not think it is proper for us to control the Defense in this respect. Under the Rules of Evidence, a witness when called has a duty to answer questions propounded by the producing party if she or he takes the witness stand. So the request is hereby not granted. Senator Sotto. And, finally, Mr. President, one more item. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Just for the information of the Court and the parties, we are in receipt of an e-mail from Representative Walden Bello informing the Court that he is currently abroad on official travel to attend and lecture in conferences. As authorized by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., Representative Bello is requesting that his presence in the Impeachment Trial be deferred until after his return to the country on May 18. Will we take note of the letter, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Well, I do not think we have any control over that matter so we will wait for his return to appear before this Court. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, Senator Drilon agrees. The Presiding Officer. If there is any need for him to testify, then we will require him to appear here when he comes back. So ordered. Senator Sotto. So may we now call on the Defense, Mr. President, for the continuation of the presentation of evidence.
Mr. Cuevas. In compliance with the statement made by the Honorable Presiding Judge, Your Honor, may we call the Ombudsman to the stand. The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Ombudsmanis she around already? Yes. Please bring her in and swear her. One-minute recess to wait for the Ombudsman. The trial was suspended at 2:23 p.m. At 2:24 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Clerk of Court. Honorable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. The session is resumed. The Clerk of Court. Honorable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Counsel, proceed. Representative Tupas. Mr. Presiding Officer, please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution? Representative Tupas. On the part of the Prosecution, Mr. President, may we ask permission that our lead private lawyer be recognized, be allowed to receive the testimony of the Ombudsman and to conduct the cross, if necessary. Atty. Mario Bautista, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The request of the Prosecution is granted. Representative Tupas. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Counsel referred to may now take the podium and take care of the case for the Prosecution. Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, will you kindly state your name and other personal circumstances for the record, Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Conchita Carpio-Morales, 71 years old, goingno70 years old, going 72noI am just kidding youI am 70, I am going 71. I am the present Ombudsman.
6
What else? Mr. Cuevas. Your residence, please.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Residence: No. 9, Carpio Compound, Soldiers Hills, Muntinlupa. Married. Mr. Cuevas. May we be allowed to proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. You have the floor. You can proceed, Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Madam Ombudsman is being presented, Your Honor, first, to prove that she has an interest against Chief Justice Corona, the Respondent in this case; to show that the Honorable Ombudsman is currently conducting an investigation against Chief Justice Corona especially with respect to his alleged foreigndenominated bank accounts in the aggregate value of $10 million; to prove further that there is no evidential basis whatsoever for the imputation that CJ Corona has foreign-denominated bank accounts in the aggregate amount of $10 million; and to prove that the Honorable Ombudsmans investigation is illegal, baseless and not in accordance with the Constitution. The Presiding Officer. In other words, you are considering this Witness as a hostile witness. Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then comply with Section 12 of Rule 132.
Mr. Cuevas. Well, the fact that the Witness, Your Honor, had made statements both in TV and radio castigating or commenting on the propriety of the Ombudsmanon the propriety of the Chief Justice, Your Honor, to continue The Presiding Officer. Counsel, wait. I am not trying to hurry you up but whatever was said outside this Court is not evidence. I will read to you the rule: A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his/her adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his/ her having misled the party into calling him/her to the witness stand. So, please comply with that requirement. Mr. Cuevas. There are two kinds, in our humble submission, Your Honor, of hostile witnesses: first, is one who is introduced right from the beginning as a hostile witness because of the interest he has in connection with the subject matter of the Complaint together with the person of the Respondent; and secondly, a witness who had been presented as an ordinary witness but who turned hostile in the course of the proceedings, in which case, we may ask for a ruling on the part of the Court that he is a hostile witness in view of the statements made by him. The Presiding Officer. My understanding of the Rules of Evidence are the classes of witnesses: willing witness, unwilling witness, hostile witness, adverse party as a witness. So can you cite to me the rule that you are using to justify in considering the Ombudsman immediately as a hostile witness? She is not an adverse party to this case. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But The Presiding Officer. But the presumption is the party in producing a witness, is producing the witness as a friendly witness.
Mr. Cuevas. Well, that is our impression also, Your Honor. But a deeper analysis of the situation involved in hostile witnesses showed two different occasions whereby a witness may be considered hostile. The Presiding Officer. But precisely Section 12 requires you to lay the basis. Qualify your witness in the way that you want that witness to be treated on the witness stand and let the court make the ruling. Mr. Cuevas. Very well, Your Honor. We will proceed as directed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Now, Madam Witness, you are familiar with the De Castro case before the Supreme Court in connection with the qualification of the Honorable Chief Justice Corona. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. And that involves the validity of his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. And I understand from the records of the case that you were the lone dissenter Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right. Mr. Cuevas. insofar as the validity of the appointment is concerned. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. It is your contention then at that time that the Supreme Court has no authority, much less any power, to rule that the former or outgoing President of the Republic of the Philippines may appoint a Chief Justice to the position two days after the election, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. In a Motion for Reconsideration, you likewise sustained your stand as objecting to the qualificationor rather, but the power of the President to appoint a Chief Justice, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. In that Motion for Reconsideration, you cling to the view that GMA or the Honorable ex-President Macapagal-Arroyo has no authority to make the appointment, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor, I always clung to my earlier decision if I thought that my decision for the first time was correct. Mr. Cuevas. But knowing that the Supreme Court acts as a collegiate court, the majority did not sustain you, am I right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. And that is Mr. Cuevas. And the majority opinion declares that the President in this particular case can appoint even notwithstanding the holding of an election and a determination of a winner in that election.
8
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Cuevas. And it is a time-honored practice that what governs the resolution of the issues involved in a case is the majority opinion. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. So there is no further question as to the validity of the appointment or the appointing power belonging to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Ms. Carpio-Morales. You are asking me? Mr. Cuevas. Yes.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, that is the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court. So we have to abide by the decision of the majority. Mr. Cuevas. That is correct. And you will agree with me that there is no power on earth that can modify, reverse or, much less, set aside that decision of the Supreme Court. Ms. Carpio-Morales. The members who wrote the majority can always change their mind, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But that is not my question to you, Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. There is no power, you said, on earth who can reverse or change the decision of the Supreme Court, and I said the power emanates from those who want to change their mind. Mr. Cuevas. Because judicial power belongs only to the Supreme Court. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is a fact, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Now, notwithstanding that pronouncement made by the Supreme Court at the time, Presidentthe President did not appear to be comfortable in accepting that kind of an official action. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Which President? Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor please. Mr. Cuevas. The present President. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am not competent to answer that, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But you areyou must have read in the papers together with the speeches over the radio and the television, or you are not aware of that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I read them but whether or not that is truesometimes, you know, reports get into the papers but they are not exactly accurate. Mr. Bautista. Mr. President, may I raise an objection, please? Counsel for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. What is the basis of the objection? Mr. Bautista. The Defense Counsel has been requested by the Chair to qualify the Witness as a hostile witness so that the Chair, in turn, may declare the Witness as such.
The mere fact that the Witness was the sole dissenter in the De Castro case does not qualify her as a hostile witness. As the Chair correctly ruled, a hostile witness is one who is, No. 1, an adverse party; No. 2, an adverse party witness; No. 3, someone who is reluctant or does not want to testify; and No. 4, someone who is established to have an adverse interest to the accused. Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. All of those situations are not present, so that it is premature for the Counsel of the Defense to start impeaching the Witness before she has been qualified as a hostile witness. Mr. Cuevas. I am just starting The Presiding Officer. Well, I have to sustain the objection, Counsel. The first rule is, A party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his own witness. So objection sustained. Mr. Cuevas. I am notIf Your Honor please, I am not impeaching the Witness. I am laying the basis to show hostility and attitude on the part of the Witness that qualifies her to be a hostile witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, I am not asking you about the truth of what President Aquino had stated that he does not like the Honorable Justice Corona to be occupying the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But I am asking youmy question to you is limited to the fact whether you are acquainted with those news spread over the TV and radio. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. I have read those news. Then reform the question, please.
Mr. Cuevas. All right. And you also must have heard the fact that there was a statement by the Honorable President Aquino now that he is not willing to take his oath of office as a President before the Honorable Chief Justice Corona? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor.
Mr. Cuevas. And as in fact, he made mention of the fact that he would rather take his oath before a barrio captain. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor.
Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, these questions are irrelevant to the adverse interest of the Witness. They have nothing to do at all with the qualification of the Witness as a hostile witness. Mr. Cuevas. Well, qualifying the Witness, Your Honor, is not borne out by one and only question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. question. Let the Ombudsman who is a very intelligent witness answer the
Mr. Bautista. We submit, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Pakibasa nga yung question.
10
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. He said thatearly on he said he wanted to take his oath before a barangay captain. That is the question. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And there were also statements made by him that he will try his level best not to allow Chief Justice Corona to continue occupying the position to which he was illegally appointed. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That I do not know. Mr. Cuevas. You have not read in the papers? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I could not recall reading that. Mr. Cuevas. You do not recall also having heard it over the radio? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I seldom listen to the radio. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, may I suggest that you go direct to the point? Find out through direct questions regarding the hostility of the Witness towards the Respondent. She is the Ombudsman. She is investigating the Respondent. Mr. Cuevas. Okay then. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, in fact, he took his oath before the Honorable Ombudsman now? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is a fact, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And that notwithstanding, Chief Justice Corona attended the oath-taking, is it not? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor, I witnessed him. Mr. Cuevas. He was there? Yes.
Ms. Carpio-Morales.
Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, in the course of a certain event like the Criminal Justice Summit, Your Honor, you must have read over the papers also as reported that there were statements made by the President against the Chief Justice? Mr. Bautista. Your Honor please, may I object again? May I raise a continuing objection to this line of questioning? I do not see the point in establishing any hostility there may be between the President and the Chief Justice. We have a witness here as the Ombudsman. Mr. Cuevas. Yes.
Mr. Bautista. What is the connection between the Ombudsman and the President? Mr. Cuevas. At that time, Your Honor, we wanted to show how hostile the President was. And having acted that way, led to the filing of this complaint for impeachment, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. That is totally irrelevant, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We submit, Your Honor. We are only in the process of
11
The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. We will be very liberal and let us see the Defense Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think I was abroad at that time. But eventually, I was told about it. Mr. Cuevas. Now I noticed thatI am aware of the fact that before your appointment as Ombudsman, there is a necessity that nomination be made by the Judicial and Bar Council. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. And you were aware of the proceedings in that body? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I just knew about it through others because I was not present. Mr. Cuevas. And you came to know that one of those who did not vote for your nomination is the Chief Justice. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I eventually came to know when they invited my attention to the internet data showing the results of the voting. Mr. Cuevas. The Chief Justice is not one among those who voted for your nomination. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is right. Mr. Cuevas. He was opposed to your nomination, did I understand you Ms. Carpio-Morales. Whether he was opposed to my nomination, I do not know. But it is a fact that he did not vote for me. The Presiding Officer. May I intervene? Counsel, I would like to be very liberal but may I request you to go direct to the point by showing the adverse interest of the Witness with respect to your client, the Respondent. What is the adverse interest of the Witness such that if that is established, then she will be considered as a hostile witness? Mr. Cuevas. I will go into that direction, Your Honor. But I was trying to deal with it little by little in the hope that The Presiding Officer. Yes. I do not want to control you but I thinkwhy do you not ask her if she has investigated the case of the Respondent? Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, may I go to a letter dated April 20, 2012, purportedly addressed to one Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Manila, consisting of five (5) pages, and direct your attention to a signature appearing over the typewritten name Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ombudsman. The Presiding Officer. I would suggest that the Counsel will show that letter to the Witness. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Which we request, Your Honor, to be marked as Exhibit Witness examining the same, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. This appears to be a photocopy of my letter.
12
Mr. Cuevas. May I request first, for purposes of identification, Your Honor, that it be marked, as we prayed before, as Exhibit 253, consisting of five pages? A little earlier I was asking you to go over the signature appearing over the typewritten name Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ombudsman. That is your signature? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. It appears so.
Mr. Cuevas. Now, there are three (3) complaints involved in this investigation. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, why do you not ask the Ombudsman why she wrote that letter to the Respondent? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. NowI adopt the question. Will you kindly tell us why this letter was written or addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice Corona? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. After we received the Complaint fromit is difficult to memorize the first mentioned complainant, but one of them is Risa Hontiveros. I went over it because I had an advance copy and I first sought information from agencies and then I referred the complaints to the Anti-Money Laundering Council because I thought that the charges included of some matters that were within the jurisdiction of the AMLC. And then later I constituted a panel of investigators. And eventually, I wrote the AMLC seeking assistance towards the determination of the truth of the charges. And then I got an initial report from the special panel recommending, among other things, that we should write the Chief Justice. Mr. Cuevas. Now, in this letter you were asking the Chief Justice to explain in writing Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. hisMay I read the particular portion, Your Honor? Accordingly, consistent with the provisions of Section 15, 22 and 26, you are hereby requested, within 72 hours from receipt hereof, a written answer to the complaints and to the above-stated information respecting your alleged several bank accounts in several banks. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, I understand that in this kind of investigation by your office, the Respondent is akin to an accused in a criminal case. Mr. Bautista. Your Honor please, the questions are leading and up to now, the Witness has not been qualified nor establisheddeclared by the Court as a hostile witness. Mr. Cuevas. Well, that is a direct question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, why do you not reform your question? Ask the Ombudsman if by that letter, she was actually investigating the Chief Justice. Mr. Cuevas. I predicate the The Presiding Officer. That would be the adverse interest. Mr. Cuevas. Okay then, Your Honor.
13
Now, when you stated in this letter that the Chief Justice is being requested to submit within 72 hours from receipt a written answer to the complaint, my understanding is that he is already being investigated by your office, am I right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. We were doing a case buildup. In other words, it was a fact-finding investigation, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All the while I thought that the complaint, per your letter, is on the basisthis letter rather is on the basis of the three (3) complaints: one, by the group of Ruperto Aleroza; second, by Walden Bello; and the third one by Emmanuel T. Santos, right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. We werewhat Mr. Cuevas. SinceI am sorry, go ahead. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Whenever we received a complaint, we determine first if it merits docketing. So we docketed it for purposes of factual investigation or case buildup. Mr. Cuevas. Correct. When you asked him to file an answer, the answer that you wanted to be made by him is in connection with the allegation or this strictly confidential resolution. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, may I invite your attention to the second to the last paragraph of page 4. It says here: Furthermore, we received information that there are several bank accounts in PSB and several other banks in your name including those denominated in U.S. dollars, the aggregate value of which amounts to at least US, US$10,000. The Presiding Officer. In other words, Madam Ombudsman, when you wrote that letter you were already initiating an investigation of the Respondent Chief Justice. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that, in effect, you are taking an adverse position with respect to the subject of your investigation. Ms. Carpio-Morales. We wanted him to The Presiding Officer. Explain. Ms. Carpio-Morales. enlighten us, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because as I said early on, I had sought the help of another agency for purposes of determining further there was indeed unexplained wealth or things to that effect which would be violative of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Mr. Bautista. If, Your Honor please The Presiding Officer. Yes, the gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. I am sorry for the intervention but the Ombudsman mentioned 10,000, is that US$10,000? Is that what is reflected in Ms. Carpio-Morales. Oh, I am sorry, US$10 million. Sorry. The Presiding Officer. All right.
14
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Again, as I said, I am not used to millions so I always say thousands. The Presiding Officer. In other words, the Office of the Ombudsman was already conducting an investigation of the Chief Justice so much so that you have to write the Respondent Chief Justice to explain, to appear in 72 hours to explain his side. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. That your testimony here would be, if you have any finding at all in the course of that investigation, will be against or in favor of the Ombudsmanof the Respondent Chief Justice, we do not know that. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please The Presiding Officer. So Counsel, please proceed along that line so that we can finish this. This is only to lay the basis whether this party is a hostile witness or a friendly witness to you. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We will do so, Your Honor, as directed. Now, you mentioned in here US$10,000. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am sorry. Mr. Cuevas. Ten million pala, I am sorry. All right. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Chain of errors. Mr. Cuevas. Now, you must have been informed about the impeachment proceedings going on before this Honorable Body by then? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. My question to you, is there any mention or evidence of this US$10 million and the evidence presented before this Honorable Court? Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor. Up to now the Witness has not been qualified. With due respect, the mere fact that the Ombudsman The Presiding Officer. The Counsel for the Prosecution is correct. Just to help in this. Anyway, this is a preliminary matter. Madam Ombudsman, you are conducting an investigation of this case against the Respondent, am I correct? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Fact-finding investigation, Your Honor. A case buildup... The Presiding Officer. Yes, fact-finding investigation. Ms. Carpio-Morales. as opposed to preliminary investigation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Have you made any findings at all?
15
Ms. Carpio-Morales. About? The Presiding Officer. Against the Respondent? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, I was able to get data showing that at least The Presiding Officer. You obtained data material to Ms. Carpio-Morales. Material and relevant to the The Presiding Officer. Complaint filed with your office. Ms. Carpio-Morales. complaints filed by the three (3) complainants. Yes, at least from the first complainant. The Presiding Officer. And are those materials adverse to the Respondent? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, it appeared so, Your Honor, because The Presiding Officer. Correct. Ms. Carpio-Morales. these are the documents that I sourced from that agency. The Presiding Officer. So that whatever testimony you will give here in this Court would have the tendency to be adverse to the Respondent. Ms. Carpio-Morales. It appears so, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. Carpio-Morales. And that is the reason why The Presiding Officer. So, Counsel proceed. Mr. Cuevas. In which case, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. If you want to make a motion, then make a motion. Mr. Cuevas. May we move, Your Honor, that the Witness be declared as a hostile witness, because her interest as Ombudsman investigating the case is already adverse to that of the Respondent, the Honorable Chief Justice, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, the answers of the Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, that is my mandate. If I am mandated by law to investigate and I investigate the Respondent, that does not make me an adverse person. So, I have to discharge my mandate. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. That is a constitutional mandate. In fact, the Ombudsman can investigate with or without complaint. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, you may proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, the Defense has moved for the qualification of the Witness as a hostile witness, may I object. The mere fact that the Ombudsman is conducting an investigation
16
does not render her as an adverse witness. In fact, she has merely written the Chief Justice to explain if there is any truth to the allegation that he has $10 million. There has been no adverse finding by the Ombudsman. She is merely performing her mandate and task under the Constitution and the Ombudsmans Law. That is not evidence of any adverse interest. Mr. Cuevas. We do not question that there is an investigation, that the investigation is allegedly being conducted by the Honorable Ombudsman, Your Honor, pursuant to law. What we wanted to lay down is the fact that there is already allegedly a finding made by her adverse to that of the Chief Justice. How can she be expected to be neutral, to be unbiased and to be impartial, Your Honor, in dealing with the Chief Justice? Mr. Bautista. If I may, Your Honor please. The Ombudsman has not said she has made a finding. She merely said that she has gathered or received data. She has not made any finding. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, the gathering of data does not appear to be in consonance with the impartial investigation of a case, Your Honor. Because there are complainants in here. The Presiding Officer. All right. To cut short this discussion unless I am reversed by the Impeachment Court given the fact the Ombudsman and according to the question of the Counsel for the Defense has shown some disagreement with the Respondent and the fact that she is the one investigating the Respondent by virtue of her office, this Court would consider her as a hostile witness and so declared that she is a hostile witness. And you may examine her as a hostile witness. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Now, being a respondent in your case his position may be akin to that of an accused in a criminal case, am I right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I said, Your Honor, we are still in the fact-finding investigation. He was a mere respondent. You become an accused only when you are indicted in court. Mr. Cuevas. I am not saying he is an accused, he may be likened to an accused in a criminal case. There is no similarity whatsoever, is that your point? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, as I said, it is merely fact-finding. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is no determination yet of probable cause because he has to undergo preliminary investigation. If we wind up our fact-finding investigation and we believe that there ought to be preliminary investigation, then we set the case for preliminary Mr. Cuevas. But why the necessity of compelling him to submit or to file an Answer? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is what the law says, Your Honor, Section 26. Mr. Cuevas. But this is practically compelling him to be a witness, which is prescribed by the Constitution under Article III, Section 17... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Are you assailing
17
Mr. Cuevas. that no person may be compelled to be a witness againstbecause the moment he answers necessarily he has to state his reason. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Are you assailing the constitutionality of Section 26 of Anti-Graft? Mr. Cuevas. I am raising it right now because the practice Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor please. Ms. Carpio-Morales. It does not follow, Your Honor, that if he refuses to answer, then The Presiding Officer. Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. I am still The Presiding Officer. Please propound your question. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Do not argue with the Witness. Mr. Cuevas. There is a pending question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, precisely. Ask your question, whether leading or direct question. You are now entitled to ask, but do not argue with the Witness. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, I am not, Your Honor. I am asking her whether the position of the Chief Justice as a respondent or a party being investigated with her office may be compared to that of an accused in a criminal case. The Presiding Officer. You are asking an opinion. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. That is a legal characterization. We are dealing with facts here. Mr. Cuevas. But she is very much in a position to answer that, Your Honor. With due respect. The Presiding Officer. Well, the Ombudsman may answer, if she wishes to answer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I have already answered, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. And in accordance with the Constitution, the law says under Article III, Section 17, No person may be compelled to be a witness against himself. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not compel him, Your Honor. I said I was just following the mandate of the law. That was his lookout if he did not like to answer. You could waive answering if you want to. Mr. Cuevas. Yes.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. But again, as I am saying, Your Honor, you are assailing the constitutionality of Section 26. Mr. Cuevas. I am showing that that practice is not in accordance with the Constitution.
18
Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is not a practice, Your Honor; it is a provision of law, Section 26 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but that nullifies the right ofI am sorry, I am sorry. I will just ask question. I am sorry, Your Honor, and I apologize. Now, furthermore, may I direct your attention to this portion of Ms. Carpio-Morales. Sorry. Let me correct my answer. It is Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act, not the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, may I remind you that the time to raise the non-incrimination clause of the Bill of Rights is when a question is addressed to the respondent. She was only asked to appear for Mr. Cuevas. To answer, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. To answer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. To answer within 72 hours. He can answer that he does not want to give an answer because it might tend to incriminate him. That is the prerogative of the party. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. With the kind indulgence of the Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. What we are invoking is a right which is fundamental and enshrined under our Constitution, Your Honor. And it is the right of a person not to be compelled to testify against himself. Here, it is our humble submission, if Your Honor please, that the moment he is compelled to answer he will state all his defenses and everything and that is practically compelling him to answer. It is a definite violation of that particular law, not merely from being safe from the trouble of incriminating himself but the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. If I may make a counter-submission, Your Honor, please. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right. Again, I sound like a broken record, Justice Cuevas. Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act requires the Ombudsman to direct the respondent, in the event there is reasonable ground to investigate further, to answer within 72 hours. So I sent that letter requesting himI want to emphasize the word requesting him. And so the immediate reaction was, Oh, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over me. That is a phony data, and all that. So now, you are invoking the Bill of Rights? Mr. Cuevas. I am just stating for the record, Your Honor, the rightthe constitutional right of the Chief Justice, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Already answered. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. Now, I have examined the various affidavits of the different complainants in this case and I have not found any statement to the effect that they are leveling an accusation against Chief Justice Corona for the amassing of this $10 million. Do you agree with me?
19
Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor, the question is misleading. The Witness has never stated that the basis for the $10 million accusation or charge is the three (3) complaints. She has never said that. In fact, I do agree with you that if you examine the three (3) complaints there is no mention of the $10 million. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Mr. Bautista. What she said is that the $10 million was gathered from information and evidence she got from AMLC. So, the question is misleading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Objection sustained. Mr. Cuevas. Now, may I go back to the different complaints. Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court whether you have examined any of the complainants in connection with the contents of their complaint? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, I have not. Mr. Cuevas. Not even any one of them? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Mr. Cuevas. Now, there were statements by these complainants that they have nothing to do with the alleged $10,000. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Ten million. Mr. Cuevas. Ten million. I am sorry. I am not accustomed to million also. [Laughter] Good lang ako sa P10.00. And they mentioned that they have nothing to do with that. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Do you contradict that or you are not in conformity with them? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is correct. They did not mention anything about $10 million. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Thank you. And insofar as their complaint is concerned, nothing touched on the $10 million. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Ten million dollars ($10 million). No, no, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Now, this AMLC that you mentioned a while ago, would you like us to believe there was already a court proceeding involving the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. I just asked for assistance if they had any document that had a bearing with the financial transactions and related transactions of the Chief Justice. Mr. Cuevas. But that will require an investigation, is it not? Or an inquiry. Ms. Carpio-Morales. An investigation by? Mr. Cuevas. By the AMLC. Otherwise, their statement to you and reply to your query may not be accurate and true.
20
Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. I think the AMLA Law requires that if a deposit of 500,000 plus is received by the bank, they are mandated to report to the AMLC these transactions. Mr. Cuevas. But there is no statement here with respect to the AMLC in coming in. And that the transaction is one covered by the AMLC. Am I right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Mr. Bautista. Misleading, Your Honor. The Witness already stated that she requested the AMLC for assistance. Mr. Cuevas. Well, this is a different question now. I am not asking her about the assistance. If Your Honor please, I am sorry. The Presiding Officer. Reform the question. Mr. Cuevas. Now, my question to you is: There is nothing on record nor in the complaints of the complainant here dealing with that AMLC intervention. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. There is none. Mr. Cuevas. There is none. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Precisely I asked the assistance of the AMLC because I wanted to know if there are documents in the possession of the AMLC that have a bearing on the complaints. Mr. Cuevas. Would you like us to understand then that the AMLC can just come in upon the request of any The Presiding Officer. Counsel, may I read to you the Constitution? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Powers of the Ombudsman, Paragraph 5. Request any government agencyRequest any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents. It is a constitutional law. The supreme law of the land directs, gives that power to the Ombudsman. And we are wasting our time on this particular point. Mr. Cuevas. Now, my point, Your Honor, is notwithstanding the grant of the powers, that power must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. I am conversant, Your Honor. I hope the Court pardons me. The Presiding Officer. Please go ahead. No, no, I am not asking you to articulate your position but I am just reminding you of the constitutional mandate given to the Ombudsman. Mr. Cuevas. That insofarmay I proceed now, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Insofar as the AMLC is concerned and in the exercise of its powers, there must be a procedure to be adopted. And that there must be an application before the court and the court must have granted the application and that is the exercise of the power. The grant of the power is constitutional but the procedure
21
The Presiding Officer. The Ombudsman being an intelligent Witness may answer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. You must be referring to the freezing of assets? Mr. Cuevas. No. I am referring to the general exercise of the power of the AMLC, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. The AMLC Mr. Cuevas. My point is this. The AMLC cannot just, in response to any query, conduct an investigation, submit a reportthat is my point. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, the point made by Defense Counsel is irrelevant. He earlier stated the proffer of testimony. And if we examine the request for subpoena which they themselves submitted, they only offered two purposes for the subpoena of the Ombudsman. Number one, in order to prove that Chief Justice Corona does not have foreign-denominated accounts amounting to $10 million. That is the first purpose. The second purpose is for them to explain while an investigation is being conducted on matters already within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Impeachment Court. Mr. Cuevas. We have no quarrel Mr. Bautista. The validity or invalidity of the actions of the Ombudsman with respect to the investigation being conducted over the Chief Justice, that is irrelevant here, Your Honor. In fact, those are legal conclusions which have no room in a trial. Mr. Cuevas. We do not question the validity of the exercise of the power. We made that clear, Your Honor. But our point is, that power, although constitutional in character, must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down by jurisprudence and the law. That is our point. If the Court Mr. Bautista. Well, if you want to study that, Mr. Defense Counsel The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. All thatthe Ombudsman had already stated that she sought the assistance of the AMLC. How the AMLC performed its function, I do not know whether the Ombudsman is competent to testify on that. And she has already answered the question. She sought the assistance of the AMLC. How the AMLC got records thatif there are records that he got and delivered to the Ombudsman, I do not know whether we canyou can ask if the Witness is competent to testify on that, if she knows how the AMLC performed its functions. Mr. Cuevas. Well, I was just asking her whether the records The Presiding Officer. We presume the regularity of official conduct. Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor. I fully agree with that. But as I have articulated, Your Honor, I have a point and that is the validity of this alleged assistance made by the AMLC without complying with the provisions of the law on the matter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then that will be a function of appreciation of the evidence by this Court. If there is any violation by the AMLC, that is another issue altogether, he will answer for it. So please proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
22
Now, going back to the complaints filed with your office, more particularly one by the Honorable Noli or Emmanuel Tiu Santos, did you notice that practically the entirety of the allegations therein mentioned are merely based on newspaper accounts? Mr. Bautista. Asking for opinion and conclusion, Your Honor, and it is irrelevant. Mr. Cuevas. Why? I am asking Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, I do not The Presiding Officer. She may answer.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Based on newspaper accounts? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Is that your conclusion? Mr. Cuevas. No. Did you notice that what she stated there is based on Ms. Carpio-Morales. Under the assumption that I always read all newspaper accounts. Mr. Cuevas. No. I have a definite question. I have gone over the affidavit of Noli Tiu Santos. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. And I noticed that all that you have stated in there are practically coming from newspaper or newspaper accounts. And my question to you Ms. Carpio-Morales. You noticed it? You noticed it? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And my question to you, did you notice that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, he attached to his complaint newspaper clippings. Mr. Cuevas. And you will agree with me that newspaper clippings have no probative value whatsoever especially so in this particular case where the subject to be investigated is a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. Bautista. Irrelevant, Your Honor. I cannot understand the line of questioning because it was the Defense Panel who themselves asked to subpoena the Ombudsman and to produce documents relating to the $10 million account. That is all. And we have already stipulated that the complaints do not mention the $10 million accounts. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. She is a very intelligent witness. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, as I said, Your Honor, he attached to the complaint newspaper clippings. But let me emphasize that before I invoked the assistance of the AMLC, I first asked the AMLCI first furnished copies of the complaints to the AMLC thinking that the charges might have had to do with matters within its jurisdiction. And then when I wrote the AMLC again, I only received yet the first complaint. In others words, the second and third complaints including that of Mr. Santos had not yet been with the Ombudsman. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Madam Ombudsman. I propounded that question, Madam Ombudsman, in the light of what appears in this request that you sent to the Chief Justice. May I read for the record, Your Honor?
23
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. While you may only be removed from office through impeachment proceedings, this Office, as reflected earlier, has the power and duty to investigate you for any serious misconduct in the office for purposes of filing a Verified Complaint for Impeachment, if warranted. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. complaints. It was on this account that this Office conducted an initial evaluation of the
I am led by that statement of yours that it was on the account made by the complainant-affiant that you conducted the initial investigation of the complaints. Am I right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. On account of the complaints. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. But there is nothing in the complaint relative to what you wanted to be investigated, and that is the $10 million account. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Precisely, Your Honor. Again, I sound like a broken record. I said, Furthermore, we received report that the Chief Justice has $10 million. And that report was based on the report Ithat was given to me by the AMLC. And these are the documents given to me by the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. So, you totally disregarded the Affidavit of Complaint of Noli Santos? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not disregarded. Mr. Cuevas. In what sense or what value did you give to that complaint? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, there were three (3) complaints. Mr. Cuevas. No, I am referringI am sorry, Your Honor. I am merely referring to Noli Santos. Ms. Carpio-Morales. But why should you drop the other complainants? Mr. Cuevas. No, I am Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because they have essentially almost the same complaints. They were complaining against acquisition of unexplained wealth. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. I am just asking a question. May we request most respectfully that the Witness be admonished not to argue with this Representation, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am not arguing, I was just explaining. Your Honor, I was just explaining. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. The Witness is explaining to the Counsel that she did not
24
the 10 million was obtained from a report to her by the AMLC. She initially referred the complaint submitted to her by private parties. If I may recollect her former statement to the AMLC and there was a report returned by the AMLC to her and in that report was a statement about a $10 million account supposedly of the Respondent. Am I correct in this, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So, that is the situation. Mr. Cuevas. All right. The way I understood you The Presiding Officer. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The way I understood you, you received that report from the AMLC. Was it prior or after your letter of April to the Chief Justiceof April 20? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Prior, Your Honor, because I could not have told the Chief Justice that we received report about $10 million if I had not gathered it from the AMLC data that was Mr. Cuevas. No, will you be kind enough to tell us why you did not incorporate that as a statement so that at least the Chief Justice will be able to answer intelligibly and correctly? Ms. Carpio-Morales. What statement, Your Honor? Mr. Cuevas. That according to you, based from the papers coming from the AMLC, there was this alleged $10 million deposit. That was not stated in your Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, but I said report. We received report. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but even thatI am sorry. But even that does not appear in your letter request of April 20, 2012. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I thought it was not necessary. Mr. Cuevas. So, why did you not consider that necessary when you are askedpractically accusing a person of illegally acquired wealth, Your Honor. Why? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I thought it was not necessary to mention the source. After all, he said that that account does not exist. Mr. Cuevas. Kindly let us Ms. Carpio-Morales. So, why should you know? All right. Mr. Cuevas. Well, but that waswhen he said that that account did not exist, it was only after your letter of April 20 Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, but I thought it was not necessary, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. That is your Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, to mention that it came from AMLC.
25
Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But in order that the witness or Chief Justice Corona may be allowed to explain well his position, why was it not necessary? What made you think that that was not necessary, $10 million is not necessary? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That was data gathered by the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but my point is this, Madam Witness, you wrote the Chief Justice Renato Corona a letter dated April 20, 2012... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, yes. Mr. Cuevas. ...and you said, Strictly confidential. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is right. Mr. Cuevas. One of the statements that you made in here is in connection with the $10-million account. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Strictly confidential, meaning... Mr. Cuevas. Wait. No, no, no. Wait.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. ...the contents of the letter were strictly confidential. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, why was there no mention in order that he may defend himself and write correctly why you did not mention it? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I thought it was not necessary, Your Honor. I thought it was not necessary. Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed to finish my question? The Presiding Officer. The Witness has already answered that she felt it was not necessary. So, that is her position. Am I correct in this, Madam Carpio? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Already answered. Mr. Cuevas. Okay. The Presiding Officer. We cannotwe are arguing on this point. The Witness said that she found it not necessary to give that information in her letter. Mr. Cuevas. Now, but my point is this, Your Honor. If that was so stated and a request to answer is made, then the party to whom it is addressed may be able to intelligibly reply to the request, Your Honor. That is my point. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. Mr. Cuevas. I am not questioning the opinion of the Witness, Your Honor. I am just bringing out facts, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor.
26
The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly direct your question to the Witness so that we will understand each other? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, you were saying so that the Respondent could probably have been able to answer intelligibly to the request? Mr. Cuevas. And correctly, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Correctly? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. But he could have asked for a bill of particulars. Mr. Bautista. Yes. He could have asked, Where did you get this information? Mr. Cuevas. But this is not a prosecution in court whereby the bill... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, in any event even if it were not a bill of particulars, he could have said that, Can I be enlightened where you got the information? Mr. Bautista. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. That is precisely why we came to this Court, open up this matter because we feel that there is no truth nor any basislegal basis for this assertion. That is the point of the Defendant, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. There is no truth... Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is no truth to my assertion that I received report that he has US$10 million in transactional accounts? Mr. Cuevas. But there is no statement to that effect. What I am limiting myself is your statement, Furthermore, we received information that there are several bank accounts in PSBank and several other banks in your name including those denominated in U.S. dollars the aggregate value of which amount to at least $10 million. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. Now, you knew if this is in dollar, this is highly confidential protected by the foreign currency deposit. Mr. Bautista. No basis, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Republic Act 6426. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not source it from the bank, Your Honor. I sourced it from the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but wherever it is sourced. You mean to say if the source is different, it can beforeign currency deposit may now be inquired? Ms. Carpio-Morales. So, you are saying, Your Honor, that these accounts exist because you are saying these are confidential? Mr. Cuevas. No, I am not saying. I am not saying thatit is your answer that there are reports to this effect. My question is, why was this not incorporated in the report?
27
Ms. Carpio-Morales. It was incorporated. I just did not mention the source. Mr. Cuevas. There is no mention of Ms. Carpio-Morales. Ten million dollars. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but source. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, AMLC. Here, 17-page document. Mr. Cuevas. Now, where in your report? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, I did not mention. We sound like a broken record, both of you and I. I said I thought it was not necessary. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, the Witness has already answered that the basis of the 10 million is a report. She did not include it in her letter. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, that is her answer. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, we wanted to emphasize, Your Honor, the apparent The Presiding Officer. Yes, you have already overly emphasized it to this Court. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, if I may. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the gentleman from San Juan. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo. Pasensiya na ho kayo at bigla po akong tumayo. Kanina po mayroong hawak-hawak si Ombudsman na mga papeles. Report yata ng AMLC iyon. Eh sana ho makakuha kami ng mga kopya, kopya para sa mga Senador para mabasa na po namin, kung pupuwede lang po. Mr. Bautista. And can the Prosecution Panel likewise be given a copy of that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. If directed by the presiding Senate President. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Can we get hold of the copies, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. To be fair to... Mr. Cuevas. May we be heard, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. ...to be fair to the Respondent, let the process be done. The Prosecution knows what to do when it is their turn to ask questions from this Witness. Because she will be subject to cross-examination. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So Counsel for the Defense, proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Now, this report that you were telling us is a report that came into your possession after the filing of the Impeachment Complaint in this case, am I right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor.
28
Mr. Cuevas. And I suppose you must have read the entirety of the Impeachment Complaints in this case, is it not? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. And there is nothing in this Impeachment Complaint that deals with this $10 million account. Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor. At the last hearing, the Defense expressly assured the entire nationthis Senate, that they were going to face the $10 million issue squarely. That is what they said. And on the basis of that assurance, they were given a recess of 48 hours, they were given the right to subpoena the Ombudsman and five (5) other witnesses. And now you are going to question it? The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. What was your question, Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. This is not one of those covered by the Impeachment Complaint in this Impeachment Proceedings, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. You are referring to the $10 million? Mr. Cuevas. Yes.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. I do not know if the alleged $700,000 in PSBank is included in this $10 million. Mr. Cuevas. So you are not sure about that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not sure about it, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. What you are telling us is merely your opinion about the matter. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Opinion on the basis of how I analyzed the 17-page data coming from the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. But that is not my question to you. My question to you is this: This letter is dated April 20, 2012? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. At that time, there was already an Impeachment Proceedings before this Court. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right. Mr. Bautista. Already answered. Mr. Cuevas. There is nothing in that Impeachment Complaint which deals with this $10 million account that you mentioned, am I right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am not supposed to remember all those Articles of Impeachment. Mr. Cuevas. I am not asking you to remember. All I am asking you is, since you are familiar with the Impeachment Proceedings Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes.
Mr. Cuevas. ...I am asking for a fact, that whether you are familiar or what. Did you notice that it is not included in any of the Impeachment Articles?
29
Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not nitpick the Impeachment Articles, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. So if I tell you now that it is not one of those charges embodied in any Articles of Impeachment, you will not be in a position to deny or contradict this Representation. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes.
Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, thank you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. If it isif it is not, with more reason I should conduct further investigation. Mr. Cuevas. I see. And the idea is for impeachment also? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Possibly for impeachment in December. Mr. Cuevas. On the basis of your investigation? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, if it is not covered. Mr. Cuevas. But you do not fully agree with me that it is not embodied in this Impeachment Complaint? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, I do not recall. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, we have read the Articles of Impeachment. There is no mention of $10 million so we know that. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. There is no point in belaboring that issue. We deal with the allegations of the Complaint. That is a detail ofthat is required by the Counsel. But there is no mention of an amount. Mr. Cuevas. And we are guided by the fact, Your Honor, that the elementary rule of procedure in evidence debars any evidence being presented to a matter that is not provedalleged in the Complaint. Mr. Bautista. If that is so, Your Honor, then why did you subpoena the Witness and to bring with her documents regarding the $10 million, if you are saying it is irrelevant? Mr. Cuevas. Is he entitled to question me, Your Honor? I will yield if he is entitled, but he has no authority. Mr. Bautista. Counter-manifestation, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Propound your question to the Witness and let us finish this. Mr. Cuevas. Now, I understand that you investigated The Presiding Officer. There is no question that there is no mention of $10 million in the Articles of Impeachment. But the issue is inclusion and non-inclusion of assets, liabilities and net worth. That is the main issue in Article II. Whether the amount included is one billion or one peso, the issue is inclusion and non-inclusion. The amount is immaterial. So reform your question. Mr. Cuevas. I have no pending question, Your Honor.
30
The Presiding Officer. Then proceed to ask another question. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.
Now, this $10 million, is this an amount embodied already in the other amounts discussed in this Impeachment Court, which is the subject of evidence by the Prosecution? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I think we have been going around in circles on this issue. Let me just read the Journal of May 8, 2012, the manifestation of one of the counsels for the Defense, Mr. Roy. And let me quote that, Mr. President. The Journal reads: I was referring to, Your Honor, the mention of 10 million from Senator Estrada. I believe it is on Page 52 on Paragraph 1. Is it there? At any rate, Your Honor, I draw your attention to the 10 million that was mentioned by Senator Estrada and as he put it, gentle recommendation for the Chief Justice to testify in this connection. Now I wish to draw attention to the fact that this is not a matter within the Complaint. Be that as it may, Your Honor, the Defense is not going to skirt from this issue. If the Honorable Court is inclined that we should address this issue, if this Honorable Court is inclined to consider this matter in its deliberation, if the Honorable Court is inclined to make this form part of the basis of any verdict rendered here, we will willingly confront the issue. This was already settled as early as May 8, 2012. I believe, Mr. President, that enough time has been debated to this debate. Can we go now to this point? This was already settled before by Counsel of the Defense. The Presiding Officer. We want to be liberal in this Court, but the time that we have is limited. So may I request the indulgence of both sides towe do not want to control you in the way you ask your questions, in the way you will handle your cases. But all of us are lawyers, and I think that you understand my position. Direct the question to the Witness and let the Witness answer so that we can move on. Because if you are going to argue a certain point back and forth with the Witness, we will never finish this case. So, Mr. Counsel for the Defense, proceed to ask your question from the Witness so that we can finish. Mr. Cuevas. In view of the admissions made on record by the Witness, Your Honor, in connection with my previous questions, I have no further direct examination questions, Your Honor. I am through with my direct examination. The Presiding Officer. You are through with the Witness? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. All right, cross. Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Mr. President.
Madam Ombudsman, you earlier mentioned that the AMLC gave you a report. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor.
Do you have a copy of the report with you?
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I have my copy.
31
Mr. Bautista.
For the record, Counsel is being given a copy of the AMLC report. Seventeen (17) pages and there are also four (4) pages separate from
Ms. Carpio-Morales. that Mr. Bautista. Mr. Cuevas.
For the record, Your Honor... How many pages?
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Seventeen (17) pages, the record of transaction. Mr. Bautista. ...the document consists of thethe first page is entitled Transaction Codes Legend but it is not paginated. There are 17 pages, which indicate at the top page of each one the name of the account holder, the account number, the transaction date, the transaction code, the peso amounts; the currency denomination, whether it is U.S. dollars or peso; the foreign exchange amount; and the name of the financial institution, in other words, the bank. On its face, there appears to be 705 accounts entered here Mr. Cuevas. Seven hundred five accounts? Mr. Bautista. Seven hundred five Ms. Carpio-Morales. Entries, transactionsentries, entries. Mr. Bautista. Entries or transactions, sorry. In addition to this report, Your HonorMadam Ombudsman, was there any other report submitted by any party with respect to the AMLC report? Ms. Carpio-Morales. This one, have you already invited the attention of the Court respecting this four-page document? Mr. Bautista. Where did you get this, Madam Ombudsman?
Ms. Carpio-Morales. It came with this same 17-page document. I think this reflects the summary of the peso and dollar accounts. Mr. Bautista. Thank you. For the record, may we request that the transaction list be marked as Exhibit Eleven W (WWWWWWWWWWW) for the Prosecution and The Presiding Officer. What is the marking? Mr. Bautista. Eleven W (WWWWWWWWWWW) The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Bautista. and the attachment which is simply entitled Strictly Confidential; Subject: Renato Coronado Corona which appears to be a summation or a summary of the transaction list consisting of four (4) pages be marked as Exhibit Eleven X (XXXXXXXXXXX). Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Yes, what is the pleasure?
32
Mr. Cuevas. Before any question is propounded on this alleged report, may we be allowed to examine the same so that we will know the contents thereof? We had not been furnished a copy. It just surfaced today, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Counsel for the Prosecution, will you kindly show theto be fair, the document to the Defense Counsel? Mr. Bautista. If I may respectfully suggest, Your Honor, can we have a 20-minute recess so that we can photocopy the documents for the Senator-Judges and for us to examine the document because this is the first time The Presiding Officer. How long? Mr. Bautista. Half an hour. The Presiding Officer. All right, motion granted. The session is in recess for 20 minutes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, excuse me. Sorry, puwede ba ito ang kopyahin ninyo? I am sorry, may I beg the indulgence of the Presiding Justice? That is my personal copy, Your Honor. I made some annotations, so, can I request that the other copy, which bears the initial of the one who prepared, be the one to be photocopied. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. If the documents are the same in all respects, except the notes of the Ombudsman. So ordered. The trial was suspended at 3:36 p.m. At 4:46 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Session resumed. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the copies have already been distributed but the Members of the Court do not have a copy yet. We are told that they will instead come up with a PowerPoint presentation so that it will facilitate the distribution of the papers or the documents to the Members of the Court while it is being processed. So, we may proceed, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Witness, the Honorable Ombudsman will please take the witness stand. We are in the stage of cross-examination. The Prosecution may proceed. Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Mr. President. Honorable Ombudsman, did you advise the Senate that you are prepared with the PowerPoint presentation? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir.
33
Mr. Bautista. So you earlier testified that on the basis of the information you received from AMLC, you concluded that there are several bank accounts and I am quoting from your letter to the Chief Justice. There are several bank accounts in PSBank and several other banks in your name including those denominated in U.S. dollars Ms. Carpio-Morales. Denominated. Mr. Bautista. the aggregate value of which amounts to, at least, $10 million. Do you confirm that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Mr. Bautista. Can you please explain to us, Honorable Ombudsman, how you arrived at the figure of $10 million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. First, I listed all the different accounts. I classified them under one column. And then, after gettinggrouping different accounts under one column, I got the dates the transactions occurred. Then, I got the amounts the transaction occurred. But since I noticed that there were some accounts which were deposited in, let us say, A account, but on the samelet us say, hundred thousand, example only, but on the same day, the hundred thousand dollars were withdrawn in three (3) tranches and transferred to three (3) different accounts X, Y, Z. I had a bit having difficulty trying to analyze. So I came up with some significant observations and I put them into writing. Mr. Bautista. Can you please show to us these significant observations you have made in writing? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. That the Chief Justice has, at least, $10 million in transactional balances. He has 82 U.S dollar accounts in five (5) banks. There were significant deposits and withdrawals on very significant dates including the 2004 and 2007 elections, as well as the week he was impeached, specifically for December 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 22, 2011. The significant transactions are as follows: On December 12, 2011, the day Corona was impeached, the following bank transactions were made: There was a time deposit for termination of $418,193.32. This amount was added to a BPI San Francisco del Monte account number blank, blank, blank. And then from this, $417,978.80 was deducted from this account and placed in a regular trust fund contribution placement. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, we noticed that the testimony of the Witness is being in narrative form. May we request, Your Honor, that questions be directed to her so that we can properly object when the time so demands, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I think she Mr. Bautista. The question calls for an explanation, Your Honor, please.
34
Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But irrespective of what you wanted her The Presiding Officer. That is an answer, I think, to a question.
Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. And we noticed that it is beingthe answer is being made in narrative form. It is practically a story. We can no longer object, Your Honor. That is why I am requesting that the testimony of the Witness be adduced by question and answer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. In order to be fair, will you kindly slice your questions in segments, Mr. Counsel for the Prosecution? Mr. Bautista. We will try to do that, Your Honor, but the difficulty is I just got this a few seconds ago. But I will try. Honorable Ombudsman, you were already testifying on how much were the withdrawals made by the Chief Justice from the date of his impeachment on December 12, 2011 forward. Do you have the total amount of dollars the Chief Justice withdrew after the date of his impeachment from the various bank accounts? Mr. Cuevas. We object, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Cuevas. Because the Witness may be cross-examined only on matters directly taken up in direct examination. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. The Witness has been subpoenaed by the Defense specifically for the purpose of addressing the $10 million and now they are trying to limit her testimony. I think we should put it on record, Your Honor, that the Defense has repeatedly misrepresented the supposed intent of the Chief Justice to open his dollar accounts. Mr. Cuevas. We do not Mr. Bautista. As early as February 12, 2012, this Honorable Court already ruled that the PSBank Account should have been opened but it relented to the TRO in particular because of the representation of the Chief Justice that he will open his account. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. Mr. Bautista. Up to now he has not done that and now they are trying to block the testimony of the Ombudsman regarding transactions and documents which they specifically subpoenaed. The Presiding Officer. The rule says and I will read to you the Rule of Evidence involved, Section 12, Rule 132, The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. The rule involved in this discussion is this: He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party which is the Prosecution, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject on his examination in chief. So, I will have to sustain the motion. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. May I ask for a reconsideration? The Presiding Officer. Why?
35
Mr. Bautista. The Defense has already waived its right for the Prosecution to cross-examine on the $10 million accounts. They expressly waived back, Your Honor, by making the representations they made last Tuesday and on the basis of the subpoena request they made. They already waived that, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. If I may be allowed to answer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. There could be no waiver, Your Honor. Because our objection now is predicated on the Rule of Evidence. We are not preventing my learned colleague from cross-examining her. But the cross-examination being a hostile witness, Your Honor, must be only on matters taken up only on the direct. Did we touch on the withdrawals? The answer is no. Did we ask her to testify? The Presiding Officer. Anyway, motion to reconsider is denied. Next question. Mr. Bautista. Honorable Ombudsman, who gave you this report from the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. You are referring to the particular person? Mr. Bautista. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, the Executive Director. Mr. Bautista. Who is he? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Vicente Aquino. Mr. Bautista. I notice, Honorable Ombudsman, that there are initialsthere is one initial on every page of both exhibits pertaining to the reports of the AMLC. Do you know whose initial this is? Ms. Carpio-Morales. One of the officials of the AMLC or Central Bank who is an analyst, bank analyst. Mr. Bautista. You earlier mentioned that you arrived at a conclusion that there were $10 million, did you ask, did you request anyone to assist you in evaluation Ms. Carpio-Morales. After my initial evaluation I had to seek the assistance of the COA. Mr. Bautista. Who in particular, Maam, in the COA? Ms. Carpio-Morales. The chair, Grace Tan, and then eventually I later requested Heidi Mendoza. Mr. Bautista. What was their response to your request for assistance? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, they came up with their analysis of dollar accounts. Mr. Bautista. Did they come up with a report on their analysis of the dollar account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, they came up Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. Before this Honorable Ombudsman answer, may we go on record, Your Honor, as again objecting to thisthese matters had not been taken up in the direct examination, Your Honor. And if we have to be
36
The Presiding Officer. Which one?
Mr. Cuevas. The alleged report. The examination by the COA and so on. And nothing had been mentioned about that in the direct examination. So, following the previous The Presiding Officer. Actually, Counsel, the documents have been waived by the Witness during her examination in chief, hindi ba? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But the question now
The Presiding Officer. Ipinakita niya eh. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But The Presiding Officer. And it was elicited by virtue of a question from the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor. May I The Presiding Officer. So, the Witness is now explaining who helped her, and that was the question... Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. ...of the cross-examining Counsel. So, the Witness may answer. Mr. Cuevas. May I request for the reconsideration, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Cuevas. The matters being sought to be elicited on cross-examination, Your Honor, are matters not taken up in the direct examination and the Witness does not cease to be a hostile witness. The Rules under Rule 132, Section 13, if I recall correctly, allows cross-examWe are not denying them the right to cross-examine. But my point is, the cross-examination must be limited only to matters taken up in the direct examination. Now, the question now centers on the alleged examination by the COA, on the report and on the examination. Our point is, this had never been touched in our direct examination and I appeal to the records to buttress our argument on the point. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. But do you not think the answerthe question to the Ombudsman is because of the document that was presented to this Court by virtue of the examination-in-chief? Mr. Cuevas. No, what the documentif, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. She is explaining what happened, how that document was prepared, evaluated by her and she said she sought the assistance of other people. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. But anyway, okay. I will just give to you all the leeway to defend your client Counsel for the Prosecution, reform your question. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. May I just point out that in the request for subpoena of the Defense, I quote, That the Honorable Ombudsman bring with her the original and certified true copies of documents of the complaint against
37
Chief Justice before the Office of the Ombudsman as well as original and certified true copies of the documents on which they based their accusations that Chief Justice Corona has foreign-denominated accounts with an aggregate value of $10 million. These are the words of the Defense when they asked for the subpoena. And now they are trying to prevent the Witness from testifying on the very documents they subpoenaed just because they now know that the contents are adverse to them. Mr. Cuevas. We are afraid, Your Honor, that we had been misunderstood. We never have referred to any subpoena, much less to any subpoena duces tecum that has not been part of the direct examination of the Witness. Mr. Bautista. Therefore you directly examined her on the basis of matters that were not subject of a subpoena? Mr. Cuevas. What we are objecting is the question propounded to the Witness which covers subject matter that has not been taken up in the direct examination. That is very clear. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Counsel for the Prosecution, please reform your question so that we will not go into this lengthy discussion. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. You earlier said, Madam Ombudsman, that you are prepared to present a PowerPoint? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. Can you do that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. If the Impeachment Court will allow me, Your Honors. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Unless I am reversed by the Yes, what is the pleasure of the Mr. Cuevas. If it is notit is not part of our direct examination. And secondly, Your Honor Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. Mr. Cuevas. Allow me to continue. Mr. Bautista. I vehemently disagree with the statement that it was not part of the direct examination. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please. Mr. Bautista. The Journal will bear me out; they asked questions regarding the basis for the $10 million. Mr. Cuevas. Right. O, where is the PowerPoint? Mr. Bautista. Now that the evidence is adverse to them, they are trying to suppress it. May I point out the presumption in the Rules of Court that when evidence is suppressed, it is presumed to be adverse to the party suppressing such evidence.
38
Mr. Cuevas. You are misquoting a wrong law. That does not apply in this particular case. Do we have a right to object? Our answer is yes. It is addressed to the Honorable Court and we The Presiding Officer. Did you not ask a question about the basis of the charge that the Chief Justice has $10 million? Mr. Bautista. Yes, they did. Mr. Cuevas. We did not discuss that in the direct examination. The Presiding Officer. Did you ask that question? Mr. Bautista. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I do not recall, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let us go to the record. Mr. Cuevas. My question is, what is The Presiding Officer. Let us not discuss this. I want to see the record if indeed the Defense Counsel did not ask anything about the basis of the $10 million, the subject matter of the examinationin-chief. What is the pleasure of the gentleman from Taguig? Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, just to save time and to support the earlier ruling of the Chair. During the direct-examination, tinanong po ng Counsel, Bakit hindi mo nilagay sa sulat iyong basehan... Mr. Cuevas. Yes.
Senator Cayetano (A). at ano iyong basehan? Ang sagot po nung Honorable Ombudsman, ang basehan niya iyong dokumento sa AMLC. Natandaan ko po ito kasi apat na beses niya po winagaygay Ms. Carpio-Morales. Winagayway.
Senator Cayetano (A). Sorry po. Excuse my Filipino. Anyway, she held it up and waved it. And we were teasing Senator Jinggoy na kumuha na tayo ng kopya baka mawala. And paulitulit po iyong Ombudsman in saying na, Para tayong sirang plaka. Hindi ko sinama ito sa letter sapagkat she did not think it was needed na ilagay sa letter. Therefore, Mr. Chair, to support the Presiding Officer, winagayway niya iyongkanina pa niya wini-wave iyon. And, secondly, Your Honornot to debate with you, huhkasi kung bubuksan pa natin iyong record, hahaba pa. Or kung iyong pronunciation ko sa Tagalog aayusin ko, hahaba pa. So excuse me for that mistake but the Defense is the one who brought up the AMLC records. Ang ginagawa lang ng Prosecution ngayon nag-i-elaborate o hinihimay. And the PowerPoint is para tulungan na ihimay. So I will stop there but I am supporting the ruling of the Chair that it is proper in cross because it was brought up in fact by the Defense except hindi ninyo hinimay o hindi ninyo na tinanong iyong Ombudsman kung ano iyong laman. But iyongthe fact na meron pong papeles na galing po sa AMLC, nanggaling po iyon sa tanong ng Defense. And I am afraid na hahaba po at tatagal po tayo today kung babalik pa tayo sa records and every single question kasi po pagkatapos ninyo
39
po, magtatanong din kaming Senator-Judges at hawak na po namin kopya naming, magtatanong din kami. So without interfering in the way you will defend your client, and I understand you have to do this, these questions will come out, Sir. And I just like to put on record that I am supporting the Senate Presidents stand that this was brought up. And I hope maging smooth iyong pagtatanong natin dito. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Mr. Senator. Senator Legarda. Mr. President? Mr. Cuevas. What we are objecting is the utilization of PowerPoint, Your Honor. True. But there was a statement to the effect that this came from the AMLC. I recall having questionedcrossexamined the Witness, Your Honor, on several matters regarding the AMLC and the net effect is that she is not in a position to testify on matters properly within the confines or jurisdiction of the AMLC. That is why I stopped in there. I am notI did not insist, Your Honor, that she should be examined in connection with how the matter was brought to the AMLC. What investigation was conducted by the AMLC? Why is it confidential? Why there is no predicate crime and yet there was an information supplied to that. I totally withdraw all my statements relative The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the gentle lady from Antique? Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. Isang maliit na kahilingan lang po na sana po ay bigyan natin ng pagkakataon si Ombudsman Morales na makapagsalita na dahil tatlong oras na po tayong nakaupo ditto. Gusto po nating marinig ang kanyang pahayag dahil meron na po tayong kopya ng 17 na pahina dito. Pero mahirap intindihin dahil puro numero po at mga codes. Iyon lang po ang hinihiling ko. Pakinggan natin siya with minimum interruption at iyong mga abogado dito at saka doon po, with all due respect, mamaya po magtanong. Pwede pong mag-redirect naman po siguro ang Defense. Pwedeng magtanong siguro sa tamang pamamaraan ang Prosecution tapos kami bibigyan po ng pagkakataon kung kailangan pa. Pero paano po tayo magkakaintindihan, bigyan po natin ng pagkakataon para mapaliwanag iyong mga numerong napakaraming hindi namin maintindihan. Salamat, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. With due respect, Your Honor. I think with the least fear of contradiction, we are agreed that this alleged report came from the AMLC. As to who prepared the same in particular, whether he is under oath, whether we can cross-examine him on the veracity of the entries herein appearing, whether they are authentic or not, we are already helpless, Your Honor. And the presentation The Presiding Officer. Your Honor, the document was testified to by the Ombudsman. It is a part of the testimony. You know that that is a rule on evidence. Any document presented to a witness and used by her in the course of her testimonyin this case, this is a part of the testimony of that Witness, which could be the subject matter of a cross-examination. Now, you are objecting and you say that you did not touch upon that matter in your examinationin-chief. I agree with you that the COA was never mentioned by the Ombudsman. But precisely, she was askedthe way I understood the question of the Prosecution is that the Prosecution asked the Ombudsman whether that document was prepared by her. And my recollection of her answer was that she asked the help of some other people including the COA, if I understood her correctly.
40
So that is in answer to the question of the Prosecution, but... Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor
The Presiding Officer. ...just to satisfy the objection and to be sure that we are not guessing here, I amas Presiding Officer, I want to check the record. Because my recollection of the record is that you, the Defense, really touched this matter in their examination-in-chief. Mr. Cuevas. My point of objectionif I may be allowed to continue, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. My point of objection is not only whether it was not touched in the direct or not, but whether the Witness will be competent insofar as AMLC figures are concerned. Mr. Bautista. We will establish that, Your Honor, when we finish our examination. Mr. Cuevas. What is being presented now is an AMLC report, unsigned
The Presiding Officer. That will be a proper subject of a re-cross or a redirect. Mr. Cuevas. Well, maybe
The Presiding Officer. A redirectbecause in your redirect, you can actually cross-examine the Witness. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, but
The Presiding Officer. We have already declared her to be a hostile witness. Mr. Cuevas. We are very appreciative of that, Your Honor. But our point is, apparently, there is no competency on the part of the Witness to discuss this report because, first, she is never party. Hence The Presiding Officer. Then show that in the course of your redirect. Mr. Cuevas. No. But our observation
The Presiding Officer. Are you objecting on the ground that the Ombudsman is incompetent to testify on this matter? Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Bautista. On the AMLC report, in addition to our previous objection, Your Honor. Your Honors, this is...
Mr. Cuevas. Because it is not shown yet whether she is a party to the preparation thereof, whether she is privy to the entries therein appearing, and whether she had talked to the person who made the entries, Your Honor. So this will be a paper presentation. The Presiding Officer. Correct. But she is simply reading from the report. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. So Mr. Cuevas. PowerPoint presentation eh, this will include interpretation, Your Honor, of figures stated in there.
41
The Presiding Officer. Well, if you do not want a PowerPoint presentation, then I will submit it to the Body for a decision, if you are objecting. Mr. Cuevas. That is my point, Your Honor, and I made clear our position on the matter, Your Honor. We are heavily thankful to the Court for allowing us to say our piece on this particular and specific matter. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, just for the record.
I have not seen these documents. And the mention of the PowerPoint presentation, I heard of for the first time from the Honorable Senator Sotto. And I thought it was a wonderful idea to expedite the presentation of the evidence. It did not come from the Prosecution; it came from the Senator. Now, if the Ombudsman is ready to come up with a PowerPoint presentation, I think it is within the discretion... The Presiding Officer. Well Mr. Bautista. ...of this Honorable Court to say yes or no. But definitely, it is not barred by any rule. The Presiding Officer. It may be tedious but if you want toyou object to the PowerPoint presentation, then I will direct the Prosecution to ask the specific questions so that you can object. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Marcos? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte. Senator Marcos. Thank you, Mr. President, just a quick question to Madam Ombudsman. We thought we would be able to figure out these figures, but as you can see, there are many items under which these transactions are categorized. Madam Ombudsman, you used a term earlier transactional balance. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right. Senator Marcos. What does that mean exactly, Sir, because it is so hard for us to determine? Ms. Carpio-Morales. The transactions that went into funds, the transactions thatincluding the inflow and outflow of funds. That is not the balance of the account, those are the balance of the Senator Marcos. So that is the total Ms. Carpio-Morales. In other words, that went through the system of his Senator Marcos. Exactly. In other words, all the dollar transactions, when added together, total, $10 million. Is that the determination that you made? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is even more, I think.
42
Senator Marcos. It is even more. So it is not the balance. It is Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is a balance of transactions.
Senator Marcos. So even itso even if, let us say, $10,000 was deposited and subsequently $10,000 was withdrawn, that will be a transactional balance of 20,000. Is that correct, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let us put it this way, Senator. I think our computationmy computation which was arrived at with the assistance of CPA-lawyers is that, his fresh depositswhich means, fresh deposits, they never moved, they remained in that particular accountamounted to more than $12 million fresh deposits. Senator Marcos. Yes, but Ms. Carpio-Morales. But the transaction, we are saying the inflow and the outflow, that is it. Senator Marcos. I heard you specifically say that the transactional balance to your determination was $10 million and even more. But again, so this does not denote the balance, it merely denotes the total amount of money that went through the system. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, it does not denote the balance of the account. Senator Marcos. Okay. Ms. Carpio-Morales. But as I said, Mr. Senator, his fresh deposits amounted to more than $12 million. When I say fresh deposits, they were never moved from one bank to another, they stayed in those accounts. Senator Marcos. Very well, we will have to plow through all these information. Thank you very much, Madam Ombudsman. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we Ms. Carpio-Morales. If you allow meit will abbreviate the proceeding, if you allow me to come up with a PowerPoint presentation. It will be easier to be understood if you The Presiding Officer. Madam Ombudsman, there is an objection from the Defense, so Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay. Senator Sotto. Senator Santiago, Mr. President, is asking for the floor.
The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, the primary rule in the Rules of Evidence is relevancy. In fact, it is one of the first few articles that opened the section on the Rules of Court concerning evidence. As long as evidence is relevant, it is admissible in court. There is no prohibition in the Rules of Evidence of a PowerPoint presentation. There is no categorical prohibition of such means of introducing evidence. The only question facing us is, is this relevant?
43
I hold as a judge that this is relevant, therefore, it should be admitted. And besides, it will help us considerably to reduce the hours that we might spend going over these items one by one. If there is a need for voting, I vote therefore for the PowerPoint presentation. [Applause] The Presiding Officer. Order. Order. May I request the public to refrain from showing your approval or disapproval with things that are happening in the courtroom. So ordered. The gentleman from Cavite. Senator Lacson. If there is a need for a motion to be submitted to the Chair to allow the OmbudsmanOmbudswoman to present through a PowerPoint presentation, I so move, Mr. Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. All right. There is a motion to allow the Ombudsman to present the PowerPoint presentation of the report prepared by the AMLC to her. May I request thethose who are in favor, please raise your right hand. (Twenty-three senators raised their right hand.) All right. Those who are against, please raise your right hand likewise. Those who are against. No one is against? All right, the Power Point presentation is authorized by the Impeachment Court. Proceed. Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right. If Your Honor please, if you will allow one of my colleague no, if one of those who assisted me in charting this visual aid in coming out with a presentation, to herself presentI am referring to commissioner of the COA, Heidi Mendoza, if you will allow her to do the presentation? Or you will prefer that it is going to be me? The Presiding Officer. Well, if you are technically capable, Madam Ombudsman, the Ms. Carpio-Morales. I will try, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, please do so. Ms. Carpio-Morales. As you can see, this refers to analysis of dollar account. Basic Information: Tabulation of Transactional Accounts Submitted by AMLC. The amounts appearing in the tabulation are not account balances, but rather they are transaction balances. The same is considered complete as to movement of funds above 500,000 from 14 April 2003 to 22 December 2011. Methodology: recording of reported transactions into specific bank accounts; posting of individual amounts under specific debit and credit column using the transaction codes as guide; summarizing all the debits and credits which are basically the inflows and outflows of funds followed by the computation of net inflow-outflow; marking of abnormal balances such as withdrawals where there are no apparent entries under the debit column; preparing individual schedules; summary of transaction per account, summary of account movements, Inter and intrabank schedule of net flows, supporting schedules for significant observations. Significant observations: Multiple accounts created for similar purpose; multiple accounts spread over five banks in various branches/places. Circuitous fund movements. Deposit and withdrawal made on the same day. Significant movement on significant days.
44
Significant observation: In 2003, he had one dollar account. In 2004, he had 13. So, one plus 13 would be 14 in 2005. In 2005, he had an additional nine dollar accounts. So, from 2003 to 2005 his dollar accounts totaled 23it is not too visible from my end. Plus, he had an additional 12 dollar accounts. In 2007excuse me, may I just look at my record because it is hardly visible from here. In 2007, he had 35 dollar accounts, and he added 14 accounts. So, in 2008, he had 49 dollar accounts and he added 14 accounts. In 2009, he had 63 dollar accounts and he added 12 dollar accounts. In 2010, he had 75 dollar accounts and he added six accounts. In 2011, he had 81 dollar accounts and he added one account. That gives a total of 82 dollar accounts. The Presiding Officer. How many dollar accounts? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Eighty-two, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Eighty-two. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay. The PowerPoint machine, I think, came in late so I said I was not able to see. All right. First, he had this BPI Acropolis Branch, he had eight accounts; then BPI Tandang Sora, he had 18 accounts; BPI San Francisco Del Monte, 34 accounts; BPI Management Investment Corporation, he had one account; PSBank Cainta, he had eight accounts; PSB Katipunan, he had six accounts; then ABC (Allied Bank Corporation) I think, Kamias, he had four accounts; and Deutsche Bank, I do not know how to pronounce this, AG, Deutsche Bank he had two accounts; Citibank N.A., he had one account. Now, circuitous movement of funds for the four main accounts. All right. An account in BPI Acropolis, Account 4005939, deposit in the amount of $48,589.72. This was deposited on April 14, 2003. On even date or April 14, 2003, he withdrew $52,202.38. On April 23 he deposited to the same account the amount of $78,400.66. Two days after, he withdrewis this possiblehe withdrew $4,000no, $80,000. Maybe theWell, the amount would show that it was bigger than what he deposited but the presumption is that he had seed deposit there. Okay. Now, on April 1, 2004, he deposited hundred sixty-two millionNo, no, ratherI am sorry. This timeI am now used to millionsit is $162,982.97 he deposited to the same account. This came from Account No. 9771. Okay. Now, on April 1, 2004, he withdrew $390,000 from still the same account and deposited it to Account No. 1822. On May 6, 2004, he deposited $390,526.09 and on April 2, 2004, he withdrew from the main account the amount of $100,000 and deposited it in Account No. 1865. The Presiding Officer. When you say account, you are talking within the same bank? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor, the same bank. In other words, he had several accounts in the same bank. The Presiding Officer. In the same bank?
45
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right. On April 2, 2004, as I said, he withdrew $100,000 and place this in Account 1865. On May 7, 2004, he deposited $100,134.89Excuse me, Your Honor. May I just talk to Ms. Mendoza? The Presiding Officer. Yes, yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay. All right. Are we still in the sameYour Honor, may I be allowed to use my magnifying lens? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead, Madam Ombudsman, I am also using a magnifying glass. [Laughter] Ms. Carpio-Morales. On May 5No, rather on May 11, 2004, he deposited to the still the same account, mother account, nine million three hundred forty dollars. No, I am sorry. Again, as I said, I am sorry. I am now used to million. So it should be $9,340. On May 12, 2004, he withdrew $500,000. That was May 12. On May 14, 2004, he returned $500,000 to the mother account. On August 4, 2004, he deposited to the mother account $15,000. On May 14, 04, he deposited $500,000. No, no, withdrew rather. I am sorry. He withdrew $500,000 from the mother account. On August 4, 2004, he withdrew again US$30,000. The Presiding Officer. Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are these deposits and withdrawals covered by documentary evidence like checks or debit memos or whatever? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Based on the AMLC documents, Your Honor, there are codes there which says debit, credit, debit. But the credit memo, in other words, from where these funds came from, who deposited them, or how it came about, it is not recorded there. The Presiding Officer. Is this actually being operated by the account holder himself directly or Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. was there a fund manager doing this for the deposit holder? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Except for maybe two or three accounts which I suspect it must have been on the move of a manager, all the rest of the accounts reflected in the data document appear to have been made by Renato Corona, Renato C. Corona or Renato Coronado Corona. The Presiding Officer. Signed on the documents withdrawing and depositing? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. This document is sourced from the database of the AMLC. So, they did not submit supporting documents. The Presiding Officer. So, it is actually electronically generated? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay.
46
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Now, where are we? Now, on September 8, 2004, he depositno, he withdrew US$30,000 and placed it in Account No. 3345. What is this? Ah, no, no. Thirty thousandI am sorry, I am referring to the blue. Are we in the same account? No. On September 9No, rather 8, 2004, he deposited to the mother account $30,040.47. On August 18, 2004, he withdrew from the mother account $30,000 and placed in Account No. 3507. On September 22, 2004, he deposited $30,040.47 to the mother account. On August 18, 2004, he deposited $10,000 to the mother account. On August 18, 2004, he deposited $15,000 to the mother account. On September 8, 2004, he withdrew $30,000 and placed it to Account No. 1840. On September 23, 2004, he withdrew thirty thousand zero point forty point forty-seven and deposited it to 3949 account. On October 21, 2004, he withdrew $100,000. On October 29, 2004, he deposited $39,000. On January 3, 2005, he deposited US$15,000. Now, on the same date, he withdrew $15,000, the same amount. On January 14, 2005, he deposited US$10,000. On the same date, January 14, 2005, he withdrew $15,000. On January 20, 2005, he withdrew US$10,000. I think we are done, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, my impression of this, and correct me if I am wrong, there is one deposit account in this bank by the depositor and he sliced it into several placement accounts. So, the accounts were being coming in and out of the same deposit account in the same bank. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Coming out of one particular deposit account and going to another account. In fact, there are several different accounts here which The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Before you do that, may I request for A recess.
The Presiding Officer. a one long minute recess. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay.
The trial was suspended at 5:35 p.m. At 5:51 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Senator Sotto. Session resumed.
May we recall the Witness? Madam Ombudsman Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales.
The Presiding Officer. Analyzing this particular account, bank account number, there were actually 14 withdrawals and 17 deposits. Ms. Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. All right. This is over a period of time? Yes, Your Honor. It started at a given date and ended on a given date? Yes, Your Honor.
47
The Presiding Officer. Does the Ombudsman know if there is awhat was the balance at the end of this period involved? Ms. Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. No, Your Honor. We cannot determine. It is theto determine. You are not in a position to state? No. All right.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Unless they are fresh deposits which means there were no withdrawals from the account. It would be difficult to determine the balance. The Presiding Officer. Yes. But this account exists and it is being operated with deposits and withdrawal by the depositor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, the data we determined was up to 2005, I think. Yes, January 2005. So that is what is reflected in the document that the movement, the circuitous movement of the deposits ended on January 2005. The Presiding Officer. All right.
Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. What is the pleasure of the good gentleman?
Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission ofbefore we go into another subject, may we request that the Defense be furnished with PowerPoint The Presiding Officer. Yes. The Honorable Ombudsman is requested to provide a hard copy. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes.
Mr. Cuevas. So that we can go over the same, prepare for our redirect and determine the facts stated therein, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In fact, if we may also request the Ombudsman to provide the Court with a hard copy of this Power presentation? Ms. Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. Yes, Your Honor, we will do that. All right.
Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. May the Prosecution, likewise, be given a copy, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes.
This Power presentation was prepared by whom? Ms. Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. It was prepared by me with the assistance of the COA. The COA. Yes, Your Honor. They were the ones who
48
The Presiding Officer. Why was the COA brought into the picture?
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, because I had to ask their assistance because the COA there are CPAs in the COA and for a mere lawyer without background in accounting, I found it difficult to analyze. I did it manually and all that with all those columns and all that. So I wanted them to see if my observations were correct. So I had to engage their help. The Presiding Officer. Thank you.
Counsel for the Prosecution. Mr. Bautista. Mr. President, may we also be given a copy? The Presiding Officer. You may continue with the Power presentation. Mr. Bautista. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is another major account, Your Honor. This is Account No. 1842, Bank of Philippine Islands, Tandang Sora. The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. 1842? 1842, onwaitleft side.
On August 11, 2004, he withdrewNo, I will not say withdrew. There is a withdrawal of $10,000 which went to Account No. 4676. More than a month later or on September 15, 2004, the amount of $10,011.24 was deposited to the same account. The Presiding Officer. This is separate from the first
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Separate, Your Honor. This is BPI. The other one was BPI Acropolis. This is BPI Tandang Sora (TS). The Presiding Officer. Another bank deposit account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Another bank deposit account, Bank of Philippine Islands. The first one The Presiding Officer. The same bank Ms. Carpio-Morales. The same bank but different branch, Your Honor. The first one was Acropolis Branch. This time, it is Tandang Sora Branch. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Now, on September 12, 2004, he withdrew $10,000. But on October 16and placed it in another bank account. On September 16, 2004, he deposited to the mother account $10,011.24. In 2005, Your Honorthis is still the same BPI Tandang Sora Branch, the same account number mother account rather. But this time, again, he withdrew $11,000 on April 14, 2005, to another account, Account No. 5427. This is different from the previous accounts that we mentioned. On January 12, 2006, he deposited to the mother account $11,215.97. On OctoberNo. All right. Let us go to the first. I will be referring to the account at the left
49
side. On October 25, 2005, he withdrew $12,000 and placed in Account NumberBPI No. 5974. And on January 24, 2006, he deposited $12,091.19. On December 8, 2005, he withdrew from the mother account $15,000 and on March 9, 2006, he returned $15,113.99 to the mother account. On December 8, 2005, he withdrew $21,000. And on March 23, 2006, he returned $21,159.98. This came from another bank account. So there are four (4) bank accounts involved in this page. Still in the same BPI Tandang Sora Branch and still in the same mother account. On January 12, 2006, he withdrew $16,000 and placed it in another new account, Account No. 6261. And on January 11, 2007, he deposited $16,566.07 to the mother account. On March 10, 2006, he withdrew $26,000 and placed it in a different account, Account No. 6474. And on September 8, 2006, he withdrew $26,000No. He deposited, rather, $26,455.95. On March 23, 2006, he withdrew $21,159.58 from the mother account and placed it in a different account, Account No. 6539. And on September 21, 2006, he deposited $21,538.04. Finally, on this page. On January 24, 2006, he withdrew $12,091.19 from the mother account. And on January 23, 2007, he deposited $12,526.15. Please segue to the next page. This is an account from BPI San Francisco Del Monte. The account number is 8104. This is BPI. All right. From the account number you will recall that the previous mother account was Ah, no. Excuse me. Yes, it is different. All right. San Francisco Del Monte. On September 14, 2006no, rather August. August 14, 2006, September 8, 2006. In other words, September 21, 2006, January 16, 2007, January 23, 2007, he made five deposits. The first was $48,391.09; $26,455.95; $21,534.04; $16,566.07; $12,526.15. These came from an Account No. 1842. Again, on August 16, 2006, he deposited to the mother account the amount of $13,700. Then on September 27, 2006, he deposited $110,109.19. And on January 24, 2007, he deposited $21,234.05. The account where these came from is not indicated. On May 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $134,603.25. This came from an account numbered 9366. On September 27Okay. The withdrawal first should have been mentioned first because it is a year before that. So anyway, he withdrew $131,643.32 from his mother account and deposited it to Account No. 9366. On May 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $27,039.80. And on September 8, 2006, he withdrew $26,455.95 and placed it to Account No. 9188.
50
Finally, on August 16, 2006, he withdrew from the mother account $62,000 and placed it in Account No. 8955. And on February 14, 2007, he withdrew $63,000No, he deposited rather $232.23. Still another accountNo. San Francisco. Still in the same account in San Francisco Del Monte. On February 15, 2007, he transferred $63,232.23 to Account No. 0933. And on May 3, 2007, he deposited $63,345.61 to the mother account. On January 24, 2007, he withdrew $53,326.85 and placed it to Account No. 0704. And on May 3, 2007, from the same account, he deposited to the mother account $53,572.71. Now on DecemberNo, no, ratherlet me start withOn July 19, 2007, there was a deposit of $12,700. Where the deposit came from, it is not indicated. Fresh deposit. All right. On July 27, 2007, he deposited $100,000. On May 29, 07, redeposited $129,498.98. And on September 3, 2007, he deposited $20,000, while on December 21, 2007, he deposited $50,000. These are fresh deposits that were infused into the mother account. Still in the same account, BPI San Francisco Del Monte. On July 19, 2007, he withdrew from the BPI account, the same mother account, the amount of $20,000 and placed it in a different account, 2693. On August 23, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $20,076.44. On August 31, 2007 No, let me start with the withdrawal first. On July 27, 07, he withdrew the amount of $100,000 and placed it still in another account; but on August 31, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $100,404.69. On August 23, 2007, he transferred $20,007.44 from the mother account and deposited it into a different account, 3193. On September 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account from this new account the amount of $20,082.83. On September 3, 2007, he transferred $40,082.93 from the mother account and transferred it to a new Account 3479. On March 3, 2008, he deposited $40,973.18. On August 9, 2007, still from the same account, he withdrew $296,728.99 and placed it in a new Account 2987. And on November 8, 2007, he deposited $299,937.86 to the mother account. On July 31, 2007, he withdrew $130,443.32 to a new Account 2812. And on March 4, 2007, he deposited to the mother account the amount of $133,547.67. On August 31, 2007, he transferred from the mother account US$100,404.69 to a new Account 3398. And on February 29, 2008, he returned to the mother account the amount of $102,634.97. On November 9, 2007, he withdrew the amount of 299,937.86 and transferred it to a new Account 7659. On December 21, 2007, he withdrew from the mother account the amount of $50,000 and transferred it to a new account 4351; and on January 25, 2008, he deposited to the mother account $50,224.83. Still in BPI San Francisco Del Monte account, Account No. 8104. On March 5, 2008, he deposited the amount of $30,300 to the mother account. On April 17, 2008, he deposited $24,000 to the mother account. On July 31, 2008, he deposited $30,000 to the mother account. On January 28, 2008, he transferred from the mother account to a new account the amount of $50,224.83. From this new account, he withdrew on August 15, I think this is 15,208, the amount of $51,167.70. On January 28, 2008, he withdrew the amount from the mother account $50,224.33. On July 7, 2008, he withdrew the amount ofno, it is not July. It is March 3, 2008, he withdrew the amount of $143,608.15 from the mother account and transferred it to a new account 4874. And on July 7, 2008, he returned or rather he referred back to the mother account the amount of $144,947.79. On March
51
5, 2008, he withdrew the amount from the mother account US$175,000 and transferred it to a new Account 4912. And on July 9, 2008, he deposited $176,561.40 to the mother account. On April 17, 2008, he withdrew from the mother account $24,000 and transferred it to a new Account 52277. And on June 26, 2008, he deposited to the mother account $24,102.63. On July 9, 2008, he withdrew the amount of $345,611.82 to a new account. The following day, he returned what he withdrew the day before in the amount of $345,640.68. On July 7, 2010, rather July 10, 2008, he withdrew the amount of $345,640.00 and created a new account. And on October 20, 2008, he deposited to the mother account the amount of $348,334.93. On August 6, 2008, he withdrew from the mother account the amount of $130,443.00. And also withdrew on October 20, 2008, the amount of $356,372.34. On December 15, 2008, he withdrew from the mother account the amount of US$20,000 and created a new Account 7393. And on January 19, 2009, he deposited to the mother account $20,022.49. Finally, on July 3, 2008, he deposited the amount of $100,630.83. I think I am done. Maybe there are still so many things, but I would like to believe that there are withdrawals on a particular date and returning back to the same account on the same date. Deposit and withdrawal on the same date. There are still many here butif you will allow Ms. Mendoza to take over. I am a bit enervated. NOTE: Upon motion of Senator Pimentel III and duly approved by the Impeachment Court during the May 15, 2012 trial, the testimony of Ms. Heidi Mendoza was stricken off the record. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Well, I am getting a consensus from the Members of the Court that perhaps we may continue tomorrow with the Ombudsman herself instead of another witness The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. that has not been duly accepted by the The Presiding Officer. We have to discharge first the Witness. Senator Sotto. Yes. We discharge Ms. Mendoza. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much, Mrs. Mendoza, for coming over. The Presiding Officer. Yes. We have to discharge the Witness because she is not submitting a PowerPoint presentation, rather she is testifying on the nature of the transactions involved. Senator Sotto. And so, Mr. President, inasmuch as we have been informed that the Ombudsman has been very tired because of the trial since two oclock this afternoon, may we just ask that she be present tomorrow for the continuation of the cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Ombudsman is requested to come back to the Court in tomorrows proceedings so that we can continue and hopefully finish with her testimony. So ordered.
52
Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.
One more. May we ask a copy of the PowerPoint that was being presented by the Ombudsman? Mr. Cuevas. We make the same request, Your Honor, in order to enable us to conduct an intelligible cross-examination, Your Honor, material to the points discussed. Senator Sotto. Redirect, redirect. Mr. Cuevas. No, for our redirect. Senator Sotto. Yes, your redirect. The Presiding Officer. The request is reasonable. The Chair would like to request the Ombudsman to provide the Defense and this Court hard copies of the PowerPoint presentation done by her this afternoon. Mr. Bautista. And the Prosecution as well, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. As well as the Prosecution. Mr. Bautista. Thank you. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, may we know from the Defense if the Chief Justice is going to testify tomorrow? Is he going to testify tomorrow? Mr. Cuevas. Bakit naman ganyan? Para bang wala na kaming alternative. You are dealing with a retired Justice of the Supreme Court and former Secretary of Justice. The Presiding Officer. I think the Prosecution should not ask the Defense when they present their witnesses. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. I am sorry, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. So Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms may now make the announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Tuesday, May 15, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the session is adjourned until two oclock, May 15, circa 2012. The trial was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

May 14 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

May 14 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Do you have a copy of the report with you?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I have my copy.

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Ms. Carpio-Morales. that Mr. Bautista. Mr. Cuevas.

For the record, Your Honor... How many pages?

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

May we recall the Witness? Madam Ombudsman Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Ms. Carpio-Morales.

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

You might also like