Feb 15 Senate Impeachment Court Record

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
AT 2:08 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 Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by the distinguished senator from Batangas, Sen. Ralph Recto. Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President.
Almighty God, You once said that for everything there is a season. So as we do our duties today, remind us that there is also time for every reasonthere is time to object, and there is time to accept. There is a time to concur and there is a time to dissent. There is a time to ask, and there is a time to admit. There is time to dispute, and there is time to defer. There is time to argue, and there is time to agree. There is time to speak, and there is time to be silent. There is time for one to stand ground, but what is more important now is to find common ground. There is time to tarry over; the time to hurry is now for the peoples patience is wearing thin. The backlog of work of this Chamber is growing big, and the fissure among the branches of government is getting wider. And we shall do all the above with Your help, O Lord. So if we delay, remind us to be fast. If we show our bias, remind us to be fair. If we accuse without proof, remind us to show evidence. If we hide our guilt in the thicket of legalese, help us hack away this false sanctuary so truth will come out. If we grandstand, overrule us and teach us the economy of words, and the elegance of the simple prose. If we expedite the process, sustain us. If You know of a way that this trial can be shortened without justice getting the short end of it, let us know, please.
You created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, and we mortals with a far simpler mission than Yours are now nearing our sixth week, and it appears that the Defense will not be able to rest on the seventieth day. So if our progress is hindered by technicalities, help us cast them aside. If there is confusion, light the way and guide us. These we respectfully submit to You, God, our Supreme Judge. The Presiding Officer. Amen. 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 J.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 19 Senator Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.
______________ *Arrived after the roll call
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 February 14, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the February 14, Valentines Day, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May we please call the case? The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now 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 Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. For the appearances. For the Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the panel of Prosecution of the House Representatives, same appearances, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. For the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearances. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, in compliance with the Order given in open court by the Presiding Officer last February 13, the Prosecution submitted at 7:11 p.m. last night its Compliance concerning Annexes A to A-4 of the Supplemental Request for Subpoena Reply dated 3 February 2012. The Members of the Court have earlier been furnished with copies of the Compliance. So, Mr. President, to allow our colleagues time to go over the Compliance, I move that the matter be taken up at our caucus on Monday, February 20, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the Compliance shall be considered by this Court in a caucus on Monday, February 20, 2012. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. The Counsel for Chief Justice Corona filed a Reiterative Motion to Quash the Subpoena issued by the Court to PSBank Branch Manager Ms. Annabelle Tiongson. May I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the Motion? The Presiding Officer. Well, just like what this Chair said yesterday, since the bank account deposit number is a peso account, the Chair reiterates its ruling given yesterday that our purpose here
is to find out whether the Respondent has not included in his SALN an asset that sprang from the account like the one before us, the Philippines Savings Bank. And so, it is removed from the ambit of the TRO given by the Supreme Court it being a peso account, so therefore, it is open for examination. SO ORDERED. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, Sen. Loren Legarda wishes to ask question, then Sen. Pia Cayetano would like to make a manifestation on the Journal. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique, Malabon and the Republic of the Philippines has the floor, Senator Legarda. Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. I simply wish to make a manifestation, in fact, just a question to the Presiding Officer. How do we Members of the Impeachment Court regard the testimonies of the witnesses who were subpoenaed based on the allegedly inauthentic or fake documents submitted to this Court? I do not think that the Presiding Officer has made a ruling on that, unless I did not quite understand it. So, I want to clarify how would we regard that. On the other hand, there have been news reports that I have read where Malacaang or through its spokesman has said that these documents are not fake and are in fact authentic, which is not confirmed through the testimonies of the witnesses from PSBank. So, will this Representation, Mr. President, be clarified on the matter? The Presiding Officer. Well, at this point, we cannot make any ruling on this particular matter. As you know, we are all aware of it that there is a pending case before the Supreme Court, whether the subpoena duces tecum issued by this Presiding Officer violates the bank secrecy provided in Republic Act 6426. So it is the position of this Chair to await the disposition of the Supreme Court with respect to that and take up this particular legal issue at the time when those documents or those testimonial evidence and those documentary evidence would be offered in evidence by the respective parties that would do it provided at that point in time, the Supreme Court shall have rendered already a final decision on the matter. With respect to the peso deposit, I think there is no question. We have the authority to scrutinize, them there being a clear exception given in Republic Act 1405 with respect to such deposits in relation to an impeachment case pending before this Court. Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. Would the authenticity of the documents then and the attachments be material in this case considering that, based on the testimonies of the witnesses, more specifically the president of PSBank, he had actually confirmed the existence of those accounts and did not counter the testimonies based on the allegedly fake documents that were, in fact, existing accounts that had similar, if not the same, numbers of accounts and the same balances, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I think at this point the Court cannot take a position on that. It is up to the contending parties to do their job to deal with that matter. That is a matter ofto be taken up in the course of the trial by the contending parties. I would not wish to suggest the remedies available to each side on this particular matter. I know that as trial lawyers they know the procedures.
Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano, Mr. President, on the Journal. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you, Mr. President. This is a continuing concern I also have on the discussion earlier yesterday on the treatment of the alleged fake bank documents attached to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena. I would just like to clarify the records, Mr. President, that yesterday when the Prosecution had the floor, Representative Farias made a statement and this can be found on the Journal, Page 8. Sabi po niya, Ipagpatawad po ninyo kasi po hindi naman po nila in-object. Puwede naman po nila ipa-quash. Katulad po noong isang subpoena namin ngayon, ino-object po nila kaya hanggang ngayon hindi pa po na natin nadedesisyunan. Pero ito po ay talagang in-issue po Senate President. Wala pong umangal sa mga Miyembro, wala rin pong umangal sa mga partido. Kaya sa tingin po namin nandoon po ng hindi lamang ang presumption of regularity noong pagka-issue ng Kagalang-galang na Senado, kung hindi tumalima na rin po iyong kabilang partido dito sa subpoenang ito. Nais ko lang pong ilagay sa record na hindi po tama na wala hong umangal. In our Journal, Pages 34 and 35 of February 6, 2012, Senator Escudero stated, Mr. President, I thank the good gentleman for his explanation and also Congressman Tupas. Mr. President, I raised this issue actually if only to place on record and manifest that in granting the subpoena, the Senate is not in any wayand that is my understandingtolerating any violations of law in order to obtain evidence or details of evidence to be subpoenaed. That in so issuing the subpoena, as specified by the order of the Court, the Senate does not in any way allow nor does it give its consent to such practices in violation of the law to be done by either side. Either by the Prosecution or by the Defense. I submit, Mr. President. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the gentle lady? Senator Cayetano (P). Well, I just want to clarify because I would have stood up on the same issue. I just want to be sure that we do not take as the truth, the statement na wala ho sa Senado na umangal kasi meron po, si Senator Escudero. And if I recall, it was left at that. So to my mind, that is a pending issue and as His Honor said, we now have the Compliance which we will take up in caucus. So that is an issue, the Senate is not in any way prevented from acting upon this because it is not an issue that we let pass. That is all I would like to put on record, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I just want to state for the record that my thought on this is to hold this in abeyance until we have taken it up in a caucus. But I just want to advance the thought that reading the Supplemental Request for SubpoenaI think this was dated 12 February 2012. Is this correct, Madam Clerk of Court, this is the Supplemental Request for Subpoena? The Secretary. February 3. Representative Tupas. February 3. The Presiding Officer. February 3, 2012. It is during this time thatMr. Prosecutor, was it in accordance with this supplemental request that the questioned document was attached to this pleading?
6
Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. Okay. Now, I am not accusing anybody but I think that the requesting party knew very well that the source of the material was of questionable nature. In fact, the mere knowledge that the source was anonymous should have given the Prosecution enough caution to scrutinize the document before they presented it to this Court as a basis for a compulsory process. They cannot pass the buck to this Court because in our system of adversarial proceeding, it is the obligationnay, the dutyof the party seeking the assistance of this Court to make it sure that the request is valid in every respect. And more so in the case of the Prosecution when the matter under consideration of the Court involves a prejudice on the liberty or rights of a party. As the lady Senator from Iloilo said yesterday, the ethics of the profession requires every lawyer representing a client to assume that responsibility. On the other side of the coin, the Court, whether it is a court belonging to the judicial system or special court, like this Impeachment Court, must give due course and presume the good faith of the requesting party with the knowledge that it has exercised the necessary caution to present to the Court hearing the case, an authentic and valid document as a basis for the request for a compulsory process. So I will leave it at that and we will take the stand, this matter in a caucus of the Impeachment Court on Monday. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please Representative Tupas. If Your Honor please, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. May the Defense Representative Tupas. May the Prosecution say something, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution first. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, this is regarding the query earlier by the Honorable Sen. Loren Legarda regardingthe query was, how does the Impeachment Tribunal deal with the authenticity or not of the said document which was attached to our Supplementary Request for Subpoena? I just want to call the attention of the Tribunal to Page 91 of the Record of the Senate, Monday, February 13, 2012. The Presiding Officer was questioning Ms. Tiongson and I want to read: The Presiding Officer. You are the manager of Kalayaan Branch of the Philippine Savings Bank, you are ordered by this Court, no longer by a subpoena; you are already ordered by this Court to bring the original of the document that was shown to you if it exists or a document of similar nature in the possession of the bank for the examination of this Court, to compare it with this document attached to the Supplemental Request for a Subpoena and to bring it here at two oclock tomorrow afternoon during the trial of this case and also to notify your president to come back here to be examined by any Member of this Court who wishes to examine him on this document because you said the head office of your bank carriesdoes your head office carry documents? Does your head office carry the documents Annex to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. This document, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Madam Witness Ms. Tiongson. All documents pertaining to this account are in the head office, Sir.
So, Mr. President, there was a directive by this Honorable Court for the branch manager to bring the original. And we were informed that she is here. I just want to put that on record, Sir. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. But it turned out that the account involved covers a foreign currency deposit, and there is a TRO which the majority of this Court opted to recognize. Representative Tupas. So which is The Presiding Officer. Then came the issue of authenticity and the witness said: It is a fake document. So the issue is, is this really a fake document or not? I repeated it to the witness. Are you sure that this is a fake document? And she confirmed that it is a fake document under oath. And that stands in the record as the answer of the witness. And unless you have a controverting evidence, that will stand on the record as a characterization by the bank of this document. And you are bound by it because you presented that witness as your witness. Representative Tupas. If I may say something, Sir. The Presiding Officer. If you have read the rules of evidence Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. I think you will agree with me that that is the rule. That the presenting lawyer of a witness must be bound by these admissions and statement of the witness presented by him or by her. Representative Tupas. Sir, if I may say something? Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. That is the ruling of the Court. So proceed. Representative Tupas. If I may read again from the records. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. That is February 13, 2012. The Presiding Officer The Presiding Officer. Are you objecting to the ruling? Representaitve Tupas. No, no, I am not objecting, Sir. I am not objecting. The Presiidng Officer. What is the purpose of the Representative Tupas. No, I just want to say something that I just want to manifest. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. The Presiding Officer. Are you saying that these documents are false documents? Ms. Tiongson said: Yes, Sir, it seems fake. O, Presiding Officer. Then Ms. Tiongson, They are fake documents. What I am saying here, Mr. President, is that Ms. Tiongson is saying It seems fake. And if there are repercussions, whether as a result of the authenticity or not of the documents, there are grave
consequences. And to us, if we may manifest, Your Honor, the best evidence here is the document itself. And at the very least, the witness here should bring the document. The Presiding Officer. That is not my understanding, Sir. The law must be respected. There is a law that prohibits disclosure. And the Supreme Court has issued a TRO. And this Court, by a majority vote, opted to respect the TRO of the Supreme Court. Now, your witnessnot my witness, not the Defense witnesscharacterized the document as a fake document. Now, if that is so, and that is under oath, you are bound by that statement. If you want to controvert it, you are free to do it. There is a remedy for it if you know how to present it. Representative Tupas. Well, we leave it up to the wisdom of this Honorable Tribunal. The Presiding Officer. It is not my wisdom, that is the rule of trial. Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. If you studied your trial technique very well, that is the rule. Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we request for two or three minutes? The Presiding Officer. Defense Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. There was a statement here made by a member of the Prosecution staff, Your Honor, that we are precluded in now questioning the issuance of the subpoena made by this Impeachment Court because we were never heard to object much less did we really object to the issuance of the subpoena in question, Your Honor. That statement is belied or controverted by our Opposition to the Request for the Issuance of the Subpoena which was filed on February 1st, Your Honor, and which was reiterated on February 6 in our consolidated Opposition and Rejoinder. Both these pleadings, Your Honor, now form part of the record of this case. Now, notwithstanding our opposition, Your Honor, the Honorable Impeachment Court has chosen to issue the subpoena. We have no other alternative but to honor and respect the order of the Honorable Impeachment Court, Your Honor. But it is our submission that the mere order to produce documents does not carry with it the order to admit the same. There are a lot of things that must be done in accordance with the rules of evidence. First, it must be identified; it must be marked; and it must be offered; and the Opposition should be given the opportunity to comment or object, Your Honor. We have not yet reached that portion, Your Honor. The mere fact that these documents are ordered produced does not mean that they are actually considered evidence for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. That is correct, Counsel. And the compliance with a compulsory process simply means that the party ordered to bring anything under a compulsory process obeys the Court to bring it in the courtroom. And when presented, it may be objected to by the other party if there is a ground to object. And I think that this is elementary to any lawyer who has been in a courtroom. I do not have to educate lawyers here. I feel ashamed to educate lawyers here. So, let us go to the trial. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The matter is academic. The Presiding Officer has already ruled. He stands by the subpoena that he issued and he feels wholly responsible for it. The majority of this Court
respect the TRO of the Supreme Court with respect to foreign currency deposits. So, the local currency deposit, the secrecy of which is covered by Republic Act 1405, can be scrutinized because there is an exception, an express exception with respect to impeachment. So, let us proceed with the trial. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. May we now call on the Prosecution for the continuation of the presentation of evidence? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, our witness for today is a continuation of the testimony of the BPI Branch Manager, Ayala branch, Ms. Leonora Dizon, but we were informed that she already gave birth. But they sent a representative to attend todays hearing. And may we call on the Secretariat of the Impeachment Tribunal? The Presiding Officer. The subpoena was directed to Ms. Dizon, not a representative. Representative Tupas. We just received the information. We just want to confirm that. So, we call on Ms. Leonora Dizon, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the honorable Court. I think we argued on this issue very lengthily yesterday, Your Honor, that both the Prosecution and the Defense are through. First, the Prosecution with direct examination; the Defense with their crossexamination. And this is practically a recall of this witness. And in accordance with the Rules of Court, this must bear the authority or the imprimatur of the Court involved, Your Honor. We have not seen, much less, been served with any motion for the recall of this witness stating the purpose therefor and why is there a necessity of the recall of this witness. So, this is practically a violation of the rule on procedure and evidence, Your Honor. And we cannot affix our stamp of approval or concurrence to this kind of illegality or infirmity of a judicial proceeding, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, if I may say something, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. To cut short the discussion, this extended discussion between the Prosecution and the Defense, this witness was called here under a subpoena issued by this Court because of an interest on the part of a Member of this Court to ask questions from that witness. And it is up to you, when that witness is placed on the witness stand, if you want to ask question on the witness or not. But at that point, you have to identify whether in asking the question, you admit that that witness is your witness while you are asking the question. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of the honorable Court, yesterday, the honorable Senator-Judge Osmea, Your Honor, conducted direct examination of this witness. And he was through, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But there was also the Mr. Cuevas. That was The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Counsel. There is a pending desire on the part of the gentleman from Iloilo to propound question to that witness. Only that yesterday, the gentleman from Iloilo, from my recollection, gave the floor to the gentleman from Cebu. Mr. Cuevas. So, this will be clarificatory questions, Your Honor, on the part of the honorable Senator Drilon.
10
The Presiding Officer. Correct, correct.
Mr. Cuevas. Then, I yield, Your Honor, and I willingly accept the explanation of the Presiding Officer. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the gentleman from Iloilo? Senator Drilon. You know, it was debated at length yesterday, and I thought we have settled this. And let me read again the Transcript or the Journal of the session two days ago. On Page 61 of the Journal clearly specified the cross-examination done by Counsel, Attorney Cuevas, who inquired into these monthly statements. Siya po, si Attorney Cuevas po, ang nagtanong nung monthly statement. At si Attorney Cuevas din po ang humingi nitong mga dokumentong ito. At kaya po kami, bilang mga judges, sinabi natin, Puwede ho ba tingnan din ito? At nakalagay ho sa Transcript: Mr. Cuevas says, In view of the answer of the witness, Your Honor, may we respectfully request that the statements of account covering the periods 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 be produced by the witness at the most convenient time considering her condition now. Our purpose, Your Honor, is to show that this figure is not made in one single deposit and one single withdrawal, Your Honor. And the Presiding Officer ruled: All right. So, the witness is instructed by this Court or ordered by this Court to produce the documents that the Defense Counsel requested. Mr. President, as you just stated a while ago, the client is bound by the mistakes of his Counsel. And the Counsel asked for these documents. And it is the Court who ordered that this document Mr. Cuevas. If we will be allowed The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Gentlemen, there would bewe have settled this already. The witness was subpoenaed by this Court to satisfy the request of Members of this Court to ask question from the witness. So, if there is no more Member of this Court to ask any question on that witness, what is the pleasure of the Court? Is the gentleman from Iloilo finished? Senator Drilon. The documents have not yet been produced, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but I am not askingI am sorry, Your Honor. May I ask permission to The Presiding Officer. Did the Court already Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I still have the floor. Mr. Cuevas. The trouble is I cannot argue because the rules prohibit, Your Honor. But that is not an accurate statement, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Gentleman from Iloilo, my question is, are you through in asking question from the witness? If not then I will ask the witness to come to the witness stand.
11
Senator Drilon. We are not through, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. Because the documents have not yet been produced. The Presiding Officer. All right. Let the witness come to the plenary session, take the witness stand under the same oath to be questioned by the Members who desire to ask questions from her. Mr. Cuevas. May we request for the indulgence of the Honorable Court, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. When we made the statement to the effect that we wanted the production of the monthly statement of accounts, Your Honor, that was ourthat is our course of action, Your Honor, or move on the part of the Defense to show to the Honorable Court that there wasthe 14 million stated in the statement of account is not on a single occasion. We have at that time not conferred this matter with the Chief Justice. When we were assured that we have the documents involvingwe made the withdrawal, Your Honor. Why will we be compelled merely by the manifestation of a Member of this Court to produce the same? The Presiding Officer. We will take your manifestation into account when we consider this case finally, Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. At the discretion of this CourtAnyway, we have filed a motion to that effect, a written pleading, Your Honor, stating why we are already abandoning our plea for the examination of the bank records because we have what we wanted to. Why shall we be compelled to continue with our examination of the alleged statement of accounts, Your Honor? We only placed that on record so that we will not be precluded in the future if it is necessary for us to make any definite and categorical explanation on the matter. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Where is the witness? She gave birth? Well there is a force majeure for the appearance of the witness. Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Rosario Jurado-Benedicto. Our witness from Bank of the Philippine Islands has given birth so we looked for another representative; she is on the way. She gave birth early this morning, 7:45. So naghanap kami ng substitute, a representative. So she is on the way but she is not giving birth. [Laughter] The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. She is on the way to this Court. Okay. The Presidng Officer. Okay. Just a minute. Would the requesting Members of the Court be satisfied in dealing with a substitute witness? Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. If I may respond, yes, because all that we are interested in are the records to be brought here. And if the witness can attest to the fact that he or she is in official custody of the records and can testify on the same, we are willing to listen to this witness. In fact, yesterday, we anticipated this happy event and we said that if the witness cannot come back, a substitute bank officer can come around and bring these records and testify before this Court.
12
The Presiding Officer. All right.
Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. Yes, Your Honor, which we did. But may we be clarified, Sir? The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Do you have the witness now or on the way? Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. She is on the way. The Presiding Officer. All right. Trial suspended until the witness arrives. The trial was suspended at 2:49 p.m. At 2:54 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Prosecution, do you have another witness? Representative Tupas. Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. With respect to the other witness, Your Honor, Ms. Annabelle Tiongson, we are done with the witness. But I think there was a reservation from Members of the Tribunal to ask questions... Senator Sotto. Jinggoy Estrada. Representative Tupas. ...and she is here now. We are referring to Ms. Annabelle Tiongson, the branch manager of the PSBank Katipunan Branch. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Estrada and Senator Osmea have expressed their intentions to ask questions to Ms. Tiongson. The Presiding Officer. Sois she here?
Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. She is here. The Presiding Officer. Please ask her to come into the plenary session to take the witness stand under the same oath, and to answer questions from Senator Osmea, the gentleman from Cebu; and from Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, may we inquirebecause if I recall in the previous proceeding, even the president of the bank was asked to return because it appeared, based on the testimony of the bank manager, there were certain bank procedures that she was unfamiliar with. And that only the bank president would be in the position to explain. So may we inquireas to the Prosecution, if the bank president is also The Presiding Officer. Bank president of what bank?
13
PSBank.
Representative Tupas.
Senator Pangilinan. PSBank. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we were informed that the bank president, Mr. Pascual Garcia, is also here. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then let us finish first with Ms. Tiongson. Mr. Puno. May we be allowed to address the Honorable Court? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. You are representing whom? Mr. Puno. I am representing Philippine Savings Bank, Your Honor. In connection with the subpoena received yesterday at 9:40the subpoena is dated February 13. It commands the bank to bring certain documents in a subpoena ad testificandum, duces tecum. It was addressed to the manager, Your Honor. But as previously mentioned by the bank officers, all the records in regard to the subject accounts have been elevated to the head office. And the compliance with the subpoena has been prepared under the direction of the president of the head office who is here to testify. In other words, Your Honor, the president is more competent to testify in regard to the subpoena and the other matters that were pending during the previous hearing, in particular the questions of Senator Osmea, I believe. So, with the permission of the Court, the PSBank is requesting that the president testify in her behalf. The Presiding Officer. In the Mr. Puno. Yes. But they are both here, Your Honor, at the pleasure of the Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, precisely. Mr. Counsel, the Presiding Officer has called for the bank officer of the Bank of the Philippine Islands first. And we will call your president later. Mr. Puno. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, let the bank officer of the Bank of the Philippine Islands come. Senator Sotto. PSBank, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Is it PSBank? Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. Mr. Puno. PSBank, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. All right, then. Let the witness from the PSBank You know, I am also getting confused already with so many statements coming... Senator Sotto. Left and right. [Laughter] The Presiding Officer. ...into my head.
14
Where is the said president of the PSBank? Senator Sotto. manager first.
The branch manager first, Mr. President. The request is for the branch
The Presiding Officer. All right. The branch manager, please enter. Senator Sotto. She is here, Mr. President. May we recognize Senator Estrada? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan has the floor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Ms. Tiongson. Ms. Tiongson. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. You mentioned during the last hearing that you never knew Congressman Niel Tupas. Am I right? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Where are you from? Ms. Tiongson. I am from Iloilo, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Iloilo. Where in Iloilo? Ms. Tiongson. I am from La Paz, Iloilo City, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. La Paz, Iloilo. And you are fully aware that Congressman Tupas is a congressman of Iloilo? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Are you married? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. May I know your middle name, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. My middle name is Buenaflor, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Buenaflor. All right. Taga-saan po iyong mga Buenaflor? Ms. Tiongson. I grew up in Iloilo City but my father is from Dumangas. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Your father is from Dumangas. Your mother is from? Ms. Tiongson. My mother is from Capiz but she grew up in Marikina. And then when she married my (sic) father, she went to Iloilo. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What is the name of your parents? Ms. Tiongson. My fathers name is Eugenio Buenaflor. My mothers name is Zenaida Dela Paz Buenaflor.
15
Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Do you know a certain Thelma Solinap Buenaflor? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Who is she? Ms. Tiongson. She is my auntie, Your Honor. She passed away Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you know of a certain Roberto Obet Buenaflor Armada? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Who is he? Ms. Tiongson. He is the son of Thelma Armada. Senator Ejercito Estrada. The son of Thelma. What is the name of the father of Obet? Ms. Tiongson. I forgot. I honestly do not recall, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not know the name of your uncle. Ms. Tiongson. Tito Gil. Gil. Sorry. Senator Ejercito Estrada. O Ms. Tiongson. Sorry. Gil Armada, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What is your relationship with Obet Buenaflor Armada? How are you related to him? Ms. Tiongson. He is my cousin, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. He is your cousin. All right. This Roberto Obet Buenaflor Armada became a vice governor of the province of Iloilo. Am I correct? Ms. Tiongson. As I recall, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Who was the governor then? Ms. Tiongson. I do not know, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not know. I thought you Ms. Tiongson. I was already here, Your Honor, when he ran so I was not involved in his Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, I know. You do not know. Okay. Just to refresh your memory, the governor then when your cousinwhen your first cousin was vice governor of Iloilo, the governor then was the father of Congressman Tupas. His name is Governor Niel Tupas Sr. All right? Ms. Tiongson. Okay. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right.
16
So, are you acquainted with any member of the Tupas family? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Still no?
Ms. Tiongson. Personally, I am not acquainted with any of them, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have never met any brother of Congressman Tupas? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Never? Ms. Tiongson. I was here since college, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Since college. Where did you studywhere did you take your elementary school? Ms. Tiongson. I took my elementary school in Assumption Iloilo, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Iloilo. College? Ms. Tiongson. College, I initially took it in UP Visayas and then I went on to UP Diliman on my third year until I graduated, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, when did you come here in Manila? Ms. Tiongson. That was 1988, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. 1988. Ms. Tiongson. 87, Your Honor. Sorry. The school year of 1987, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Do you know of a certain Raul Buboy Tupas? Ms. Tiongson. Personally, no, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Have you heard of him? Ms. Tiongson. I think they were just talking about him before but I have never really bothered to know about him, anything about him. Senator Ejercito Estrada. When was the last time you went to Iloilo? The Presiding Officer. What is the answer of the witness? Ms. Tiongson. I am trying to recall, Your Honor. The last time I was in Iloilo was during our reunion in high school Senator Ejercito Estrada. When was that? Ms. Tiongson. and that was in December 2011. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Just recently.
17
Ms. Tiongson. Wait, sorry. 2010, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. One and a half years ago? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Your cousin, again, Mr. Obet Buenaflor Armada, ran for vice governor in the last 2010 elections. Am I correct? Ms. Tiongson. I believe so, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You believe so. Bakit I believe so? Ms. Tiongson. Kasi I am not really that interested in whatever they do there especially in politics. I am not interested in that, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. And again, to refresh your memory, the candidate for, or the running mate of your cousin, your first cousin was Raul Buboy Tupas, the brother of Congressman Niel Tupas. Am I correct? Ms. Tiongson. If you say so, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. If I say so. Ms. Tiongson. I thought nga it was the Senator Ejercito Estrada. And Ms. Tiongson. Sorry. Senator Ejercito Estrada. And, unfortunately, both lost during the last 2010 elections, for governor and for vice governor. When your cousin ran for vice governorof course, you know personally your cousin, am I right? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Are you close to him? Ms. Tiongson. Not really, Your Honor. We do not see much. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not see much. When was the last time you saw your first cousin, vice governor? Ms. Tiongson. I do not recall, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. When he ran for vice governor in the year 2004 and in the year 2010, did you help in his campaign? Ms. Tiongson. In the year 2004, yes, Your Honor. We offered to give P3,000. But in 2010, we did not. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. You did not help him in the 2010 election. So do you still stand by your answer that when you were asked that you do not know Congressman Tupasthat you do not know Congressman Tupas?
18
Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. I do not know him.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have not seen him even when you were visiting your province in Iloilo? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. We were never introduced, I have never seen him. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about Buboy Tupas? Ms. Tiongson. Same also, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have never seen any member of the Tupas family? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about the wife of Congressman Tupas? Ms. Tiongson. I do not know her. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Does she frequent your bank in PSBank? Ms. Tiongson. I do not know her, Sir. I have never seen her. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ms. Tiongson, you are under oath. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. I am under oath. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You are testifying here under your previous oath. Ms. Tiongson. I know. Senator Ejercito Estrada. And I hope you will not lie. Ms. Tiongson. I am not lying, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because records show that there is an acquaintance The Presiding Officer. Please let the questioner finish the question before you answer so that it can be well recorded into the record of this proceeding. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because all that I mentioned to you, the link between your family and the family of Congressman Tupas, talagang obvious na obvious na mayroong acquaintance iyong pamilya ninyo. Magkakilala yung pamilya ninyo at iyong pamilya ni Tupas. And now you are still denying that you do not know even one family member of the Tupas family. It is quite absurd, Ms. Witness. Ms. Tiongson. I reiterate, Your Honor. I do not know any of them, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Let us go to a different topic. Last time around I requested you to bring the logbook. Did you bring the logbook? Ms. Tiongson. It was not covered by the subpoena, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You were ordered to bring the logbook, if I remember correct. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because I remember I asked you a question, if my memory serves me right, that only four persons have access to the vault, to the documents, the confidential documents. And when I asked you kung mayroong logbook iyonnoong tinanong kita kung may logbook iyon, sinabi mo mayroon.
19
Ms. Tiongson. Yes, we do have a logbook, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. May I request, Mr. President, if this witness can submit or can bring the logbook of PSBank? The Presiding Officer. My recollection is that when that point was discussed, precisely I asked her several questions. And you can either deny or confirm what I asked you. I asked you where those signature cards were being kept. Then you saidyour answer was that they were kept in a steel cabinet. And I asked you again: Who has control over that steel cabinet? And your answer was that two officers have control over that steel cabinet. And so I asked: Could one of them only open that steel cabinet? And your answer was that: No. Then you said: The two custodians of the steel cabinet have different keys to open that steel cabinet. Then, they must both be present to be able to open that steel cabinet. Is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir, partly. Actually I said that an officer and the customer service assistant may open jointly The Presiding Officer. Jointly. Ms. Tiongson. the vault with the combination, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Yes. All right. Jointly. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The steel cabinet is inside that vault. The Presiding Officer. Jointly, but they have different numbers Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. on the combination? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Correct. So neither one of them could open alone? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. Both of them must open? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And the next question that I asked you was: Do you also have access over the contents of that steel cabinet? And you said, Yes, but I have to bring the two officers. Is it not? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then at that point, the gentleman from San Juan asked whether you have a logbook and your answer was in the affirmative, correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Then I ordered youhe asked that the logbook be presented to this Court, correct? Ms. Tiongson. I do not recall, Your Honor. We will have to review that again and we will bring it if ordered.
20
The Presiding Officer. I ordered you toI will appeal to the record. Ms. Tiongson. Yes. The Presiding Officer. I may be mistaken by the sequence of the question. Can you go to the records and find out, please? Can the recorders of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court identify the pages where those statements were recorded? While they are looking for the pages, I would like to ask you. Do you have a logbook? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Regarding opening of this vault? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Anybody who requests for the opening of the vault must be in that logbook? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Including you? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Including any person who would want to access that logbook? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Including the names of the officers that would open that steel cabinet? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. We even sign it, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Including the time? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Of request and the time of closing? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So these are all in the logbook. So you have the logbook. If we have not previously ordered you, you are ordered to produce that logbook. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. I now Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, may I ask for additional two minutes just for me to wrap up my questioning?
21
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Chair grants you an extension given the importance of this matter. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you. Madam Witness, I asked a question addressed to your bank president regarding the letter K which I browsed on one of these allegedly fake or genuine documents. Is the letter K after the figure, is that a normal banking practice? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor, it is not. Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not. So, kasi nakalagay dito 700, regardless of that currency sign whether it be dollar or it be peso. Pag nilagay mo 700K, does it mean na 700,000? Ms. Tiongson. It may mean a lot of things, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Like what? K will stand for kuryente, halimbawa, what? Might it be an initial or what do you think? What does it mean? Ms. Tiongson. I usuallykasi normally I write the whole amount. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You write the whole amount in figures? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kunwari 700,000, limang zero? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not usually write the letter K? Ms. Tiongson. No, sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not a normal banking practice? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Thank you. You answered during the previous hearing, I think the Presiding Officer posited a lot of questions, and you answered, if I am not mistaken, that these documents which were shown to you were fake, according to you. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you still stand by your answer that the documents are fake? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor, because when Honorable Senator Escudero asked me to look at the documents and our president allowed me to look at them, then we compared. There were differences, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Differences lang pero hindi fake. Ms. Tiongson. They are not the same, Your Honor, so they may be fake. They are fake.
22
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Even though they are not the same, you cannot assume that these documents are fake. Am I correct? Ms. Tiongson. In our banking practice, Your Honor, pagka magkaiba iyon, it is not the same, they are fake, they are spurious. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Baka naman nasabi mo lang fake iyon dahil you were so pressured, you were so nervous. Ano ba talaga? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. You still stand by your answer that it was fake? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Because when I read the document one by one and this was attached by the Prosecution panel, as I have said before with regard to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena, I have noticed that in the left side portion mayroon dito Peso Account, Peso TD, all right. The account number is 089121017358 and 089121019593, and these accountstinestipay (testify) nung bank president ninyoare existing. At sinabi, in fact, mayroon ngang deposito itong 358, ang opening balanceang opening date ng account niya January 26, 2009. Ang opening balance nung account na iyon ay P2,100,000. Pero ngayon after 2010, zero balance na. Doon sa isang account number iyong last three digits na 593, it was opened on December 22, 2009, and, according to your president, ang opening balance niya is P8.5 million. Tapos iyong remaining balance niya naging P12 million plus. So kung existing itong mga accounts na ito at ito ang naging basehan ng pag-isyu ng subpoena sa inyo, how can this be a fake document? Kasi this is the only basis I think for the president Ms. Tiongson. Well, Sir, the account numbers could have come from a lot of sources. When a person deposits a check, he can write his account number at the back or the bank will put it. So it could be a source. Bank certifications in embassies or the like. It could have come from other sources, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Again I will show you this piece of document which you said it was fake. There are several initials here or signatures here by supposedmaybe a bank teller or maybe you yourself, no. I will show to you these signatures kasi itong dalawang bank accountI am just referring to peso, I am not referring to any dollar account of the Chief Justice, dito lang tayo sa peso. Mr. President, may I ask permission to show the witness this particular document? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Mr. President, may I be allowed to address this Court, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. May I approach the witness so that I can also see the document being shown to our witness? Senator Ejercito Estrada. I will show it to you. The Presiding Officer. You may, you may.
23
Ms. Tiongson. Sir, I am not familiar with the initials. I was still not assigned in Katipunan Branch. Senator Ejercito Estrada. When were you assigned at PSBank Katipunan Branch? Ms. Tiongson. August 2010, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. August Ms. Tiongson. 2010. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Of 2010.
Ms. Tiongson. I was concurrently assigned in Katipunan Branch in August 2010. I was heading both branchtwo branches concurrently at the same time. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about the other signatures of the other accounts, are you familiar with it? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not your signature? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. It is not my signature. Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not the signature of your tellers orNo. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I just would like to put on record my own personal opinion that this particular document that was allegedly leaked from the PSBank is, I think, a faithful reproduction of the original. That is all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I just want to clarify. When you say the document is fake, do you know who did the faking? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Not your bank? Ms. Tiongson. Not our branch, Your Honor. For the bank, Sir, Mr. Garcia could answer for it. The Presiding Officer. If the document is fake, the faking was not by the bank? Ms. Tiongson. Not by the branch, Your Honor, branch. The Presiding Officer. All right. Not by the Katipunan branch of Philippine Savings Bank. Ms. Tiongson. Yes. I am only speaking for my branch, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. Ms. Tiongson. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Not Katipunan Branch? Ms. Tiongson. Katipunan Branch, yes. The Presiding Officer. All right.
24
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Osmea has agreed to allow Senator Drilon to ask questions first before he does and also Senator Lacson before he does. And then afterwards, Senator Guingona wants the floor. The Presiding Officer. Senator Drilon has the floor. Senator Drilon. Just a few questions on this particular document brought out by Senator Estrada. Madam Witness, you mentioned that this was shown to you by the bank president? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And you compared it with a document on file with the bank? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And you say there were differences between what was shown to you and what is in the bank record? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. What were these differences? Ms. Tiongson. There are differences, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. What were these differences? Ms. Tiongson. I did not note down their differences but there were differences. It is spurious. Senator Drilon. Can we ask the witness to answer what differences? Because you said there were differences. You were the one who made the statement. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Witness, answer the question if you know the answer. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, I did not note the differences. I did not list them down so I cannot recall but there were differences. The original documents and the photocopies that you gave me had differences. They were not the same. Senator Drilon. Is it possible that the difference is because of additional entries? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, Mr. Garcia can answer that because he holds the original. Senator Drilon. No, no. I am asking youYes, except that you were the one who said that there were differences. So I am asking you, could the differences be that there were additional entries not reflected in the Annex A that was submitted as part of the request for subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, if I may? There were entries in the original that were not in the photocopies and there were entries in the photocopies that were not in the original. That is all I can say, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. I see. Okay. So there were entries in the original whichI am sorry. There were entries in the original which were not found in the xerox. Ms. Tiongson. And there were alterations.
25
Senator Drilon. And there were entries in the xerox which were not found in the original? Ms. Tiongson. There were alterations as well. Senator Drilon. Where was the alteration? Ms. Tiongson. I could not recall, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Ah, you could not recall. Ms. Tiongson. It is not with me. So I need the basis. Senator Drilon. Yes. Is this not a branch document? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Why was it taken away from you? Ms. Tiongson. Upon the start of this hearing. I do not know. Senator Drilon. No. Why? Ms. Tiongson. So that it will be safely kept, Your Honor. It was ordered by our president. Senator Drilon. I see. Why? Is your branch not safe? Ms. Tiongson. It is safe, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. It is safe. Ms. Tiongson. He ordered it. So maybe you can ask him later. Senator Drilon. Now, just on its face, it would appear to be a PSBank document containing all of these signatures, this logo of the PS Bank, et cetera, is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. As to the standard format, Sir, yes. Senator Drilon. Now, you said you do not know the signatures pointed out by Senator Estrada? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, these signatures were presumably affixed at the time of the opening which is January 26, 2009 and December 22, 2009. Madam Witness, you said you were not familiar with the signatures here? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Who canwho are the bank officers on or about January 26, 2009 and December 22, 2009 who were authorized to open accounts in your bank, in your branch on these particular dates? Ms. Tiongson. To approve, Your Honor? Senator Drilon. Yes as it says here, Approved by: officers full signature? Ms. Tiongson. The officers in the branch are the branch manager and the branch service and control officers, Your Honor.
26
Senator Drilon. Who was
Ms. Tiongson. At that time, we will have to check our records. I do not know the names of the officers at that time. Senator Drilon. Can you come back to us and tell us who are the approving officers? Ms. Tiongson. At what time? What year? Senator Drilon. January 26, 2009 and December 22, 2009. Ms. Tiongson. They will have to note that now. I cannot. Senator Drilon. I am sorry. Ms. Tiongson. The 2009 January. Senator Drilon. I am reading from the Annex A which was read earlier by Senator Estrada, January 26, 2009, December 22, 2009? There are signatures appearing here which, you say, you are not familiar with. So, we are asking who were the officers there? Ms. Tiongson. Okay. Will I get back to you on that, Your Honor? Senator Drilon. Yes. Can I ask for just one minute extension, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Approved. Senator Drilon. Okay. So, now there is also a column here which says Date Closed on the Peso Current Deposit ending 7358, April 16, 2009 and there is a signature of an approving officer, would you know whose signature is this? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. No. But can you check who is the authorized officer? Ms. Tiongson. We willyes, it is the same, the branch manager or the branch service and control officer. Senator Drilon. All right. The approving officers that you will attest to in the next hearing, can you also bring their specimen signatures? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. At that time, we will ask the necessary questions on this point when these documents are brought. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. Since we cannot object, Your Honor, according to the Rules of Procedure before this Honorable Court, I am worried and apprehensive that the matters being asked now refer to foreign currency account. No. That is ourdi ba?
27
The Presiding Officer. I thought that we are dealing with the Mr. Cuevas. Yes. That is The Presiding Officer. With their Philippine currency account. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. That is my information, Your Honor, but apparently, what is being dealt with now are foreign currency account. Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, no. Mr. President, may I? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan. Senator Ejercito Estrada. No. I think the ones that were being referred to by Senator Drilon were peso accounts. The Presiding Officer. May I reiterate the ruling of this Chair. No questions will be done on foreign currency accounts. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I Senator Ejercito Estrada. Just one minute. To be fair with Senator Drilon, I think he was referring to all peso accounts. I will just mention the Account Nos. 089121017358 and 089121019593. These are all peso accounts which had been testified to by the bank president, Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Sotto. Senator Lacson, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I would like to inform the Court that per record, this Presiding Officer did not order this witness to bring the logbook. So, if a motion to that effect is made, then the Chair will entertain it. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, Mr. President. I move that the witness bring the logbook tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the motion is approved. The witness is instructed, ordered to bring the logbook pertaining to the matter now under discussion. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The President Pro Tempore.
28
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Including that of the specimen signatures datedof the account numbers which I just recently mentioned. The Account No. 358three (3) digits ending with 358 opened on January 26, 2009, and the three (3) digits ending 593 opened on December 22, 2009. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I clarify? The specimen signatures of the officers? You are referring to the officers? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, yes. Ms. Tiongson. Not the Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. What did the witness say, please? Will you repeat? Ms. Tiongson. I was just clarifying if the request was for the specimen signatures of the officers at the timethe date that were mentioned. The Presiding Officer. The President Pro Tempore may clarify his request. Senator Ejercito Estrada. That is correct, Mr. President. And may I also request the witness to call someone from the bank who knowswho among the approving officers of the accounts that I mentioned whose signatures appeared in those documents? If you know of someone who can give the names of these persons who affixed the signatures after these bank accounts, Madam Witness. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I consult with my counsel? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. What was the question? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, if I may. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Ms. Tiongson. Upon advice of my counsel, I cannot bring any specimen signature of the officers on those dates mentioned because the signatures apparently appeared to be in the accounts that pertain to dollar. Senator Drilon. Mr. President. Ms. Tiongson. It is the same. The Presiding Officer. What do you mean? Will you explain clearly what you mean? The Counsel. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. May I address this Honorable Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Ramos Pilares. Your Honor, what my client is trying to say is that if we bring a specimen signature with respect to the signatures in that paper, some of those signatures also appear beside the foreignthe alleged foreign accounts, Your Honor. So, in effect, we will also be confirming, Your Honor.
29
The Presiding Officer. Are those Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Confirming or denying and Your Honor, that is already covered by the TRO, with all due respect to our Honorable Judges, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Are those peso accounts or dollar accounts? Senator Drilon. Peso accounts, Mr. President. Peso accounts. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. But, Your Honor, with all due respect, the document also pertains to foreign currency accounts, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, you know, Mr. Garcia even confirmed the existence of the dollar account, the five (5) dollar accounts. That is why we did not ask for it. We did not ask him to bring that. What we are just asking for are the signatures of the approving officers appearing across the line Peso TD and the account number, last four digits are, 7358, because the witness said this is a fake document so we are trying to show that this is, as Senator Estrada said, this is not a fake document. And all we are saying is there is a signature appearing below Approved by, this peso account, a certain signature here appears. And we are asking who are the bank officers who were authorized to open this account at that time. And the second is also a peso time depositlast four digits, 9593 December 22, 2009; again, there is a signature. If you want, you can cover everything else pertaining to the dollar, just this account where the signature appears across the peso. Mr. President, we are asking the witness to bring this as she was the one who raised this issue that this is a fake document. So we are just asking to validate that point, to tell this Court who are the authorized opening account officers and their signatures, so that it can be placed on record whether, in fact, these are not genuine signatures. And the witness, I move, be so ordered, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Ruling of the Chair: The witness will cover the signatures opposite the dollar accounts but the signatures opposite the local currency accounts you must identify them, if you know, or What is the request of the gentleman from Iloilo? Senator Drilon. On this column appears Approved by, parentheses, officers full signature. There was a signature appearing opposite the peso time deposit with Account No. 7358 dated January 26, 2009, there is a signature appearing here. That is why we asked who is this officer of the bank who, as of January 26, 2009, was authorized to approve the opening of the account. And then still further, the fifth column says, Date closed, April 16, 2009, and then there is a signature below the printed words Approved by, parentheses, officers full signature and there is a signature here. These are all peso accounts. All we are asking is identify who are these officers in both accountsPeso Account 7358 and Peso Account 9593. Who are these officers who authorized the approval and the closure of this account in the bank and their specimen signatures. That is all. It is peso account, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. We ask for the ruling of the Chair. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Your Honor, with all due respect, may I be allowed to address this Court? Because, Your Honor, if we are going to look at the signature and if they are not the same with those beside the foreign currency account, thenBecause, Your Honor, there is a possibilityI am
30
not familiar with the document because I have not really looked at it. But if the signatures beside the foreign currency accounts are the same with those besidebut of course, Your Honor, then that will be also covered by the TRO, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We will come to that when the Supreme Court shall have decided the case. In the meantime, the Chair will authorize the identification of the signatures opposite all local currency accounts. But in order to comply substantially with the TRO of the Supreme Court dealing with foreign currency accounts, the witness is allowed to cover the signatures opposite those foreign currency accounts. So ordered. Did you understand the ruling of the Chair, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. We will compare and identify the signatures. The Presiding Officer. Did you understand the ruling of the Chair? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Very clear? Ms. Tiongson. May I just repeat The Presiding Officer. Over the signatures opposite the foreign currency accounts but identify the signatures opposite the local currency accounts. Ms. Tiongson. May I just clarify, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. I will be the one to identify, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. If you know. If you know the signature. If not, say so that I cannot identify because I do not know whose signature that is. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute please. I am just clarifying the point. I am clarifying the point. Ms. Tiongson. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Madam Witness Ms. Tiongson. Yes. The Presiding Officer. did you understand the Order of the Court? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President.
31
Mr. President, my understanding is this witness was not part of the bank in 2008 and 2009 and so she cannot be the resource person to testify as to the authenticity of the document because that is what the witness asked. The Presiding Officer. That is why the Court, Your Honor, said Answer if you know. Identify if you know. If you do not know the signature, common sense will tell us as lawyers that she cannot identify. She is incompetent to identify. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, but my understanding, Mr. President, is that Senator Drilon wants the verification by the bank of the signatures. That is my understanding. I am sorry if I am confused, Mr. President, but Senator Drilon. Mr. President, may I respond? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, we just asked the witness and so ordered by the Court: Number one, to identify who these officers are on the peso time deposit; number two The Presiding Officer. May I clarify so that it is clear to everybody. The gentleman from Iloilo is asking this witness, this particular female witness, to identify the signatures. Senator Drilon. No, no, no, Your Honor. That is what I am saying. First, to identify the name of the officer. The Presiding Officer. All right. The name of the officer. Senator Drilon. Yes. The Presiding Officer. If she knows. Senator Drilon. If she knows because there are records of the bank which will show as to who are the approving officers on the specific dates we have mentioned. So it is based on the records of the bank who were the officers. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. Now The Presiding Officer. So the Order of this Court is modified accordingly. Senator Drilon. Yes. Who are the officers. Second, bring specimen signatures of these officers appearing in the banks records. The Presiding Officer. If she knows. Senator Drilon. If she knows. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Drilon. Okay. Now, our third point, Your Honor. Apart from these documents that I just mentioned, there are other peso accounts appearing in Annex A and this is peso account 089121020122. This is a peso account. Again, there is a signature appearing across that peso account as the approving officer onI think this is March 4, 2010. Can she also identify who is the approving officer and bring the specimen signature of this approving officer?
32
And also another Peso Account 089121021681. The opening was done on September 1, 2010 with an opening balance of P7,090,099.45. Again, there is a signature appearing across this account number. So we are also asking that the witness identify the officer authorized in the branch to approve the opening of the account and the specimen signature. The Presiding Officer. Do you understand what the Court wants, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Comply with it. So ordered. So what is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court, Your Honor. There are matters brought out in the examination made by the Honorable Senator-Judge, Your Honor. Whether it is clarificatory or cross-examination my worry is this, Your Honor: Who is going to offer this as evidence, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. This will be for the information of the Court. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But they are evidence, Your Honor. There will be a time when we now go into the process of offering, Your Honor. So we will be objecting. Are we precluded from objecting, Your Honor, simply because these questions are brought about by the Honorable Member of this Court? The Presiding Officer. I cannot make a ruling at this point. Just state your concern and we will take it up in a caucus and decide. Mr. Cuevas. My apprehension is this, with the kind indulgence of the Court, we will not end here merely with the examination, Your Honor. If the Court will go with me, we go further. And unless these documents are offered, they will not be considered as evidence. Now, who is going to offer them since these are not evidences or these are not documents brought about by the questioning direct or by any of the parties, neither the Prosecution much less the Defense, Your Honor? Now, if they stand only as parcels or pieces of papers, Your Honor, then we will be practically I am sorry to state, we are practically wasting the time of this Court. Assuming that matters are brought out, but will they form part of the evidence, Your Honor? If not offered formally, they shall not be considered as evidence in the case. That is my apprehension, Your Honor. And since we cannot objectwe wanted to object, Your Honor, but we are precluded by the Rules of this Impeachment Court which we have, time and again, honored and respected. That is our apprehension, Your Honor. We do not want to bring this matter out at the time when they are already presented in evidence. Because the first issue, Your Honor, is the scope of the subpoena. As we have made it clear, we were objecting to the issuance of the subpoena. But they were produced, Your Honor. Now, that is only part of the process in dealing with documentary evidences, Your Honor. I hope everybody will agree with me that the next part is, aside from identification and marking, they will be offered. So my question now or my clarificatory question is very, very pertinent: Who is going to offer it? There is no statement on the part of the Prosecution that these form part of their evidence, Your Honor. And there is not even any statement on the part of any Member of this Court that they will be offered as part of the evidence for the Court, Your Honor.
33
The Presiding Officer. Anyway Mr. Cuevas. I hope you pardon me, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are free to make your manifestation. I will understand that because you are the Defense Counsel. As far as this Presiding Officer is concerned within the bounds of existing rules of evidence and the laws, you are entitled to protect the interest of your client. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But before I respond to you, I will recognize the gentleman from Cavite. Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. My question is addressed to the Defense Counsel and also to the Presiding Officer. My question is: In a criminal proceeding, is the trial court judge precluded from asking clarificatory questions? Mr. Cuevas. The answer is no. Definitely, Your Honor. Senator Lacson. So we are allowed. Mr. Cuevas. But the extent of the questioning must not be construed by either parties as favoring a party litigant. Senator Lacson. That is beside the point, with due respect, Justice Cuevas. Mr. Cuevas. Because your question is this: Is the judge precluded? My answer is no. But if the questioning goes farther than clarificatory, then a doubt may enter into the scene and that is the non-neutrality of the judge and that may amount to a mistrial, if Your Honor please. Senator Lacson. I am not yet into that, with all due respect. Because my next question would be, how would the evidence elicited from the questionings of a trial court judge treated or admitted as evidence? Kindly educate me, Sir? Mr. Cuevas. You mean questioning of the judge? Senator Lacson. A trial court judge asks questions of the witness and then some of the answers provided by the witness may be used or may not be used as evidence. Assuming that the replies or the response of the witness may be used as evidence by the court or may be appreciated by the judge in rendering a decision, then how would that be treated? Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor. When you say, may be used by the court, what the court may do is consider the evidences not use it. Now secondly Senator Lacson. Use as evidence. Mr. Cuevas. if the examination made by the court, Your Honor, far exceeds that which is normal, then the law on cold neutrality of the judge will come. And that is precisely one of the cases before the Sandigan, examining the records, it consisted of several pages and the Supreme Court was convinced that the judge there was already performing the act of a prosecutor and not that of a judge. That is not the ruling of Justice Cuevas. That is the ruling of the court.
34
The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel for the Defense, you are actually asking this Presiding Officer to make a ruling with respect to the treatment of this evidence as far as the culmination of this hearing is concerned and that is the judgment. There is a rule on that and I will not pronounce it now. That is covered by existing jurisprudence not only here but from where we copied this process. So as far as the culmination of this hearing is concerned, with due respect to the court, to the highest court of this land, that is outside of the jurisdiction of that court, and it is up to this Court to make a decision on the basis of its appreciation of all the facts gathered in this proceeding at that point when it will make a judgment and the guilt or innocence of the witness is beyond the appeal of anyone. So, the gentleman from Cavite. Senator Lacson. What is the answer to my question, Mr. President? Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, I was about to ask, Your Honor, an apology to the Presiding Judge, because when I do explain, I was only explaining by way of answering the gentleman from Cavite. I never intended to influence whatever the ruling of this Honorable Court will be. But we cannot be denied from asserting a right in favor of the client, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct, correct, Your Honor. As I said, as far as the ruling of the Court yesterday, interlocutory matters are within the judicial review powers of the Supreme Court. But the trial and decision of the Senate as the sole authority ordained by the Constitution to try and decide this case cannot be questioned in any court, not even in the United States will it be allowed to be questioned on the merits. Now, with respect to the issue at hand, the understanding of this Chair regarding the tendency of the question of the gentleman from San Juan and the gentleman from Iloiloand correct me if I am wrongis to test the credibility of that witness whether indeed the document involved for which you pronounced to be fake yesterday is correct. They are testing the credibility of that witness. That is the understanding of this Chair. Dispute it if you may. Mr. Cuevas. That is also my understanding, Your Honor please. Because there were insinuations, not categorical statement that this issue of fake or illegal release of documents pertaining to the bank records of the Honorable CoronaJustice Corona, Your Honor, seemed to be in doubt, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct. Correct. Mr. Cuevas. That there seemed some leak, and so on. That is why I wasI never stood up. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct. There was a statement from this witness that the document involved in the discussion is fake. Then, through Members of this Court, two Senator-Judges asked propounded a question to this witness to test her credibility with respect to that document. And they agreed not to touch on the foreign currency deposit. They were only dealing with the peso accounts to give due respect to the decision of this Court to respect the TRO. So, I allowed it in order to test the credibility of this witness, whether indeed the document is fake or not. Mr. Cuevas. Along those lines, Your Honor, we cannot help but fully concur with the statement or the pronouncement of the Honorable Presiding Judge, we were merely led by the fact that apparently, the question goes out of what is ordinary because if The Presiding Officer. No.
35
Mr. Cuevas. But if the purpose is to determine the falsity or the leak, then we have no objection, Your Honor, because The Presiding Officer. That is the Mr. Cuevas. I therefore submit, Your Honor, and I withdraw my former observation relative to who is going to offer this defensethis evidence. Because this evidence may no longer be part of thewhat we call, impeachment proceedings, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We know this. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And then, as I told you, if you ask me to rule on this, I am going already to the Mr. Cuevas. Merits. The Presiding Officer. Merit of the case. We are not going into the merit of the case. We are discussing an issue of credenceof credence of the witness. Okay? Mr. Cuevas. With the clarification made, Your Honor, allow me to state that it is never my purpose, or it is never the purpose The Presiding Officer. Accepted. Mr. Cuevas. of the Defense to question The Presiding Officer. Accepted. Mr. Cuevas. the validity of the ruling, Your Honor. I was just Senator Lacson. Anyway, Mr. President Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry. I am sorry, my Senator Senator Lacson. I merely wanted to be educated by the Defense Counsel because I hold him in the highest regard Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Senator Lacson. in spite of hisof some boring objections. Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry. I am just exercising my right. Senator Lacson. Some of my questions have been overtaken by the ruling of the Chair. Anyway, I would like to ask the witness, paki-qualify nga po Mr. Cuevas. Tapos na ako. Senator Lacson. Yung sinabi niyong fake yung documents Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Senator Lacson. are you referring to the document itself, the form or the entries? Pag sinabi niyong fake ang dokumento, were you referring to the document itselfthe form? Because dalawa
36
po ito: yung signature form, yung isa naman yung entries doon sa signature form. When somebody opens an account, necessarily he has to fill up a signature form card, or signature form. So, alin po ba yung fake, yung form or yung entries doon sa form? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, the whole thing. Senator Lacson. The whole thing. Ms. Tiongson. When II was asked to compare. And when I say fake, they are different. They are not the same, so Senator Lacson. No Ms. Tiongson. Yes po. Senator Lacson. ang tanong ko nga po, ano yung nire-refer niyo na hindi parehohindi pareho ang signature form? O, hindi pareho yung mga entries doon sa available sa bangko ninyo? Because in that regard Ms. Tiongson. I did not Senator Lacson. I will require you to bring during the next trial, next hearing yung samples ng inyong signature form. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, sample. Senator Lacson. Sample of a signature form. Ms. Tiongson. In the standard format, Sir, it Is Senator Lacson. Yun nga po ang tanong ko, ito bang form fake o genuine? Yung form? Ms. Tiongson. Yung standard format niya, Sir? Senator Lacson. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. It is what we have in the bank. Senator Lacson. So, walang problema sa signature form? Ms. Tiongson. Sa form po. Senator Lacson. Ang sinasabi ninyong fake, eh, yung entries dito yung nakapaloob dito. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. If I remember correctly, with the permission of the gentleman from Cavite, in fairness to the witness, her answer was that there are entries in this document that are not found in the original. Is that correct, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And there are entries in the original that are not found in the document under discussion, is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor.
37
The Presiding Officer. So that is the answer of the witness. Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. That is all for this Representation. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, with your indulgence, just thirty (30) seconds. The Presiding Officer. Yes. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Just to make it clear. The specimen signature of the bank officers should be the specimen signature on or about the date when this was signed, so that these are not new specimen signatures. Second point, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Do you understand the request of the Senator-Judge from Iloilo? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Okay. Let me explain. These accounts were opened January 26, 2009. We asked for the specimen signature. The specimen signature should be those appearing in the documents of the bank on or about this January 26, 2009 in the case of Account Number ending 7358, is that correct? Can you understand that, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. You would like to get the specimen signatures of the officers on those dates mentioned. Senator Drilon. That is correct. Now, you keep on saying that there is the difference between what appears in herethere were entries which are here and entries which were not here compared to the original, you just said that. Now, can you bring the original of these and just cover the dollars so that we will see? Ms. Tiongson. May I refer to counsel, Your Honor? Senator Drilon. No, no, can you bring it? Ms. Tiongson. I believe, Sir, that it is covered by the Order of this Court. Senator Drilon. No. We are not asking you to reveal the details, whatever it is on the dollar account, just the peso accounts. You can cover it in any manner you want. Because you keep on saying, there is a difference between this xerox and the original. So, bring the original. Cover whatever you want to cover insofar as the dollar accounts are concerned. But there are a lot of data here which does not involve the dollar, like the passport number. So, all that we are asking to test your credibility that this a fake document because you were the one who raised that, is bring the original. Cover the dollars if you wish. We will not look at the dollar in deference to the ruling of the Chair and the Supreme Court, just the peso. Ms. Tiongson. May I consult my counsel, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, with due respect, the documents are already with the head office and our president would be the more competent person to answer for that because he has custody of it.
38
Senator Drilon. Mr. President, that is a lame excuse. She can always get it from the bank president because these are records from the Katipunan Branch which were brought to the head office. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, the president of the PSBank is here. Why do you not ask the PSBank president to come inside to answer this question? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, while they are calling the bank president and whether if we will decide to call that witness ahead, may I move to suspend the trial for ten (10) Senate minutes? The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended forhow many minutes? Senator Sotto. Ten (10) Senate minutes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Approved. The trial was suspended at 4:09 p.m. At 4:40 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President Representative Tupas. Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Yes. The Prosecution wishes to manifest. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor, just a very short manifestation. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. My name was mentioned and also the members of my family. So I just want to put on record a very short manifestation. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. Thank you. Your Honor, during the line of questioning earlier by the gentleman fromthe Senator from San Juan, the witness, Ms. Annabelle Tiongson, was asked about the acquaintance with my familymy father was mentioned, the name of my father, Gov. Niel Tupas; the name of my brother was mentioned, Raul Buboy Tupas; and even my wife was mentioned. So I just want to put on record, Your Honor, to be fair to the members of my family that I am not acquainted with the witness, Ms. Annabelle Tiongson. The first time I saw her was Monday when she took the witness stand. So just to put it on record, just to be fair to the members of the Tupas Family. Thank you so much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are welcome. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Earlier, Mr. President, Senator Drilon wanted to ask the president of PSBank a few questions so we summoned the president, the bank president here, although we did not discharge the first witness, the general manager or the manager of the branch of PSBank.
39
So may we recognize Senator Drilon, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Drilon. Just for the record, the previous witness said that it is better that Mr. Garcia testifies on this because these documents are now in the head office. That is the reason why this witness, Mr. Garcia, was called back. But having said that, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Witness, the previous witness said that there were differences in the entries of this original document and identified as a signature card and attached as Annex A of the request for subpoena of the Prosecution and the original of the signature card which is now in the head office. Can you now bring the original of this signature card which allegedly is different from what was submitted and that there were entries that were not found in this original of this Annex A. So that is why you are in the witness stand now, to be given the directive of the Court to bring this documentthe original. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we have presented the documents pertaining to peso accounts to the Court, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Yes. Mr. Garcia. And I believe that what is being referred to, actually, are photocopies of documents that pertain to and refer to dollar accounts. Senator Drilon. Mr. Witness, it is not for you to argue. You are being directed to produce this document and even cover, if you want to cover, any information pertaining to the dollar account. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor Senator Drilon. Because it was your branch manager who said that this is a fake document. So as the Senate President said, we are trying to test the credibility of this witness. And we have the right to ask these questions and we have the right to require you now to produce the original, which you say is different from Annex A of the Prosecutions Request for Subpoena because this is what we are looking for right now. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, if I may recall Senator Drilon. May I ask a ruling from the Chair? I do not want to argue with this witness. The Presiding Officer. Let us Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I? The Presiding Officer. You explain first. Mr. Garcia. May I explain?
Your Honor, the order of the Court to us specifically stated that we respond to or provide information only on peso accounts, Your Honor. The good, I think, Senator Escudero, in his questions yesterday even amplified that no particular matter with respect to dollar accounts should be referred to. The only thing that was provided to us,
40
Your Honor, based on what we were given from Annex A to Annex 4, which this Court provided only yesterday, pertained to dollar accounts. May I state, Your Honor, thatfor the recordwhen we received the first subpoena and the second subpoena, there were no documents attached to it for us to compare. The only time that we received documents from this CourtI think it was yesterday or the day beforewhere we were specifically requested to make comparisons and indicate whether there are discrepancies or not. And it is on this basis that we have said that we affirmed that there are discrepancies. The Presiding Officer. All right. With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo, the Chair would like to clarify. Does the Philippine Savings Bank separate the records of peso accounts from the records of foreign currency account? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with respect to balances, they are separate. But with respect to certain documents, they may be combined, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Combined. Mr. Garcia. Combined. The Presiding Officer. Now, I would like to Mr. Garcia. And if I may, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Garcia. I am sorry. The documents that were provided to us by the Court, actually show details there that are peso and dollar details. The Presiding Officer. Do you have this kind of a document? Mr. Garcia. We have these kinds of documents for many, many customers, Your Honor. Whether they are peso customers or dollar customers, you know, we have all of these kinds of documents. The Presiding Officer. So you havein your records, you have this kind of documents. Mr. Garcia. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Where there is a mixed record bearing on dollar or foreign currency account and local currency account? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. And that was the basis of our stipulation to the Court earlier that insofar as anything that has dollar indicators of an account, whether they are balances, whether they are anything that has a dollar, we requested that we would not provide anything for any particular dollar account. The Presiding Officer. All right. May I, with the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo, propound this question to the Prosecution? You submitted a request, a supplemental request, to this Court for a subpoena duces tecum and you attached with it an Annex A. Correct?
41
Representative Tupas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, and this Annex A deals with an account with No. 08919100037, there is separate No. 3. Is that correct? Will you examine your Representative Tupas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. To what document coming from the PSBank that you already marked as exhibit for the purposes of this proceeding would this document correspond? Representative Tupas. We are checking it, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed to check it. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I Representative Tupas. We are still checking itwhat exhibit number, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Please check. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Representative Tupas. Yes. We checked it and we did not mark it, Your Honor, because it corresponds to the dollar account. And it was not produced by the witness. The Presiding Officer. You know, this materialthat Annex A to your supplemental request for subpoenahas not been marked as an exhibit in this Court. Representative Tupas. It has not, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And the documents that you marked as exhibit coming from the Philippine Savings Bank are all peso accounts. Representative Tupas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Can you presentdo you havewill you kindly show rather to the witness the Annex A to the supplemental request of the Prosecution for a subpoena duces tecum? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we are showing Annex A... The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Representative Tupas. ...to the witness now. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. I order you to show it. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, Annex A pertains to a dollar The Presiding Officer. Account. Do you have this kind of a document? Do you have? Mr. Garcia. The annex, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, just a minute. I am hearing sounds and I am disturbed. Will you kindly stop talking when the Chair would like to ask a question?
42
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right.
Do you have, Mr. Witness, this kind of a document in your record? Mr. Garcia. This photocopy, Your Honor? We do not have a photocopy. The Presiding Officer. The one that was shown to you as an annex to the Supplemental Request for a subpoena duces tecum by the Prosecution. Mr. Garcia. May I consult a counsel, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. No, just answer if you have or do not have. Mr. Garcia. I do not have it, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You do not have this kind of document in your record. Mr. Garcia. This particular document has discrepancies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No. I am asking you. I am not asking you whether it has discrepancies or it has no discrepancies. Do you have this kind of a record? Mr. Garcia. I really am sorry, Your Honor, because I cannot understand the definition of this kind. When I look at this annex, for example, there are discrepancies already here that are not in any of our records. The Presiding Officer. Do you have a similar document in your record? Mr. Garcia. A similar document, Your Honor, in certain aspects? Yes. The Presiding Officer. No. Do you have a similar document in your record that does not that is, to you, authentic part of your record? Mr. Garcia. I am being asked, Your Honor, to compare what is this annex versus our record. And you know, Your Honor, with all due respect The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, Mr. Witness, the Chair is asking you a specific question. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. There is here in this request for a supplementalthis Supplemental Request for a subpoena duces tecum and attached to it is supposed to be a document coming from your bank. Now, there are two documents here, one over the other. I am talking of the first document appearing on this page, Annex A. Do you have that in your record? Mr. Garcia. If you refer to the petition to this Court, Your Honor, we were not even provided those documents. The Presiding Officer. That is why it is being shown to you. Mr. Garcia. Well, this is just being shown to me right now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. This isthe first document, the first two, it has a symbol on the left upper corner and adjacent to that symbol is PSBank, and then followed by Customers Identification and
43
Specimen Signature Card. And then another column says Customer No. 334346. And at the end, upper right, upper corner of that document is a date, October 31, 2008. Okay. And the next line says: Account Name: Corona Renato Coronado. And then another column says: Account Number 089-19100037-3, and it says: Updating New Account has a slash (/). The other, below it, is a square symbol; aside it is updating. Then, there is another column which says some words and followed by another line which says: Philippine Savings Bank will please recognize, and then it says: any or any two or all, et cetera. And then the anyone was checked. Okay. And below that line is another larger line, space with the name in block letters Renato C. Corona name and below is the printed words: Name of Authorized Signatory. Then there are three signatures on the space below that word. And the last space in this document is Signature Authenticated By, and there is on the space called Approved, a signature or initial. Do you have this kind of document in your bank? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we have a similar The Presiding Officer. I am just asking you if you have; otherwise, I will hold you in contempt. Just answer if you have or you do not have. Mr. Garcia. May I consult with our counsel? The Presiding Officer. You consult. Mr. Garcia. It is not the one, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Do you have this kind of document? Mr. Garcia. As to the form, yes we do, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No. I am asking you, do you have this kind of document in your bank? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor The Presiding Officer. You will say: Yes, we have. But this document is different from what we have, if that is your answer. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. This is different from what we have. The Presiding Officer. So you have. But the document attached to this Supplemental Request for Subpoena is different from a similar document that you have in your bank record. Mr. Garcia. I apologize, Your Honor. With your clarification, it is different. The Presiding Officer. What is its difference? My God, you are vague in your answers. I am trying to clarify it for the record for the sake of our ability to appreciate this document. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we do not have notations here like PEP. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, do you have this kind of a form? Mr. Garcia. The form I have declared, Your Honor, we do have. The Presiding Officer. You have?
44
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. And are the entries in this form that is attached to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena, filed by the Prosecution, the same entries appearing in the form that you have? Mr. Garcia. As tothere are underlines here it isso it is different, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So you tell us whether they are different. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. They are different. Okay. The signatures appearing on this document, are they similar to the document you have? Mr. Garcia. They appear to be similar, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. They appear to be similar. Mr. Garcia. They appear to be similar. There are highlights here on the document that are not present. There is underlying, there iseven this particular document, it is not clear, the date of 2000, I think you were mentioning 2000 The Presiding Officer. In other words, you say there are similarities and there are basic differences. Mr. Garcia. That is what we have been saying, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Just say so. Answer my question, please. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Just listen. Now, there is another document. Below the document that I already described, and the letters are very small and it is difficult for the Presiding Officer to read them, but I will try to read them to you. Account name, family name, first name, middle name or company name. Another column, Customer number, and then another column, Account number, et cetera, and there are entries. Do you have this kind of document in your bank? Mr. Garcia. We have this kind of document with those details. The Presiding Officer. Now, are the details in that document that you have in your bank the same as the details now appearing in this Annex A to the Supplemental Request for a Subpoena of the Prosecution? Mr. Garcia. If you are speaking of this what we indicated, Your Honor, there are similarities. But with respect to the other indications here like dollar The Presiding Officer. There are similarities? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are there dissimilarities? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.
45
The Presiding Officer. All right. Where are the dissimilarities? Mr. Garcia. Well, Your Honor, obviously, these documents are highlighted; there are signatures that are not present here that are present in the original. The Presiding Officer. There are signatures here that are not present in the original. Mr. Garcia. No, no, no. That are not present here, Your Honor, but are present in the original. The Presiding Officer. There are signatures in the original that you have but not present in this Annex A? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, I call your attention to a portion of this document where there is apparently a word, phrase that was attempted to be snopaked or erased which reads, Existing client, and then, in parenthesis, in the annex, it says, PEP. You get the annex and tell me if this is correct. Mr. Garcia. It is similar, Your Honor, except that it is highlighted. The Presiding Officer. When you say highlighted, it was disturbed? Mr. Garcia. The original does not show any markings. The Presiding Officer. Or any highlighting? Mr. Garcia. Or highlighting. The Presiding Officer. All right. But it has the word PEP? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, there isbelow that highlighted item is Initial Depositthere are words before thisI cannot read the words. I think these are V or whateverdollar sign. So this is a dollar account supposedly? Mr. Garcia. As far as this indication is concerned, yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Do you have this 089191000373, a peso account? Mr. Garcia. Excuse me, Your Honor, may I refer to our records? It is a dollar account, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So this is beyond the inquiry at the moment of this Court. Mr. Garcia. As we understand, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. So that is thewe cannot discuss this account. Senator Drilon. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Mr. President Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, if I could just be given the opportunity of asking our Counsel to please speak, Your Honor?
46
Senator Drilon. Mr. President.
The Presiding Officer. With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo, we recognize the Counsel for the witness. Mr. Puno. May I be allowed to address the Honorable Chair? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Puno. Your Honor, what has been discussed here is just one single document. PSBank has been trying to explain that there is only one single document and they have testified that this document is fake and/or spurious or bogus, or whatever, Sir, because of the differences. The Presiding Officer. Subpoena duces tecum? Mr. Puno. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Marked as Annex A? That document attached to the Supplemental Request for a
Mr. Puno. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You consider it a fake document? Mr. Puno. Fake, spurious. The Presiding Officer. Spurious? Mr. Puno. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the meaning of spurious? Mr. Puno. It is not the original document. It is not the document that is being submitted. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Puno. Tagalugin mo.
Hindi po tunay na dokumento po.
The Presiding Officer. Peke? Mr. Puno. Peke po.
The Presiding Officer. Peke? Mr. Puno. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Hindi tunay? Mr. Puno. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Huh?
Mr. Puno. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Inimbento? Mr. Puno. Yes, Your Honor.
47
The Presiding Officer. Oh, iyon. Mr. Puno. And they have already testified that it is fake. Your Honor, because of Republic Act 6426, they cannot disclose it. Because of the TRO, they cannot even discuss it. It is just one single document, Your Honor. And there is a temporary restraining order. With all due respect, Your Honor, what cannot be done directly in violating the TRO, cannot be done indirectly by pointing to specific portions of that document which they have already testified is false and fake and peke. So, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Imbento, sinabi mo na. Mr. Puno. Opo, opo. So now the other point is, Your Honor, even if you discuss particular portions of that so-called document, they will tend to establish certain facts in relation also to the FCDU. So, therefore, it is in violation of the TRO, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is why I said we cannot discuss it. Mr. Puno. The entire document, Your Honor, isMay we request a clarification from the Honorable Chair? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, in the first place, it was the previous witness who brought up all this controversy by saying it is fake. Now, we are just testing the credibility of the witness. Insofar as the dollar account, Mr. President, we are not looking into this account. These numbers appearing as dollar accounts were already testified to by this witness, Mr. Garcia, when he affirmed that these accounts exist but we will not even look into that. It is just that we are finding out whethertesting the credibility of the witness when he said that this is fake, peke, hindi tunay. We have the right to find out if the statement is true and we are not looking into the dollar account which has already been confirmed to be existing by this very witness on the witness stand. And this document, we were simply saying, Okay, mayroong peso time deposit dito. Mayroong pirma. Tinatatong sino ba ang pumirma nito, et cetera, et cetera and iyong previous witness kept on saying that she has compared this with the original. Sinasabi nitong testigong ito, mayroong mga naka-highlight na wala doon sa original. Hindi po ba ang pinakamadali, dalhin na lang iyong original? Takpan iyong dolyar kung gusto niyo. Hindi naman lang po hinahanap dito iyong dolyar. Hindi issue ang dolyar dito. Ang issue dito ay ito ba, totoo ba ang sinasabi ng testigo na peke ito? That is our submission, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Doon ba sa original na nasa inyo, Ginoong Presidente ng Philippine Savings Bank, ay may nakalagay na mga peso accounts or local currency accounts? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mayroon. Mr. Garcia. Mayroon, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. O, kung ganoon pala, di iyong sinasabi ng Kagalang-galang na Senador na Hukom ng Iloilo ay ang gusto lang nilang malaman iyong peso account. Takpan mo raw iyong dollar account, pati iyong numero noong account na iyon na dollar account at ang i-expose mo lang ay iyong peso account. At ang gusto nilang malaman kung iyong pumirma sino iyon. Sino iyong pumirma na iyon? Ano ba ito, approving
48
Senator Drilon. It says Approved by (Approving Officer).
The Presiding Officer. Approving Officer. Iyon lang ang hinihingi nila. Ano ang problema mo doon? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we have stipulated actually that of the original subpoena to us, there are five dollar account numbers there. Senator Drilon. Yes. Mr. Garcia. This particular document, the account number indicated is a dollar account. Senator Drilon. Kaya nga po kino-confirm lang, eh, na iyon dollar account. Hindi namin tinitingnan kung ano ang laman. Mr. Garcia. The number indicated here is a dollar account. Senator Drilon. Pero sinabi mo na iyan dito sa testigo mo na dollar account ito. Mr. Garcia. Just a dollar account, Your Honor, just a dollar account. Senator Drilon. Yes. Mr. Garcia. I only confirm actually that a dollar account does exist. The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang para makagawa ng ruling ang Presiding Officer. Hindi namin kasalanan ito. Kasalanan ng bangko. Pinaghalo-halo ninyo itong peso account at dollar account sa isang record. Takpan mo iyong dollar account. Lagyan mo ng tape. Huwag mong lalagyan ng tape iyong peso account. Ang gusto lang nilang makita kung totoo na may signature iyong peso account at kung sino iyong pumirma. You are ordered to do so. Tapos. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, may I make a manifestation? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. I would just like to put on record, Your Honor, that this representationthat in addition to four (4) more lawyers, Your Honor, when we first met with this witness, the president of PSBankshowed him already Annex A of our request. We made that manifestation that we provided him with a copynot only showed him but left with him a copy of this Annex A on February 7 in relation to our intention at that time to prepare for the hearing on the following day. So, we just put on record, Your Honor, that this is not the first time that the witness has been shown or has met these particular documents, Your Honor. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. There is already an order. Comply. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Understand? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.
49
The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. Senator The Presiding Officer. The gentleman fromI think it was the gentleman from Sorsogon who raised his first. Will you yield to the gentleman from Makati? He is more senior than the gentleman from Sorsogon. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, while Senator Arroyo is preparing, may we know if the television cameras and the TV stations are allowed to zoom in the documents? The Presiding Officer. No. Senator Sotto. Well, we were just informed that a television station has been zooming in on the documents. The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly just Senator Sotto. So pleasecan this Presiding Officer warn or prevent the The Presiding Officer. Gentlemen that exposed this questioned document to any public view? And if there is such a television station that took, photographed of these questioned documents, please, do not present it because it is precisely in question. All right. Gentleman from Makati. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I have kept my peace on this issue because I have wanted very carefully to understand it. If I understand the sequence, this question arose because I do not know who among the Members of the Senate raised the question of the alleged forgery presented by the Prosecution by attaching an annex to a pleading they filed. That was the original question. So, evidence was presented here and we have wandered, meandered into several issues. I will limit myself to this point. Annex A to the Supplemental Petition of the Prosecution has been testified to as a forgery by those who have thesewho have the original of these documents. Now, if it is a forgery and nobody has yet contested it, how can we proceed on this issue if it is a forgery? A forgery is a forgery. It has no evidentiary value unless you change the whole thing. Meaning, we have now branched out into asking the bank to produce a document, the original of a document which is forged. How can we do that? We are asking the originals from the bank to bring here and compare it to put, even tape the entries which are dollar-related. But how can we do that when the original and the forged documents are different? Now, I limit myself to this. A forged document is a forged document. Now, only on that issue do I limit myself because we are now talking aboutwhat is the purpose now of presenting this? The Presiding Officer. I will explain later on the ruling of the Chair once the gentleman is finished. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. The gentleman is finished?
50
Senator Arroyo. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. The conclusion that this is a fake document comes from the witness. That is why I made it very, very clear by a leading question whether ito ay imbento. Now a Member of this Court asked a question to test the credibility of the witness. And to test that credibility of the witness, to find out whether indeed the document in question is an imbento is to make a comparison with the original to see where the imbento has arisen. If they are identical in every respect, then the witness will be lying and so therefore his testimony will be unbelievable. But if the comparison shows that indeed there are substantial differences, then, the witness is credible and we will then consider the document which I categorized as imbento as a fake document to be fair to everybody in this proceeding. That is the only purpose for the comparison and the only thing that is to be compared is the signature on the peso account and the identity of the one who imprinted that signature. If they are identical with the original, then, to the extent of that identity, then, this document is not totally a fake document. If there is discrepancy or differences, that they are not identical with the original, then to that extent it is an imbento. And it will be a suspect document which will be lacking credence as an evidence in this Court. Is that plain enough or shall I continue explaining it? Senator Arroyo. I am satisfied with the explanation of the Chair. Question. If this is found to be a false document which in the explanation of the Chair is the purpose of the inquiry which was started by Senator EstradaI think that was the original purpose of Senator Estradato find out whether this is a forgery. Nobody even raised this. It was only Senator Estrada who started this thing. Now, if it is a forgery, what happens? We spent so much time explaining what. Now, the idea is, if it is spurious, forged documents are presented here. I do not want to speculate but I thought that was the thrust of this issue. The subsequent matters do not concern me. What concerns me is simply this: If it is true that is a forged document, what happens? Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Well, I will answer it for the record. If this document is found to be falsified in some respect, then we will determine whether the falsification is substantial enough to exclude this evidence as an evidence in this case at the proper time. And second, to make those responsible for that alterations responsible for it and to answer for it. And it will be the burden of the Prosecution to explain why they requested for a subpoena duces tecum in the face of an altered document. That is the understanding of this Presiding Officer. At that point, it is up to the Court to decide whether disciplinary measures will be imposed on those who are responsible for the alteration. So ordered. Proceed. So the witness is ordered to bring the original with all the safeguards to carry out our respect for the TRO. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize to ask questions to this witness, Senator Escudero and then Senator Pangilinan. Then afterwards, Senator Osmea and Senator Legarda wish to ask questions to Ms. Tiongson. Senator Escudero. Just a brief manifestation, Mr. President, with your permission.
51
I would just like to make of record and address this to the counsel of Mr. Garcia and to Mr. Garcia as well. Sirs, we are not trying to pull a fast one on you and try to do as what Counsel said indirectly what we cannot and will not do directly. As Senator Arroyo pointed out, all we want is to find out if this document is fake or not. But just as a reminder to the Prosecution as well, Mr. Garcia and Ms. Tiongson are your witnesses. You asked that they be subpoenaed and unless you impugn their testimony, that will stand insofar as this Court is concerned on the fact as to whether or not the attached document as an annex is fake or genuine. But also bearing in mind, Mr. President, Your Honor, that this is a matter of interest for the Senate as an Impeachment Court but has nothing to do with the case anymore. So perhaps we can wind up on this matter, given that there is testimony already with respect to the documents authenticity. Unless the Prosecution will present contrary evidence, we can perhaps proceed with the evidence of the Prosecution on the main case at hand which is the Impeachment Complaint against the Chief Justice. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Custodio. May the Prosecution respond briefly, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Let us first hear the other Mr. Custudio. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. so that you can respond in toto. All right. Who Senator Sotto. Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a few questions directed to the president of the bank, because yesterday or was it the other day, the bank manager was unable to explain to us the procedure or the system by which the main office and the branches are able to access information from a specific branch. And so we would like to know, Mr. Witness, can branches of PSBank access the bank accounts or bank records of a specific branch? Mr. Garcia. Only for certain accounts, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. And what accounts would this be? Mr. Garcia. This would be current and savings accounts and because we allow our customers Actually, we are not the first bank to allow customers to deposit or withdraw nationwide. Senator Pangilinan. Okay. So the peso accounts that we have been discussing, can this be accessed by other branches? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So who can access these peso accounts apart from the mother branch? I mean, the Katipunan Branch. Mr. Garcia. The Katipunan Branch and head office, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So there are
52
Mr. Garcia. Because these areYour Honor, if I may explain, these are time deposits. Senator Pangilinan. Ah, okay. So time deposits can only be accessed by the main, the headquarters? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Apart from, of course, the bank itself? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. The branch itself. So in this case, the time deposits, who in the main office can access these time deposit records? Mr. Garcia. There are certain officers that are allowed access to for purposes of verifying signatures. Senator Pangilinan. How many? Mr. Garcia. I would probably estimate a couple, not too many. Senator Pangilinan. Two (2)? Mr. Garcia. More than, I think, two (2). Because we have to havewhat is this?backup. Senator Pangilinan. Would you have access to it? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So maybe two (2) or more. Five (5)? Five (5) in the main office? Mr. Garcia. Probaby. I could not give you an accurate number. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, but just to give you an idea as to who can actually access these time deposit records. Mr. Garcia. I cannot access any account of the bank myself, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. I am just interested in who can and how many are they. So you haveAnd in a branch, how many can access those time deposit records? Mr. Garcia. In the branch, specific personnel only in the branch like the branch operations officer, the branch manager and only the branch staff who are allowed toare handling the processing of time deposit. Senator Pangilinan. So would you have, tama bang sabihin, another five (5) people in the branch? Mr. Garcia. Probably four (4), five (5) probably. Senator Pangilinan. Five (5). So in effect as far as PSBank is concerned, ten. More or less ten (10) people? Mr. Garcia. Maybe we can Senator Pangilinan. Ten (10) or twelve (12) people can access the time deposits from the main office to the branch?
53
Mr. Garcia. Only certain information, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, yes. Mr. Garcia. Specimen signatures, balances, but there are other information that is not accessible. Senator Pangilinan. Okay, so that is clear. Apart from bank personnel, sino pa ang pupuwedeng mag-access doon sa time deposit records na iyon outside of the bank? Mr. Garcia. Outside of the bank? Senator Pangilinan. BSP was mentioned by the branch manager. Let me assist you. AMLA was mentioned by the bank manager. Mr. Garcia. The BSP actually does not access deposits. The only agency that is allowed to inquire about deposits is AMLA. But if they do inquire about it under the law, they can inquire through a BSP examiner. Senator Pangilinan. So a BSP examiner in coordination with the AMLA? Mr. Garcia. No, no, Your Honor. It is not a BSP examiner. I think there are specific examiners for AMLA but when theywhen the BSP actually opens a review of the bank, which is done every year, it is only these AMLA examiners that could theoretically ask us for information about accounts that are only covered by AMLA. Senator Pangilinan. Would you have information as to who these examiners are and how many would they be? Would they be four (4), five (5)? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. Normally it would probably if there are Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Mr. Garcia. It does not happen all the time. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Mr. Garcia. Not all BSP examinersexaminations have an AMLA examiner. Occasionally an AMLA examiner could be included but only insofar as reviewing certain accounts that are over there. Senator Pangilinan. So, would you say two (2) individuals whether from the BSP or the AMLA probably? Mr. Garcia. I would probably say, just maybe one (1) or a maximum of two (2). I think it is only one (1), Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So two (2). So two (2) plus ten (10), twelve (12). So around a dozen people would have accessed to this time deposit. Ten (10) from your bank and another two (2) outside of the bank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. But Senator Pangilinan. That would be a fairly accurate number. Mr. Garcia. If I may clarify. When we say access to time deposits, we control certain information. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, yes. Not the entireYes, not the entire
54
Mr. Garcia. Details Senator Pangilinan. What information is made available? Mr. Garcia. It is account number and Senator Pangilinan. Name, balance. Mr. Garcia. No. Account number and balance, outstanding. Senator Pangilinan. Okay.
The Presiding Officer. In other words, in accessing the controlled documents in the possession of your bank could not be copied? Mr. Garcia. Copied, Your Honor, in terms of just written down details? The Presiding Officer. Copied in the sense of reproducing the entire document? Mr. Garcia. From the systems we have, Your Honor, no. The Presiding Officer. When Mr. Garcia. Because these original documents are only kept normally in the branch and the head office. The reason why the branch submits a copy to head office is, we have to again satisfy for the dollar savings accounts. It is for business recovery processes, Your Honor. Just to explain. We have to have a similar document. Because if the branch burns down, if there is an earthquake, et cetera, we have a backup document that we can refer to. The Presiding Officer. Now, before any outsider or any other officials of the bank can access the records impounded in a vault or depositary equipment or instrument, only the people designated to open those vaults or those depositary equipment or instruments would first open the vault or the depositary equipment or instrument and to get the documents that contain the information desired, am I correct here? Mr. Garcia. Yes, you are correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Garcia. I cannot even The Presiding Officer. Not just anybody can go there and look at it? Mr. Garcia. Not even me, Your Honor. No one. The Presiding Officer. Because the branch manager of your Katipunan Branch said there are two (2) designated officers who are the only ones who can open the container of these sequestered and secured documents. Mr. Garcia. I confirm that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. All right. Senator Pangilinan. One more question. Doon sa dokumento na hinihiling ng Korte na dadalhin po ninyo bukas na lalagyan niyo po nung tape yung dollar account, yung labindalawang
55
nabanggit po nating mga tao, whether sa branch or sa main office or sa AMLA or sa BSP, sila ba nakikita nila, may access sila dun sa dokumentong yon? Mr. Garcia. The document itself here Senator Pangilinan. Itself. The document itself. The original document itself. Mr. Garcia. No, Sir. The original document itself only for those who have approved access. Only those can Senator Pangilinan. Yes. We narrowed it down to around 12 individuals. Mr. Garcia. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. So, the question is: Do any of these 12 individuals, have they, at any one point, been able to look at this original document that you will be sending tomorrow? At any one point. Mr. Garcia. Only if the custodians of the documents are physically present and allow that access. Senator Pangilinan. Precisely. Precisely, yes. Mr. Garcia. Because the original documents are kept under dual custody. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. But the point being and the question being, the 12 that we mentioned, we narrowed down, have at one point been able to access the document that you will be bringing tomorrow? Mr. Garcia. Not necessarily, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Why is that? Mr. Garcia. Because they may have had access to it only for certain specific portions. Like, you know, when we are capturing the signature for our signature verification system to store it so that the signatures can be verified by all branches and only for those accounts and then it is transported to the custodians of these documents. Once they have completed that particular responsibility, they have no more access. Senator Pangilinan. But they had access? Mr. Garcia. They had access. Senator Pangilinan. Of specific areas. Mr. Garcia. Only specific areas or specific processes so much so and specific times. Senator Pangilinan. So not all the 12, you are saying, can have access to the entire original? Not all the 12? Mr. Garcia. Once it is stored in our Senator Pangilinan. No, just say, do they have access or not? I agree they do not have access when it is already stored. Mr. Garcia. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. But do they have, at some point, have full access to this original document, those 12, at some point?
56
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. Part of the process. Senator Pangilinan. Okay. That is my question. Maraming salamat. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. There are no other questions to this witness. But there are some senators who wish to ask the bank manager. So, may we discharge the witness andI am sorry, Mr. President, I withdraw the proposal and ask Senator Estrada be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, I have only one question to the president of the bank. When you learned upon this alleged leakage of these documents, did you investigate? Were you able to investigate? Mr. Garcia. It was extremelyWell, we investigated but we had extreme difficulty because, for example, Your Honor, when we received the TROs, there were no documents attached. So we cannot even have anything to compare against. So that is why, I hope you would appreciate the difficulty that we have been going through responding to questions about so-called documents and asking us to confirm or deny when those documents were not even provided to us in the TRO. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Thank you. On another point, Mr. President, if I may? Mr. Garcia. Sorry. In the subpoena, Your Honor, in the various subpoenas that were given to us. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. On another point, Mr. President, if I may? Kanina po, noong wala po ako rito ay nakita ko po sa TV na tumayo po si Congressman Tupas at binanggit po ang aking pangalan na sinangkot ko pa raw yung kanyang ama at yung kanyang mga kapatid. Unang una, Ginoong TupasCongressman Tupas, wala po akong balak na siraan, dungisan o yurakan ang pangalan ng inyong pamilya. Katunayan nga po ay kilala ko po ang inyong ama at nakapunta na rin po ako sa bahay niyo noong araw sa Iloilo at kilala ko rin po ang inyong kapatid na mayor ng isang bayan sa lalawigan ng Iloilo at katunayan nga nakapagbigay pa nga ako ng project para sa kapatid mo roon sa kanyang bayang pinaglilingkuran. Ngunit ang gusto ko lang pong patunayan sapagkat sinabi po ni Ginang Annabelle Tiongson ito po ang kauna-unahan niyang beses na nakita kayo rito sa Impeachment Court, at ikaw rin naman ay sinasabi mo, ito rin ang kauna-unahan niyong pagkakataon na nakita niyo si Ms. Annabelle Tiongson dito sa loob ng Impeachment Court. Ngunit sa aking pananaw ay iba po ang aking pananaw sapagkat political ally po ang pamilya ni Annabelle Buenaflor Tiongson at yung pamilya ni Congressman Tupas. Ang gusto ko lang pong patunayan dito ay pagkakaroon ng malapit na relasyon ng pamilya ni Annabelle Buenaflor Tiongson at yung pamilya ni Congressman Tupas.
57
At sa aking pananaw, sana po ay respetuhin niyo po ang aking sinabi na hindi po ako naniniwala na hindi po kayo magkakilala. Sana po ay respetuhin niyo ang aking opinyon gayun din na nirerespeto ko po ang inyong sinabi rito na hindi niyo kilala si Ms. Annabelle Buenaflor Tiongson. Hayaan niyo na po, I do not want to argue with you. Let the people judge kung talagang magkakilala kayong dalawa. Who knows, it might be the bank manager who leaked out the documents to you. Hindi natin po alam. I am not in the position to answer that. Let the people judge. Thank you, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, please. The Presiding Officer. The Chief of the Panel of Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Thank you, Mr. President. Gusto ko lang po ilagay sa record na hindi ko kinukuwestiyon yung motibo ng ating Kagalang-galang na Senador sa San Juan. In fact, talagang malaki rin po ang respeto natin sa kanya. Malaki ang respeto natin sa kanya pag pumupunta nga ng Iloilo ang ating Senador na nagkakataon na magkasama rin kami kasama ng aking kapatid. Pero tumayo lang ho ako dito kanina kasi nabanggit lang yung pangalan, hindi lang yung aking ama, yung kapatid ko, pati nung asawa ko. Ang gusto ko lang po ilagay lang sa record na wala kaming relasyon, walang acquaintance nung witness na si Ms. Anabelle Tiongson. Sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon na nakita ko siya nung Lunes noong nag-testify siya. So yun lang po. Gusto ko ilagay sa record na nirerespeto ko rin yung opinyonpersonal opinion or paniniwala ng ating Kagalang-galang na Senador. I just want to put it on record dahil pothis isbabasahin po ang record dito ng ating mga estudyante at babasahin po hindi lang po ngayon kundi sa susunod na henerasyon and I just want to protect the names or the name of my family. So salamat po. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, one final point on the bank president from Senator Cayetano. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, magandang hapon po. Mr. Garcia, magandang hapon. Mr. Garcia. Good afternoon. Senator Cayetano (A). You know, we sympathize and empathize with you no, the banking industry is in the center of our economy. Hindi naman kayo ang on trial dito, yung Chief Justice. But siguro naiintindihan niyo naman kung gaano kaimportante yung impormasyon na ito. And we know there is conflict between theory; there is conflict between the law and in reality. Ibig sabihin po kahit required kayo by law na ibigay, halimbawa, yung peso accounts you have to be very careful kung ano ang sensitivities ng inyong depositors. We understand that. Puwede kaming magsalita nang magsalita dito na hindi aalis yan o whatever, but you know that better than us.
58
I just like to ask you, ano ba ang pagkaintindi niyo sa 1405, doon sa exception na pagka Impeachment Court? Do you think that you need ain your belief or your opinion of the law, kailangan niyo pa ng subpoena or ng order bago niyo ilabas tungkol sa peso accounts? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. That is our understanding. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay, because I would like to bring to your attention, in the Journal of January 2, 2000 and December 22, 2000, Clarissa Ocampo came here to the Senate and gave testimony, and she did not have a subpoena. And, I will not goI only have a limited time no, when they were asked, sabi niya, tinanong niya sa external counsel nila. At since sinabi nung external counsel na puwede dahil impeachment case, ibinigay na lang ito. I am saying that because this all started with the little lady and the big congressman, Congressman Umali or the tall congressman, no. Kasi kung puwede naman ibigay sa kanya dahil impeachment case naman ito at wala namang bawal doon, wala nang allegations of a fairy tale or kung totoo ito o hindi. Pero, alam natin na kahit ganoon yung batas masama sa bangko yon, hindi ba? Because any bank na may allegations na will freely give the information, medyo aalma yung mga depositors even if it is allowed by law, tama po ba yon? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Meaning, you are in a position that you want to follow the law, you want to be very cooperative here, but you also have to be very careful of the sensitivities of your depositors. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, but if I may just add? It is not just the sensitivitysensitivities of our depositors. If we disclose anything, even on a peso account that is not covered by an order of this Court, we will actually be violating Republic Act 1405, which specifies that we are not supposed to disclose anything except to an Impeachment Court, and that is through an order. And that is why we have to be extremely careful. And, besides, even on the subpoena, Your Honor, there were 10 certain accounts specified there, and so we respond on the basis of what we are being ordered to respond. So, if we will respond or give information or details or anything that is not within the specific instructions of the Court, we will be opening up ourselves and we will be violating the law on confidentiality. Senator Cayetano (A). No, I am trying to help you explain to your depositors. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Because your understanding of the law is an interpretation already. You said you need an order of the Impeachment Court. That is not what the law says. The law says, except upon written permission of the depositor or in cases of impeachment. It does not say that you need an order of the Impeachment Court. That is why in the case of Clarissa Ocampo, she came here walang order, and tinanong siya, Bakit mo binibigay yung impormasyon? Ang sagot niya, Tinanong ko sa external counsel namin. Sabi ng counsel nila, puwede. My only interpretation of that is because they interpreted in case of impeachment to mean anything that has to do with the impeachment proceeding. Meaning, if one of your bank official goes to the Prosecution and says, Eto yung bank accounts niya. They will not be liable under the law, under that precedent no, under whatI will not argue that point now because that is notI was just simply trying to ask you your opinion and I will ask the Defensethe Prosecution Counsel the same thing, but I was just trying to help you alsobecause, you know, we are being monitored here. We are being watched
59
ng ating mga kababayan. All banks are also, probably, watching your situation, and I would like to show you that although we ask you tough questions, we are not insensitive to the situation of your bank and the banking industry, Sir. Mr. Garcia. I thank you for that, Your Honor, and if I may just add. In the case of Clarissa Ocampo, precisely, when she did disclose without a court order or no direction from the court, or for that matter a consent from the depositor, the bank suffered significantly right after that. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Mr. Garcia. Deposits got eroded. Senator Cayetano (A). Precisely. That is what I was pointing out. Yun po yung practice. Yun po yung actual na nangyari. Pero hindi po siya nakasuhan at wala pong penalty ang Bangko Sentral sa kanila at conditionally, tinanggap yung ebidensya dito sa Impeachment Court because nga eto yung kaibahan ng batas sa actual. Ang batas, payagan man kayong magbigay ng impormasyon, actually, it causes jitters sa mga depositors. Mr. Garcia. Opo. Senator Cayetano (A). So, I will not ask you and will not debate on the law. But I will agree with you that the mere fact thatMr. President, just thirty seconds to finish. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Cayetano (A). But I will agree with you and that is why to the depositors who are watching, I wanted to send them the message that you do not have a choice kapagka impeachment proceedings ito. May I ask the Prosecution Counsel, same question. Anong interpretation nyo sa 1405? Kailangang orderan pa yung bangko na dalhin dito? Or the mere fact na may pumunta sa inyo na kahit anong opisyal ng bangko at sinabing, impeachment case to, eto yung dokumento? Mr. Custodio. I would like to agree with the position of Your Honor. And precisely as one of the exceptions to the prohibition, an impeachment by the very nature of the proceedings is in essence an opportunity to deviate from the prohibition. And on that premise, we agree that as long as it is an impeachment, the witness or the bank official may be compelled and may disclose details pertaining to that bank account. Senator Cayetano (A). I will give the Defense a chance to say their opinion. But one follow-up question there. Then it would not matter kung anonymous, kung ang nagbigay ng tip ay kilala o hindi. It is more of kung taga-bangko kasi yung nagbigay. And let me now state here, there are many possibilities as the bank officials have been saying. In fact, it could be the clients copy. I mentioned the Udong Mahusay case here where the client, allegedly the First Gentleman, nasa alalay niya yung mga papeles at tinakbo yung mga papeles kaya eto ang ibinigay. The bank manager said that they also went through some audits. So, not to point fingers here, but there are one thousand and one possibilities. But the point is, kung saan man nanggalingif yung Clarissa Ocampo precedent is correct and if the interpretation of 1405 is correct, it does not really matter kung sinong nagbigay because this is an impeachment case. But can I ask the Defense, do you have a different interpretation? Sa inyo ho ba kailangan may order pa yung Korte or puwedeng ibigay ng bangko?
60
Mr. Cuevas. Well, the mere fact that the case is an impeachment case does not exempt anybody else from the criminal liability of violating the confidentiality of the deposit, Your Honor, enshrined under Republic Act 1405. Now, you are citing the case of Erap probably. But in that case, Your Honor, the charge was plunder against President Erap. And plunder carries with it as alleged in the information, there is estafa, bribery and so on. So, there is a relation between the predicate offense and the Impeachment Complaint, Your Honor. But supposing there is an Impeachment Complaint filed against an impeachable officer and what is involved is a case of estafa which has nothing to do, whatsoever, or concubinage or adultery, why will not the privacy or confidentiality enshrined under 1405 be availed of? My point is this, Your Honor, the character of the proceedings is immaterial. It may be impeachment. But if the predicate crime involved has nothing to do with the impeachment, the confidentiality still obtained, Your Honor. And that was made succintly clear in the Erap case because the charge there is plunder. And there were allegations of bribery and other crimes, Your Honor, in the information. So, there is a commission of the offense. Therefore, there is no necessity of a court order. Revelation or dealing with the account of the respondent public officer may be made, Your Honor, without an order of the court. Senator Cayetano (A). Sir, your explanation is very, very clear. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. I was just relying on the jurisprudence on the point. Senator Cayetano (A). The Senate President, the Presiding Officer already ruled several times that 2.2 and 2.3 in Article II includes allowing the Prosecution to show that if there are bank accounts that exceed what was declared in the SALN as cash assets of theso in this case although, of course, you will have your turn to dispute that and say whether or not that is a valid allegationang tinatanong ko lang po, halimbawa po may lumapit sa kanila ngayon na bangko, without a subpoena, without the order of this Impeachment Court, at sabihin 1405 exception, impeachment. Ito po ang account. We want to bewhatever. Whether ang laman noong account zero or whether ang laman ay napakalaki. Mr. Cuevas. That will be a violation of Republic Act 1405. Senator Cayetano (A). In your opinion? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). I will stop there, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Definitely, yes. As what you will notice, it is not only the legal liability that is paramount in this particularYou will note that when the revelation of the account had been made, there is a bank run. That caused the closure of PCIBank. And how can I guarantee, for instance, let us say, I am the lawyer involved, Sige ilabas mo, hindi ka covered. But the depositors started withdrawing. Can I answer for the multimillion business that had been lost by the bank simply because of my advice? I should be very, very Senator Cayetano (A). Precisely my point, Counsel, the Honorable Justice Cuevas. I was saying that iba po yong issue ng bank run at hindi natin puwedeng hindi tingnan yon. Pero iba po yong point na legal, na legal ba na buksan.
61
But I will stop there, Mr. Presiding Officer, because I just wanted to hear both sides. I think this will be relevant later on when we compare the documents and when we decide the admissibility of this evidence. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. All right. Let us proceed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are finished with the witness at this point. There are no more questions. So may we call back the bank manager of the Katipunan Branch? The Presiding Officer. All right. The trial suspended for one long minute. The trial was suspended at 6:00 p.m. At 6:05 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Senator Sotto. Trial resumed.
Mr. President, may we call back the bank manager of PSBank? The bank manager of the PSBank
The Presiding Officer.
Mr. Puno. Your Honor, she is just in the ladies room. She is on her way back. The Presiding Officer. Senator Sotto. Who is the next witness?
Ms. Tiongson, she is on her way back to the Court, Mr. President.
May we ask Senator Osmea be recognized? The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Cebu has the floor.
The gentleman from Cebu may now proceed. Senator Osmea. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Tiongson, good afternoon again. Ms. Tiongson. Good afternoon, Sir. Senator Osmea. Ms. Tiongson, you were handed a subpoena to appear at two oclock this afternoonno, that is yesterday, and when you appeared you did not have the information that we required so we are asking if you brought with you the information that the subpoena asked you to bring with you this afternoon or this evening. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, no, because the documentssince our records are already with the head office under the custody of our senior officers. It is with Mr. Garcia, Sir, so he will be the more competent person to discuss it. Senator Osmea. You were the one who was subpoenaed. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. But since the records, I did not personally prepare them. Mr. Garcia had them prepared, so he is the more competent person to discuss them. Senator Osmea. No, you are not going to pass the buck to Mr. Garcia.
62
Ms. Tiongson. No naman, Sir. Senator Osmea. So will you obtain
Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. President, I hereby move that Ms. Tiongson familiarize herself with the document which we subpoenaed, and for her to appear tomorrow at two oclock and be prepared to answer questions on those documents. The Presiding Officer. There is no need to subpoena the witness. She is ordered to procure the record of her branch office, from the president of the bank, to comply with the request of the Senator-Judge from Cebu to bring this record or peso account to this Court for examination by the Senator-Judge from Cebu. So ordered. Senator Osmea. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. And also, Mr. President, just as a reminder, the logbook as requested by the The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. other senators for tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. Now, let us repeat the order. You will bring with you the logbook of your secured documents especially the records of your bank accounts, peso bank accounts and the signature cards appurtenant thereto. Ms. Tiongson. The signatures? Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I clarify? The Presiding Officer. And second, the documents requested by the Senator-Judge from Cebu that you said are in the custody of your president. Do you understand, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. There is no need for a subpoena duces tecum. The Court directly orders you to do it. Senator Sotto. Thank you. With that, Mr. President, we may excuse the witness in the meantime? The Presiding Officer. The witness is excused in the meantime and you return at two oclock tomorrow afternoon. Ms. Tiongson. Sir? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms may make the announcement.
63
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 Thursday, February 16, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? Hearing none, this trial is adjourned until that. At 6:12 p.m. the impeachment trial was adjourned.

Language

Feb 15 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

Feb 15 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

Hindi po tunay na dokumento po.

The Presiding Officer. Peke? Mr. Puno. Peke po.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012