TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate
Pasay City

Record of the Senate
Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Tuesday, March 20, 2012

AT 2:16 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 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 Sen. Teofisto L. Guingona III. Senator Guingona. Heavenly Father, once again we come before You to pray that You may bless an important task, the performance of our earthly mission of unearthing truth and dispensing justice; Yet, we come before You to dedicate this task and hope that You find delight in what we do in this Chamber; Lord, Your word reminds us all that You detest, despise and hate lying lips; Open our eyes when such lips come before us; Unmask them for us and protect the ears of those who shall hear the words from such deceitful mouths; Your word reminds us, too, that You delight in persons who are truthful; May You find delight in the process now taking place in this Chamber; May You find delight in the words of those who come here and bare the truth before us; Give us ears and minds that discern truth amid lies; And may our human efforts be rewarded with the discovery of the truth in which You delight; With humble hearts, we pray. Amen.

2

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

The Presiding Officer. 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 “Compañero” S. Cayetano ................................. Absent** Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan ............................................................ Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present Senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid ....................................................... Present Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Present* Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Absent** Senator Sergio R. Osmeña 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 16 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 19, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the March 19, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will now please call the case.
______________
*Arrived after the roll call ** On official mission

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

3

The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader, appearances. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the parties to enter their appearances. The Presiding Officer. For the Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President. For the Prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. For the Defense. Mr. Bodegon. Good afternoon, Mr. President, and the Members of this Impeachment Court, same appearances for the Defense, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Majority Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the continuation of the cross-examination of the Defense witness, Mr. Benz Lim, may we recognize Sen. Teofisto L. Guingona III. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Bukidnon. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. Just clarificatory questions. This is addressed to the Defense. Ano po, naguguluhan lamang kami, so, I would like to just be clarified. In 2010, the Coronas sold two properties: one, Ayala Heights, which was sold for P8 million; and another, La Vista, which was sold for P18 million, correct? Mr. Bodegon. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Thank you. And in his 2010 SALN, nakalagay apat na condo. So, iyong condo 4 and 5, may note nakalagay sa SALN: “We sold two parcels of land in Quezon City to pay for the loans for the condo units.” To pay for the condo units 4 and 5. Am I correct? Mr. Bodegon. That is what appears in the SALN for 2010, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Okay. And these condo 4 and condo 5 are Bonifacio Ridge, condo 4; and Bellagio, condo 5, am I correct? Mr. Bodegon. Correct, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Okay. My question lamang is: If the Quezon City properties were sold in 2010 to pay for the condos, the condo 4 and condo 5, condo 4 po was paid—fully paid in 2004, and condo 5 was paid in 2009, so, actually, when you sell something, you get the money and you seek to pay for the condo. But in this case, nauna po iyong purchase ng condo before selling the Quezon City lots. Could you please enlighten me on this? Mr. Bodegon. If Your Honor please, that should actually be the subject of testimony. However, if you....

4
Senator Guingona. Forthcoming testimony?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. However, may I invite your attention to the note: “We sold two parcels of land in Quezon City to purchase/pay the loans for condo units 4 and 5.” Senator Guingona. Okay. Mr. Bodegon. So, these proceeds were used to pay for the condo and the loan, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Maybe the loans, not the condo. Mr. Bodegon. Yes.... Senator Guingona. Because the condos were already purchased. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. There must still be outstanding loans which were paid by the proceeds of the same. Anyway, this will have to be covered by testimony, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Yes. But in 2010, you do not have liabilities anymore, no loans. Mr. Bodegon. But there were pre-existing liabilities, Your Honor, that were extinguished or paid for by the proceeds of the sale. Senator Guingona. Even in your 2009, wala na pong liabilities. Mr. Bodegon. Well, as I manifested, Your Honor, this would be better testified to by the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let us wait for the evidence of the Defense to be presented. Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President. I would like to thank the Defense for trying to clarify the matter. Thank you. Mr. Bodegon. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. Mr. President, before the business of today, may I just call the attention of the Secretariat for probably typographical error on page 9 of the Journal as manifested by Senator Arroyo to this Representation. On the fifth line, “do not”, remove “do not” because what he said was, “We have the law”. He did not say, “We do not have the law”. That is all, Mr. President, for the record. The Presiding Officer. All right. If there is no objection, make the proper correction. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. May we now continue with the cross-examination of Defense Witness, Mr. Lim. The Presiding Officer. Is the Witness here already? Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. But just a short manifestation before we continue. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Bodegon. May I just inform the Honorable Court that our Chief Defense Counsel is still indisposed, Justice Cuevas, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

5

The Presiding Officer. Well, we take note of that and we hope he will get well. I understand he has a vertigo. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor, that is also our prayer. The Presiding Officer. Just tell him to take Serc. Mr. Bodegon. We will convey that, Your Honor. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. And do exercise, that will disappear. If he needs assistance, I will help him. I had that problem once upon a time. So, anyway, is the Witness here already? Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. In this regard, may I now call on Atty. Judd Roy, Your Honor, for the continuation of the testimony of the Witness, Benz Lim. The Presiding Officer. Attorney Roy. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. President.... The Presiding Officer. Is Attorney Roy a judge? Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor, I was a dean at one time. The Presiding Officer. Yes, you see, I know your grandfather very well, so I am quite familiar with the Roy family. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. So, may I have a minute to summon the Witness, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. All right, you have a minute. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay, the Prosecution. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, we just like to manifest that we were supposed to start our crossexamination, but after going over the documentary exhibits presented yesterday, we have decided that we will no longer propound any cross-examination questions. The Presiding Officer. So, no cross? Mr. Hernandez. No cross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, we will dismiss the Witness. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. The Witness was asked to return because there were certain questions left unanswered. He has brought other documents which may be of interest to the Court. The Presiding Officer. All right, the leave of Court is granted.

6
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Bring the Witness for further direct examination and subject to crossexamination by the Prosecution, if there is a need for it. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may I address the Court. Anyway, everybody seems to be here so as not to waste time and to avoid the awkward silence, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Yesterday, I believe one of the questions had to do with when the keys or when the unit was accepted. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. And, if I am not mistaken, the Witness is in possession of a document which will establish that issue or that fact. He is here, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Under the same oath, the Witness will testify for further direct examination. Mr. Roy. With your permission, Mr. President, I would like to propound a few additional direct questions. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Mr. Witness, good afternoon. Mr. Lim. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Thank you for coming back. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Sir. Mr. Roy. If you recall yesterday, the Court asked you if you were aware of when the unit was accepted by Mrs. Corona. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Okay. Can you tell us if there is anything in your records that might show us when the unit was accepted? Mr. Lim. Basically, Your Honor, we have a master list based in our management in the admin office. So, we have a master list for that, Sir. Mr. Roy. Now, if I recall yesterday, Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano asked you how you are informed to begin collecting dues. Can you explain that to us please? Mr. Lim. We just refer to the master list, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. What is contained in the master list? Mr. Lim. The master list, Your Honor, is the unit itself, the registered owner and the acceptance date. Mr. Roy. Do you have a copy of this master list with you?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

7

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Can I see it please? The Presiding Officer. Produce the document if you have it, Mr. Witness. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may I make of record and may I invite Counsel for the Prosecution, The Witness is showing us a document which he says is the master list. Can you please tell us, Mr. Lim, what is this image we are looking at? Mr. Lim. The image that we are looking at, Sir, is the master list. This is the monitoring in our admin office. This states when the exact date that we will bill the unit owner for the association dues. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that this document be marked as Exhibit No. ... The Presiding Officer. Is that document dated? Mr. Roy. When is the date of this document, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. This is as of August 12, 2009. But, this is only.... The Presiding Officer. As of August? Mr. Lim. August 12, 2009, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, that list covers all unit holders in that particular condominium as of that date. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Roy. When did you get this copy or when did you produce this document, Mr. Witness? Mr. Lim. Basically, this is in our records, Sir, because I am just in by 2010. Mr. Roy. But when did you get this document from the records? When? When did you get this document? When did you get this copy? Mr. Lim. This is based on our records, Sir. Mr. Roy. When did you get it from your records? Yesterday, today, last year? When did you get it? The Presiding Officer. The question is: when did you take that record from your files to bring it to this Court? Mr. Lim. Just yesterday, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Only yesterday. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, just a manifestation. The Presiding Officer. Yes.

8

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Hernandez. The document which was presented appears to be a computer printout and not a normal document. Mr. Roy. It is a printout which.... Yes, that is correct. That is a correct observation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I suppose Ayala has computerized all its files. I do not think they are keeping hard copies as files in our modern world. Mr. Roy. If I may be allowed. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. Mr. Lim, who produced this document? Who had it printed out? Mr. Lim. Me, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. You. Who operated the computer to print it out? Mr. Lim. Me, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Whose computer did you use? Mr. Lim. Mine, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. I hope that will satisfy the Court as to the authentication of the document, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is that computer printout found in the master computer file of Ayala? Mr. Lim. This is the copy of us from the admin office of the association, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Roy. If I may have this marked, Your Honor, we adopt this as Defense Exhibit “212”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. It contains the list of all the unit holders. Mr. Roy. This particular document only contains an excerpt, Your Honor, and the relevant excerpt pertaining to the issues in this case. But it was drawn from a list which contains all the members of the corporation. The Presiding Officer. And it does not state the exact date when the unit was accepted by Mrs. Corona. Mr. Roy. I will try to extract that from the Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead. Mr. Roy. Thank you. Mr. Lim, would you be so kind to explain, there are several columns on this sheet of paper, will you please be so kind to explain what those columns are? Mr. Lim. The particulars indicated here are the unit itself, which unit they are, and the unit owner, who are the registered owner, and the acceptance date, when is the unit accepted, and the deemed acceptance date. This is where the developer policy went to the owner to accept the unit and the remarks. Mr. Roy. Mr. Lim, can you tell us if this list includes the unit of Mrs. Cristina Corona? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

9

Mr. Roy. Can you identify the entry which shows the unit of Mrs. Cristina Corona and I invite Counsel to.... Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, at this point I would like to object. The Witness is incompetent having testified yesterday that he was only employed in 2010. The dates appearing in the record would be 2006 and 2009, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, he is testifying on the record. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. But it would be hearsay, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I do not think he is going to vary the contents of the record. He is being asked questions on what is recorded in that document. So, the Witness may answer. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Lim, can you please tell us if the name and the unit of Mrs. Corona appear on this excerpt of your records? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Can you tell us what is the date of acceptance because you mentioned earlier that this record contains the date of acceptance? Is it indicated there? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. What is the date of acceptance, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Based on this file, Sir, it is August 12, 2009. Mr. Roy. So, your file says that Mrs. Corona accepted the unit on....? Mr. Lim. August 12, 2009. Mr. Roy. August 12, 2009. Do you know, Mr. Lim, where this information comes from? Mr. Lim. This is from the developer. Mr. Roy. You mean to tell me that the developer gives you this information? Mr. Lim. As a usual process, yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. And then thereafter, it goes into your files? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. And, am I correct now in stating that after the acceptance is established, that is when you start collecting association dues? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. the unit was given? Is it presumed that that is also the time when the key to

Mr. Lim. For the key, Sir, to turn over to Mrs. Corona, I do not have an idea for that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Counsel.

10

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Roy. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lim. Your Honor, no further questions. The Presiding Officer. Any further questions on .... Mr. Roy. None, Your Honor. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, before I proceed with my cross, I believe there was a commitment yesterday to produce the originals of the documents. Mr. Roy. Oh, I am sorry. I am sorry, Your Honor. Mr. Lim, yesterday you promised to produce the originals of the documents that we identified, do you have them with you? The Presiding Officer. Do you have them with you, Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Please speak through the microphone so that your answers will be recorded. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, we take a few minutes to compare these with the marked documents. [Pause] Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, I would like to manifest that I compared the originals with the documents presented yesterday and they are faithful reproductions. The Presiding Officer. They are identical? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, we still have no cross-examination questions. We would just like to request the marking of one of the exhibits as our own exhibit which would be Exhibit “196” for the Defense which is the personal letter of Cristina Corona. We would like to mark it, Your Honor, as our own exhibit which would be Exhibit “CCCCCCCCCCC”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly for the Prosecution. Any other question, Mr. Counsel? Mr. Hernandez. Just one more manifestation, Your Honor. We would like to cause the submarking of two phrases in this letter, one is in the penultimate paragraph of the letter. It says “I have not earned any income from this investment” as our Exhibit “CCCCCCCCCCC-1”, and in the last paragraph, “I am losing money from this investment”, as our “CCCCCCCCCCC-2”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Hernandez. With that, Your Honor, I have no further questions. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Roy. Mr. President, may I also adopt the submarkings for the Defense as Exhibits “196-A” and “196-B”.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

11

The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Mark the submarking of the Prosecution as stated by the Defense for purposes of identification as their exhibits. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Any other question? Mr. Hernandez. Before the Witness is discharged, we would just like to manifest that Senator Osmeña was requesting yesterday how the payment was made on this particular unit. We would like to manifest, Your Honor, that we filed a three-page compliance detailing the details of the payments. The Presiding Officer. Who made the— Mr. Hernandez. It was requested by Senator Osmeña. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Okay. We are a bit surprised, Your Honor, but I think we have a witness who will testify to the payment, the circumstances of the purchase. The Presiding Officer. So what is the pleasure of the Prosecution? Mr. Hernandez. I am just manifesting for the record that we complied with the request, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. The gentleman from Cebu. Senator Osmeña. Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, the documents had been submitted a couple of weeks ago and we would like to ask the Prosecution just to clarify the difference between the Contract to Sell which is dated January 20, 2004, and the Annex “C” which covers the purchase price and manner of payment which are dated January 29, 2003 or a year earlier, and shows a schedule of payments to be P25,000.00 on January 29, 2003, downpayment of P543,181.82 on March 28, 2003. Then the installments schedule covers first installment P1,113,033.18 on April 28, 2003, the second payment being P1,728,270.23 on October 10, 2003, and the last payment amounting to P179,446.59, and it is marked here “upon advise.” So the total matches the price for the condominium which is P3,588,931.82. I still cannot get the dates right because while the manner of payment schedule in Annex “C” shows that the second payment was already—the bulk of the payments had already been made as of October 10, 2003, the Contract to Sell is dated January 20, 2004. The Presiding Officer. In other words, the property was fully paid in 2003. Senator Osmeña. Just about, Mr. President, based on Annex “C”. Mr. Ginez. If I may answer, Your Honor, because I was the one who presented the witness from Columns, Ms. Nerissa Josef. Actually, what happened was, initially, Mrs. Corona bought a studio unit in 2003. And then she applied for an upgrade of the unit to a one-bedroom unit, Your Honor.

12

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

And so when the upgrade was finalized, it was already, I understand, in 2000—when the Contract to Sell was already executed, Your Honor, in March of 2004. So, she started paying the studio unit in 2003. And in January 2004, the Contract to Sell was executed. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, while I appreciate the—with the permission of the kind Counsel, while I appreciate the efforts to assist the Court, I think, perhaps, that reference should be made to the record of the testimony of Ms. Josef. Perhaps, that might give us a more accurate account of what was said in Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Was your statement into the record covered by the answers of the witness you presented? Mr. Ginez. No, Your Honor, we did not delve into that matter already during her presentation. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, you take note of that. Senator Osmeña. Anyway, the Contract to Sell which was submitted is dated January 20, 2004 and now you are talking about another Contract to Sell that was signed on March 2004? Mr. Ginez. No, Your Honor. I correct myself. It was this January 20, 2004, only one and the same, Your Honor. Only one Contract to Sell dated January 20, 2004. Senator Osmeña. But this is the penthouse unit that they eventually upgraded to. Mr. Ginez. Not penthouse, Your Honor. I think it is only one-bedroom unit with parking lot. Senator Osmeña. What was the number of the unit? Mr. Ginez. 31-B, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. 31-D as in David? Mr. Ginez. As in boy, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. As in boy? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Sir. Senator Osmeña. One bedroom. Now, would the price be the same? Mr. Ginez. It was not, Your Honor. Per my interview with the witness before, there was a different purchase price. It is not the same. Mr. Roy. I am sorry.... Senator Osmeña. Excuse me, please do not interrupt when a Judge is asking questions. Yes, please continue. Mr. Ginez. The price of the studio unit, Your Honor, is lesser than the price for the.... Senator Osmeña. Give us the price of the studio unit. Is that P3.588 million? Mr. Ginez. No, Your Honor, it is less than that. I do not have the exact amount, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Would you get that information please? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

13

Senator Osmeña. Now the price of the one-bedroom Unit 31-B is P3.588 million. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, we confirm. Senator Osmeña. But that seems to correspond exactly with Annex “C”? So, was the P3.588 million fully paid when the Contract to Sell was signed? Mr. Ginez. When the Contract to Sell was signed, it was not yet fully paid, Your Honor. Because payments subsequently made on our official receipts that were testified to and marked into evidence would show that full payment was made only sometime in 2004, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. In 2004? Mr. Ginez. March 2004, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. So the P3,588,931.82 was fully paid in 2004. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. And, well, it never appeared on the assets side of Justice Corona, the Respondent. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, it never appeared for the payments of 2003, there was no entry as to the payments that were made as well as to the payments that were made in 2004, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. In 2005, did the cash payment P3.5 million appear? Mr. Ginez. No, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. In his SALN of 2006, did the P3.5 million appear? Mr. Ginez. Not also, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. In 2007, did the P3.5 million appear? Mr. Ginez. No, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. In 2008, did the P3.5 million appear? Mr. Ginez. No, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. In 2009? Mr. Ginez. No, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. So, it finally appeared in 2010? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Now, in double entry accounting, asset equals liabilities plus networth? In fact, the Constitution is really based on the principles of double entry accounting. So, therefore, if you take something out of your asset side, you have to replace it with another asset, or with a liability. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Now, in this particular case, how did the Respondent book an asset in the amount of P3.5 million? Is there anywhere in the SALN that reflected that?

14

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Ginez. Based on the evidence that we have presented, Your Honor, for the SALN for the years 2003 to 2009, there were no entries made by the Respondent. Senator Osmeña. And lo and behold, it appears in 2010. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, and our position is that even under accounting rules, an entry should have been made when payments were made, and the entry should have been an investment in real property, or it may be even under other assets, Your Honor. But no entries were made during the years.... Senator Osmeña. Or if there was an objection or question, maybe an account receivable from Ayala Land or Alveo land. Mr. Ginez. I agree, Your Honor. That is correct. Senator Osmeña. Thank you very much. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right, Counsel. Mr. Roy. Mr. President, I would like to (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Anyway, yesterday, Mr. President, you mentioned.... Mr. Ginez. I would like to object to that, Your Honor, because of... Mr. Roy. Withdrawn, Your Honor, withdrawn. The Presiding Officer. Avoid this. Mr. Ginez. May we request that that be stricken out, Your Honor, from the record. Mr. Roy. I withdraw, my apologies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Strike it out. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That was a narration of the lawyer based on his recollection of the facts. Mr. Roy. I see now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Not under oath anyway. Mr. Roy. Mr. President, you asked me if this was to be treated as an asset. By the way, may we ask that Mr. Lim be discharged, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Lim, you can go. Senator Sotto. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. President, before we discharge the Witness, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago. The Presiding Officer. All right. Stay on the witness stand, because the lady Senator from Iloilo wishes to ask a question.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

15

Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you. I would like to raise a question, not only with this Witness, but also with both Counsel. Mr. Witness, what is the provision of the Master Deed for the Columns condominium unit with respect to the transfer of ownership? Mr. Lim. For that, Your Honor, I do not have an idea. Senator Defensor Santiago. You do not know when ownership is transferred? Mr. Lim. For the ownership, Ma’am, I do not have any idea. But for the acceptance of unit, yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. What is the provision of the Master Deed on the acceptance of unit? Mr. Lim. Once the unit owner accepts the unit, Your Honor, that is the only time that we will charge the association dues. Senator Defensor Santiago. Under the language of the Master Deed, what is the meaning of “accept”? Do you have any idea? Mr. Lim. That is the time, Your Honor, that the unit owner accepted, really accepted the unit. Senator Defensor Santiago. Think again. What do you mean by “accept”? He accepted verbally? He accepted physically? He accepted in writing? What is the meaning of “accept”? Mr. Lim. Based on my observation, Your Honor,.... Senator Defensor Santiago. Your observation. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, that there is a form on there, but that is already for the developer’s side, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Obviously, you are not very familiar with the legal aspects of the transfer of ownership over the condominium unit. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Now, our issue here is, when should the condominium in the Columns have been declared in the SALN of the Defendant. That is our issue here. To be able to answer that issue, we have to know when did he become the owner. Now, there are two contending sides and they have different positions. According to the Prosecution, the Defendant became owner when the Certificate of Title was issued to him. At that point, apparently, your corporation took the position that the unit was deemed accepted. Is that the language you used? Mr. Lim. For the corporation, Your Honor, when I presented the master list, it was dated August 2009, Your Honor, that the unit was accepted. Senator Defensor Santiago. Is deemed accepted when the Transfer Certificate of Title is transferred to the buyer. Is that your practice there in your corporation? Mr. Lim. It was accepted, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. There are so many methods of acceptance in law. So, what I am saying is, under your Master Deed, apparently, your corporation has laid down the rule that

16

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

once the Transfer Certificate of Title has been issued to the owner and accepted by him, then he is deemed to have accepted the condominium unit. That is not a question but that is apparently the position of your corporation. But on the other hand, the position of the Defense is that ownership was not transferred upon acceptance of the Transfer Certificate of Title but was transferred only when the buyer took full possession. So, there are two contradictory views of when ownership was transferred and, therefore, also two contradictory views on when the property should have been declared in the SALN. What year? Transfer of title was made in 2004 but, apparently, declaration was made only in 2009. That is our issue today. Now, I am going to raise this question with the Prosecuting Counsel. Counsel, in view of this issue, I will quote to you a decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in Cebu Windland v. Ong Siao Hua which was promulgated in 2009. In effect, in this case, the Supreme Court held that symbolic or presumptive delivery which seems to have taken place and which seems to be the anchor for the argumentation of the Prosecution. Apparently, just to summarize, Prosecution takes the position that once Transfer Certificate of Title was accepted by the buyer, that was presumptive or that was symbolic delivery and since delivery has already been accomplished, then he was the owner on that date. That is your position, is that not so? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, and that is also provided for in the Contract to Sell of the particular unit. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. Okay. But in the case of Cebu Windland which was promulgated in 2009 by the Supreme Court, the Court held that symbolic or presumptive delivery by the execution of public instrument, meaning to say, Transfer Certificate of Title, and here I will emphasize what the Court said: “Can be negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold.” What do you say, Counsel, with that passage in this case? Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, we have cited—we have submitted to the Court a memorandum regarding this issue and we also cited, Your Honor, the case of Marcela v. Court of Appeals. Senator Defensor Santiago. What case was that? When was that case promulgated? Mr. Ginez. It was decided, Your Honor, on March 27, 2007. Senator Defensor Santiago. That was 2007. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. This is 2009. Mr. Ginez. And the facts of the case, Your Honor.... Senator Defensor Santiago. No, excuse me. Let us stay with this particular point. You are citing to the Court a 2007 case. The Court is citing to you a 2009 case and is asking you to comment on this provision from the Supreme Court case. We are familiar with the rule that the latest case controls. Mr. Ginez. We have also cited the 2010 decision, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. What case was that?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

17

Mr. Ginez. The case of Raymundo S. De Leon v. Benita T. Ong. The Supreme Court said, Your Honor, that under Article 1498 of the Civil Code, the execution of a notarized Deed of Sale is equivalent to the delivery of the thing sold. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is the general rule, is it not? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Ma’am. Senator Defensor Santiago. So, you are just citing a general rule. Here in Windland, the Supreme Court is citing a specific rule and you know that specific prevails over general. Now, you are citing this 2010 case. Let me ask you this question: Did it involve a condominium unit? If you are not sure, you may say so. Mr. Ginez. I am not sure, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. In this Cebu Windland on which I rely very strongly because it is the latest case, I have to quote extensively from the Supreme Court. I am quoting now: Article 1497 of the Civil Code contemplates what is known as real or actual delivery, when the thing is sold in the controlling possession of the vendee. On the other hand, Article 1498 refers to “symbolic delivery by the execution of a public instrument. It should be noted, however, that Article 1498 does not say that the execution of the deed provides a conclusive presumption of the delivery of possession. It confines itself to providing that the execution is equivalent to delivery, which means that the presumption can be rebutted by means of clear and convincing evidence.” Now, my question to you is: Since there is no conclusive presumption, you are only relying on a preliminary presumption that can be overturned by clear and convincing evidence, is that not so? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, that is your position. I do not think I have—Well, let me just ask, for asking sake, the Defense Counsel, what is your position? Did Chief Justice actually accept the unit? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may I draw your attention to paragraph 7.2 of the Contract to Sell, specifically, the second half of the paragraph. I would dispense with reading the first part, but the second half, which says: “If rectifications or adjustments are made in the unit, the seller shall, upon completion of such works, notify the purchaser of the readiness of the unit for final inspection and the purchaser shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of such notice of final inspection to inspect the unit together with the seller for the purpose of determining whether the necessary rectifications or adjustments requested by the purchaser in connection with the first inspection have been made.” In other words, Your Honor, there is a process by which acceptance must be conducted. If there are issues raised, there is a process of consultation and verification in terms of the works being done, in terms of the gripes of the purchaser before the acceptance is made. Now, we are all familiar with the concept of a deemed acceptance. But when we speak of a deemed acceptance, that is merely a declaration of the seller. It is not perforce a voluntary recognition of the buyer that the unit has been received in good order. That is the issue in this case, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. You are raising the argument that the phrase “deemed acceptance” is unilateral on the part of the condominium seller.

18

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor. Precisely, Your Honor, because a deemed acceptance indicates that there has been no acceptance by the buyer. Senator Defensor Santiago. Counsel for the Prosecution? Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, our answer to that is, the applicable rule is paragraph 7.3 of the Contract to Sell which came later than paragraph 7.2 which was read by the esteemed Counsel of the Defense. And if I may be allowed, Your Honor, paragraph 7.3 states: “The seller shall be deemed to have delivered the unit and the purchaser shall be deemed to have accepted the unit upon the earlier in any of the following dates: (a) The date of final inspection, or if the purchaser fails to inspect the unit within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the final notice of inspection; (b) the date of possession by the purchaser of the unit; (c) the date of execution by the purchaser of the acceptance form; and (d)” —and this is where we are relying, Your Honor: is “the date of execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale.” So, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, Your Honor, we, the Prosecution, are of the position that delivery was made. In the case that I cited, Your Honor, a while ago, in Marcela v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said that: “It is of no legal consequence that petitioner did not take actual possession or occupation of the disputed property after the execution of the Deed of Sale in her favor because she was already able to perfect and complete her ownership of and title over the subject property.” So, that is the Prosecution’s position, Your Honor, that upon execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, possession was transferred, and according to the Supreme Court, Your Honor, in Marcela v. Court of Appeals, it was of no legal consequence that the petitioner did not take actual possession. And that is our position also in this case. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, just very briefly, if I may. I filed a memorandum on February 15 regarding the transfer of ownership and we cited, precisely, Cebu Windland where the Supreme Court held that: “Symbolic delivery by the execution of a public instrument can be negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession.” Now, good Counsel has cited the execution of the Absolute Deed of Sale and that would have been sometime in 2004. It was, however, at that time impossible to take actual possession because, as pointed out by Senator Osmeña yesterday, they were just buying space. The condominium did not yet exist, Your Honor. It came into existence in 2006 which is the only point in time realistically that any intelligent acceptance of the goods can be made. Senator Defensor Santiago. Well, gentlemen, you, of course, realize that the filing of the SALN is governed by the implementing rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission. Have any of you, gentlemen, taken the trouble to inquire from the CSC when should ownership be transferred or deemed to have been transferred with respect to a condominium unit? Mr. Roy. I am afraid, Your Honor, that our inquiry into the matter is inconclusive. I am guided, however, by your statements yesterday that we should be first have been motivated by honesty. As pointed out by Senator Lacson, the Chief Justice honestly declared this condominium unit in 2010 as testified by Mr. Lim after it was accepted in 2009 by Mrs. Corona. And Mr. Lim further testified that the acceptance was information given to him by the builder or the seller. So we consider that as an admission on the part of the condominium builder or seller that

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

19

the transfer, the complete transfer of ownership and the free intelligent and voluntary acceptance of possession, occurred on August 12, 2009 regardless of the provisions on deemed acceptance and the issuance of title in 2004. Mr. Ginez. On the part of the Prosecution, our inquiry with the Civil Service Commission, they informed us, Your Honor, that the SALN form itself as well as the provision of the Constitution, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as well as Republic Act No. 6713 clearly state that whenever an asset, Your Honor, is acquired, it must be stated and as duly noted by the Presiding Officer yesterday, when payments were made in 2003 and in 2004 for this particular unit, an asset should have been declared by the Respondent, because asset, it has an accepted meaning, Your Honor, and no quibbling on that meaning of asset should be debated upon. An asset, when you take out a cash from your pocket, then you get an asset and this is what we are trying to point out. Acceptance of the unit, Your Honor, is of no moment because in 2003 as well as in 2004 an asset was acquired by the Respondent already. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, just very briefly. Supposing the condominium had never come to be, would that P3 point something million still be an asset? It would have become a liability. If that condominium unit never came to existence and no delivery was add, it could not possibly become an asset. The Presiding Officer. Not a liability. It would be a receivable. Senator Osmeña. Mr. President. Senator Defensor Santiago. Gentlemen, may I still.... The Presiding Officer. Yes, the gentleman from Cebu. Senator Defensor Santiago. May I have the floor. Senator Osmeña. No, I was just going to ask the permission. Senator Defensor Santiago. Oh, I thought it was the lawyer who stopped me. The Presiding Officer. With the permission of the gentle lady from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. I concede the floor to Senator Osmeña. Senator Osmeña. Thank you, Madam Senator. I think the Senate President has a better understanding than most of us do of the concept of assets and liability. An asset can be cash, it can be receivable, it can be a property. And as far as we are concerned, we do not really care if the condominium existed or not. It had to be booked in 2003 and 2004 as an asset and if that unit had not been delivered, it should have been booked maybe as an accounts receivable from Ayala Land. If the unit was never delivered even in 2010, that P3.5 million should still have appeared in his asset side, otherwise, we have a David Copperfield thing: now you see it, now you do not. Obviously, there was P3.5 million taken out of the asset side of the SALN of Justice Corona and given and paid to Ayala Land. So ano po ang nangyari doon? Hindi naman nag-appear in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. Then all of a sudden, it appears as a condominium in 2010. The condominium is irrelevant, the value must appear. That is what we are saying. Thank you, Mr. President.

20

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Roy. Mr. President, I stand corrected if the condominium had not appeared, that is right. I would still be a receivable. That is right. Senator Defensor Santiago. One more question for the Prosecutor and then I am done. Mr. Prosecutor, are you familiar with the word “tradition” in the law of sales? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. What does it mean? Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, tradition means that there are other forms of delivery other than actual delivery of the property, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Are you sure that is the meaning of tradition? Mr. Ginez. That is as my recollection would serve me, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Maybe you need some multivitamins for neurons in your brain because that is not the meaning of tradition. Tradition comes from the Latin word which means, like for example, to translate. That is a relative of the word “tradition.” Meaning to say, to convey, to give manually. That is quoted by Manresa who is the favorite basis of all our Civil Code writers. And Manresa insists that tradition is part of the transfer of ownership. That is what he says. He is, of course, the father of the Civil Code, at least, as known in our country. And according to him, ownership does not pass by mere stipulation but only by tradition. The Presiding Officer. Tradition. Senator Defensor Santiago. He says, “The delivery of a thing signifies that title has been passed from the seller to the buyer.” So, my question to you is: Has there been tradition in the sense used by Manresa and our other Civil Code authors like Tolentino, et cetera? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. We believe so, Your Honor. By execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. I am very satisfied with the answers of both Counsels. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel? Senator Sotto. Senator Drilon, Mr. President, wishes to ask questions. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Just a few questions on the Witness, Mr. President. Mr. Lim, did I hear you correctly in response to the questions of Senator Defensor Santiago that the only time when you charge association dues is when there is acceptance?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

21

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. And, therefore, acceptance has nothing to do with the date when the Deed of Sale was signed. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Acceptance has nothing to do when the actual date of registration of the Deed of Sale was done. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. In fact, acceptance has nothing to do when, by law, the ownership was transferred. Is that correct? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, in fact, the payment of condominium dues can be delayed by the simple refusal of the owner to accept the unit. It can be delayed. Mr. Lim. There is a possibility, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Yes, there is a possibility. And, in fact, in your position, you have no access as to when the titles were issued. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Nor when the titles were registered. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. That is all for the Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Actually, I think we are all confused about this whole thing. But actually it is simple as far as this Chair is concerned. We are talking of asset. The asset originally was, how much, three point something million. That was transformed into a concrete asset known as condominium. But still from the beginning of time of this contractual relationship, there was an asset only that it passes from cash to a concrete thing known as a condo unit. The condo unit came into existence when it was actually constructed, but all along, there was an asset that must be reflected in one’s SALN—whether it is in the form of a condo with the number placed opposite it, or a currency account with a number placed alongside with it. Is it not? The consideration for a condo was an asset that ought to be reflected in the SALN of the buyer. So, whether we talk of pesos and centavos or unit, there was an asset from the very beginning. Okay? Mr. Ginez. We agree, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Counsel, next. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that Mr. Lim be discharged. The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor.

22

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Roy. We would like a minute to call our next witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. One-minute suspension. The trial was suspended at 3:15 p.m. At 3:20 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Counsel. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, we call to the witness stand...May we proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed. Mr. Roy. May it please, the Court. We call to the witness stand Ms. Carmina Cruz, the Customer Relations Officer of the developer of The Columns Condominium, Alveo, is that correct? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honors. Mr. Roy. May we request that she be placed under oath? The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will please put the witness under oath. The Clerk of Court. Please stand up and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment proceeding? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you, God. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. With your permission, Your Honor. Ms. Cruz, good afternoon. Ms. Cruz. Good afternoon. Mr. Roy. Would you kindly inform the Court of your personal circumstances, meaning to say, your civil status, your work, et cetera? Ms. Cruz. Yes. I am with Alveo Land, I am the Customer Relations Head for Alveo Land and I am single. Mr. Roy. We are putting the gentlemen public on notice. The Presiding Officer. Kindly fix your microphone so that your words will be recorded properly. Ms. Cruz. Is this okay, Your Honor?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

23

Mr. Roy. Speak louder. Ms. Cruz. All right, yes. Mr. Roy. Ms. Cruz, can you tell us how long you have been with Alveo Land? Ms. Cruz. I have been with Alveo Land for nine (9) years. It was Community Innovations before and now it is Alveo Land. Mr. Roy. All right. What is the business of Alveo Land? Ms. Cruz. It is a real estate business. Mr. Roy. All right. What are some of the projects of Alveo Land? Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, please, I hate to interrupt, but the purpose has not been laid, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Oh, I am sorry, forgive me. Mr. Hernandez. Thank you. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, we are presenting this Witness to establish that the acceptance of The Columns unit purchased by Mrs. Cristina Corona did not occur until August 12, 2009, because there were defects or issues raised with Alveo Land that precluded the free and voluntary acceptance of the unit. The Presiding Officer. And you are proving this fact from this Witness? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. She represents the developer with whom those issues were raised. The Presiding Officer. All right. Has she recorded her personal circumstances? Mr. Roy. We will ask her to do it again, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Alright. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Ms. Cruz, in a more forceful voice, can you please tell us your personal circumstances? Ms. Cruz. Okay. I am with Alveo Land. I have been with Alveo Land for nine (9) years. It was previously Community Innovations. And yes, again, I am single. And I am basically—I think that is about it, is that okay? Mr. Roy. Yes, that is fine, Ms. Cruz, unless you want to tell us about your sports. But can you please tell us what is the nature of the business of Alveo Land? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Alveo Land is in the real estate business. Mr. Roy. All right. What are some of the projects of Alveo Land? Ms. Cruz. Our projects were Verdana Homes, Bacoor; The Columns; The Serendra and, of course, The Lerato, to name a few. Mr. Roy. Try to speak a little slower. Ms. Cruz. Yes.

24

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Roy. All right. Can you please tell me what your job is as Customer Relations Specialist? Is that right? Ms. Cruz. I am the Customer Relations head. Mr. Roy. Head, all right. Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. What does that mean in terms of functions? Ms. Cruz. Basically, we assist customers. Our main focus is on turnovers to the customers of their properties. Mr. Roy. Now, when you say, “you assist customers,” what do you mean? Ms. Cruz. We notify the customer on when turnovers will be done and then we invite them. We have representatives to assist them and do the delivery acceptance of the unit. Mr. Roy. What do you mean “you invite them,” you invite them to what? Ms. Cruz. To come to the property and inspect the property and do the acceptance. Mr. Roy. To inspect and accept the property, is that correct? Ms. Cruz. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Roy. Now, you oversee this function or do you do it personally? Ms. Cruz. I just oversee. Mr. Roy. You oversee. And every process of inspection and acceptance, I take it, will somehow find its way to you, am I correct? Ms. Cruz. Yes, there are some monitoring being done. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, when we say that you invite them to accept or to inspect—I am sorry. Let us go first to inspection. When you say “you invite them to inspect,” may we know when this happens, when do you invite someone to inspect? Ms. Cruz. If there is completion of the building, we get the list of customers who are fully paid and then we notify the customer about the availability of the unit and then invite them for inspection. Mr. Roy. Now, you mentioned that one of your projects was The Columns, am I correct? Ms. Cruz. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Roy. Yes. Can you tell us, if you know, when was the building completed? Ms. Cruz. From my recollection, it was around 2006. I am not just sure of the exact date. The Presiding Officer. Were you already employed by the condo developer when that building was completed? Ms. Cruz. Yes, Your Honor. I was already employed. The Presiding Officer. All right.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

25

Mr. Roy. So, am I correct then in stating, based on what you have said, that you invite persons to inspect after the building is completed and if they have fully paid, am I correct in stating that you started to invite unit owners to inspect only after 2006? Ms. Cruz. On that year, 2006, yes. Mr. Roy. On that year. All right. And you said that the invitation extends only to those who are fully paid, is that correct? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, would you happen to know Mrs. Cristina Corona as one of the unit owners of The Columns? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I recall her. Mr. Roy. Now, would you recall, Ms. Cruz, right— The Presiding Officer. Ms. Cruz. Mr. Roy. Yes. Would you recall if you extended an invitation to inspect to Mrs. Corona? Ms. Cruz. As a matter of procedure, yes, we should have. Mr. Roy. Yes. The Presiding Officer. But you are not sure? Ms. Cruz. I have to look into our records the exact letter. I was not able to because I was summoned here also today. The Presiding Officer. Was Mrs. Corona’s unit fully paid in 2006? Ms. Cruz. I am not too sure as well, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed, Counsel. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Do you have correspondence with Mrs. Corona, I mean, written correspondence? Have you exchanged writings, letters, notes? Ms. Cruz. Yes, there would be letters already. Mr. Roy. You recall some? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do. Mr. Roy. Can you give us some idea what those exchanges might contain? Ms. Cruz. What I remember clearly would be the deemed acceptance of the unit. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, do you recall having written her a letter on the 4th of June 2008? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do recall that. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may I make of record that I am showing the Witness a photocopy of a letter dated 4 June 2008 and I invite the Counsel for Prosecution to see the document.

26
The Presiding Officer. Noted. Mr. Roy. Do you confirm that this is a photocopy of your letter? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do confirm that it was a photocopy. Mr. Ginez. We have not been shown the original, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Do you confirm that you wrote the original of this letter? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do confirm.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Roy. Can you produce the original of this letter, if we should require you? Ms. Cruz. Normally, the original of those letters would be to the addressee. Mr. Roy. Can you produce any copies you might have in your office of the same? Ms. Cruz. Probably, it is still a photocopy. Yes, I can produce. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, just to save us the trouble of the continuing objection, I would like to manifest that the Witness confided in me that while she is aware of all these documents, she does not have the files with her. But in order not to disrupt the flow of the discussion before the Court today, I have agreed to present her. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, do you confirm, therefore, that at some point you wrote this letter to Mrs. Corona and you said in that letter, “Acceptance of said unit should be on or before June 7, 2008”? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I am confirming that. Mr. Roy. Yes. Do you also confirm that this is in reference to Unit 31-B Tower 1 of The Columns? Ms. Cruz. Yes, that is for 31-B, Tower 1. Mr. Roy. Is it your testimony, therefore, that as of 4 June 2008, the unit has not yet been accepted by Mrs. Corona? Ms. Cruz. Yes, as of June 4, 2008. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may I request that the letter be marked as Defense Exhibit “213”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Roy. And that the date be submarked as “213-A”. The Presiding Officer. By the way, just to clarify. In 2006, the building was completed. Ms. Cruz. In 2006, Your Honor, yes, the building was completed. The Presiding Officer. Then when did you notify Mrs. Corona to inspect the unit?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

27

Ms. Cruz. For all the units that had been fully paid, there would be a notice in 2006, Your Honor, but I have to check on the specific record for Mrs. Corona. The Presiding Officer. You do not remember that you notified Mrs. Corona in 2006. Ms. Cruz. Yes, Your Honor, I do not recall. The Presiding Officer. But when you sent this letter dated June 2008, was Mrs. Corona already notified or invited to inspect the condo unit? Ms. Cruz. Based on the content of the letter, it seems that there has been a notification previous to that letter. The Presiding Officer. No notification? Ms. Cruz. There seems to be already one. The Presiding Officer. What makes you think that there seem to be? Ms. Cruz. It says on the letter, if I may— The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Cruz. —”Should the unit still not be accepted by then, we shall already deem and consider the unit as having been delivered and accepted as of June 2008.” So it seems already a notice, a final notice, but I have to really check on the records, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, before questions will be made. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Ginez. We would like to manifest our continuing objection, Your Honor, not only on— The Presiding Officer. Why? Why? Mr. Ginez. —the photocopy that is being testified to by the Witness, Your Honor, but also on the basis of irrelevance of these questions to prove the actual delivery. As we have already made clear, Your Honor, for the Prosecution, what matters was that the cash paid was made in 2003 and 2004 and they were never reflected in the SALNs for 2003 and 2004 and beyond, Your Honor. So, acceptance or actual acceptance is irrelevant insofar as the Prosecution is concerned, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, the Court takes note of all of these facts and takes them into account in the assessment of the evidence. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The understanding of the Presiding Officer is that they are dealing with the actual reflection of the condominium unit, the concrete representation of the cash payment to Ayala, to the developer for that unit. So let it be.

28
The Witness may answer. Mr. Roy. If I may proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. By the way, Ms. Cruz. Ms. Cruz. Yes, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Is this document produced from a document in your possession? Ms. Cruz. Sir, if it is a reference to the original, there was an original. The Presiding Officer. That is a photocopy of the original? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Normally, we photocopy the original and the original is sent to the addressee, the owner. The Presiding Officer. And this photocopy was in your possession? Ms. Cruz. No, Sir—ah, not this specific one. This was not the one I brought. The Presiding Officer. From what other document was this photocopy produced? Mr. Roy. That was a copy produced by the Defense, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. From? Mr. Roy. From Mrs. Corona, Your Honor, I am informed. The Presiding Officer. This is a photocopy of the original in the hands of Mrs. Corona. Mr. Roy. Of a document that Mrs. Corona holds. I am not sure if it is still the original, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. But I would suffice it to state that the Witness has identified the letter as hers. The Presiding Officer. Yes, okay. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Madam Witness, after you wrote her on the 4th of June 2008, do you recall if Mrs. Corona replied to you? Ms. Cruz. I am not very specific on the…I do not recall the specific response. Mr. Roy. Do you recall if there was any response? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Mr. Roy. All right. Your Honor, at this juncture, I would like… The Presiding Officer. What do you mean “Yes, I do”? Do you recall that there was… Ms. Cruz. I do recall a certain… The Presiding Officer. Do you recall that there was a response?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

29

Ms. Cruz. Yes. I do recall that there was a response. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. At this juncture, I would like to present for the examination of the Witness Defense Exhibit “46”, previously marked. This is a letter dated June 7. Do you recognize this letter, Ms. Cruz? Ms. Cruz. Yes. I do recognize that letter. Mr. Roy. Would you be so kind to inform the Court, just for purposes of the record, whom this letter is from? Ms. Cruz. It was from Mrs. Tina Corona. Mr. Roy. And do you recognize this as the response to your letter of June 4, 2008? Ms. Cruz. Yes, yes. Mr. Roy. Now, you said earlier that in your June 4 letter, you asked her, you informed her that the unit must be accepted by the 7th of June, is that correct? Ms. Cruz. Yes, yes. Mr. Roy. Now, in this letter of 7 June 2008, did Mrs. Corona accept the unit? Ms. Cruz. On June 7, 2008, no, there was no acceptance yet of the unit. Mr. Roy. Would you like to read the text for the Honorable Court just so that they would be informed what the letter says? Ms. Cruz. “Dear Carmina: This is Mrs. Corona. I have been following up with your office with Charlene Pangilinan and Ex Fajardo about originals for tax declaration and RPT receipts for 2008 (prorated) so I can settle my payables and accept my unit, Columns Tower 1, Unit 31-B. Please give me an update ASAP. Thank you. Mrs. Tina Corona.” Mr. Roy. As this has already been marked, Your Honor, we shall no longer be marking the same. Do you recall, Ms. Cruz, after that letter whether or not Mrs. Corona replied to you—I mean, you replied to her—I am sorry. After Mrs. Corona’s letter of June 7, did you reply to her? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do recall an exchange of letters, too. Mr. Roy. I am showing the Witness Exhibit “45” of the Defense. Do you recognize this document? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do recognize this document. Mr. Roy. Who wrote this document, if you know? Ms. Cruz. Yes. It was me. It was from Carmina A. Cruz, that is me. Mr. Roy. Do you recall what this document was about, Madam Witness? Why did you write her back? Ms. Cruz. It refers to the request of Mrs. Corona on the tax declaration and real property tax receipts and the acceptance of the unit for 31-B Tower 1, The Columns, Ayala Avenue.

30

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Roy. What did you tell her? Read the text, if you do not mind in order to put it on record so that everyone paying attention might be enlightened as to what we are discussing. Ms. Cruz. All right. It just states that “Regarding your request for your tax declaration, RPT receipts, we are happy to advise that these are already available. Enclosed is a copy of the tax declaration for your unit under your name of which the original may only be released upon settlement of the real property tax from June 7, 2008 until December 2008, amounting to P8,167.50. “However, we seek your understanding that this should not hinder you from accepting your unit, as stated in your previous letter to use the computation of your real property tax to be based upon the date of your acceptance of your unit which should be on or before June 7, 2008. Should you fail to personally accept or send your representative to accept the unit, we will nevertheless deem the unit accepted and delivered on June 7, 2008.” Mr. Roy. In other words, am I correct in stating that there was a balance due from Mrs. Corona at that point in time? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. What was the balance for, if you remember? Ms. Cruz. For the real property tax. Mr. Roy. Who paid for the real property tax up to that.... This letter was dated 11 June 2008, right? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. Who paid for the real property tax up to that point in time? Ms. Cruz. The basic procedure is really before the turnover, it is the developer who pays for the real property tax. Mr. Roy. So, until 2008, the real property tax had been paid by.... Ms. Cruz. By the developer. Mr. Roy. Who is the developer? Ms. Cruz. It is Alveo Land. Mr. Roy. And that is your corporation? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. And so, up to this point in time, you had paid the real estate property tax and you were asking her to pay you back. Is that correct? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. Had she accepted the unit at this point in time? Ms. Cruz. June 7, 2008. There was already a notification and the deemed acceptance on or before

Mr. Roy. There was a notification on....

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

31

Ms. Cruz. Deemed acceptance. Mr. Roy. What do you mean by a “deemed acceptance,” Ms. Cruz? Ms. Cruz. On the deemed acceptance, on the previous notices, if there is any, and no proper response is provided, then there is an automatic deemed acceptance of the unit. Mr. Roy. Who determines the occurrence of a deemed acceptance? Ms. Cruz. Based on company policy, it is determined through via the seller. Mr. Roy. Does the deemed acceptance involve any participation on the part of the buyer? Ms. Cruz. If it seems stated on the Contract to Sell then normally it is exercised by the developer. Mr. Roy. So, it is an act of whom? Ms. Cruz. The developer, the seller. Mr. Roy. So, when you say there is a deemed acceptance, who makes the pronouncement of a deemed acceptance? Ms. Cruz. It is the seller. Mr. Roy. It is the seller. Does it follow that if there is a deemed acceptance, that the buyer has accepted the unit? Ms. Cruz. Upon declaration of the deemed acceptance, yes, it is the understanding of the developer that their unit has been accepted by the buyer. Mr. Roy. Can you please show me if there has been any indication of the acceptance of your deemed acceptance? The Presiding Officer. Are you impeaching your.... Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. There is another document that will establish the truth of the matter. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, the tendency of your question is you are trying to confront your Witness with an impeaching evidence. Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor. The letter is from her also. Ms. Cruz. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Then present the letter. Mr. Roy. All right. I am showing you a letter dated 3 September 2008, do you recognize this letter? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do recognize this letter. Mr. Roy. Can you tell us what this letter is? Ms. Cruz. On September 3, 2008. “It refers to the deemed acceptance of your unit, 31-B Tower 1, The Columns, Ayala Avenue, and its tax declaration. As you had been advised by our technical representative, Dennis Aniceto, the rectification to your unit have already been completed, the keys of the unit may be claimed from Mr. Aniceto.”

32
Mr. Roy. So, that was dated 2008? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. And where were the keys?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Ms. Cruz. The keys at that time was with the office, with Mr. Aniceto. Mr. Roy. And up to this point, what kind of acceptance had been made on the unit, if any? Ms. Cruz. It is a deemed acceptance. Mr. Roy. Was there any acceptance on the part of Mrs. Corona? The Presiding Officer. Already answered. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. May we request that the document be marked as Defense Exhibit “214”; that the date be marked as “214-A”. Now, Madam Witness, it seems that this letter of yours now marked as Exhibit “214” has certain attachments. Do you recognize these attachments? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I do recognize the attachments. Mr. Roy. Can you tell us what these attachments are? Ms. Cruz. The information given to Mrs. Corona.... The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly fix your microphone? Ms. Cruz. Okay. Mr. Roy. Louder. Ms. Cruz. Yes. This letter signifies that it was informing Mrs. Corona of the tax declaration under her name for the subject property which is 31-B Tower 1, The Columns, Ayala Avenue. And then it is from the division manager of sales support for Ayala Land Group, Peachy Pasana, and attachments were the tax declarations under the name of Mrs. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona. Mr. Roy. What is this attachment, the third attachment? Ms. Cruz. There is a real property tax receipt attached to it also. Mr. Roy. And, can you tell us more about the real property tax receipt—who paid for the taxes in 2008? Ms. Cruz. It says in the document that the declared owner and the payee is Community Innovations, Inc., Makati City. Mr. Roy. And that is whose company? Ms. Cruz. That is the developer. Mr. Roy. That is the company you work for? Ms. Cruz. Yes.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

33

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the attachments be marked as “214-B”, “214-C”, “214-D”, the name Community Innovations as “214-E”, and the last two documents as “214-F”, “214-G” and “214-H”. The Presiding Officer. Mark them accordingly. Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, the Defense counsel a while ago confirmed with me that these are mere photocopies and they will present the originals. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. We will do our best to find the originals of the said documents. Mr. Ginez. So, may we just request that the markings be provisional, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Why do you not establish the—lay the basis for secondary evidence so that we will not be tarried by all of these requests for originals. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Now, Madam Witness, I refer you to Exhibit “214-C”, would you know who caused the preparation of this declaration of real property? Ms. Cruz. There would be a division for that from the developer. Mr. Roy. So, this was caused by and prepared by, or caused to be prepared by? Ms. Cruz. Caused to be prepared by a division from the developer. Mr. Roy. From your.... Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. All right. And it says clearly that the owner here would be? Ms. Cruz. Cristina R. Corona. Mr. Roy. Now, in the next document, attached to your letter, who caused the payment of the real estate tax? Ms. Cruz. As a basic procedure, upon turnover, normally, the developer advances the payments. So, it is the division and developer side advances the payment for the owners. Mr. Roy. And the payment was made in whose name? Ms. Cruz. Under this tax receipt, it was under Community Innovations, Inc. Mr. Roy. Now, Ms. Cruz, do you recall after this letter to Mrs. Corona if she accepted the unit after September 2008? Ms. Cruz. The letter was a deemed acceptance and after that, we had no communication with Mrs. Corona. Mr. Roy. All right. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. What are those copies? Ms. Cruz. Yes, Your Honor.

34
The Presiding Officer. Exact copies of originals?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Ms. Cruz. From what I recall, Your Honor, they are exact copies but I have to check also the files that we have. The Presiding Officer. There are exact copies of some originals? Ms. Cruz. We just have copies on file of the letters, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who has possession of the originals of those documents? Ms. Cruz. We usually release the originals to the owners or to the addressee, that means, Mrs. Corona. The Presiding Officer. To Mrs. Corona? Ms. Cruz. Yes. The Presiding Officer. So, they are in the possession of Mrs. Corona. Ms. Cruz. Yes. The Presiding Officer. So, these are faithful copies of those originals in the hands of Mrs. Corona. Ms. Cruz. Yes, Your Honor, I will presume. The Presiding Officer. So, these are secondary documents, on all force, identical with the documents with Mrs. Corona. Ms. Cruz. From what I recall, but I can check what we also have on record. The Presiding Officer. All right. These are secondary evidence. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is the way how to lay down the premise to the introduction of secondary evidence. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you very much. So, going back, did you receive an acceptance from Mrs. Corona? Mr. Ginez. Objection, Your Honor. Already answered. Mr. Roy. All right. When you said deemed acceptance, who made the deemed acceptance? Mr. Ginez. Objection, Your Honor. He is arguing with the Witness. The Presiding Officer. Already answered. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Do not be repetitive. Mr. Roy. Madam Witness, did you communicate the acceptance to the condominium corporation? Ms. Cruz. I do not recall of me personally communicating.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

35

Mr. Roy. Are you familiar with this procedure? Ms. Cruz. Normally, it is through a list provided to them. Mr. Roy. And who provides that list? Would you know? Ms. Cruz. On a basic procedure, our company policy, it is really the developer also to notify the condominium corporation. Mr. Roy. You mentioned earlier that you were responsible for the inspection and acceptance. Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. Right. So, when you received the acceptance, how is it transmitted to the condominium corporation for the collection of dues? Ms. Cruz. There is a monitoring that is provided to them. Mr. Roy. Would you be familiar with the information transmitted to the condominium corporation? Ms. Cruz. At that time, I do not recall. Mr. Roy. Would you be in a position to obtain the records? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I will have. The Presiding Officer. Is there any issue with respect to that particular point? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, it was testified by the other witness that the acceptance was given on a specific date. But this Witness does not have the documents, the source documents, which were transmitted to the condominium corporation regarding the date of acceptance by the purchaser. That is the only link left, Your Honor. There are also communications between.... The Presiding Officer. I do not know the purpose of these questions or the evidence being elicited by the Counsel, but you go ahead and ask your questions. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, okay. Now, your letter of June 4 makes reference to a reinspection, is that correct? Ms. Cruz. I have to...Can I see that letter again? Is that the one? Ah! Yes, yes. Mr. Roy. Then I take it to mean there was a previous inspection. Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. Do you have any documentation of the previous inspection? Ms. Cruz. That we have to check on our records, if we have that. Mr. Roy. Can you bring any records regarding the previous inspection? Ms. Cruz. I will try to find those records. Mr. Roy. If there is a reinspection, what does that mean? Ms. Cruz. If there is a reinspection it means that there was a punch list or something that needs to be done previous to these letters and then they are notified of its completion.

36
Mr. Roy. Yes, what is a punch list?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Ms. Cruz. A punch list is essentially what is seen on the unit that needs rectification. Mr. Roy. I am sorry, what do you mean? Ms. Cruz. What is seen when doing the inspection? Mr. Roy. Yes. Ms. Cruz. When the unit owner.... Mr. Roy. What do you mean “what is seen”? Ms. Cruz. When the unit owner is escorted into the unit for an inspection, if there is anything that needs to be rectified according to the unit owner’s wish or taste, sometimes depending on defect also. Mr. Roy. Defect? Ms. Cruz. Probably the defect, yes. Mr. Roy. So, you mean a defect? Ms. Cruz. Defect or even just a dirt, something like that. Mr. Roy. All right. So, you mean if there is something wrong? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. Like a defect? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. It goes where? Ms. Cruz. Into a punch list. Mr. Roy. Into a punch list? Ms. Cruz. Yes. Mr. Roy. So, you are telling me that there was a punch list which called for? Ms. Cruz. Yes, most probably. Mr. Roy. For what? Ms. Cruz. A reinspection. Mr. Roy. Do you have that punch list? Ms. Cruz. We have to check if it is still with us. Mr. Roy. Can you bring the punch list if so required? Ms. Cruz. Yes, yes, we can try to look for it at this time. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the Witness be instructed to bring the other documents relevant to the communication with the client.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

37

The Presiding Officer. You state the documents that you want to be brought here. Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, principally, all the correspondence preceding your letter of 4 June 2008 which will establish your invitation to inspect, establish the defects found and other instances which relate to the acceptance and turnover of the unit. Are those documents within your reach? Ms. Cruz. Yes, but we have to check on where we can also find. Mr. Roy. Can you also bring the documents that relate to the information relayed to the condominium corporation? Ms. Cruz. Yes, I will try to find out where it is. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Madam Witness, when did Mrs. Corona finally accept this condo unit? Ms. Cruz. From my recollection.... The Presiding Officer. If you know? Ms. Cruz. Yes, Your Honor. What I only recall is the last letter of September 3, 2008 and then that it was deemed accepted on June 7, 2008. The Presiding Officer. June 7, 2008? Ms. Cruz. Yes. The Presiding Officer. She accepted it already? Ms. Cruz. It was deemed accepted, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, no, but actual acceptance? Ms. Cruz. No, there was no actual acceptance. It was only a declaration of the deemed acceptance. The Presiding Officer. Until today she never expressed acceptance of the unit? Ms. Cruz. That I have to check on our records. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, until I have the other documents I cannot proceed. May I request that the Witness be instructed to return with the documents we requested. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. The Witness is instructed to return tomorrow afternoon at two o’clock during the resumption of this trial and bring all the documents requested by the Counsel for the Defense who put you on the witness stand. So ordered. You are discharged in the meantime. There is no cross. Next witness. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, thank you very much and may it please the Court. I would like to cede the podium to co-Counsel, Dennis Manalo. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Do you have another witness?

38

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. We will call to the witness stand Atty. Perlita V. Ele, the Clerk of Court, Ex-officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The Presiding Officer. All right. Where is Ms. Ele? Mr. Manalo. May we ask for one minute suspension for her to.... Senator Sotto. Mr. President, while we are doing that, I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes. The Presiding Officer. Trial is suspended for 15 minutes. The trial was suspended at 3:56 p.m. At 4:25 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Mr. Bodegon. Your Honor, Attorney Manalo is on his way. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Bodegon. We also do not see anyone from the Prosecution yet. The Presiding Officer. And please bring the Witness in. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. [Long Pause] Mr. Manalo. The Witness is already in Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Please let the Witness take the witness stand to be sworn in and to testify. The Clerk of Court. Madam Witness, please stand up. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding? Ms. Ele. Yes, I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, we are presenting this Witness to prove the basis of the noninclusion of the McKinley property in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of Chief Justice Corona, particularly, by establishing that there is on record with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City of a Declaration of Trust executed by Renato Corona and Cristina Corona as trustees in favor of Ma. Charina Corona as trustor for the purchase of the McKinley property; and a special power of attorney executed by Ma. Charina Corona as principal in favor of Renato Corona and Cristina Corona as agents for the purchase of the McKinley property. The Presiding Officer. The property is under trust? Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, it is our theory that the property is in the name of Ma. Charina Corona and that the Chief Justice made the payments in trust for Ma. Charina Corona by virtue of the special power of attorney executed in his favor by the principal. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

39

Mr. Manalo. Good afternoon, Madam Witness. Ms. Ele. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Manalo. For the record, can you please state your name, and other personal circumstances? Ms. Ele. I am Perlita V. Ele, 61 years old, married, resident of Quezon City. Mr. Manalo. Madam Witness, what is your present occupation? Ms. Ele. I am the Executive Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City. Mr. Manalo. And how long have you been holding this....How long have you been in this office? Ms. Ele. In the Judiciary, I have been in the Judiciary since 1977, but as Clerk of Court, in 2003. The Presiding Officer. 2000? Ms. Ele. 2003, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2003. Mr. Manalo. As Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, can you please state your duties and functions in relation to the custody of notarial documents? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. I am the custodian of all the notarial documents, of all the notary publics’ commission for and in Quezon City. Mr. Manalo. I understand that you are in Court today by virtue of a subpoena issued by the Honorable Court. Did you bring the documents that were requested from you? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. Mr. Manalo. Do you have with you a Declaration of Trust executed by the spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona in favor of a Ma. Charina R. Corona, notarized by Notary Public Meynard P. Panela, recorded as Document No. 349, Page No. 71, Book No. 1, Series of 2007 of the said Notary’s notarial book? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. As required by this Honorable Court, I have with me those documents that you have requested. Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, the Witness has presented to this Counsel a certified true copy of the said document. The Presiding Officer. What is that document? Mr. Manalo. It is a Declaration of Trust, Your Honor, by Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona as trustees, and Ma. Charina R. Corona as trustor. May we request, Your Honor, that the document presented by the witness, the certified true copy, be marked as our Exhibit “215”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. Madam Witness, on the left-hand portion of the document, there is a signature under “certified true copy” and above the name “Atty. Perlita Ele.” Whose signature is that?

40
Ms. Ele. You are referring to the certified true copies that I issued? Mr. Manalo. Yes. Ms. Ele. That is my signature, Sir.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Manalo. Madam Witness, can you kindly read for the record paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Declaration of Trust for the information of the Senator-Judges on what the Declaration of Trust is about? Mr. Ginez. Objection, Your Honor, the best document would be the document itself. The Presiding Officer. Sustained. Mr. Manalo. In which case, Madam Witness, did you bring with you the Special Power of Attorney executed by a Ma. Charina R. Corona in favor of Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona— Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. Mr. Manalo. —notarized by Notary Public Maynard P. Panela, under Document No. 350, Page 71, Book No. 1, Series of 2007, of the said notarial book? Ms. Ele. As I have said before you, Sir, I have with me all the documents that you have requested. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the certified true copy presented by the Witness of the said Special Power of Attorney be marked as our Exhibit “216”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Manalo. Madam Witness, there is a signature at the left portion below “certified true copy” and above the name “Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele.” Is this your signature? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. That is my signature. Mr. Manalo. Madam Witness, did you also bring with you the pertinent portion of the Notarial Register of Notary Public Maynard P. Panela showing the entry of these documents in his notarial book? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. You mean the loose leaf... The Presiding Officer. What documents are we talking here? The Special Power or the Deed of Trust? Mr. Manalo. We are already talking about, Your Honor, the entry of the Deed of Trust and the Special Power of Attorney in the Notarial Register of the notary public which is also in the possession of the Clerk of Court. The Presiding Officer. These are two documents covered by two notarial acts. Mr. Manalo. Notarial Register. Yes, Your Honor. And both documents appear in one page of his

The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Manalo. Do you have a copy of the Notarial Register?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

41

Ms. Ele.

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you the certified true copy of the Notarial Register. Is this the document which you claimed that you have in your possession? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the Notarial Register of the Notary Public who notarized the Deed of Trust and the Special Power of Attorney be marked as our Exhibit “217”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. What year is that Notarial Register? Ms. Ele. 2007, Sir. The Presiding Officer. 2007. Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. The date of the inscription of the document. Ms. Ele. What do you mean, Sir, date? The Declaration of Trust, March 16, 2007. The Special Power of Attorney, March 16, 2007. The Presiding Officer. Both March 16. Ms. Ele. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the portion read by the Witness pertaining to the entries in the Notarial Register for the Declaration of Trust and the Special Power of Attorney be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit “217-A” and “217-B”, respectively. The Presiding Officer. Mark them accordingly. Mr. Manalo. We have nothing further for this Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Cross? Mr. Ginez. Initial cross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Ginez. Madam Witness, I understand that being the Executive Clerk of Court, you are also in-charge of the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ginez. Now, based on your records, Madam Witness, when did the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City commission Atty. Maynard P. Panela as notary for Quezon City? Ms. Ele. I am sorry, Sir, I am not aware when. But I have with me a certification issued by my Assistant Clerk of Court that at the time of the execution of the document, the notary public is a commissioned notary public.

42

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Ginez. But you are aware that the Executive Judge issues a commission to a notary public that will authorize him to act as a notary public for a certain period and within the jurisdiction of Quezon City. Is it not, Madam Witness? Ms. Ele. Before, Sir, it used to be the Office of the Clerk of Court signed by the Executive Judge. But now, it is the Executive Judge. Mr. Ginez. Yes. So, you are confirming with me now that, in fact, a commission should have been issued to Atty. Meynard Panela, authorizing him to act as notary for 2007. Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. Mr. Manalo. We object, Your Honor, the question is misleading. It tends to prove that the Notary Public was not commissioned when, in fact, the Witness has already presented a certification stating that he was commissioned as a Notary Public… The Presiding Officer. She is under cross, let her answer. Ms. Ele. May I hear the question again, Sir? Mr. Ginez. I am asking if he was issued a commission as a Notary Public for Quezon City for the year 2007. Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir, because I certified as to this commission as Notary Public. Mr. Ginez. Can you kindly bring at the next hearing of this case the commission issued to Atty. Meynard Panela, Madam Witness? Mr. Manalo. We object, Your Honor. The Witness has already said that she already issued a certification … The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer, she is under cross. The tendency of the question is to test the credibility of the Witness. Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir, I will. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Madam Witness. Now, you are, of course, aware that we have new rules on notarial practice and this is the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Is it not, Madam Witness? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. Mr. Ginez. Now, one of the provisions of this Notarial Practice, under Section 2, paragraph (h), and I would like to read it before I will ask you the question: “A certified copy of each month’s entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the Notary Public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court, and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required.” Now, the Clerk of Court referred to in Section 2, paragraph (h) is your office, is it not, Madam Witness? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

43

Mr. Ginez. So, it would be correct to say, and conform with me if it is true, that Notary Public, Atty. Meynard Panela, had, in fact, submitted his monthly statements or reports to your office for the year 2007? Ms. Ele. 2007, Sir? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Ma’am. Ms. Ele. Sir, remember our Notarial Rule was only in 2004. Mr. Ginez. We are talking of 2007 already, Madam Witness. Ms. Ele. Okay. 2007. Mr. Ginez. Did he or did he not comply with the monthly submission of duplicate original copy of instruments acknowledged before him? Ms. Ele. They have to comply. They have, but I am not sure if they complied. Mr. Ginez. Okay. Can you kindly again review your records, Madam Witness, and tell us tomorrow whether he, in fact, submitted his monthly statements or monthly reports, all the documents that he had acknowledged? Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. Mr. Ginez. Now, I am also a notary public, Madam Witness, and it is my practice that when I submit to the court my reports, I cover it with a covering letter naming therein the documents that I acknowledged. Is this the same practice by the notary public in Quezon City, if you know? Ms. Ele. Yes, I know.

Mr. Manalo. With due respect, Your Honor, to my compañero, may we just, …what is the relevance of the line of questioning considering that we are already into his practice of submitting documents before the Clerk of Court as a notary, how would that be material, Your Honor? Mr. Ginez. We are testing, Your Honor,… The Presiding Officer. That is a preliminary question, so, proceed. Mr. Ginez. There was actually an answer already, Your Honor, and she said that that is a practice. So there are, in fact, covering letters when the notary public submits their reports. Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir. Mr. Ginez. And kindly bring for the year 2007, the monthly reports as well as the covering letter, Madam Witness. Ms. Ele. Yes, Sir, I will do that. Mr. Ginez. With that, Your Honor, and with the request for additional documents and we were only shown these documents today, they were not even pre-marked by the Defense, so may we defer further cross until the documents are produced tomorrow, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Cross-examination deferred until tomorrow afternoon at two o’clock when this Witness is instructed to return with the documents requested.

44
Ms. Ele. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. Thank you, Your Honor. We will be calling our next witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Bodegon. Your Honor, please, may we request that Atty. Noel Lazaro be recognized? He would be presenting the next witness for the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Yes, where is he? Mr. Lazaro. Magandang hapon po, Kagalang-galang. na Pangulo ng Senado at mga kasapi ng Hukumang ito. The Presiding Officer. Where is your witness? Nasaan iyong testigo ninyo? Mr. Lazaro. May tumawag na po sa kaniya, nandiyan lamang po siya sa kabilang kuwarto. The Presiding Officer. O, sige, suspension of the trial for one minute. Mr. Lazaro. Salamat po. The trial was suspended at 4:45 p.m. At 4:53 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please remain standing. At this juncture, the Clerk of Court administered the oath to the Witness. Mr. Lazaro. Good afternoon again, Your Honors. I am Atty. Noel B. Lazaro. And for the Defense, we are calling our next witness in the person of Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz III. Attorney Diaz, Your Honor, is the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court, may I proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor please, the testimony of Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz III, Land Registration Authority Administrator, is being offered to prove the following points: Number one, Your Honor, to prove the motive, the bias and the bad faith of the Complainants as contained in the Answer of Chief Justice Renato Corona, particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Prefatory. Paragraph 9 asserts that the complaint is borne out of bias and a predisposition to destroy him and that it is made only to sow intrigue against him. Paragraph 10 avers that the Impeachment Complaint is devoid of any matured deliberation, rushed as it is, partisan and insidious, instead of being crafted based on a rational and careful debate on its merits. The Presiding Officer. What has this Witness got to do with the preparation of the Articles of Impeachment?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

45

Mr. Lazaro. Precisely, Your Honor, the Witness will be able to show that at the time the verified Impeachment Complaint was signed and transmitted to the honorable Impeachment Court, the complainants were still in the process of gathering titles, properties registered either under the names of Renato C. Corona and his family, and even under the names of persons Respondent Renato C. Corona does not even know of. And the Witness will testify, Your Honor, as to his communication in response to the need for information as relayed to him by the lead Prosecutor, asking him specifically whether there are titles or documents in support of the allegation or claim that there are properties, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Let the Witness answer questions for whatever they will be worth. Mr. Justiniano. Your Honor please, may I say something, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Justiniano. This issue of probable cause has already been passed upon by this Honorable Court. It has been raised several times. And this Court said that, “We have ruled on this. This cannot be the subject of another discussion.” So, we humbly submit, Your Honor, that the testimony of this Witness will just be irrelevant. It will just be a waste of time of this Honorable Court. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor please, may I respond— The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Lazaro. —if the good Counsel is done already. This is the first time, Your Honor, that the Witness is coming to this Honorable Court, and this will also be the first time that the Witness will be testifying as to the so-called list of 45 properties. This is the very same list, Your Honor, that has been bandied about by the Prosecution, not only in but outside the Court, even during the proceedings, Your Honor. So, I think this is very relevant to establish the motive. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Secondly, the testimony of the Witness will show that neither 45 nor 24, nor 21 properties were issued under the name of Chief Justice Renato Corona and/or that of his wife. Most of these titles listed in the so-called 45 properties are, in fact, cancelled. And some of the names included in this list do not even reflect the actual names in the titles. The Presiding Officer. So, proceed. Do not tarry. Just propound the questions. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Attorney Diaz. Maaari ninyo po bang sabihin ulit iyong pangalan ninyo at iyong position ninyo ngayon? Mr. Diaz. Ako po ay si Eulalio C. Diaz III. Ako po ang Administrator ng Land Registration Authority.

46

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Lazaro. Bilang administrator, maaari ninyo po bang sabihin sa amin ang mga responsibilidad o mga katungkulan ninyo? The Presiding Officer. Land Registration Authority ng anong lugar? Mr. Diaz. Ng Republika ng Pilipinas po, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Republika ng Pilipinas. Mr. Diaz. As administrator, I issue decrees of registration borne out of finality of judgment by the courts and the corresponding titles. I also exercise supervision and control over all RDs and personnel of the LRA. I also resolve consulted cases and appealed cases from the decisions of the different RDs. I also represent the LRA in its official functions and reply, make official replies to correspondence addressed to the LRA, Your Honors. The Presiding Officer. I think the Court can take judicial notice of the functions of an officer like this. It is by law. Mr. Lazaro. Opo. Salamat po. Kailan po kayo nagsimula bilang administrator ng Land Registration Authority o LRA? Mr. Diaz. August 4, 2010, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Maaari ninyo po bang sabihin sa amin kung anong ahensiya ng gobyerno napapasailalim ang LRA? Mr. Diaz. Ngayon po ay under the Department of Justice. Pero noong dumating ho ako, under the DENR po. Mr. Lazaro. Sa kasalukuyan po, anong ahensiya na ang sumasaklaw sa LRA? The Presiding Officer. Sinabi na niya, Department of Justice, hindi ba? Mr. Lazaro. Iyong sa ngayon po, Department of Justice? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Tungkol sa usaping impeachment laban kay Pinunong Mahistrado Renato C. Corona, mayroon ba kayong natanggap na subpoena galing sa Hukumang ito? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. At alam ninyo ba ang mga nilalaman nito at iniuutos na dalhin ninyo rito sa Hukumang ito ngayon? Mr. Diaz. Opo, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Mayroon dito sa hawak kong subpoena na may petsang March 15, 2012, na nilagdaan ng Kagalang-galang na pinuno ng Senado, ay ipinapadala sa inyo ang, una, letter dated January 10, 2012 of Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz III, addressed to Representative Niel Tupas, Jr., enumerating the 45 properties allegedly owned by CJ Corona. Dinala ninyo po ba ito? Mr. Diaz. Opo, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

47

Mr. Lazaro. Maaari ninyo po bang ipakita sa amin? The Presiding Officer. If that letter is signed by the chief of the Prosecution panel, would the Prosecution deny the veracity of that letter? Mr. Justiniano. We did not deny that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Now, present the letter. Mr. Lazaro. This is signed, Your Honor, by the LRA Administrator himself. Mr. Diaz. I just handed it over to the Defense. Mr. Lazaro. Witness handing over to the Defense, Your Honor…. The Presiding Officer. So this is a letter of the Land Registration Authority— Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. —to the chief of the Prosecution panel? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lazaro. That is an accurate observation, Your Honor. Witness handling to this representation a document dated January 10, 2012, a two-page document, and on the last page thereof, the same is signed under the name Eulalio C. Diaz III, Administrator. We have pre-marked a similar document, Your Honor, as Exhibit “197”. And we will just request confirmation from the Prosecution or the Private Prosecutor if the same marked document reflects faithfully the contents of the original document produced by the Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. Ginoong Diaz, dito sa sulat na ipinadala mo kay Congressman Niel C. Tupas, nakalagay dito na—babasahin ko sa wikang Ingles na nakalagay—”Pursuant to your official request for information relative to real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona, please find enclosed herewith certified true copies of titles registered in their names.” Maaari ninyo po bang sabihin kung papaano ang request na ginawa ni Congressman Tupas? Mr. Justiniano. Please do not answer. I have an objection, Your Honor. Counsel is deleting the word “Renato Corona, et al.” He is deleting when he read that exhibit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Justiniano. And that is very material. Mr. Lazaro. I do not mind, Your Honor, even if we include the words “et al.” The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.

48

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Lazaro. Maaari ninyo po bang sabihin sa amin kung papaano niya ginawa itong kaniyang request na binanggit mo rito sa liham mo sa kaniya? Mr. Diaz. As head of the Prosecution team, Your Honor, he called my office from his office and in his official capacity as such, he made the official request. Mr. Lazaro. Kapag sinabi mo po bang “called you,” ito ba ay sa telepono o tinawagan ka ng personal? Mr. Diaz. Sa telepono po. Mr. Lazaro. Kailan po kaya nangyari ito? Mr. Diaz. I suppose, Your Honor, around January 8, more or less. The Presiding Officer. Ito ba ay pagkatapos mai-file iyong Articles of Impeachment? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Kaya sinabi mo, as head of the Prosecution panel. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Liban sa pagtawag niya sa inyo, wala na po ba siyang sulat o ibang komunikasyon na ginawa sa inyo? Mr. Diaz. Si Congressman Tupas po, wala na po. But the other members of the Prosecution team, they sent me an official formal request thereafter, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Sinu-sino po sila? Maaari ninyo po bang banggitin ang mga pangalan nila sa amin? Mr. Diaz. One, is Hon. Elpidio Barzaga Jr., together with Hon. Marlyn Primicias-Agabas, Your Honor, both from the Prosecution team. The request was made on January 12. The Presiding Officer. Ano ang hinihingi nila? Mr. Diaz. Same documents and other documents, Your Honor, relative to the acquisition, disposition, ownership, possession or enjoyment of said properties. The Presiding Officer. Of what properties? Mr. Diaz. The documents that relate to the ownership of the Chief Justice and the family, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Real estate property. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. We request, Your Honor, that we be given copy of this letter dated January 12. And we request.... The Presiding Officer. Is the Prosecution denying that they requested this document? Mr. Justiniano. Admitted, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

49

The Presiding Officer. They admit it already so just.... Mr. Lazaro. We will just request for the marking, Your Honor,— The Presiding Officer. You just mark it. Mr. Lazaro. —because this is the first time that we are seeing this. We request that the same be marked as Exhibit “218” for the Defense, Your Honor. Mr. Diaz. Will I get those documents back, Your Honor? Mr. Lazaro. We can just mark the photocopy, Your Honor, later. The Presiding Officer. Well, they have already admitted that they have written that letter. Will you kindly show it to them so that they will read it and put it into the Record that that is the same letter that they wrote? Mr. Lazaro. May we ask for an oral stipulation or confirmation from my esteemed colleague, Your Honor? Mr. Justiniano. Admitted, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Counsel. The Presiding Officer. That is the same letter that was written by the members of the Prosecution? Mr. Justiniano. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark it. Mr. Lazaro. Mayroon pa bang liham, sulat, o komunikasyon sa inyo na mas maaga pa rito sa January 12, 2012? Mr. Diaz. Galing kanino po, Your Honor? Mr. Lazaro. Kahit kanino na nakiusap sa inyo tungkol dito sa usaping mga titulo sa pamilya ni Chief Justice Renato C. Corona? Mr. Diaz. Before they officially made the request, Your Honor, there were several media practitioners who requested these very documents. They called me up. They went to the office and requested. Mr. Lazaro. Kailan po nangyari ito? Mr. Diaz. The first, around January 4, 5, those dates, Your Honor, before the Prosecution made the formal request to my office. Mr. Lazaro. Ngayon, sinabi mong lumiham ka kay Cong. Niel C. Tupas Jr. na may petsang January 10, 2012, ano po ba ang mga kasama kung mayroon man itong liham na ito? Mayroon bang mga kalakip ito na dokumento? Mr. Diaz. Mayroon po. Mr. Lazaro. Anu-ano pong klase o anong uri ang mga dokumentong ito?

50
Mr. Diaz. Certified copies ng mga titulo po.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Lazaro. Ito po ay certified true copies ng mga titulong binanggit ng taga-usig na nakapangalan kay Renato Corona et al.? Mr. Diaz. Opo. Mr. Lazaro. Maaari ninyo po bang ipaliwanag kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng “et al.” dito? Mr. Diaz. Ang pagka-intindi ko po, ang “et al.” ay ang pamilya ni Chief Justice, specifically.... Mr. Lazaro. Sige po, ipagpatuloy ninyo po. Mr. Diaz. Si Mrs. Corona and the other children and in-laws. Kasi ho, iyong isang anak ho is married at nakita ko parang Corona-Castillo. So, in some properties po, may lumabas po na mag-asawa sila. Mr. Lazaro. So, pati po mga in-laws sinama na rin sa pag-usisa nila sa inyo? Mr. Diaz. Iyong son-in-law po. Mr. Lazaro. Son-in-law lang? Mr. Diaz. Iyon hong asawa noong isa sa mga anak ni Chief Justice. Mr. Lazaro. So, ang sinasabi ninyo po iyong kasapi ng pamilya at son-in-law? Mr. Diaz. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Hindi ba iyong et al., “at iba pa”? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Ang ibig sabihin… Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. …Renato C. Corona at Cristina Corona at iba pa? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Paglilinaw lamang. Pag-sinabing “et al.” dito o ang ibig sabihin, “at iba pa,” ang sinasabi ninyo ay iyong mga kasapi ng pamilya at iyong isang son-in-law niya. Tama po ba? Mr. Diaz. Iyon ho ang pagka-intindi ko. Mr. Lazaro. Ngayon, bilang sagot dito sa tanong sa inyo o pag-usisa sa mga dokumentong ito, maaari ninyo po bang kilalanin ang mga dokumentong ito kung ito ay ipapakita ko sa inyo? Mr. Diaz. Iyan hong mga certified copies? Mr. Lazaro. Ito pong pinadala ninyo sa.... Mr. Diaz. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Is there any question or issue about this? Is the Prosecution denying that they have attached those documents to their letter?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

51

Mr. Justiniano. We are not making an issue out of that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are not? Mr. Justiniano. We are admitting, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are admitting that those were attached to the letter? Mr. Justiniano. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. They are admitting it already. Mr. Lazaro. They are admitting only the attachment, Your Honor. But as to the contents, I will be able to show later from my questioning to the Witness that there are actually errors, except if the good Pañero will admit, Your Honor, some of the inaccuracies here. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, will you show the attachment to the Prosecution attached to their letter and find out whether those are the attachments that they have attached to that letter and then find out if they will deny that the contents were not there at the time that they attached those pieces of paper? Come on, you are going into a tedious presentation of evidence. You just show the documents to the Prosecution. If they will not, then, I will allow you to, at least, produce the testimony of the Witness. But if they will admit it, which I think, common sense will say that they will admit it, then that is the end of the matter. Mr. Lazaro. We have pre-marked some of the documents already, Your Honor, but we wanted to elicit some important facts. The Presiding Officer. Then, show it to them and then elicit the facts that you want to elicit. Mr. Lazaro. Yes please, Your Honor. If the Prosecution would agree to stipulate as to these documents, we would gladly do so. Mr. Justiniano. Yes, Your Honor. We are willing to stipulate. Mr. Lazaro. We have pre-marked, Your Honor, some of these documents. The Presiding Officer. Show the documents to them and find out whether that was the letter sent by them to the Witness and whether those attachments were attached to the letter that they sent to the Witness. Mr. Lazaro. May we ask for a couple of minutes to do so, Your Honor please? The Presiding Officer. Session is suspended for one minute. The trial was suspended at 5:14 p.m. At 5:15 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Mr. Justiniano. May I make a manifestation, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Justiniano. We admit that those documents were attached to the letter of Attorney Diaz to Congressman Tupas, Your Honor.

52

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

The Presiding Officer. So, there is no question regarding the contents. Those were the same contents of the documents you attached to the letter? Mr. Justiniano. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Justiniano. With the contents. The Presiding Officer. Iyon pala. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you with that admission, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Tapos na. Mr. Lazaro. May I proceed, Your Honor please? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lazaro. Ginoong Administrator, pagkatapos ninyo ba na naipadala itong liham ninyo kay Kagalang-galang na Congressman Niel Tupas, mayroon ba kayong nabalitaan...I withdraw, Your Honor. Noong pinadala ninyo iyong liham na ito at mga dokumento kay Ginoong Tupas, mayroon pa po ba kayong pinagbigyang ibang tao o institusyon? Mr. Diaz. Wala na po, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Sa kanya lang po ninyo ito pinadala itong listahan na mayroong apatnapu’tlimang titulo na sinasabi ninyong nakarehistro sa mga pangalan nila Renato Corona et al.? Mr. Diaz. Opo, sa kanya po naka-address ang sulat na iyan, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Pagkatapos ninyo pong.... The Presiding Officer. Wala kayong ibang binigyan ng kopya ng sulat na iyan ninyo kay Congressman Tupas? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor, that is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Pati iyong mga attachment doon sa sulat ninyo? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lazaro. Pagkatapos ninyong pinadala ito, mayroon ba kayong nabasa sa diyaryo, narinig sa radyo o nakita sa TV kung saan itong sulat ninyo ay nakalagay? Mr. Justiniano. That is immaterial already, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Sustained. You better bring the newspapers and the radio clips. That is the best evidence. Mr. Lazaro. Yes, Your Honor, we will do so, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Unless you lay the basis to make this Witness competent in testifying on that file.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

53

Mr. Lazaro. Ginoong Administrator, noong binigay ninyo po ba itong sulat na ito nasuri ninyo po ba kung sinu-sino ang mga may-ari dito sa listahang ito? Mr. Diaz. Opo. Mr. Lazaro. Masasabi ninyo po ba na ang mga titulong ito lahat ay kay Ginoong Corona? Mr. Diaz. Certified copies po ang naka-attached kung kaya’t the best evidence po ay iyong mga nakapangalan sa mga dokumentong iyon po. So, kung hindi po sila nakapangalan, the best evidence po would be the document themselves. The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang. Saan ba nanggaling iyong mga in-attach mo na titulo ng lupa? Mr. Diaz. Sa computer generated po from the different registries in NCR po. The Presiding Officer. Galing iyan sa computer ng LRA? Mr. Diaz. Yes po, ng RDs po. Register of Deeds po, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga, galing iyan sa computer ng Register of Deeds? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Kung ipapu-produce natin iyon ay nandoon iyang mga titulo na iyan? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Dahil nasuri ninyo po ang mga dokumentong ito, ipapakita po namin ang mga ilan dito at itatanong po namin sa inyo at pakisabi lamang. Una po itong nasa listahang pangalawa sa listahan ninyo na mayroong TCT No. 58643, in the name of spouses Constantino L. Castillo and Rosenda A. Castillo, ito ay namarkahan dati na bilang Exhibit “198” para sa Depensa. Pakisuri lamang po ng maigi at mayroon po akong itatanong sa inyo tungkol diyan. Mayroon po ba kayong personal na kaalaman kung mayroon mang kaugnayan itong mga pangalang Constantino Castillo at Rosenda A. Castillo kay Pinunong Mahistrado Renato C. Corona? Mr. Diaz. Wala po. Mr. Lazaro. Mayroon ulit akong ipapakita sa inyo na isang titulo na nakalagay sa numero na nasa sampung numero sa mga listahang nilagay ninyo. Ito ay iyong TCT No. 85804 na nasa pangalan pa ni Ma. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona. Pakisuri lamang po ng maigi ito at ito ay namarkahan na dati bilang Exhibit “199” para sa Depensa. Ano po ba ang estado na nitong titulong ito? Mr. Diaz. Cancelled po. Mr. Lazaro. Cancelled. Pag sinabi ninyo po bang cancelled, ano po bang ibig sabihin nito? Mr. Diaz. Maaari pong nailipat na sa ibang tao po. Mr. Lazaro. Salamat po.

54

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Justiniano. Your Honor, just to expedite the proceeding, we admit, Your Honor, the contents of the documents. Mr. Lazaro. Will the good Counsel, Your Honor, admit that there are documents here that are already cancelled? I would be happy to stipulate. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The documents speak for themselves. Even if you do not show it to him, it will show there that those were cancelled even if he does not admit. So, anyway, you can show it to him and get a confirmation from him that they are cancelled. Mr. Lazaro. We will ask for stipulation, Your Honor. In which case, we have pre-marked some of these documents, Your Honor, particularly, for stipulation, the documents or titles listed under Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 of the list provided by the Administrator that these titles, although listed here in this letter, Your Honor, as appearing under the names spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona, were actually cancelled already and the registered owners there appearing in those titles are actually not of the spouses but under the name of another entity. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lazaro. Also, the title indicated in No. 21 which is TCT No. 989, in the name of spouses Cristina Corona and Renato Corona, as appearing in this list, the names included are wrong because actually the real registered names, as appearing in the title, the real name is that of Megaworld Corporation and that this is also cancelled already. May I have the confirmation or stipulation from Counsel? Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you. Also No. 22, TCT No. 2093-P in this list, it says here that it is under the name of Ma. Cristina R. Corona, but looking at the title itself, it is under the name of Ma. Charina R. Corona. Can I have the admission from Counsel, Your Honor? Mr. Justiniano. We admit also, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. Also, No. 24, which is TCT No. RT77725(16799), in the name of Vicente Roco Jr., married to Asuncion Basa. That this title is already cancelled. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 25, TCT No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona. The title is already cancelled as it is sold to another person already. May I have the admission, please. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 28, a TCT No. N-254901 in the name of Cristina R. Corona married to Renato Corona. This title is also already cancelled.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

55

Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 30, TCT No. 154-400 in the name of spouses Angelina T. Castillo and Constantino A. Castillo. This title is already cancelled. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 33, TCT No. RT 106747 226256 in the name of National Housing Authority. This document is also already cancelled. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 35, CCT No. N-11168 in the name of Burgundy Realty Corporation. This title is also already cancelled. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 38, TCT 125683 in the name of Mirla Melad Bajar, married to Beneroso E. Bajar. This document is also cancelled. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 40, TCT No. RT 20758 in the name of Daniel C. Encina, married to Domiciana R. Artero. This title is also already cancelled. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 42, TCT No. RT 3190 in the name of Eugenia Coronado, married to Juan M. Corona. This document is also already cancelled, Your Honor. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. No. 44, TCT No. 84241 in the name of Ismael A. Mathay Jr. et al. This title is already cancelled. Mr. Justiniano. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Lazaro. Out of the 45 titles listed in this January 10. 2012 letter of the Hon. LRA Administrator addressed to the Hon. Congressman Niel C. Tupas Jr., there are 17 cancelled titles. Can I have that admission as well, please? Mr. Justiniano. I think, Your Honor, it is for this Honorable Court to make a finding on that issue. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, they are on record. They are on the record already. Mr. Lazaro. One by one, Your Honor, that is just a mathematical computation of all these cancelled titles. The Presiding Officer. So out of these 45, how many remain? 28? Mr. Lazaro. Yes, 17 cancelled titles, Your Honor, and the titles are named under Maria Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Out of 45 titles? Mr. Lazaro. Out of 45 titles.

56
The Presiding Officer. So, 28 remains. Mr. Lazaro. Yes, please, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Lazaro. And we will manifest, Your Honor, that some of these documents were earlier marked in evidence. The Presiding Officer. By whom? Mr. Lazaro. By the Defense, Your Honor. The first cancelled title, Your Honor, which is No. 10 in this list be marked as Exhibit “197”. That is TCT No. 85804. No. 23, TCT No. 004201000. May I repeat, Your Honor, TCT No. 00420100000410 as our Exhibit “200”. No. 24, TCT No. RT-7772516799 in the name of Vicente Roco Jr., married to Asuncion Basa, that is our Exhibit “201”. The Presiding Officer. Are those marked already or you want them marked? Mr. Lazaro. These are all pre-marked documents, Your Honor, and I am just manifesting them for the record. The Presiding Officer. All right. Just a minute. The gentleman from Sorsogon. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, may I ask where this is leading to? Because if the count of the Defense is 28, that is 45 minus 17, but the Prosecutors already admitted, they proved 21. That is actually even more than, correct me if I am wrong, the count given which is 21, excluding already the three parking lots that did not have separate titles. So 24 kung kasama iyong tatlo. Mr. Justiniano. Tama po iyon. Senator Escudero. The count of the Defense is 28? Mr. Lazaro. No, Your Honor. The 28 is only what remains after we exclude the cancelled titles in the list. Out of this 28, there are still issues. Senator Escudero. But insofar as this Witness is concerned, it is only with respect to the 45 which was reduced to 28. But really, we are already at 21. Mr. Lazaro. That is correct, Your Honor, and the Witness will actually be able to point out that is not even 21. Senator Escudero. So we are there now. Mr. Lazaro. If we exclude, Your Honor, the properties listed under other names already and not just those properties registered under the name of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Senator Escudero. With the permission of the Presiding Officer, may I ask from Counsel, at least, so that we know where we are headed towards. From this Witness, ano ang nais ninyong patunayan? Ilan ang maiiwan doon sa 21 na nga lang, di ba 21?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

57

Mr. Justiniano. Tama po iyon, tama po iyon. Mr. Lazaro. Opo. Senator Escudero. Ilan ang maiiwan based on this Witness records, ha? Ilan? Mr. Lazaro. Out of the 45, Your Honor, if I may, there are 17 cancelled titles. Senator Escudero. So that makes it 28. Mr. Lazaro. And out of the remaining 28, the titles registered under Ma. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato Corona or Renato Corona, married to Cristina Corona, Your Honor, would be 17. Senator Escudero. Seventeen. Mr. Lazaro. Seventeen (17), Your Honor, and there are additional documents here, particularly the originating titles of the Bellagio properties which are still included, but they are already cancelled. Those are four (4) titles. That would give us the remaining 13. And if we exclude as well the Marikina properties, it should be seven (7) titles. Senator Escudero. That makes it six (6). Mr. Lazaro. That makes it six (6) titles, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Five (5) are listed in the SALN. Mr. Lazaro. In this list, Your Honor. And that is six (6) because there is a big lot that has actually two (2) titles. And as far as the SALN of the Chief Justice is concerned, there are five (5) lots there listed. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, to save the time of the Court, can we ask that, perhaps, as you dwindle down the list, perhaps, it can be made the subject matter of admissions on the part of both Counsels, if they can meet outside of the Court so that you will only prove the remainder. If that is possible, Mr. President, to save on the time of the Court. Mr. Lazaro. That will be acceptable to this representation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Would the two panels agree to meet and thresh out the figures? Mr. Justiniano. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Para iyong balance na lamang, Mr. President, ang i-presenta nila dito. The Presiding Officer. Pag-usapan. Mr. Justiniano. Tama po iyon. Mr. Lazaro. We appreciate the suggestion, Your Honor, and we gladly agree to that. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then, you do it. When do you want to do it? Tomorrow, in the morning? Mr. Justiniano. Tomorrow, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Tomorrow morning. Mr. Lazaro. In that case, Your Honor, may I move for a continuance, Your Honor, so that we can confer with Counsel, Your Honor.

58
The Presiding Officer. All right.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Justiniano. What other questions you want to ask from this Witness? Baka puwedeng i-stipulate din natin iyan? Mr. Lazaro. Will the good Counsel also stipulate that there are listings here under the names of other people not known to the Witness and that the Witness also does not know whether they are related to the Chief Justice and his family? Mr. Justiniano. The best evidence will be the documents. If there are names there not related to the Chief Justice, then, that is it. Mr. Lazaro. Precisely. I want to draw that out from the Witness if he knows whether in his preparation of this list of documents, Your Honor, he was able to verify or examine whether these names are either related or had anything to do with the Chief Justice and his family. Because apparently, Your Honor, the request was limited only to the properties or titles under the names of the Chief Justice and his family. And it appears from this list that there are actually people or names included. The Presiding Officer. Then maybe you can agree. Mr. Lazaro. That will be part of the examination and agreement, Your Honor, between the Counsel. The Presiding Officer. Yes. The gentleman from San Juan is recognized. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would just like to propound some questions to the Witness, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. Witness, may I ask how did you come up with the list of the 45 properties? Mr. Diaz. Computer search, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Only computer search? Kasi base sa tinatanong ng Defense at sinasang-ayunan ng Prosecution ay nabawasan na ito ng 28. Ang panig naman ng Prosecution ay 21 na lamang at gustong patunayan pa rin ng Defense na mas mababa pa sa bilang ng 21. Ngayon, noong ni-release ninyo po ang listahan upon request ni Congressman Tupas noong tumawag sa inyo, iyon ba ay dinobol-check ninyo bago ninyo ibinigay kay Congressman Tupas? Mr. Diaz. Ito hong mga dokumentong ito? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, itong 45 alleged properties ni Chief Justice Corona. Mr. Diaz. These are what we call documents, Your Honor, that can be studied further because.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, no, what I am asking you, did you not verify or authenticate the properties that belong to the Respondent Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Diaz. We do not normally, Sir, certify the title belongs to a person because what we do is we issue a certified copy and from there it can be inferred, Your Honor, who is the owner.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

59

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kasi mayroon dito sa No. 44, TCT No. 84214, it is in the name of Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. I do not think he has any relation with the Respondent. Bakit nailista ito? Mayroon pa sa National Housing Authority No. 33, TCT No. RT-106747, ano ang kinalaman ng mag-asawang Corona dito? Mr. Diaz. Your Honor, that TCT No. 84214 is a cancelled document and ang traceback ho nito comes from Constantino Castillo Jr. and Angelino T. Castillo which is a name search po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Bakit nandoon ang pangalan ni Ismael Mathay Jr.? Mr. Diaz. Sa kanya ho nanggaling iyong property. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Binili ni—? Mr. Diaz. —ni Constantino Castillo po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kay Ismael Mathay? Mr. Diaz. Opo. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about this National Housing Authority? Bakit nasa pangalan ng National Housing Authority? Mr. Diaz. The name searched po ay Constantino Castillo po. Trace back ho nito eh galing sa Constantino del Castillo, which is a namesake po noong isa sa mga subject search po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kasi, before you submit a letter or the alleged number of titles of a person, you have to be sure next time around. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. I do not know if you did this intentionally or out of negligence or what. Kasi, dati pinagyayabang ng Prosecution na the Respondent owns 45 properties when, in fact, ngayon sinasabi nila 21. Ngayon, gusto pang patunayan nung Depensa na less than 21 iyong properties. Siguro next time, before you issue a corresponding letter, siguro siguraduhin ninyo na talagang totoong pagmamay-ari na kung sino man yan. Kung si Chief Justice Corona, sana siguraduhin ninyo na pagmamay-ari ni Chief Justice Corona iyan. Hindi iyong pati yong cancelled titles ilalagay ninyo rito sa sulat ninyo. Kaya tuloy ang perception ng taumbayan, ang perception ko dito, aba’y marami palang lupa o ari-arian nitong Respondent na ito. Ngayon at pinatunayan na ng Prosecution na hindi pala 45 properties, ina-admit nila na hindi 45 ang properties nila. Bumababa nang bumababa iyong pagmamay-ari ng properties ni Chief Justice Corona. So, I advise you next time around, kung mayroon mag-request sa inyo, siguraduhin ninyo na tama iyong sinusulat ninyo, tama iyong mga inilalagay ninyong mga properties dito sa mga sulat ninyo. Mr. Diaz. I submit, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Are you the classmate of the President? Mr. Diaz. Not in all the years, Your Honor.

60
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Excuse me? Mr. Diaz. Not in all the years, Your Honor. Batchmate po, yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Not in all the years. Mr. Diaz. Yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Where were you classmates? Mr. Diaz. I can no longer remember, Your Honor, except Grade 7.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You can no longer remember, but he was your classmate. Mr. Diaz. In Grade 7, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ah, in grade school, not in high school. Mr. Diaz. Kindergarten. I cannot recall, Your Honor, in all honesty. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. What school? Mr. Diaz. Ateneo, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ateneo, okay. Since you are from the Ateneo, I will not ask any further questions. Mr. Diaz. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I am bothered by this aspect of the proceedings, the cavalier attitude of the Administrator and the Prosecution in treating this aspect. In your letter, Mr. Witness, to Congressman Tupas, you said that in the name of Renato Corona, et al., alright, Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 and 28, a total of 24, bear the name of Cristina Corona and Renato Corona. The rest from Item No. 24 to No. 45, excluding those that I mentioned, are not in the name of Renato Corona and Cristina Corona. So, my question is, why did you write this kind of letter? You know that this is an impeachment case. You earlier said that this is an impeachment case. And, in fact, you addressed the letter to the Chief Prosecutor. Now, this a very serious case. You practically charged the Chief Justice and his wife of owning 45 properties. How come you did that? I am talking of fairness principles. It has nothing to do with the law, it is just something about fairness. Could you please explain? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. When I was requested for copies of documents that will point or have any relations to the actual properties of the Chief Justice and family, I was of the impression that they would need materials and tracebacks, where the property emanates from, and based on the capability of the computer that we are using, Your Honor, we just punch in the names of the people that were requested from us to do the search, and these are the family of the Chief Justice. And what we have, Your Honor, is a database, data warehousing wherein you only punch the key words and everything else, Your Honor, is computer-generated. So,....

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

61

Senator Arroyo. All right, let me stop you. Item No. 24, the name is Vicente Roco Jr. married to Asuncion Basa. Now, how can you say that you punch a computer then the name of Renato Corona and Cristina Corona will appear? Mr. Diaz. The trace back, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. No, wait. So that we do not go around. Item No. 26, Sps. Rodel V. Rivera and Amelia A. Rivera; Item No. 27, Erlinda S. Castillo; Item No. 29, Maria Carla C. Castillo married to Constantino T. Castillo; Item No. 30, Angelina T. Castillo, Constantino A. Castillo; Item No. 31, Constantino del Castillo, et al.; Item No. 32, Constantino del Castillo; Item No. 33, in the name of the National Housing Authority; Item No. 35, in the name of Burgundy Realty Corporation; Item No. 38, in the name of Mirla Nelad Bajar married to Generoso E. Bajar (sold to Constantino T. Castillo III); Item No. 33, Constantino T. Castillo married to Carla R. Corona; Item No. 40, Daniel C. Encina married to Dominica Atrero (sold to Constantino T. Castillo); Item No. 42, Eugenio Coronado married to one M. Corona; Item No. 43, Sps. Constantino Castillo Jr. and Angelino T. Castillo; Item No. 44, the name of Ismael A. Mathay, which was mentioned by Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada. Now, you were asked properties owned by Renato Constantino and his wife. Now, this is an official document. How could you, knowing that this is an impeachment case, how could you make such a document? I mean, it is an official function, you are officially asked and you take a very cavalier attitude by assuming that the names that you mentioned are owned by Renato Corona. Look at this, your opening paragraph, it is: “Pursuant to your official request for information relative to real estate properties, registered in the name of Renato Corona, et al., please find enclosed herewith certified true copies of titled registered in their names”—in their names—”Renato Corona, et al., as follows:” then you enumerated it. How come did you make this kind of letter? Mr. Diaz. First of all, Your Honor, we are not certifying that all of these properties are owned by the Chief Justice. What we submitted, Your Honor, are 45 documents as we have previously presented. It is not our function to certify who is the owner. What we do is to issue certified copies of documents, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. I read to you items where the names of Renato Corona or the wife do not appear. Now, why did you include them? Mr. Diaz. In the general name search, Your Honor. If you punch a name and that name will appear in any of the documents that were part of the database, Your Honor, it will show and, thereafter, since it is machine-generated, it will be printed, Your Honor.

62

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Senator Arroyo. You mean that is the system that you adopt in the National Land Authority for the....it is so careless, so gratuitous. Mr. Diaz. What we do, Your Honor, is that, normally, it is the TCT search, TCT number, and that will be more specific. We do not use normally the name search, Your Honor. It is only for this special purpose. Senator Arroyo. I do not want to argue with the Witness because, well, that is your position. But let me ask the Prosecution because this bothers me. Prosecution, you already mentioned to media that Chief Justice Corona had 45 properties, you know? That was announced—45 properties. It turns out how many do you claim? May I know, Defense? How many do you claim are owned by Renato Corona? Mr. Lazaro. As explicitly stated by the Chief Justice, five (5) properties, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. Five (5), all right. Assuming that what they claim is five versus what you initially claimed as 45, that is a lot of difference, and publicly stating that and media repeating it is terribly unfair. I am talking only about unfairness, nothing legal. You present that there are 45 properties of Chief Justice Corona, while the Defense says that they have only five (5), I do not know whether that is true or not, I am not prepared to accept it. How come when you received this letter, certain items here that I have read were not registered in the name of the Corona couple? Then, why did you announce and, initially, why did you announce to media that the Corona couple owned 45 properties? Why? Go ahead, please. Representative Tupas. May I answer? Senator Arroyo. Yes, I am asking you. Representative Tupas. Thank you. Your Honor, I am not aware about the media because.... Senator Arroyo. My golly, my friends there....Your spokesman announced it. In my mind, I always thought that the Chief Justice is so rich owning 45 properties. That was what stuck in my mind. Representative Tupas. What happened there, Your Honor, was, it was attached in a motion or a request for subpoena. So, we just attached this list coming from the Land Registration Authority, and this was the basis for the request for subpoena and the media picked it up. Senator Arroyo. That is the same as the Annex “A”. You remember the Annex “A” which turned out to be spurious? I mean, I am talking about carelessness. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Counsel, do you mean to tell me that the basis of your request was documents or names from the Land Registration Authority? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. This is the.... The Presiding Officer. Who gave you those names? Representative Tupas. No, no. The basis is this letter coming from the Land Registration Authority. The Presiding Officer. But that is an offshoot of your letter to the Land Registration Authority that enumerated the 45 titles.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

63

Representative Tupas. That is correct, Your Honor. We attached this in the request for the issuance of subpoena dated January 12, 2012. This is our request to subpoena the Chief Justice, Ma. Cristina Corona, for the purpose of explaining and bringing along documents stated therein. So, the media picked this up and that explains it, Your Honor. But here, during the formal offer of evidence, we only submitted 21 titles out of 45 titles, Your Honor, as what is manifested earlier by this representation. Senator Arroyo. All right. You know, I do not want to say, but quite frankly, you misled the public by initially announcing 45. Is that fair? I mean, you just cannot say, a person owns 45 and you are not sure. In an impeachment proceeding, it is just not done. I do not know. Mention was made about Annex “A”. I mean that it was appended to a....What do you call that? Representative Tupas. This is a request for a subpoena. Senator Arroyo. I recall now that we had also a problem with Annex “A” because you appended it to a....I do not know what, but this turned out to be spurious or what is this, a bank document? But that is neither here nor there. I am sorry, you can answer this one. You see, we have to think about this because this hearing is a nationally televised hearing and impressions are made by the public and somehow the vibrations affect the members of the Senate. We are trying to approach this in as objective a manner as we could. I think that we will try to do a good job but it is sickening that this incident has happened. I was not even listening to the testimony of the witness until I got—this was given to us—this list was given to us in the course of the proceedings so I read through it and then I just thought that....I am just addressing this, Prosecution, Land Registration Authority, I am not an expert in punching or what, so I would not know. But I cannot imagine that a machine, you punch it and the name appears then, the Corona, there is already a connection with Corona. I mean, is that how it is? Is that how these machines work? I mean, you can imagine, you are looking for Corona then you punch a machine, there is something, it comes out and then....You do not double-check it? What I am trying to say, even if the name of Corona appeared, you should have double-checked it because this is an official document. This is dated 10 January 2012 and you started. The first inquiry was I think....Can you please tell me, Mr. Witness, the first inquiry by phone, what date was that? I think January 4. Mr. Diaz. Around that time, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. All right. January 4 was the first inquiry by phone— Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. —of Congressman Tupas. Mr. Diaz. No, Your Honor, by the media, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. By the media. You see, by the media. The request of Congressman Tupas was what date? Also by telephone. Ah no, by letter. When was it? Mr. Diaz. Before January 10, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. “dated 10 January”. All right. So media asked you January 4, then your answer is

Now, media was interested, the Prosecution was interested. And you come out with this list. I mean, Mr. President, I am not passing judgment here but I am calling the attention here of the Prosecution. But you have to be careful. I do not like to appear here as a judge and then I am misled.

64
Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. I just want to understand the sequence.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Congressman Tupas wrote you a letter inquiring about lands registered in the name of the Respondent as well as his wife. Is it not? Mr. Diaz. He called me up, Your Honor, by phone. The Presiding Officer. He called you up. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And then he followed it up with a letter. Mr. Diaz. After I have submitted the documents, Your Honor, the Prosecution made another request, this time including supporting documents, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, just a minute. Congressman Tupas called you by phone. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And you submitted to him documents already? Mr. Diaz. The next day, Your Honor. Yes, the next day or two days after, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. He did not write you a letter? Mr. Diaz. He did not, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. You submitted to him a reply in writing enclosing some titles. Mr. Diaz. Certified copies of titles, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Did he mention to you the names that you should search from your records? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who were the names that he mentioned? Mr. Diaz. Chief Justice and family, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Did he name the families? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who are the families he mentioned? Mr. Diaz. Renato Corona, Cristina Roco Corona, Francis Vincent Corona, Charina Corona, Maria Carla Corona Castillo and the husband Constantino Castillo III, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How come that the name of Constantino Castillo and another woman were included in your listing? How come that Ismael Mathay was included in your listing? How come that some other names were included in your listing? Mr. Diaz. When we punch a name, Your Honor, the result from the computer, maybe because he was a transferor or transferee, a seller. Any document, Your Honor, that is in our computer database will register a hit if there is a name that is entered in that document.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

65

The Presiding Officer. So, when you punched Constantino Castillo Jr., automatically the name Constantino Castillo or del Castillo Sr. appeared. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And so you traced it? Mr. Diaz. We print it, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You printed it. Mr. Diaz. The Register of Deeds will print it, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. All right. Representative Tupas. Your Honor? Your Honor, can I just make a very short statement please,

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. With utmost respect to the honorable Sen. Joker Arroyo, there was a statement earlier that the Prosecution has misled the public by attaching this letter dated 10 January 2012 coming from the Land Registration Authority to our request for subpoena. Just to be fair to the Prosecution panel, Your Honor, I just want to state for the record that we did not mislead the public by attaching Annex “A” which is the Land Registration Authority letter. We have every reason to believe the authenticity of these documents and we attached it in good faith. It turned out later that some of the properties are not listed in the names of the family and we did not include that in our offer of evidence. But I would like to confirm, Your Honor, that when I called the Land Registration Authority Administrator, I specifically mentioned the name of Renato Corona, Maria Cristina Corona, Maria Carla Corona, Maria Charina Corona and Francis Corona, and it turned out here that one of the properties listed in the name of Maria Carla and Constantino was used by the Prosecution to support the theory of the Prosecution that there was a simulated deed of assignment. And we did this, Your Honor, because we are in search for the truth. And lastly, I just want to comment on that allegedly spurious document that was mentioned also by Senator Arroyo whom I deeply respect. I do not recall this Honorable Tribunal ruling that the said document containing Annex—used as Annex “A” by the Prosecution with respect to bank accounts, I do not recall this Tribunal concluding that it is spurious. In fact, on record, the documents elicited based on that Annex “A”, which we used as basis for the request for subpoena, were admitted as evidence for the Prosecution. So I just want to put that on record. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Guingona. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Bukidnon. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. Para lamang maunawan, para malinaw lamang, Mr. Witness, ito pong computer ninyo at saka iyong software na nasa loob po, pag na-punch iyong name, parang search engine ito, parang google ang labas. Ganoon po ba iyon?

66
Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. It is capable of that, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Senator Guingona. So maski na iyong pangalan nandoon pero hindi siya buyer or seller, basta naka-annotate iyong pangalan sa titulo, lalabas din iyong … Ganoon po ba iyon? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Sir. Senator Guingona. At kaya nga siguro lumabas itong iba dahil may koneksiyon. May sinasabi kang trace back. How much far back does this go ba? Mr. Diaz. It can go as far as the original title, Your Honor. OCT, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. The OCT. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. So basta may pangalan lamang, lalabas at lalabas iyon. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Ah, ganoon. Thank you po. The Presiding Officer. Okay. The lady Senator from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P.). Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I address my question to the Witness. Mr. Witness, sabi po ninyo that you entered the name of Corona in your computer and you mentioned something about it being a general database search. And based on that general database search, these were the properties that appeared. Mr. Diaz. General name search, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P.). General name search. Mr. Diaz. In the database, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P.). And these are the properties that appeared, correct? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P.). Okay. And you also said that noong tinatanong kayo ni Senator Arroyo at ni Senator Jinggoy, ang sabi ninyo po iyong search na iyon lalabas diyan ang name na Corona in anyway na—kung nandoon ang pangalan na Corona sa dokumento, lalabas iyon dito sa ano. So, in whatever capacity na nandoon ang pangalan, lilitaw iyong name na iyon. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P.). So, in other words, puwedeng hindi siya ang may-ari noong property. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P.). Okay. Pero po pag tiningnan ko po iyong letter ninyo kay Congressman Tupas which you say that was issued upon his request, ang sabi ninyo po dito, “Pursuant to your official request for the information relative to real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona, please find enclosed herewith certified true copies of titles registered in their names.”

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

67

So, ang sabi ninyo sa sulat ninyo, itong 45 ay registered in their names. Mr. Diaz. In the names of the registered owners, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P.). Iyon ho ang confusing. Kasi po this is an impeachment case and lumalabas ho, based on my understanding—ako and I think I am of average intelligence—it would appear that you were certifying that registered in the name of Corona are these properties. Wala po akong nababasang statement dito because after the 45, it simply states, “Kindly acknowledge receipt hereof. Thank you.” Wala hong nakalagay ditong any caveat, any disclaimer, any qualification similar to what you made now. So, I raise the same concern that Senator Joker raised that this is a very public, this is a very sensitive, this is a very political procedure of national significance to our country. When you issue a certification like this, I would think that you would exercise extreme caution required of a diligent head of an agency called upon to certify to certain documents. So, why could you not have said that this is based on what did you tell me just now, a general name search? Why could you not have said that? Why could you not have said that it is possible that some of these documents have been cancelled as you have said now? It would have cleared the air. It would have allowed the Defendant as every single Filipino is entitled to of the presumption of innocence. May I know why you did not bother to make those very basic qualifications? Mr. Diaz. Your Honor, when we are dealing with certified copies of titles, it would not be appropriate that I will further certify that I am sending a certified copy, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). I did not understand your statement. Kindly state that in another way. Mr. Diaz. I cannot issue a certification that I am issuing a certified copy, Your Honor. So what I can do is forward a certified copy, Your Honor, as materials for them to study whatever they want to do with it. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. Witness, allow me to read back your letter to Congressman Tupas: “Pursuant to your official request for information relative to real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona,” so ano po ang hinihingi ni Congressman Tupas? Property registered in the name of Renato Corona. Do we understand each other so far? Iyon ang hinihingi niya. Do we understand each other? Mr. Diaz. There is a mention of information, Your Honor? Senator Cayetano (P). Information relative to real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona. So, it is information on properties registered in the name of Renato Corona, correct? It did not say “property in any document where Corona’s name appears.” In any case, I do not mind if you included that but you should have clarified. Because your prefatory statement is not consistent with your search. That is what I am saying. I know this because I also search. And these searches can be very confusing. If you just punch in a name—there is a Pilar Cayetano in Latin America. And you could be publicizing that Pilar Cayetano is whatever person in another country. That is not me. So, if somebody were to certify that, they would say that this is based on a general name search. That is all the point I am trying to make. Mr. Diaz. I submit, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And so may I also know, is it common for you to issue this kind of certifications? Can anyone go to your office and ask for the same?

68

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Mr. Diaz. We have disabled it, Your Honor. This is rather new to us. Actually, this is the first time and we have disabled it pending the finalization of implementing rules, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). So, inaayos niyo pa? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Well, the reason why I asked is because, again, this is very sensitive information. Papaano kung ang isang may asawa diyan na sinasabing may kinakasama at may ibinahay at pumunta lamang sa inyo at binigyan ninyo ng sulat na mayroong ganitong kapangalan ng asawa niya na may property na may kasamang iba? This is serious business and you should be very careful. And I also express the same concern for the Prosecution. We are all lawyers here and I expect that you also use this information with extreme care because people’s names are at stake here and national interest is at stake. So, I rest my case, Mr. President. But I raise this point because everything we do today, every action that we take, and every decision we make is precedent for future impeachment proceeding. And I expect that the next senators, the next prosecutors who will hear such a case will be guided by our actions. And I hope that we act in accordance with the Constitution and with due respect to all parties involved. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Legarda. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the gentle lady from Antique. Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. Allow me to support the position of Sen. Pia Cayetano. And this is not to take sides on any issue. It is just to make sure that due diligence and staff work are done, whether in private practice or in government. And that no person, public or private practitioner’s reputation should be diminished because of inaccuracies or incompetence or sloth or in a computer error in any government agency. May I, therefore, propound a few questions to the witness? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Legarda. Thank you. I am holding Exhibit “194,” Annex “A” and it contains a letter to Congressman Tupas signed by Mr. Eulalio Diaz III, Administrator. I suppose this is the document that Sen. Pia Cayetano was referring to, that Sen. TG Guingona was also referring to as a product of the search engine where you searched for properties belonging to Chief Justice Renato Corona, is that true Mr. Diaz? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. Of course, I am holding a photocopy. I simply wanted to verify, I do not have to go there and show this to you.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

69

Can you just explain to us, for those who are not very well-versed with the technology, also for the clarity of mind of Sen. Joker Arroyo so that he would understand, what a search engine means? While I understand it and I know it, I cannot expect everyone, not to demean them but to understand. When you press “Renato C. Corona,” what happens? Mr. Diaz. Any document, Your Honor, in our database that has a name Renato C. Corona; Renato D. Corona; Renato Corona III, will be tagged and it will be printed, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Even if you print Renato C. Corona, everything with Renato P, A, B, D, E, F, G, will come out or only Renato C. Corona? Mr. Diaz. If there is a qualifier, Your Honor, then that will print first, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Did you print Renato C. Corona or only Renato Corona? Mr. Diaz. I was not the one who actually had this printed, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. I am getting there. Mr. Diaz. It is the Register of Deeds who appeared before me who submitted these documents to my office, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. The request was made to you and you are saying that your staff—of course, you are the Administrator—did this. But based on the document which you signed, you must know what you are signing. I do not sign anything in my office which I do not understand. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. So, you signed this document. Was this document a product of research based on a search engine or you googled the name of Renato Coronado Corona, Renato C. Corona or merely Renato Corona? Mr. Diaz. Renato Corona, Your Honor. But these are machine-generated. It is not a product of research, Your Honor. This is a product…. Senator Legarda. I know. Yes, I said search engine. So, it is a machine. Mr. Diaz. Sorry, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. You do not have to be sorry. This was based on putting the name Renato C. Corona or simply Renato Corona? Mr. Diaz. Renato Corona, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Because I would imagine, there will be more than one Renato Corona in the Philippines and/or the world. Renato Corona not even the middle name, is that correct? Mr. Diaz. As long as it is a real estate and titled, Your Honor, then it will be in our database, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Would your database cover properties only in the Philippines or all over the world? Mr. Diaz. Just in the Philippines, Your Honor.

70

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Senator Legarda. Just in the Philippines because you represent the Land Registration Authority of the Philippines. That is logical. Yes. And so, based on your knowledge, your staff in the LRA pressed the name Renato Corona without the middle name. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. If there are other Renato Coronas in the Philippines, their ownership of assets, real properties would also be here, as Senator Cayetano mentioned if she has a namesake in the country, that would have been possible. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. Therefore, knowing that fully well, did you review this list given to you by your staff before you affixed your signature on this two-page document with the enclosures? Mr. Diaz. I went over them, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. You went over them. Yes, that is good. You did not merely sign it based on the staff work given to you by your staff. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. And so, when you affixed your signature, you looked at each and every title in each and every city, you were knowledgeable about these properties because it was a product of a search engine done by your staff… Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. … and, you therefore, asked your staff whether these properties still belong to Renato Corona or whether they were already sold or the titles were transferred. Mr. Diaz. No, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. You did not. To what extent, therefore, did you exercise due diligence and complete staff work? Mr. Diaz. By the number of documents that were forwarded to my office, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. Can you kindly explain to this Representation the meaning of “by the number of documents”? Mr. Diaz. These documents, Your Honor, first of all, I do not have the luxury, Your Honor, of going detail by detail on these documents. So, what I did, Your Honor, was to request them to submit to me the titled properties in their registries by a computer name search and to submit to my office what document was generated by the computer search. And thereafter, Your Honor, when they brought it over to my office, we counted them, and we made a transmittal letter to the addressee. Senator Legarda. And all of these documents and these names have some relation to Renato Corona at one time or the other. Mr. Diaz. Or to a namesake, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Or to a namesake. Which of these are namesakes?

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

71

Mr. Diaz. Number 32, Your Honor, Constantino Castillo; Number 31, Your Honor, among others; and Number 30, Your Honor. These are the product of our name search, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Kindly repeat the number and the name of the person. Mr. Diaz. Number 27, I think, Your Honor. Number 27. Number 30, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Can you kindly say the number and the name of the property, TCT number? Mr. Diaz. Number 27, Your Honor, TCT No. 004— Senator Legarda. Okay. Never mind that. Let us not belabor the point. I understand that is the property in the name of Erlinda S. Castillo. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. It has no connection to Renato Corona? Mr. Diaz. None, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Okay. What is the next number, please? Mr. Diaz. No.— Senator Legarda. I beg your indulgence, Mr. President. Was this tackled earlier in the hearing? It was not. Mr. Diaz. Number 30, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Number 30. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Angelina Castillo. How did this name come about then? Mr. Diaz. Because it is registered under Angelina C. Castillo and Constantino A. Castillo, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. How did this come about that it was owned by a Renato Corona, whether he is a chief justice or not? Mr. Diaz. Constantino Castillo, I think, Your Honor, is the— Senator Legarda. The son-in-law. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. And because there is a connection, it still comes out. Mr. Diaz. Because in some of the titles, Your Honor, “married to” was shown, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. He is the son-in-law. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Renato Corona? And so, was the name of Constantino Castillo punched in or just

72
Mr. Diaz. Both, Your Honor. Maria Carla—

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

Senator Legarda. So, you also searched for the properties owned by the relatives. Mr. Diaz. No, Your Honor. Ma. Carla Corona-Castillo, married to Constantino Castillo. Senator Legarda. Yes. Did you punch in those names or only Renato Corona? Mr. Diaz. We punched in those names, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. I see. Who else did you punch in? How about Tito Sotto, did you punch in? Mr. Diaz. No, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. No. We just want to know who is being tried here. You punched—can we just have transparency and complete staff work? I want to be able to understand. I asked you in the beginning, did you punch the name Renato Corona, you said you did. Were there other names you punched in? Kindly tell us who were the other names you punched in. The household help, the driver, the son-in-law, the daughter, who else? Mr. Diaz. We punched in Cristina Roco-Corona, Your Honor. We punched in Francis Vincent Corona, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Who is the name, the second name? Mr. Diaz. Francis Vincent Corona, Your Honor; Charina Corona, Your Honor; Ma. Carla Corona-Castillo, Your Honor; and Constantino Castillo III, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Ah, that is why Constantino Castillo who is not related to them came about. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Who is this Constantino A. Castillo? Mr. Diaz. The third, Your Honor? Senator Legarda. No relation. Mr. Diaz. I would not know, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Number 30 had no relation. Mr. Diaz. It is a name search, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. So, clearly, there was no complete staff work done. Correct me if I am wrong. Was there due diligence and complete staff work done insofar as this document is concerned? Mr. Diaz. I did not prepare these certified copies, Your Honor. These are all machine-generated, and I do not even want to attempt to do some of the work of the Prosecution by reviewing this individually, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. It was a simple printout. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. I am actually trying to help you to explain. All you need to do, Mr. Diaz III, is to explain to us so that we will understand. All you wanted to explain was that it was

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

73

a product of a machine, search engine, Google, and all of these names came out when you punched in the name of Corona, Renato and the children and the wife. That is correct, right? Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Explain yourself so that we will understand. Mr. Diaz. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Tama ba ho ako? Mr. Diaz. Tama po. Senator Legarda. Okay. Tama. Kung ito po ay produkto ng inyong pagsasaliksik sa pamamagitan ng computer, sana po ay inilakip ninyo sa isang memo—“Ito po ang hinihingi ninyo, Ginoong Tupas, Mr. Congressman, na resulta po ng aming pagsasaliksik sa aming computer.” Pero ang pagkakalagay po ninyo ay “Pursuant to your official request for information relative to real estate properties registered in the name of Renato Corona, et al., enclosed are certified true copies of titles registered in their names as follows…” And as Pia has mentioned, T.G. also brought it up, to a regular person, even to a senator of more than average intelligence—Pia was humble enough to say of average—of more than average intelligence, I would understand this to mean that these are owned by the Respondent. How can you explain, Mr. Diaz, please? Mr. Diaz. I am sorry, Your Honor, if that would come out as the interpretation. But that was not the intention, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Okay. At least that is clarified. And thank you for your candor and your honesty in claiming that you actually googled the name of the whole family and some of these—could we, therefore, have an accurate complete listing from the LRA on properties owned by Chief Justice Renato Coronado Corona, please? So that this exhibit will not mislead us in the final judgment. Mr. Diaz. Your Honor, I think that was earlier agreed to by the parties that they will come up with the list. Senator Legarda. Fine. Thank you very much for that. And, therefore, if due diligence and complete staff work was not instituted insofar as the LRA is concerned, we expect, at least, that perhaps the recipients of these documents should have exercised complete staff work before it was presented as evidence, as basis for media material or press release. That is how I would have done it. And I think that is what my colleagues expect at the very least, Mr. President. So, with that, I yield to the Presiding Officer and request for a more accurate information. And hope that the Prosecutors, my dear friends, could have provided the Impeachment Court and could have verified actually the accuracy, authenticity of the information presented by the LRA. Because if the LRA Administrator claims he did not have the time or the inclination to do CSW on this document which is just a product of googling or search engine, perhaps the Prosecution should have done their homework before presenting it as evidence or making it the basis for presentations to the media and to the Impeachment Court.

74
Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. The hour is late.

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012

The two Counsels will meet to thresh out the issue of properties really owned by the Respondent Chief Justice. Is that understood? Mr. Lazaro. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Justiniano. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. And the Witness is instructed to come back tomorrow at two o’clock in the afternoon during the resumption of this impeachment trial to continue his cross-examination—his being cross-examined. Mr. Lazaro. Your Honor, depending on the agreement tomorrow morning, Your Honor, we may have to manifest— The Presiding Officer. You make your manifestation tomorrow, not now. Mr. Lazaro. All right, Your Honor. But since you mentioned that the cross-examination will be started, Your Honor, I am just saying that we may have to propound additional questions, depending on the agreement that we will achieve in the morning tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. Then we will decide that tomorrow. Mr. Lazaro. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. With that, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make an announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Wednesday, March 21, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two o’clock in the afternoon of Wednesday, March 21, 2012. It was 6:30 p.m.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful