MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Senate
Pasay City

Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Monday, May 7, 2012

AT 2:05 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order. And we shall be led in prayer by Sen. Loren Legarda. Senator Legarda. Panginoong may kapangyarihan, kami ay sumasamo sa Inyo na may kababaang-loob upang mabiyayaan ng karunungan, pang-unawa at lakas ngayon at sa mga darating na araw. Lubos kaming nagpapasalamat sa Inyong paggabay sa aming pagdinig sa kaso ng Punong Mahistrado. Panginoon, inaalay namin sa Inyo ang panahon na aming ginugugol sa pagganap ng aming tungkulin. Basbasan Niyo Po kami ng kaliwanagan ng isipan upang sa huli ay maibigay namin ang patas at nararapat na kapasyahan. Amen. The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now please call the roll of senators. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara ..................................................................... Present Senator Joker P. Arroyo ......................................................................... Present* Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ....................................... Present Senator Pia S. Cayetano ......................................................................... Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .......................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ...................................................................... Present
______________
* Arrived after the roll call

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ............................................................. Present Senator Francis J. G. Escudero ............................................................... Present* Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ............................................................. Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II .............................................................. Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ...................................................................... Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ............................................................. Present Senator Loren Legarda ............................................................................ Present Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. ....................................... Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ................................................................. Present Senator Francis N. Pangilinan .................................................................. Present* Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III .............................................................. Absent** Senator Ralph G. Recto .......................................................................... Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ........................................................... Absent Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ................................................................... Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ................................................. Present* Senator Manny Villar ............................................................................... Absent** The Senate President ............................................................................... Present Ilan? The President Officer. With sixteen (16) Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. Senate 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. Senate President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 22, 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 22, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate as an Impeachment Court. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Appearances. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May we ask the respective Counsels to enter their appearances? For the Prosecution.
______________
* Arrived after the roll call ** On official mission

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President and Honorable Members of the Senate. For the House of Representatives Prosecution Panel, same appearance. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Mr. Cuevas. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the business for today, there were three (3) Motions that were decided on by the caucus. So, may I be allowed, with the permission of the Court, to start off? The Presiding Officer. Yes. What are the Motions? Senator Sotto. Yes. The first one is a letter of DOJ Secretary De Lima and Reply of the Senate. In her letter to the Senate President dated March 22, 2012, DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima conveyed her apology for her failure to comply with the subpoena issued by the Court which directed her to testify and bring certain documents before the Court last March 22. Secretary De Lima added that while she is willing to appear before the Court, she also requested that her further appearance be dispensed with since the matters on which she is being asked to testify on by the Defense have already been covered by her direct testimony when she appeared as witness for the Prosecution or that such matter should have been brought up by the Defense during their cross-examination of her. Acting on her request for discharge, the Presiding Officer, in a letter dated March 27, 2012, informed Secretary De Lima that in the interest of justice and fair play, Counsel for Chief Justice Corona should be similarly afforded the opportunity to raise direct examination questions in defense of their client just as the House panel of prosecutors was afforded the same opportunity to propound direct examination questions to her. On May 4, 2012, the Prosecution filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena contending that the Defense has been previously afforded the chance to cross-examine Secretary De Lima and to ask their questions for two days. The Prosecution also claims that to recall Secretary De Lima will be violative of her rights and would be unfair to the Prosecution and the Court as it will unduly lengthen the proceedings. With that, Mr. President, and as agreed in the caucus, I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the matter. The Presiding Officer. The subpoena requested by the Defense is based on their notion that they want to present the Secretary of Justice as their own witness. Although she was presented by the Prosecution and she was subjected to a cross-examination, the appearance of the Secretary of Justice then was not at the behest of the Defense. So, therefore, given the fact that the Respondent is entitled to compulsory process to set up his defense, the motion is denied. The Motion to Quash is denied. And the Defense is directed to confer with the Secretary of Justice so that you can determine the date and time when she will have to be asked to appear in this Court to be presented as a witness for the Defense.

4
So ordered. Next motion.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. The Court also is in receipt of a Manifestation and Request filed on April 24, 2012, by Spouses Rhodel and Amelia Rivera. A Subpoena Ad Testificandum Et Duces Tecum was earlier issued by the Court upon the request of the Defense commanding Mr. and Mrs. Rivera to appear and testify on March 20, 2012, and everyday thereafter until discharged. The Spouses Rivera requested that they be excused from attending the hearings from May 5 to May 27 in view of their trip to the United States which had been scheduled long before they received the subpoena. The Riveras further manifested that they are ready to attend the hearings and comply with the subpoena after they have returned from their trip. Mr. President, we have been previously informed that the Defense is willing to forego with their testimony. The Presiding Officer. Will the Defense please confirm this for the record? Mr. Cuevas. If they will notIf Your Honor please, if they will not be available by the time granted by this Honorable Court, we may dispense with their testimony and present somebody else who will testify on the same subject matter. For instance, Your Honor, we have in mind introducing the broker who effected the sale between the Coronas and these witnesses. The Presiding Officer. All right. The manifestation of the Chief Defense Counsel is noted. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Next motion. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President. Yes, finally, Mr. President, on March 16, 2012, Counsel for Chief Justice Corona asked that this Court issue a Subpoena Ad Testificandum Et Duces Tecum to Malou Mangahas, Karol Anne Ilagan and the cameramen crew, all of the PCIJ, for them to testify and bring copies of the SALNs and all other documents, letters and requests related or pertinent to the various news reports posted in the PCIJ website. The Defense submits that the testimony and documents asked are for the purpose of disproving any alleged willful omission of the entries in the Chief Justices SALNs and to show good faith in filling up the same. The Prosecution, on March 19, 2012, filed its opposition to the request on the ground that the testimonies and documents sought are patently irrelevant. On March 21, 2012, Malou Mangahas, Karol Anne Ilagan, and Ed Lingao, by counsel, filed their opposition praying that the request for subpoena be denied on the ground that the requested testimonies, documents and videos are irrelevant and inadmissible; and that the request itself is unreasonable and oppressive. I move to submit this matter for the consideration of the Presiding Officer, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Chair would like to request the Defense Panel to explain to the Court... Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The Presiding Officer. ... first, what are the documents sought to be produced by the persons representing PCIJ in this Court; and second, what is the relevance of these documents. The Presiding Officer. ...for the defense of the Respondent.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of this Honorable Court, Your Honor, the Defense would like to announce, for the record, that we have foregone any attempt towards having these witnesses compelled to appear pursuant to a subpoena to be issued by this Honorable Court together with our requested Subpoena Duces Tecum, Your Honor. After an examination of our position and relevant matters in our possession, we have finally arrived at the conclusion that we may dispense with the testimony of The Presiding Officer. So you are waivingyou are withdrawing your request. Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So this Court notes the withdrawal of the Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum addressed to the members of the PCIJ. Senator Sotto. Yes. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, before the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the Defense, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago? The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo has the floor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, I ask no question of the parties or counsel or any witness proposed for presentation this afternoon. Instead, I would like to make a manifestation, particularly read for the record my memorandum of authorities on two questions that I believe to be crucial to this stage of our impeachment proceedings. The first crucial question is, Does this Court have authority to order or otherwise compel the parties to finish the trial such that this Court might be able to promulgate judgment on or before June 7 when the Congress adjourns? And the second question is, Is it relevant for this Court to receive evidence on the alleged irregularities that attended the sale by Cristina Corona, acting for a family corporation, to the City of Manila? Let me go to the first point. Has this Court the power and authority to order the parties to end the trial on or before June 7, the scheduled end of the Congress session? My humble answer is yes, this Court possesses that power. Here are the authorities. Under the Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 6, the Court has the power to stop further evidence on a particular point when the evidence is already so full that some witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Further, under Rule 119, Section 11 Paragraph (c), The Prosecution and the Defense may, in that order, present rebuttal and non-rebuttal and surrebuttal evidence unless the Court, in the furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue. In People vs. Tan, decided by the Supreme Court in 1999, the High Court ruled: It is within the sound discretion of a trial judge to allow a party that has rested its case to introduce rebuttal evidence. Further, under the Rules of Court, Rule 135, Section 1, Justice shall be impartially administered without unnecessary delay. Under Section 5, entitled Inherent Powers of Courts, Every court shall have power xxx (d) to control in furtherance of justice the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons in any manner connected with the case before it in every manner appertaining thereto. Parenthetically, in the President Clinton impeachment case, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached him for perjury and obstruction of justice on 19 December 1998. The Senate trial began on 7 January 1999. He was acquitted on 12 February 1999 or a little over only a month. Therefore, I humbly submit that this Impeachment Court after nearly five months-contrasts this with the one-month trial of President Clinton-after nearly five months, this Court possesses authority to order the conclusion of trial on or before June 7 so as to have judgment to be promulgated before Congress ends this session. Let me now move on to point No. 2. Is it relevant to the impeachment proceedings that the sale to the City of Manila of land owned by Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. represented by Cristina Corona was disallowed in audit by the Commission on Audit following this timeline? In 2001, the negotiated sale was consummated. The city government took possession of the property and constructed a public market on it. Mrs. Corona received the check worth some P35 million allegedly in trust for BGEI; she deposited the check in her own account. 2002; one year later, COA issued a notice of suspension of payment. It appears that the City of Manila took no action because of alleged failure to serve the notice properly. Hence, under the State Audit Code, the transaction remained an unsettled account. The notice of suspension was based on alleged failure to submit certain documents, that is, the original copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale; the TCT in favor of the City of Manila; the recommendation of the Appraisal Committee; and copy of the latest Tax Declaration transferred from the owner to the City of Manila. And then, after these developments in 2001 and then in 2002, in March 2012 or after 11 years, COA issued a notice of disallowance. In Carabeo v. Court of Appeals decided by the Supreme Court in 2009, the Court ruled that the term unexplained matter normally results from nondisclosure or concealment of vital facts. It appears that the Corona SALN did not conceal the vital fact of the sale. In his 2003 SALN, Corona mentioned the item Cash Advance from BGEI (wifes family corporation) of P11 million. The Corona SALNs do not include the purchase price of P35 million because Cristina Corona apparently received it from the City of Manila in trust for the corporation. The 1994 SALN form did not require the declaration of trust arrangements. Subsequently, the 2006 to 2007 SALN manual required the declaration of assets held in trust. But the Civil Service Commission has deferred the application of this manual. Remember, our basic issue here is: Is it relevant to deal with alleged irregularities in the sale of land? In law, the term relevant means logically connected intending to prove or disprove the matter in issue. It means having appreciable probative value that is rationally tending to persuade people of the probability or improbability of some alleged fact. The word relevant means that the COA Notice of Disallowance and the failure to include the purchase price of corporation property in the

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Corona SALN should be so related to each other that one fact tends to prove the other fact. Under this definition, the COA Notice of Disallowance is irrelevant to this impeachment proceedings. Under the Rules of Court, Rule 128, Section 4, entitled Relevancy of Evidence, Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Evidence on collateral matter shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. In the case of De Paul vs. NLRC decided in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled, A party alleging a critical fact must support its allegation with substantial evidence. And any decision based on unsubstantial allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. Therefore, applying the test of relevancy and under the principle of criminal due process, I humbly submit that any evidence tending to prove any irregularity in the sale of BGEI Property to the City of Manila would be irrelevant to impeachment proceedings over the alleged omissions in the SALN of the Defendant. Evidence on alleged irregularities should be presented to the Solicitor General for litigation in court. I humbly make these submissions to our colleagues in the Impeachment Court. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. In our last hearing, the Prosecution has asked for the continuance in their cross-examination of former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza. May we inquire from the Defense if they are ready to present Mayor Atienza for the continuation of the cross-examination? Mr. Cuevas. We are, Your Honor. We will call him to the stand for continuation of the crossexamination by the Prosecution, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then proceed. Mr. Cuevas. May we request for a minute, Your Honor? We will call him. The Presiding Officer. By the way, what is the fact sought to be proven by the presence of the former mayor of the City of Manila here? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. The cross-examination had already gone to the extent of narrating in detail the alleged circumstances surrounding the acquisition by the City of Manila of these properties and the payment therefor in the amount of P34.7 million, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Only to the extent that there was a payment of P34.7 million? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, we introduced evidence to that effect in order to show how Chief Justice Corona was able to acquire allegedly some properties which do not seem to be justified by his reported income. The Presiding Officer. So, in effect, given the statement of the lady from Iloilo, nonetheless, the position of the Defense is that the transaction is relevantthe transaction between Manila and the

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Basa- Guidote Enterprise is relevant to this case to the extent of the proceeds of the sale which will now be treated as a part of the funds used by the Chief Justice to acquire properties. Is that it? Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. May we request the indulgence of the Court for only one minute? The Presiding Officer. All right. One minute suspension. The trial was suspended at 2:28 p.m. At 2:29 p.m., the trial was resumed. Mr. Cuevas. Former Mayor Atienza, Your Honor, is now available, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Session resumed. Mr. Cuevas. We will request him to take the stand for the continuation of the cross-examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The distinguished former Mayor of Manila will now please take the witness stand and testify and has the same oath. Thank you, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, may we request that one of our private prosecutors be recognized to continue the cross examination, Atty. Renato Samonte Jr.? The Presiding Officer. Let it be noted that the request of the Prosecution is noted. Proceed. Mr. Samonte. Good afternoon ho ulit, Mr. President and Your Honors and Mr. Mayor. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Samonte. Ginoong Mayor Atienza, last time when you testified on direct examination, you made mention and presented at least four (4) documents in the forms of endorsement from your city government in connection with this negotiated sale transaction involving Basa-Guidote Enterprise. You remember having done that last time? Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. In fact, Exhibits 234, 235, 236 and 237 were marked in evidence by the Defense. You remember also having identified these documents? Mr. Atienza. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. And these endorsements were signed by your responsible officers: City Legal Officer Melchor Monsod for 234; Emmanuel R. Sison, your secretary; another document by Attorney Sison; and the last one by City Treasurer Liberty Toledo, City Accountant Quilangtang and Budget Officer The Presiding Officer. Is there any question about those Mr. Samonte. Yes. We are aboutI am just

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Why do you not just go direct to the point that you want to bring out? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. Now, Mr. Mayor, in all these four (4) documents, you will agree with me that the entity mentioned here is only Basa-Guidote Enterprise Inc., that is correct? Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. There is no mention here of in trust for or Cristina Corona in trust for BasaGuidote, none? Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. Last time also, you mentioned of the check that you ordered to be issued in favor of the seller, Basa-Guidote, as represented by Cristina R. Corona, is that correct? Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. It was you, as the City Mayor, who ordered the issuance of this kind of check with that in trust for phrase, is that correct? Mr. Atienza. Hindi po ako personal. Palagay ko ay yon ang naging desisyon ng City Treasurer sapagkat kailangan may managot doon sa tseke dahil ang kausap po ng City Hall ay si Mrs. Basa Corona. Mr. Samonte. So between you, as the City Mayor, and the City Treasurer, are you saying that it was the City Treasurer who made the decision to put the check in trust for? Mr. Atienza. Hindi po. Ang sinasabi ko ay Mr. Samonte. Or was it not really yourit was really your instruction? Mr. Atienza. Ito po ay isang proseso na nagmula doon sa katotohanan na si Mrs. Cristina Basa ang kausap ng gobyerno local na hindi po kinakailangan manggaling pa yong order sa akin. Mr. Samonte. Okay. And that during the stint of your mayorship for nine years, as you said, unprecedented at that, you have seen millions of checks issued by the city government, is that correct? Mr. Atienza. Hindi naman po siguro millions, pero marami po. Mr. Samonte. Marami. Opo. At katunayan po alam ninyo po na sa bawat tseke, official check, Landbank check na ini-issue ng city government lagi po itong dumadaan sa checkwriter, hindi po ba? Mr. Atienza. May proseso pong tinatakbuhan yan under regular rules that are being followed. Mr. Samonte. So that for every check issued, there is always this duplicate that is left behind bearing the entries stated on the face of a given check, is that correct? You are familiar with that? Mr. Atienza. I would not be very familiar because this is all now part of the Treasury responsibilities and functions. Wala po yon sa function ko na tsekin (check) na yong recording ay tama o naaayon. Ang akin pong concern lalot lalo na rito sa kasong ito ay yong mabili yong lupa at makuha sa lalong madaling panahon para maitayo namin yong palengke na kinakailangan po ng Sampaloc sapagkat yong lumang palengke ay gigibain na.

10

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Samonte. But for this particular transaction, you would recognize that Landbank check that you issued in favor of Cristina Corona or BGEI for that matter? Yan po yong kopya ng tseke na ibinayad ninyo sa BGEI. Yan po yon. Mr. Atienza. Tama po. Mr. Samonte. At sasang-ayon din po kayo na The Presiding Officer. Mr. Atienza. Anong sagot ng Witness?

Opo, ito po yong tseke.

The Presiding Officer. O sige. Mr. Samonte. At sasang-ayon po kayo sa akin na ito po yong duplicate copy or check writer copy na nagsasaad kung ano ang entrada doon sa mismong tseke, di po ba? Certified po yan ng COA. Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. Eksaminin niyo nga po kung parehong-pareho yan. Mr. Atienza. Tama po yong presyo. Mr. Samonte. Tama po ang Mr. Atienza. Presyo, P34 million. Mr. Samonte. presyo. Ang check number Mr. Atienza. Check number is the same. Mr. Samonte. ang payee, di po ba? Mr. Atienza. Payee is Cristina Corona, ITF-Basa-Guidote Enterprises. Mr. Samonte. Opo. Ngayon, mayroon poyan po ay certified copy na nanggaling sa COA. Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. Ngayon po, mayroon din po kaming hawak na certified copy na galing din sa COA involving the same check, copy writer check. Pakitingnan niyo nga po kung halos kapareho nung naunang in-identify niyo. Mr. Atienza. Pareho po ito. Mr. Samonte. Pareho din po. Mr. De los Angeles. Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. Already answered, Your Honor. Mr. De los Angeles. May we request, Your Honor, that the Witness not answer immediately to give us the opportunity to object. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Samonte. We, therefore

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

11

The Presiding Officer. Just give them an opportunity to address the nature of your question. Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. Because it was readily answered anyway, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Samonte. So we would like to request, Your Honor, for the marking of this first copy writer check earlier identified by our good Mayor and stating that this is a The Presiding Officer. Counsel, is there any difference between the two checks? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then, go to the point. Mr. Samonte. Yes. We will mark this first, Your Honor, as Exhibit Eleven L (LLLLLLLLLLL), Your Honor, the first one; and the second one as Eleven M (MMMMMMMMMMM). These are both certified copies from COA, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. The manifestation, Your Honor, that these two checks are certified true copies is not borne out by the very document being shown to the Witness, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. These were submitted anyway, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. No, it is not a question of admitting but it is a question of misrepresenting that the document is a certified true copy which is not borne out The Presiding Officer. Anyway, do not argue anymore. Just present those evidence. It will be the function of this Court to appreciate the evidence. Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. They are the same in all respects, no? Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, this is actually proper for our memorandum or summation but we would just like to point out, Your Honor, that in the second certified copy admitted by our Witness, there is something lacking. In the first photocopy, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. What do you mean? In the secondthe same check was certified by the COA, one for the Defense and one for purposes of your cross-examination. Is that correct? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And there is a difference between the two checks. Mr. Samonte. Yes. And the difference, Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. What is the difference? Mr. Samonte. And the difference is that in the first copy writer copy certified by the COA, there is the words, Cristina Corona, ITF, as appearing also in the check. But in the second one, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Which is your material for Mr. Samonte. Yeswhich is the copy that we

12

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minutewhich is your material for cross-examination that does not appear. Mr. Samonte. There is none, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that they be marked so that we can refer to them to either one of them? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. Because they are not marked, Your Honorvery vague. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark them accordingly. Mr. Samonte. Eleven L (LLLLLLLLLLL), Your Honor, and Eleven M (MMMMMMMMMMM). With request for submarking of the phrase Cristina Corona ITF as Eleven L-1 (LLLLLLLLLLL-1). The Presiding Officer. That is being marked on what copy of the same document now? Mr. Samonte. Copy of the one The Presiding Officer. Presented by the Defense? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Samonte. And for the other copy that we have presented today, we request that portion without this Cristina Corona ITF to be encircled and be marked as Exhibit M-1. The Presiding Officer. That is the copy which you are using for your cross-examination? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Please be precise in your description of the facts so that we will not be confused. Mr. Cuevas. Okay. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, Your Honor. A while ago, we made the manifestation that the statement made by Counsel in connection with the identity of the check is not yet borne out by the evidence. He claimed that these were checks duly certified by the Accounting Office. There is no such thing, Your Honor. That is our point of objection, Your Honor. That is a manifestation The Presiding Officer. All right. You have an objection about the use of the word certified copy. Counsel for the Prosecution, what is the basis of your claim that that Mr. Samonte. We say that this is a certified copy because it is an official document that came from COA. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, that must be established byI am sorry, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. We are marking this, Your Honor, for purposes of comparison in todays proceedings.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

13

The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly please talk one after the other? Let Counsel finish the statement of the other Counsel. So Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. I was just The Presiding Officer. Prosecution first. Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. We got this particular document from COA itself. This was certified. This is a certified copy and therefore an official document. And we confronted our witness here and he admitted. The Presiding Officer. Why do you say it is certified copy? Mr. Samonte. It came from COA itself, You Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is there a statement there thatcertifying that that is the same document, an authentic copy of a document, in the possession of COA? Mr. Samonte. What is stated here, Your Honor, certified true xerox copy for the xerox signed and issued by Eva L. Sta. Maria, State Auditor IV, Chief, Administrative Division of COA. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then proceed. Mr. Samonte. That will be all for this matter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. What is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. I was about to make a short manifestation, Your Honor, in connection with said statement of the Honorable Counsel, because all what he is stating now came from him and he is not under oath. We cannot cross-examine him unless he will take the stand, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. He is describing the document, Counsel Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. which he was using for cross-examination. Mr. Cuevas. But the two documents, Your Honor, carry with it the words certified true copy. And this is not explained, Your Honor. It may cause ambiguity and confusion on the part of the Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely because the tendency of the cross-examination is to impugn the authenticity of the document that you presented as evidence. That is the purpose of this crossexamination. Mr. Cuevas. Evidence ba namin iyon? Mr. Samonte. The first one came from them, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Kanila pareho iyan. Hindi amin iyan. Yes, they are bothI am sorry, Your Honor. They are both exhibits for the Prosecution, Your Honor. What we marked as evidence in connection with the existence of the check is a certified true copy of the check itself, not a certification by the COA. That is why we are vehement in our observation, Your Honor.

14

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Wait, wait, wait a minute. Did you present the first document in your examination-in-chief of the Witness, Mr. Counsel for the Prosecution? Mr. Samonte. It was the Defense who marked the copy of the check, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Mr. Samonte. And if I remember it right, as a preliminary question, I asked our good Mayor if the first document that I presented appears to be a duplicate copy of the original of the check and he said yes. Then, I propounded my next question. The Presiding Officer. No, but the question of the Chair is, who presented to the Witness the copy of the check which says ITF? Was it the Prosecution or was it the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. We never have presented it, if Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. What we presented in evidence, Your Honor, is the very xerox copy of the check in the amount of P34.7 million, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then, so that to avoid this discussion, let the Prosecution clear this because both documents are your exhibits. Mr. Samonte. Well, Your Honor, be that as it may, we confronted the Witness. We gave him the opportunity to make the comparison and he said yes. So I propounded my next question thereafter. The Presiding Officer. But you did notCounsel, forgive me for interrupting. You did not lay the basis of your question. You should have qualified the Witness first whether he had anything to do with the preparation of that document to know the details that are written on the document. You assumed already a fact not proven yet. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, if I remember it right The Presiding Officer. AnywaySo ordered. You reform the question. Mr. Samonte. Yes. I am finished with that anyway. Ill go to another point. Mr. Cuevas. In which case Mr. Samonte. I am through with that, with the marking, Your Honor. I will leave it to the appreciation of the Honorable Court. Mr. Cuevas. In which case, Your Honor, we will object to the marking. We will move that it be stricken off from the record, Your Honor, because it is irregular, it is violative of the rules on evidence and procedure. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, if you are not going to mark this second copy of the check, then the Chair will sustain the objection of the Defense. Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, we have already marked it and we will try to confront again our Witness. But did that document

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

15

The Presiding Officer. Because, in effect, what you are doing now is impeaching the very evidence that you presented in the first place. Mr. Samonte. No. I will then rephrase, Your Honor. May I borrow again? Mr. Cuevas. Just to clarify the record, may we make it of record that both these exhibits are not exhibits for the Defense, Your Honor. They are exhibits for the Prosecution brought about only during the cross-examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. That is why the Chair was mistaken in its assumption that the first copy of the check was presented by the Defense. That is why I had to clarify. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, we do this in regular courts. May we ask our Secretariat to read back the answer given. The Presiding Officer. Compaero, do not teach me the techniques of trial. Mr. Samonte. I know, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is not done in the regular courts. I am sorry to tell you that. I do not know what court you practice but you are contradicting your own evidence. Mr. Samonte. I just heard our WitnessAnyway, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Reform your question. Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Mayor, I am showing you a document, a certified copy that came from COA and I asked you earlier if you will agree that the entries stated in this other copy is a reproduction of the one appearing in the original check. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor. I am sorry. Mr. Samonte. So my question is, do you agree or do you not agree? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, no basis for the question. In a previous earlier question by the learned Counsel, Your Honor, it was clearly stated by the Witness that he has nothing to do with the routine matters involved. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Mr. Atienza. Uulitin ko po iyong sinabi ko kanina na hindi po ako ang nagpe-prepare ng tseke at iyan po ay prosesong sinusunod ng City Treasury when they are supposed to be issuing the necessary payments. Hindi ko po alam kung ano ang pamamaraan nila. Mr. Samonte. No. I want you to use your own perception today and look at these documents just for you to say whether the entries, from your own perception, whether the entries stated in this other document, a certified copy that I am showing to you, bears the entries stated in the original check. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court.

16
Mr. Samonte. If he knows, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense?

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, the Witness now is being confronted with an alleged certified true copy issued by the auditors office. There is no such evidence on record. That is their assumption. That is why we are objecting right from the very beginning, Your Honor. That is a fact not yet established by the record and it is being made as a premise. So the question is misleading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Counsel, what you are, in effect, trying to tell the Court is that there is a difference between the first copy of the same check for paying the property of the Basa-Guidote sold to the City of Manila with that copy that you now have toand being used by you in your cross-examination, is that it? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So you are in effect impugning the firstthe material that you yourself presented to the Witness. Mr. Samonte. I am giving him the opportunity to make the comparison, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You cannot do that. Are you saying that the first document that you presented to the Witness is spurious? Mr. Samonte. No, Your Honor. We are just trying to show that there appears to be two kinds of underwriter photocopy of this same check. That is the purpose, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then what is the materiality of that point? Mr. Samonte. The point, Your Honor, is that it will even more show the infirmities attendant to this kind of transaction, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In other words, what you are saying is that the money that was issued to Mrs. Corona was not really in trust for, di ba? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. That is your point.

The Presiding Officer. Mr. Samonte. Senator Sotto. Mr. Samonte.

Yes, Your Honor. Mr. President? And

The Presiding Officer. But you were the ones who presented that evidence and you are bound by that document. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago? Sen. Defensor Santiago. Counsel for the Prosecution, let the Court educate you. You are asking the wrong witness. You are presenting two copies and according to you these are certified true copies from the Commission on Audit. So call someone from COA and ask them if this is certified true copy. And then explain why two certified copies from the same office appear to be different from each other.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

17

You cannot get the answer from this Witness. You are forcing him to make a conclusion of fact when he has already testified for the record that he has nothing to do with the preparation of these documents. You are harassing the Witness. That is what you are doing. Mr. Samonte. I am sorry, Your Honor. Sen. Defensor Santiago. You should be sorry. Mr. Samonte. That is not my intention. Sen. Defensor Santiago. Whether it was the intention or not, that was the result. Mr. Samonte. With due respect, I submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, go ahead. All right. Go ahead, go ahead. Finish your cross. Proceed. Mr. Samonte. May I proceed then, Your Honor. Early on during direct examination, you identified the properties which according to you kailangan for your LRT New Sampaloc Market, that is correct? Mr. Atienza. Kailangan po ng Lungsod ng Maynila. Mr. Samonte. Opo, ng Lungsod ng Maynila. Mr. Atienza. Let me just correct it. It is not the LRT, it is the city government.

Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. I stand corrected. And you started doing what was necessary in May of 1999, that is correct? Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. You sent out letters to the registered owners of the properties in that vicinity of Bustillos-Legarda, that is correct also? Mr. Atienza. Ang naaalala ko po ay may sulat na pinirmahan iyong aming City Administrator, upon my orders, to look for the owners of that property which we thought was ideal for a relocation of the Sampaloc market. Mr. Samonte. Okay. And a number of letters were sent to the prospective landowners almost simultaneously. Mr. Atienza. Ang naaalala ko po iyong sulat ni Colonel Fernando sa Basa-Guidote Enterprises. Mr. Samonte. And in the adjoining property owners also, di po ba? Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. Samonte. Katunayan po ay doon sa ginawa ninyong expropriation ordinance, meron po kayong mga listahan ng titulong nilagay doon di po ba, you remember that? Mr. Atienza. Opo, dahil meron pong ilang mga properties that could serve the purpose. Mr. Samonte. Serve the purpose. And one of which nga po ito pong Basa-Guidote. Mr. Atienza. Iyong pinakamalaki po sa aming

18

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Samonte. Pinakamalaki. And you had in mind kung magkano po ang magiging halaga nitong mga properties na ito to serve the purposethe public purpose? Mr. Atienza. At that point, alam ko po ang presyong nananaig doon sa lugar dahil binenta po namin iyong old Sampaloc market sa LRT. Mr. Samonte. Okay.

Mr. Atienza. Sa gobyerno din po. At binenta namin for P50,000 per square meter. So somehow alam po namin ang ongoing reasonable rates. Tinanggap po naman ng LRTA iyong presyo namin, eh. Mr. Samonte. Katunayan po, mayroon po kayong pinaylan (file) na expropriation case. Is that correct? Mr. Delos Angeles. Misleading, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. I am asking The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Delos Angeles. There was no expropriation case that was filed. Mr. Samonte. We will confront now, Your Honor. There is a petition for eminent domain. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Mr. Atienza. Hindi po iyon expropriation case against the Basa Mr. Samonte. Hindi. Sa iba po, sa iba. Mr. Atienza. Iyon po iyong expropriation ordinance that allows the city government to take possession of certain properties. Mr. Samonte. Mr. Mayor, do you not remember this Case No. 0098311 filed by the City of Manila against or versus Guidote Mercantile Corporation, Everlasting Development Corporation, Eufemio C. Uy and George G. Eufemio? Mr. Cuevas. Before the Witness answers, Your Honor, may we be informed as to the materiality and pertinence of this document? Mr. Samonte. We will show a little later on, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. No. But the Witness is very The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. That is Mr. Cuevas. Kung alam daw ba ninyo, iyan ang tanong. Tingnan ninyo. Mr. Atienza. Ito iyan. Mr. Samonte. In fact, you were the one who verified this complaint as shown at the last page. Verification and Certification, Jose L. Atienza Jr., Affiant. Do you now remember? Mr. Atienza. Pwede po bang basahin ko muna? Mr. Samonte. By all means.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

19

Additional information, that was filed and raffled before Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Mr. Atienza. Nandito po iyong aming City Legal. Pwede po bang makausap ko siya para maliwanagan ko itongano itong dokumentong inihaharap sa akin? The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness confer with the counsel of Manila. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. Examining the questions being propounded and trying to decipher the answer that will be elicited from the Witness, it would appear that the Prosecution is making ex-Mayor Atienza their witness now. Not throughbut not in the conceptbut not a simple cross-examination question, Your Honor. This is allegedly The Presiding Officer. Let us hear first. There are four (4) techniques of cross-examination: You probe, you insinuate, you undermine, you confront. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Let them probe the Witness. Go ahead. Mr. Atienza. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Atienza. Gaya po ng sinabi rin ng aking Legal Officer, ako po mismo hindi ko po maalala itong expropriation case na ito sapagkat napakarami po kaming ipinapayl (file) na mga kaso The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Atienza. noong aming administrasyon sapagkat gumagawa kami ng programang pabahay at sa lahat ng gamit ng pamahalaan. The Presiding Officer. Next question. Mr. Samonte. Would you not remember that there was really a case for expropriation filed? Mr. Atienza. Frankly Mr. Samonte. Would you not even remember that? Mr. Atienza. Frankly, I do not remember. The Presiding Officer. Already answered. He does not Mr. Samonte. Will you not also remember that in an expropriation case there was a compromise agreement eventually entered into by the City Mayor and you arrived at the amount of P25,000 per square meter for this property belonging to Everlasting Development Corporation, to Eufemio C. Uy as evidenced by this judgment in Civil Case No. 0098311, you would also not remember that? Mr. Atienza. Eh, gaya ng sinabi ko po, sa dami ng dokumentong pinipirmahan ko as Mayor everyday and sa dami rin ng aming mga land cases, hindi ko po maalala specifically itong kasong na ito ng expropriation case.

20

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Samonte. But just the same, Your Honor, may we request for the marking of these two documents as Exhibit Eleven N (NNNNNNNNNNN) and Eleven O (OOOOOOOOOOO), respectively. The first document, the Complaint, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark them accordingly. Mr. Samonte. And the second document, the judgment itself on the same case. The Presiding Officer. By the way, what is the relevance of these two documents? Mr. Samonte. Relevance, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. To the impeachment trial. Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, it is related in a way, Your Honor, because The Presiding Officer. In what way? Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, the amountIt actually has something to do with the testimony of our Mayor as in this eminent domain case, the amount arrived at was only for P25,000 wherein in this Basa-Guidote case, they arrived at P35,000 The Presiding Officer. So what? If they paid P34.700 million, that is the only thing relevant into the impeachment case. If they overpriced, that is another issue. Mr. Samonte. But thatin effect, Your Honor, the city government of Manila was shortchanged. The Presiding Officer. Well, that has nothing to do with the Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, it has something to do with the statement, with the testimony of our good Mayor. The Presiding Officer. Ah, you are impugning his credibility? Mr. Samonte. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. A while ago, Your Honor, we were questioning the materiality and the pertinence but it is not yet shown. What is the materiality? Does it mean to say that the Mayor made money? The Presiding Officer. He is trying to impugn the Mr. Samonte. The testimony itself, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. the credence of the Witness. So, okay. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. We will allow him to proceed. Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. One last point. Ah, the month that

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

21

Mr. Atienza. Mr. President, may I also react to that statement of Counsel impugning wrongdoing on my part or overpricing, as he said? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Atienza. I find it most unfair, Mr. President, that he can accuse me of that in this Court wherein I have never, never done such act. Never. Mr. Samonte. We are just trying to show the disparity in the amount. I will leave it to the proper court, Your Honor. Mr. Atienza. In the same manner, Mr. President, he should also show expropriation proceedings where I got properties way, way below zonal value. I got properties from the Catholic Church for P75 per square meter for the poor. Why do you not mention that also, Counsel? The Presiding Officer. You know, this Court is trying to give everybody a sufficient leeway to ask questions to elicit facts but let us avoid this discussion. Proceed with your question, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Samonte. One last point, Your Honor. Ito pong nangyari sa Basa-Guidote Enterprise na kung saan ang tseke ay ginawa niyong payable to Cristina Corona in trust for Basa- Guidote Enterprise Inc., ito po ba ay kostumbre, practice, policy ng city hall na kung mayroon kayong ka-transaksyong korporasyon lagi niyo pong hinahanapan ng responsible officer by way of additional safeguard like putting the check in the name of Cristina Corona in trust for BGEI, ito po ba ay palagi niyo bang ginagawa o dito lang? Mr. Cuevas. With the kind indulgence of the Court, we object to the question, Your Honor. No basis. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer so that we Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong po ay, Ginawa ninyo? And there is no The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel, this should not hurt your case, anyway. Let the Witness explain. So ordered. Mr. Atienza. Unang-una po eh hindi po naman ako ang gumawa ng tseke, no. Ang City Treasurer po yanCity Accountant po yan, City Budget Officer po yan, at dumating po yan sa akin para pirmahan na at para magkaroon ng katuparan yung aming paggamit nung lupa. Mr. Samonte. Ang tanong ko po eh The Presiding Officer. Is it possiblewait a minute. You have two checks or two certified copies of the same check coming from the COA. Mr. Atienza. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The ITF marking in the first copy of that check, was that written by COA? Mr. Samonte. No, Your Honor, it came from the very original of the check.

22
The Presiding Officer. All right, so you admit that? Mr. Samonte. We do, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, so

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Samonte. But in the other one, it does not appear. The Presiding Officer. Why do you not ask the Treasurer why he put the ITF in the one check and did not do it in the other? Mr. Samonte. We just tried to ask our good Mayor and we will yield to The Presiding Officer. He is incompetent. Mr. Samonte. Yes, we will yield to the The Presiding Officer. He is incompetent. Mr. Samonte. comment of our good Sen. Miriam Santiago, Your Honor. In due time, we will do that. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Samonte. We just tried our luck if we can ask him, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Samonte. I think that will be all, Your Honor. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. That is all? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You are through? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You do not need the Witness anymore? Mr. Samonte. None anymore, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is there any redirect? Mr. De los Angeles. Just a fewJust a few questions, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Mr. De los Angeles. Mayor Atienza, during the cross-examination you were shown allegedly two copies of a check coming from the COA Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. De los Angeles. ..in paying for the property that you purchased from Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. Mr. Atienza. Opo.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

23

Mr. De los Angeles. As far as you know, how many checks were issued by the City of Manila? Mr. Atienza. Sa aking pagkakaalam po eh isang tseke lang po yun eh. Mr. De los Angeles. And before issuing the check, was there a disbursement voucher? Mr. Atienza. Meron po. Mr. De los Angeles. And did you sign the disbursement voucher? Mr. Atienza. The disbursement voucher, yes, Your Honor. Mr. De los Angeles. I am showing to you our Exhibit 239, the disbursement voucher, and there appears here a signature above the typewritten name Jose L. Atienza, Jr., City Mayor, will you please identify this signature? (Showing the document to the Witness) Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. De los Angeles. Whose signature is that? Mr. Atienza. Sa akin po. Mr. Samonte. Your Honor Mr. De los Angeles. Does the Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, please. Mr. De los Angeles. Does the disbursement Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, please. Mr. De los Angeles. voucherYes. Mr. Samonte. May I interpose my objection as in the first place I did not touch on this particular document on my cross Mr. De los Angeles. Preliminary. Mr. Samonte. so it will be improper for The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Mr. Atienza. Opo, eh pirma ko po ito eh. Naaalala ko po itong voucher. Mr. De los Angeles. Okay. Does the disbursement voucher identify the number of the check that was issued by the City of Manila in payment of the property that was purchased from Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc.? Mr. Atienza. Mr. President, can I just inquire from my The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Atienza. legal officer? The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

24
Mr. Atienza. Thank you, Your Honor. Opo, nandito po. Nahanap namin yung check number. Mr. De los Angeles. Will you please read the check number? Mr. Atienza. Check No. 188804. Mr. De los Angeles. Okay.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, with your permission, I just want to clarify one thing from the distinguished Witness. Does that disbursing voucher describe the payment as in trust for the Basa-Guidote? Mr. Atienza. Andito po.

The Presiding Officer. Nakalagay in trust for? Mr. Atienza. Opo. Mr. De los Angeles. Okay. I am now showing to you a certified true copy of a Landbank Check No. 000188804, already marked by the Defense as Exhibit 238 and also by the Prosecution as Ten J (JJJJJJJJJJ). Please tell us if this is the check referred to in that disbursement voucher. Mr. Atienza. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Atienza. Opo. I see the checkthe copy of the check and it bears the same number. The Presiding Officer. I just want to make another clarificatory question, Mr. Witness. Mr. De los Angeles. Okay.

The Presiding Officer. If the check and the voucher state that the payment is in trust for, who was the actual payee of the check? Mr. Atienza. Enterprises. Nakalagay po dito, ehayun po ehCristina Corona ITF Basa-Guidote

The Presiding Officer. So, the payee was... Mr. Atienza. Is Basa-Guidote Enterprises. The Presiding Officer. ...Cristina Corona in trust for Mr. Atienza. Basa-Guidote Enterprises. The Presiding Officer. In other words, the trustee of the fund is Cristina Corona. Mr. Atienza. Opo. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. De los Angeles. May we request, Your Honor, that the words Cristina Corona ITF BasaGuidote Enterprises Inc. as appearing in the disbursement voucher, Exhibit 239, be bracketed and

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

25

marked as Exhibit 239-A and the Check No. 188804 referred to in this disbursement voucher be marked as Exhibit 239-B. We also request, Your Honor, that the check number as appearing Exhibit 238 be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 238-B. And the payee, Cristina Corona ITF BasaGuidote Enterprises Inc., be encircled and marked as Exhibit 238-C. One last question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. De los Angeles. Noong Marso 22, 2012, in the course of the cross-examination, meron hong tinanong si Senator Drilon tungkol sa isang Notice of Suspension. Kailan ho ba ninyo unang narinig iyang Notice of Suspension? Mr. Atienza. Sa totoo po, eh, doon ko lang po narinig iyong order of suspension. I have never heard, never seen and never sent an order of suspension. Mr. De los Angeles. Have you received this Notice of Suspension to date? Mr. Atienza. Up to now, I have not received The Presiding Officer. Ano iyong Notice of Suspension? Mr. De los Angeles. COA ho. Notice of Suspension by the resident COA. The Presiding Officer. To suspend payment? Mr. De los Angeles. transaction, Your Honor. It was just a notice of suspension raising some points regarding the

The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. De los Angeles. That will be all, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Mayor, doon ba sa tseke na naglalaman nung bayad nung lupa sa Basa-Guidote at ganun din yung voucher ay kasama ang pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Atienza. Andito po sa voucher, opo. The Presiding Officer. Kasama ang pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Atienza. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Anong kuwan Mr. Atienza. Di si Chief Justice, hindi po si Chief Justice. Cristina Corona po. The Presiding Officer. Wala si Chief Justice? Mr. Atienza. Wala po, wala. The Presiding Officer. Wala. Ang trustee diyan ay si Cristina Corona. Mr. Atienza. Cristina Corona po. The Presiding Officer. Hindi si Chief Justice? Mr. Atienza. Hindi po.

26
The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Samonte. May we have a number of recross, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Proceed.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Samonte. Mr. Mayor, you will agree with me that in the particulars of payment in this disbursement voucher, the only entity as payee mentioned herein is Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. That is correct? In the particulars of payment. Mr. Atienza. Ang nakikita ko po rito ngayon ay Mr. Samonte. Just answer yes or no. Mr. Atienza. ito ay kabayaran sa Basa-Guidote Enterprises, opo. Mr. Samonte. Nothing is mentioned in the particulars of payment of this in trust for Cristina Corona. That is correct? Mr. De los Angeles. That is misleading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, he is asking a question if it is in the document. Mr. Samonte. And with respect to this check that you identified, when Cristina Corona signed this disbursement voucher, she also received simultaneously the check. That is correct? Mr. Atienza. Opo, sapagkat sa kanya Mr. De los Angeles. That is misleading, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. I am asking, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is misleading about it? Mr. Samonte. That is why I am asking. The Presiding Officer. What is misleading about the question? Mr. De los Angeles. The disbursement voucher, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, the basis of the objection isthat the question of the cross-examiner is misleading. Why? Mr. De los Angeles. What I heard, Your Honor, is that the check was simultaneously delivered upon the signing of the The Presiding Officer. That is why he is asking why Mr. Samonte. That is why. The Presiding Officer. He is eliciting an information. Mr. Atienza. Hindi ko po maaalala yan sa totoo lang po sapagkat dumaan sa akin yung voucher tapos nabayaran na yung property.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

27

Mr. Samonte. And when Cristina Corona received personally this Landbank check which, according to you, you even had a simple ceremony in the City Hall, do you remember having said that? Mr. De los Angeles. Wala. Mr. Samonte. Am I correct? Mr. Atienza. Meron po kaming pagto-turn over nung tseke, opo. Mr. Samonte. And the Chief Justice, the Respondent was present during that time? Mr. Atienza. I do not remember that. Mr. Samonte. How many times did you see the Respondent accompanying Cristina Corona aside from the fact when they went to your office? The Presiding Officer. Counsel, what is the relevance of that whether the Chief Justice was present or not? Mr. Samonte. We are showing the involvement of the Chief Justice because, Your Honor, the Chief Justice has been saying in the media that he is not getting involved. So we would like to know if at all he was accompanying the wife. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, he is present there probably to accompany the wife. Mr. Samonte. For whatever reason, Your Honor. For whatever reason, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Anyway, answer, Mr. Witness. Mr. Atienza. On the several occasions that we talked about the transaction, the negotiation, si Mrs. Corona po ang kausap ko and a certain Attorney Corona then, who was the husband, was present on those two occasions. Mr. Samonte. So the Chief Justice was present during that time? Attorney Corona for that matter. Mr. Atienza. Attorney Corona, because yun po ang pagkakakilala ko. That was the first time I saw the gentleman. Mr. Samonte. That will be all, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Anything else? [Silence] If there is none, the Witness is discharged. Next witness. Mr. Atienza. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Next witness. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we suspend the proceedings for a few minutes?

28
The Presiding Officer. How many minutes? Senator Sotto. Five minutes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Session suspended for five minutes. The trial was suspended at 3:20 p.m. At 3:33 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Session resumed. Does the Defense Counsel intend to present new witness? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Please call your witness.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, the Defense calls to the witness stand Atty. VC Cadangen, the officerin-charge of the Chief, Law Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Presiding Officer. Call him to the plenary session and place him on the witness stand. Then the oath will be administered to him. Where is the Secretary? Mr. Manalo. She is here, Your Honor. May we request, Your Honor, the Secretary to The Presiding Officer. Session is suspended for one minute. The trial was suspended at 3:35 p.m. At 3:35 p.m., the trial was resumed. Senator Sotto. We are ready to resume. The Presiding Officer. Session resumed. The Secretary will now please administer the oath to the Witness. The Clerk of Court. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment proceeding? Mr. Cadangen. I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. What is the purpose of this Witness? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we ask permission that Atty. Dennis Manalo of the Defense Panel be allowed or permitted to conduct the direct examination. The Presiding Officer. Granted.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

29

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. On the part of the Prosecution, may we request that Atty. Winston Gines be recognized also, Your Honor, Attorney Gines. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, this Witness is offered to prove that the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued a ruling dated May 22, 2001, stating that no capital gains tax may be levied on the excess of the just compensation paid by the City of Manila to the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. for the expropriation of its Sampaloc property which is now being utilized as the Sampaloc Public Market. The Presiding Officer. And the purpose of your presentation of this Witness is to establish that the P34,700,000 consideration was totallywas intact and placed under the custody of Mrs. Cristina Corona in trust for Basa-Guidote. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Can you not stipulate this? This does not have to be proven. Mr. Gines. In fact, Your Honor, we would likeif I may be allowed? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Gines. In fact, we would like to object, Your Honor, to the offer of the testimony because the ruling, Your Honor, is inapplicable to the facts of the case as already testified by the good Mayor of Manila. Because the premise, Your Honor, of the ruling is that it will be an involuntary sale of the property or as a result of an expropriation. As the good Counsel of the Defense, the just compensation would not be deducted of any capital gains taxes. The Presiding Officer. But anyway, whether a capital gains was due or not due, the fact is and this is so far the fact that is understood by this Court to be establishedthat the property was sold for P34,700,000. And that amount was paid for by check and received by Mrs. Cristina Corona in trust for Basa-Guidote and placed under her control. So, whether there is a tax component of that amount, it does not matter because we are talking here of the quantum of assets and liabilities and net worth of a particular respondent. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor, and The Presiding Officer. So what is the materiality of all of these? Mr. Gines. We agree, Your Honor. That is why we are objecting it is notit is immaterial, Your Honor, to the fact in issue in this case The Presiding Officer. Precisely. Mr. Gines. as well as it is not applicable at all, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We are wasting our time Mr. Gines. We agree, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. in all of these things. Mr. Manalo. Well, if the objection, Your Honor, is just as to the

30
The Presiding Officer. Anyway

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Manalo. effect of the document, we offer for admission, Your Honor, by the Prosecution the authenticity and due execution of the Bureau of Internal Revenue Ruling No. DA-095-2001 dated 22 May 2001, regarding the capital gains tax in relation to the property of the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Incorporated The Presiding Officer. All right. Let us Mr. Manalo. I have here, Your Honor, it has been pre-marked as our Exhibit 242 for the Defense and a copy of which is in the possession of the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Senator from Iloilo, Senator Drilon. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, may I support the Senate Presidents suggestion that this document be admitted in evidence? Whether or not it is applicable to the case is a matter that will be argued in the memorandum or in the oral arguments. But the fact is that this document exists so that we can dispense with this Witness, Your Honor. We just admit it and let the conclusions be drawn by both parties or by each party when the memorandum comes. Mr. Gines. We submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What about the Defense? Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. We are willing, Your Honor, to agree if the Prosecution will admit the authenticity The Presiding Officer. What about the Prosecution? Mr. Gines. We admit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Manalo. Does the Prosecution likewise admit that this BIR ruling has not been superseded, amended, modified or otherwise revoked by the Bureau of Internal Revenue? Mr. Gines. We do not know, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. If you do not know, then the Witness is here to testify. If you are going to admit, then we can dispense with the Witness. The Presiding Officer. All right. This Chair will ask the question. You are sworn. Do you know about this ruling of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which is being the subject of discussion in this proceeding? Mr. Cadangen. Your Honor, based on the record The Presiding Officer. Do you know? Mr. Manalo. Louder. Mr. Cadangen. Your Honor, this ruling was The Presiding Officer. Do you know of this ruling? Mr. Cadangen. Based on the records, Your Honor, yes.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

31

The Presiding Officer. All right. Then what is this ruling about? Mr. Cadangen. This ruling exempts from capital gains tax the transfer of a real property which was acquired by the City of Manila through expropriation from the Basa-Guidote. The Presiding Officer. Why was it exempted? Mr. Cadangen. The reason, Your Honor, is discussed in the ruling. It invoked the principle of involuntary conversion. The Presiding Officer. Why was it involuntarily disposed? Mr. Cadangen. Because it was acquired through expropriation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So that is the position of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and as a consequence you issued the ruling. Mr. Cadangen. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So what is the pleasure of the parties? Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, may we also ask the Witness if this ruling has been superseded, modified or revoked in any manner by the BIR? Mr. Cadangen. Based on the records of our office, this ruling has not been revoked. The Presiding Officer. So what is the pleasure now of both parties? Mr. Gines. Your Honor, we are willing to stipulate that the ruling was issued by the BIR; that its applicability only as stated in the ruling itself is in case of expropriation of the subject properties. The Presiding Officer. In other words, we all admit here that Basa-Guidote did not pay any capital gains tax on the sale of the property. Okay? Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How about the Prosecution? Mr. Gines. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How about the Defense? Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So ordered. Mr. Manalo. With the admissions entered into by the parties and the clarifications made by the Witness, Your Honor, may we move that the Witness be discharged. The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged. Mr. Manalo. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Your Honor, at this juncture we will call to the witness stand Mr. Noel Kintanar, a representative of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation The Presiding Officer. Fort Bonifacio?

32
Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The seller of the property purchased by one Cristina R. Corona which is Unit 1902 of the Bonifacio Ridge Condominium in Taguig. The Presiding Officer. Is this the Bellagio property? Mr. Manalo. No. This is the Bonifacio Ridge property, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. What is the purpose of the Witness? Mr. Manalo. The purpose, Your Honor, is to prove that there was a delay in the delivery of the Bonifacio Ridge property which is the Real Property No. 4 reported in the Statement, Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2010. The Presiding Officer. All right. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we request that Attorney Hernandez be recognized for the Prosecution The Presiding Officer. Yes, granted. Mr. Hernandez. Good afternoon. Your Honor, similar to the evidence regarding the alleged delay, the acceptance of The Columns unit, we feelour position is that the evidence on any delay in the delivery of the condo unit is irrelevant. And I think the Presiding Officer already took this position whether or not there was any delay as long as payments were already made, this already constitutes an asset The Presiding Officer. So, in other words, what you are saying to the Court is even if this Witness will testify that there was a delay, it will not hurt your case. Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor, it will be irrelevant. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then let the Witness testify so that we can finish the case. The Clerk of Court. Please rise. Mr. Witness, please rise. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding? Mr. Kintanar. I do. The Clerk of Court. So, help you God. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, for the record, please state your name and other personal circumstances. Mr. Kintanar. I am Noel Ilay D. Kintanar, married, and I reside in Taytay, Rizal. Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, the Witness is offered for the same purpose that we have already manifested before the Honorable Court earlier. Mr. Hernandez. The same comments on the part of the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

33

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, do you know the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation? Mr. Kintanar. Yes. From July 2008 to December 2010, I was the head of commercial operations of FBDC. Mr. Manalo. And as head of commercial operations, what are your functions, briefly, Mr. Witness? Mr. Kintanar. As head of commercial operations, I oversee the sale of real estate assets in Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. One of which was the Boni Ridge Condominium. Mr. Manalo. Okay. You mentioned the Boni Ridge, is this the Bonifacio Ridge Condominium of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation in Taguig? Mr. Kintanar. Yes, that is. Mr. Manalo. What is the status of this commercial project of the corporation as of this date? Mr. Kintanar. When I left Fort Bonifacio in 2010, the development had been fully sold, to my knowledge. Mr. Manalo. Okay. Now, based on your functions as the head of the commercial operations of this company, would you know who the purchaser of Unit 1902 of Bonifacio Ridge is? Who is the registered owner? Mr. Kintanar. Based on the records of Fort Bonifacio, the owner of that unit is Mrs. Cristina Corona. Mr. Manalo. What record are you referring to specifically? Mr. Kintanar. In our record, there is a Deed of Absolute Sale. Mr. Manalo. If I show to you a copy of this Deed of Absolute Sale, will you be able to identify the same? Mr. Kintanar. I will be able. The Presiding Officer. It was already established by the Witness and there is no objection that they admitted that the owner of the unit is Mrs. Corona. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the purpose of presenting another document to prove that she is the owner? Mr. Manalo. I am just going to confront him with Section 7 of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. I am showing to you the Deed of Absolute Sale, is this the document which you referred to? Mr. Kintanar. This is the document, sir. Mr. Manalo. The document, Your Honor, has also been marked by the Prosecution as Exhibit Triple U (UUU). And we move that it be marked as our Exhibit 243.

34

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Your HonorMr. Witness, rather, Section 7 of this contract provides for the terms and conditions of acceptance of the unit by the purchaser. It states in part, the seller shall notify the purchaser in writing of the readiness of the unit for acceptance by the purchaser and delivery by the seller to the purchaser of the same. My question is, when did Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation notify Mrs. Cristina Corona about the readiness of the unit for acceptance and delivery? Mr. Kintanar. Based on our records of that unit, the purchaser was notified sometime in the year 2005. The Presiding Officer. May I pose this question? On or before that date, did the purchaser pay any consideration for the unit? Mr. Kintanar. Usually before we would The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking you a pointed question. Did your record show that the buyeron or before the date you mentioned the unit was paid for? Mr. Kintanar. Your Honor, based on our records, the unit had been paid for by the client. The Presiding Officer. So, it was paid for. The only thing material here is when it was delivered and accepted by the owner. Mr. Kintanar. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Values have passed from her to the seller. Mr. Kintanar. Based on our record, yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Manalo. So, what happened during this inspection for the turnover and delivery of the unit to Mrs. Corona? Mr. Kintanar. Well, as in most turnover processes, there was a punch list executed between the purchaser and the seller which basically identified the various deficiencies or complaints or things that had to be repaired from the perspective of the purchaser and this was usually agreed on by the seller, in this case Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. Mr. Manalo. So, in other words, there were punch lists containing defects pointed out by the unit purchaser to the developer? Mr. Kintanar. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Manalo. And what was the action taken by Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation regarding these issues on the construction of the unit as pointed out by Mrs. Cristina Corona in the punch list? Mr. Kintanar. Well, these punch list items were addressed by FBDC based on whether these were in fact part of the sort of deficiencies created or that appeared because of construction or during construction and we would repair these items as part of our after-sales service. Mr. Manalo. And were the repairs actually performed by the developer in this case? Mr. Kintanar. These repairs wereYes, the repairs were prepared over a period of time. Of course, each time we would repair, it would require that the purchaser accept these rectifications.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

35

Mr. Manalo. And, Mr. Witness, what was the response of Mrs. Corona to the actions taken by Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation? Mr. Kintanar. The turnover process was somewhat extended and one of the responses of Mrs. Corona was, while the repairs were being completed, she contested whether she was liable for the payment of association dues to the condominium association. Mr. Manalo. So, did the turnover actually transpire? Mr. Kintanar. There was a conditional turnover sometime in 2006 but nonetheless, when she was assessed condominium dues on that unit, she wrote FBDC that these duesthe assessment from the condominium corporation should be carried or should be to the account of the developer. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, before the acceptance by Mrs. Corona of that condominium unit, how much was the total payment for the considerationthe total price of the unit, if you know? Mr. Kintanar. If I may refer to the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Manalo. The Witness, Your Honor, is going over the Deed of Absolute Sale. May it be reflected in the record. Mr. Kintanar. Your Honor, the purchase price in the Deed of Absolute Sale sale was P9,159,940, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. that unit. Mr. Kintanar. That was the cash-out from the pocket of the Coronas to acquire

Yes, Your Honor, based on our records.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So they paid that already... Mr. Kintanar. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. ...to get a unit. Mr. Kintanar. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. Go ahead, proceed. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, this response of Mrs. Cristina Corona to Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation for a conditional turnover of the property and a waiver of the association dues, is this response in writing? Mr. Kintanar. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Kintanar. Mr. Manalo. Yes, there was a letter that we received to that effect. Coming from? From Mrs. Corona. If I show to you a copy of this letter, will you be able to identify the same?

Mr. Kintanar. I would be able to. Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you a letter dated January 2, 2006 to Bonifacio Ridge Condominium by one Cristina R. Corona. Is this the letter that you refer to?

36
Mr. Kintanar. Mr. Manalo. Yes. Based on our record, this is the letter.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The Prosecutor, Your Honor, is going over the letter. May we request

Mr. Witness, on the second page of this letter, on the bottom portion is the name of Cristina Corona and a signature on top of the name, would you be able to identify the signature appearing below? Mr. Kintanar. Absolute Sale... Mr. Manalo. Mr. Kintanar. Yes, the signature is consistent with the signature we find on the Deed of Of? ...of Mrs. Corona.

Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, just a manifestation. The document presented by the Defense is a photocopy. The Presiding Officer. Never mind. Are you doubting the authenticity of that photocopy? Mr. Hernandez. Well, if the original is in their possession, we would like to see the original. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Kintanar. Mr. Hernandez. Do you have a copy of the original of this letter? I can secure it from our records. Subject to future presentation, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the letter be marked as our Exhibit 244 and the name and signature of Mrs. Cristina Corona appearing on page 2 be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 244-A. The Presiding Officer. May I just clarify another point? If Mrs. Corona did not accept the unit even though they already paid nine million plus pesos for it, would there have been a rescission of the contract and a return of the consideration paid for by the Coronas for the unit? Mr. Kintanar. That is a situation, Your Honor, which I am not familiar we have never encountered before. But I guess if the contract could not be completed, there would possibly be such a return of the consideration and a return of the unit. The Presiding Officer. But the fact thatthe time that the question regarding the acceptance of the unit was pending resolution, there was already a value paid for by the Coronas for that unit. Mr. Kintanar. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Mr. Manalo. And so, Mr. Witness, having received this letter from Mrs. Corona, what was the response of Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation? Mr. Kintanar. Well, our response which was conveyed through our marketing agent, Ayala Land, was that as we rectify the items from the punch list, we would be prepared to shoulder the cost of the association dues for that particular unit.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

37

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Kintanar.

And was this response reduced in writing? Yes, it was.

Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you a letter from Ayala Land Incorporated dated September 5, 2006, addressed to a Cristina R. Corona, owner of Unit 1902, Spanish Bay Bonifacio Ridge Condominium, is this the letter that you refer to? The Presiding Officer. By the way, Counsel, what is the purpose of this line of questioning? Are you trying to say thatare you justifying the noninclusion of the unit as an asset in the SALN of the Respondent? Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, for clarification, the unit was reported in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of the Chief Justice in 2010. The Presiding Officer. And not before. Mr. Manalo. And not before. And The Presiding Officer. What was reported before with respect to that transaction? Mr. Manalo. There was no report, Your Honor, with respect to that transaction. And it is our theory that at that The Presiding Officer. There was no reported value in the previous SALN of the Chief Justice with respect to that transaction because the unit was not yet accepted. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. That is the reasoning for the noninclusion of the purchase at that point in time until 2010, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. But did not the accountant of the Chief Justice consider that value that passed from the familyMrs. Corona to the seller of the unit as a receivable? Mr. Manalo. Unfortunately, Your Honor, there was no accountant who assisted the Chief Justice at that time, Your Honor. So, to answer the question, it is possible that he was not guided by an accounting expert during this particular time. The Presiding Officer. All right. I will not press that question. That will be a material consideration. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, proceed. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. We request that the letter identified by the Witness be marked as our Exhibit 245. Mr. Hernandez. With the same manifestation, Your Honor, that the document presented and confronted wasis a photocopy. Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, the letterhead of this document is Ayala Land Incorporated and the seller is Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. Would you know the reason for the disparity? Mr. Kintanar. Yes. Fort Bonifacio is a very specific development project which is notwhich is very limited in scope. And Fort Bonifacio basically engaged Ayala Land as its marketing agent in its real estate assets in that development in Bonifacio Global City.

38

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, in this document, the name of Jocelyn U. Villacruzis, Customer Relations Officer, appears. And there is a signature on top of the name. Would you be able to recognize whose signature this is? Mr. Kintanar. Yes. This is Jos signature. And prior to this hearing, I again verified that this was in fact a letter she signed. Mr. Manalo. Are you familiar with the signature of Mrs. Villacrusis? Mr. Kintanar. I am, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. And so, what happened after this letter was issued by Ayala Land? Mr. Kintanar. Well, again, we continued to address the items on the punch list. But in 2007, again, Mrs. Corona was assessed for association dues for that particular unit but because ofI think there was a typhoon that hit the country at that time. There were some recurring problems in terms of water leaks and we had to continue repairing some of those items. The Presiding Officer. Well, Mr. Counsel, can you not stipulate on this that there was never any reflection of this unit prior to 2010 SALN of the Chief Justice because the unit was not accepted by the family? I think this is no longer an issue. That is already fully established that there was a refusal to accept it. Cannot the Prosecution accept this as a matter of fact? Mr. Hernandez. We are willing to stipulate as to the fact of the noninclusion of the unit in the SALN until 2010. The Presiding Officer. Because of the dispute regarding its quality, there is already an admission on the part of the Defense that value passed from the Coronas to the seller to acquire the property. Mr. Manalo. If the Prosecution, Your Honor, will make the admission, then we will just have the remaining documents marked, Your Honor, subject to the presentation of the originals probably tomorrow. Mr. Hernandez. So that would be the tenor of the rest of his testimony, that there was no acceptance until the year 2010 because of defects. Mr. Manalo. Because of the continuous repair until finally the defects were addressed and so the turnover was made. And then in 2010, the Chief Justice made a report of the property in his SALN. The Presiding Officer. The Chair and this Court understand the factual situation with respect to this property to be: that there was a contract to buy a condominium unit by the Coronas from the what is the name of the seller? Mr. Manalo. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. The Presiding Officer. Fort Bonifacio Development, on an agreed price of P9 million plus, correct? Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And then that consideration was paid for. Money was passed from the pocket of the Coronas to the Fort Bonifacio. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

39

The Presiding Officer. In exchange for a potential transfer of a unit to the Coronas which was not accepted prior to 2010. Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So that is the factual situation. Why can you not stipulate this? Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor, we would stipulate that The Presiding Officer. So that there will be no more problem about all of these discussions and questions and answers about dues, and so forth and so on. These are irrelevant to this Impeachment Trial. Mr. Hernandez. We so stipulate, Your Honor. We just like to know if there is an actual turnover document which dates the actual transfer to 2010. Mr. Manalo. The letter of Mrs. Corona was explicit in saying that the turnover was conditional, the condition being the repairs made by the developer. And after the repairs were completed, then Mrs. Corona accepted the unit in full and reported the property in the 2010 SALN. Mr. Hernandez. Your Honor, that is the problem. We would be willing to make the stipulation but there is no document proving that it was indeed accepted in 2010. The letter being referred to is dated 2006. Mr. Manalo. The Witness will actually testify on that point. So the offer of the Presiding Officer The Presiding Officer. Does it matter, Counsel for the Prosecution, whether the asset involved is a condo or money between those periods? Will it matter? Mr. Hernandez. It will not matter. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Hernandez. We will stipulate, Your Honor. Mr. Manalo. Will the Prosecution, therefore, admit the point that the turnover of the property took place in 2010 and that Mrs. Corona, thereafter, reported the property in the SALN of December 31, 2010? Mr. Hernandez. If that is the manifestation that that would be the testimony of this Witness, we would stipulate. Mr. Manalo. Thank you, Counsel. In which case, to abbreviate, Your Honor, may we request that the Bonifacio Ridge assessment letter for the homeowners dues dated May 9, 2007 be marked as our Exhibit 246? The response of Mrs. Corona to the said assessment dated August 1, 2007 be marked as our Exhibit 247. The inspection report for Unit B, 1902, dated October 7, 2008, executed by Engineer Benedicto Macabenta of the Spanish Bay Bonifacio Ridge Condominium be marked as our Exhibit 248. The Presiding Officer. Mark them accordingly. Now, may I suggest that both Panels will submit a written evidence of your stipulation of fact on this particular property.

40

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, we will adopt exactly what will appear in the transcript of stenographic notes that will be provided for us tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. Yes. All right. Is that understood? Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We are talking of assets, liabilities, and net worth. Whether the asset is in kind or in cash or in securities or what-not, tangible or intangible, we are talking of assets. We are talking of liabilities. And we are talking of net worth in the SALN. And it is mandated by the Constitution that assets, liabilities, and net worth must be reported and declared under oath. Okay. Mr. Manalo. With the admissions entered into by the parties with regard to the testimony and documentary evidence identified by this Witness, Your Honor, we move that the Witness be discharged. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] The Witness is discharged. Next witness. Representative Colmenares. Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Colmenares. While waiting for the next witness, may we be allowed to make a short manifestation with clarificatory The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you for allowing us to make the short manifestation, Your Honor, with clarificatory question on the issue of the quashing of the subpoena on Secretary De Lima. Naghain po kami ng motion na i-quash ang subpoena kay Secretary De Lima dahil sa paniwala po namin na delay ang resulta nito. Ayon po mismo sa request for subpoena ng Defense, ang lahat ng pwede nilang or gusto nilang itanong kay Secretary De Lima ayon mismo sa request nila ay natanong na po. And in fact, they were given all opportunities to ask these questions during the two days. Two days po na nag-cross-examine sila kay Secretary De Lima. Ngayon po, hindi naman namin iniisip na ang Depensa ay may iba pang itatanong at minislead ang Impeachment Court sa tunay na purpose nang pagpatawag nila kay Secretary De Lima. We do not suspect that. Ngayon po, ang sabi namin ang Korte may discretion na i-deny siyempre ang motion or request for subpoena kung tingin ng Korte irrelevant yong testimony, immaterial o pangpahaba lang ng kaso. In fact, may mga subpoena na na-deny ang Korte. Katulad noon, may Supreme Court na driver na pumunta dito willing naman mag-testify pero ginrant (grant) ng Korte ang request ng Supreme Court na hindi sila i-subpoena at may poder ang Korte whether or not to grant or to deny the request. Ganoon din po sa Clerk of Court. Willing naman ang Clerk of Court. In fact, the Clerk of Court has appeared here previously pero ang problema noon nabulatlat yong SALN. So noong ni-request ang subpoena niya na Article XVII, hindi na po siya napayagan mag-testify dahil sa sabi ng Korte Suprema bawal mag-testify sa Korteng ito ang mga personnel ng Korte Suprema.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

41

Ngayon po, ang tanong po namin aynakita po namin kasi itong sulat ni Secretary De Lima at nagsasabi po siya dito na she is, of course, opposing the motion, the subpoenathe request for subpoena of the Defense. Pero po may sinabi po siya dito The Presiding Officer. What is the date of that letter? Representative Colmenares. This is May 7 po 2012. The Presiding Officer. Today? Representative Colmenares. Today po. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Colmenares. Sinabi po niya dito, This is however without prejudice to the undersigned continuing sentiment regarding the propriety of her recall to the witness stand as well as her appeal for her rights to such witness under Section 3. This is for the Impeachment Court to decide. Whether or not they will continue with the grant of the subpoena or withdraw it, it is for the Court to decide. The Court has mentioned in so many times that it wishes to avoid collision with other coequal branches. However, I would like to go to the other part of the letter, Your Honor. In line with this, the undersigned respectfully requests clarification on the intended scope of the Defense Panels examination of the undersigned, and also whether they intend to treat the undersigned as an unwilling or hostile witness. So ngayon po, ang tanong lang po namin, may nabanggit na po ba ang Defense Panel kung ano po ang scope ng kanilang examination? Kasi ang sabi po namin sa Prosekusyon at sabi rin ni Secretary De Lima, lahat po na yan, na-testify ko na yan, eh. Ano pa ba ang puwede kong sabihin dito? Baka dalawang araw na naman pona hindi ko pa nasabi or wala silang oportunidad na matanong noong panahong nag-testify po siya. In fact, hindi rin po puwedeng i-claim ni Chief Justice Corona that he is deprived of due process rights. Hindi po. Ang Korte Suprema po, in fact, nung winidhold (withhold) ang mga witnesses from the Supreme Court, wala talaga kaming opportunity to ask them kasi hindi talaga sila pumunta dito. Kami po sa Prosekusyon, napresinta si Secretary De Lima, wala po kaming intensyong itago, walang itinatago si Secretary De Lima. In fact, nag-appeal na siya. Ang hiningi lang po ni Secretary De Lima at ng Prosekusyon, ano pa po ba ang gagawin at pang-delay na lang ito, ang pag-testify niya. Kasi ayon po sa request, these are the same issues discussed. So ang hiningi na lang po namin, baka may gusto pang itanong ang Depensasorryyes, ang Depensa na hindi nila naitanong o hindi sila pinayagan ng Korteng itanong noon na gusto nilang itanong kay Secretary De Lima, ayon po sa tanong ni Secretary De Lima. I would like to ask for a clarification on that, Your Honor, if they have answered the question of, one, the intended scope of the Defense Panels examination of Secretary De Lima, and also, whether they intend to treat the undersigned The Presiding Officer. Are you asking for a reconsideration of the ruling of this Court? Representative Colmenares. Well, Your Honor, under the The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking you.

42

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Representative Colmenares. Yes, Your Honor, if there is a senator who is willing to move for a reconsideration, of course, we would be very happy because that is ourthat is natural, that is our motion. And secondly, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Well, then you ask first if there is a senator who will ask for a reconsideration because I cannot allow a waste of time in discussing this. The Chair has already ruled. Representative Colmenares. Actually, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. The proper procedure isand I understand where you are coming from. Representative Colmenares. Thank you po. The Presiding Officer. To ask somebody to make a motion for reconsideration. Representative Colmenares. Actually po, nasa judgment ng senator. Ang hiningi ko lang pomay tanong po, nalinaw na po ba ng Depensa kung The Presiding Officer. All right. If the Defense wants to explain why they want the Secretary of Justice to come back and be their witness, please say so. Mr. Bodegon. If Your Honor please, Joel Bodegon for the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Bodegon. By way of reply, I believe the Rules defined the proper time for us to make to manifest to this Court the purpose of the testimony that we would elicit from the witness, not at this time. We are wasting the time of this Court by manifestations like these. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Colmenares. Your Honor, if I may. Actually, kung sa manifestation lang, lugi kami sa Defense, eh, araw-araw, marami silang manifestation. But, anyway, Your Honor, ang tingin namin po, yong Request for Subpoena, hindi ka pupuwedeng mag-mislead diyan kasi nung nag-desisyon ang Impeachment Court at ang Senate President for that matter, siyempre, tiningnan niya po kung may relevance. The Presiding Officer. I assure you, Mr. Counsel for the Prosecution, that this Court cannot be misled. Representative Colmenares. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We are as intelligent as you are. Representative Colmenares. That is what I also presume, Your Honor. But they are now saying that they have certain purposes that they did not The Presiding Officer. It is not a presumption. We are elected by the Filipino people because they think we are intelligent enough to protect their interests. Representative Colmenares. Yes, Your Honor. My point being, however, Your Honor, is that mayroon pala silang mga purpose na hindi nila sinabi dito sa atin. And I am sure that when the Court decided to grant the request, tiningnan nila ang validity, ang relevance, ang materiality ng

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

43

request. Ngayon po, kung hindi po pala yon ang intention nila at may iba pala silang purpose, sana naman, na-apprise yong Impeachment Court para maka-decide ang Impeachment Court kung relevant pa ba nga ang testimony o hindi po. The Presiding Officer. Do you know their intention? Representative Colmenares. Ang intention po nila nakalagay sa request nila. Ang tanong ko lang po, iyon pa ba ang intention nila? The Presiding Officer. TinanongSinagot ka na eh. Representative Colmenares. Ang sagot po nila, may intention po silang iba, pero sa The Presiding Officer. The request of the gentleman is denied. Representative Colmenares. Well, thank you, Your Honor. But we hope that the clarification later on for the purposes, we will reserve our objection, of course, to any new purpose that they will state during the offer of testimony of Secretary De Lima. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense, call your next witness. Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Lichauco. Good afternoon, Mr. Senate President. Attorney Lichauco. We are calling our next witness, Ms. Annalyn Moises who is the Records Officer of the City of Manila. But just to abbreviate the proceedings, Your Honors, if we can make a stipulation because she is really just being presented toWell, she will be presented for the purpose of authenticating certain documents as far as the Basa-Guidote transaction is concerned. The Presiding Officer. What are those documents? Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. Maybe they can just enumerate then we can react thereafter. The Presiding Officer. What are those documents to be authenticated? Mr. Lichauco. Ordinance No. 7975 which was pre-marked as Exhibit 227, the Deed of Sale between the Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. and City of Manila. The Presiding Officer. I think that is not in issue anymore actually. Mr. Lichauco. Yes, I mean The Presiding Officer. Is there any dispute about this? Mr. Samonte. I do not think so, Your Honor. I do not even think if our good Witness here can do any better than that of the good Mayor. Because what she may have to testify to today must have been taken up already lengthily by our good Mayor, most especially pertaining to the documents being adverted to. Mr. Lichauco. Your Honor, the previous witness, the Counsel for the Prosecution was questioning that some documents were xerox copies. Now, we are presenting certified true copies so it will not be questioned anymore. Mr. Samonte. Well, if only for the certification of these documents already marked

44

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The Presiding Officer. What is the point in this authentication? It is already a fact and admitted that there was a transaction between the City of Manila and the Basa-Guidote. In fact, it was also established into the record that money passed from the City of Manila to the seller Basa-Guidote represented, according to the presentation of the Defense and the government of the City of Manila that transacted the Basa-Guidote Corporation. And that we have been discussing for weeksfor days and weeks about P34.7 million consideration for that transaction. What else more is needed to establish that fact? Mr. Lichauco. So, Your Honors, if they are willing to admit that there exists an ordinance authorizing the supposed purchase and supposedly there is an Absolute Deed of Sale The Presiding Officer. If there is a defect in the sale, it is impertinent, immaterial, irrelevant in this proceeding. Mr. Lichauco. Okay, Your Honor. So The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Lichauco. In which case, Your Honor, then if there is no issue at all, then we can call a next witness. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Call your Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Call your next witness. Mr. Samonte. Thank you. Mr. Lichauco. We would like to call Ms. Efleda Castro. She is the Manila Market Administrator. Mr. Samonte. May we just know the purpose or purposes she is being offered? Mr. Lichauco. That the City of Manila is in possession, they are deriving income therefrom The Presiding Officer. There is no question about that already Mr. Samonte. There is no question on that. The Presiding Officer. it has been sold. Mr. Lichauco. We can stipulate on those The Presiding Officer. What is the materiality of Mr. Lichauco. on these two (2) particular aspects, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. What is the materiality of this kind of evidence in this impeachment trial? Mr. Lichauco. Your Honor, because they may be questioning the transfer of ownership, the turnover and who is actually in possession. The Presiding Officer. That is immaterial to this Court, whether the property was transferred or not. There was a transaction. Whether that is void, immaterial, there is a transaction. Money passed from the City of Manila to Ms. Cristina Corona.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

45

Mr. Lichauco. Sir, they stipulate, Your Honor. Mr. Samonte. We agree on the observation of the Presiding Officer. If only as to question of possession, there will be no quarrel with us. Mr. Lichauco. Okay. Mr. Samonte. But as to other purposes, we agree that they are immaterial, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What I am trying to avoid is we are cluttering this proceeding with so many collateral, irrelevant, immaterial issues. We are wasting time. Please go direct to the point so that we can finish this case. Present the defense of the Respondent. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, we have other witnesses who were supposed to have been scheduled for tomorrow. They arrived earlier. If you would give us a short break, I will check if they are still available and I will present more witnesses. The Presiding Officer. All right. Session suspended for Mr. Roy. Ten to 15 minutes, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Fifteen minutes. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much. The trial was suspended at 4:26 p.m. At 5:00 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Are we ready? Are we ready to resume the session? Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Session resumed. Mr. Roy. Good afternoon, Mr. President. I regret that the Defense is not prepared to proceed today, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Roy. Due to the pace, that which the witnesses were terminated today. We have not prepared more witnesses who are prepared to take the stand. May I request that we be allowed to present them tomorrow? We did, after all, manage to go through five (5) witnesses. The Presiding Officer. How many witnesses does the Defense wish to present to defend the Chief Justice? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, we had originally about 14 but we have trimmed that list down considering your public announcements that you would like to finish the trial sooner. As a result of which, I believe we will be down to about five (5) or six (6) witnesses, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Actually, we narrowed down already the number of Articles of Impeachment to be considered. And as far as Article VII, Article III are concerned, these are matter

46

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

of public record, no. So the only material matter that we will require the presentation of evidence will be Article II. Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor. And if I am not mistaken, the remaining witnesses all pertain to issues pertaining to Article II. Senator Sotto. Precisely. Mr. Roy. Except for the subpoena issued to the good Secretary of Justice, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. So, Mr. President Representative Tupas. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Court will not anticipate how the Defense will defend the Respondent, Chief Justice. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. But I hope you understand that the Senate cannot afford also to prolong this case because the legislative agenda of the nation is affected. Mr. Roy. To be sure, Mr. President, you have our assurance that we do not wish to burden the Senate by delaying it in any way. The Presiding Officer. No. It is not a burden to us. It is a burden to the nation. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. President. May I then manifest in accordance with the letter that we received today from the good Secretary that we would require her attendance on Wednesday if that is possible. The Presiding Officer. No. You have to make an arrangement withshe is your witness. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. We are informing the Court The Presiding Officer. So you make an arrangement with her when she is to come here. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. We are informing the Court because the letter that we received today was not yet taken up in the business that we tackled this morning. So we will make that arrangement, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So you are asking for a continuance? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How about the Prosecution? Senator Sotto. Yes. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we have no objection to the pleasure by the Defense. We have no objection. We just want to ask, Mr. President, if the Defense is willing to name the five (5) or six (6) witnesses that they are going to present.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

47

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Jinggoy Estrada to make manifestation and pose an interjection on the question of the Prosecution. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you. If I may, Mr. President. Mr. Counsel, instead of cluttering this Court, to borrow the words of the Senate President instead of cluttering this Court with witnesses who are impertinent, immaterial or irrelevant to these proceedings, I suggest that you bring the Respondent himself to answer all the allegations leveled against him. And if the Chief Justice will appear, the judges, the Impeachment Court will be very, very happy to hear his side. At dun pa lang pagka marinig na namin ang side ni Chief Justice tungkol sa mga alegasyon nila, dun pa lang siguro makakapagbuo na kami ng desisyon kung ano ang didisisyunan namin. Just to give you a classic example. During the impeachment case of former President Estrada, former President Estrada was waiting to be summoned by this Impeachment Court. He was daring to appear before this Impeachment Court dahil according to him wala siyang tinatago. Ngayon, kung talagang walang tinatago si Chief Justice Corona, bakit hindi na lang siya ang dalhin ninyo dito para siya mismo ang sumagot sa lahat ng mga alegasyon nitong Prosecution Panel laban kay Chief Justice Corona. Pati yung sampung milyon na naiulat, nailathala sa diyaryo sagutin na rin niya kung talagang tutuong mayroong $10 million dun sa bangko ni Chief Justice para kung sa gayon matapos na kaagad itong Impeachment Trial at makapag-render na ng desisyon kaagad. Hindi yung katulad ng mga witnesses na pinepresenta ninyo dito hindi naman kailangan. Pwede namang i-stipulate ng Prosecution Panel iyan. You are just wasting the time of this Court, Mr. Counsel, If I may. Ayaw ko hong makialam kung ipe-presenta ninyo yung Chief Justice pero sa amin mas makakabuti, and I reiterate yung mga sinabi nung mga kapwa ko senador na dalhin ninyo na si Chief Justice dito, i-presenta ninyo na siya rito para malaman na namin kung ano talaga ang buong katotohanan iyang mga iyan. Mr. Cuevas. Well, thank you for that admonition, Mr. Senator, but this is an impeachment proceeding. And notwithstanding the character of the proceedings, Your Honor, due process should still be observed. What are the charges against him? That he had amassed properties which he did not declare in the SAL? Is that impeachable? That he has accounts which were not reflected therein? But we have witnesses, Your Honor, to testify that there is no such violation. And even if there is, it may not be considered as violation because they are not impeachable in character, Your Honor. We may not agree with him but let us give him the opportunity to present witnesses to support that. He is the Chief Justice of the country, Your Honor. And out of respect, we should at least give him some consideration whatsoever, irrespective of the nature thereof. Now, you are castigating the Defense for presenting witnesses thatlike this and like that. We have presented only five (5) witnesses, Your Honor, and they are very, very important to our defense, Your Honor. We cannot be bulldozed into presenting this witness because you like him to testify. That is not the order of trial. That is not the demand of justice, Your Honor. We have been a practitioner, we have been a member of the bench, we have been a member of the Supreme Court, there is no authority nor any jurisprudence that give the reason for compelling a party accused for appearing in court if he does not appear to be in a position to do so, Your Honor. Now, there were several witnesses today, scheduled for trial. Luckily or unluckily, we have to divide a division of labor among the members of the panel, Your Honor, and these werethe matters to be discussed by these witnesses together with the identity are delineated in that conference.

48

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

Now, incidentally, we never anticipated that those assigned to them will not be performedwill not be able to perform as expected of them, Your Honor. But they are not dilatory in character. For instance, the witness whom Attorney Lichauco will present, he will be made to testify that actually the market was pushed through; there was a market operating. All these proceedings were undertaken. And this certainly will cause doubt on therather clearance or enlightenment on the part of the Court that the transaction is a genuine one. It is true. There are check payments, Your Honor, that we utilized the same to cover up the expenditures and the acquisition made by the Chief Justice. But we do not know how much amount of evidence will be necessary to be able to convince the Honorable Court. We arekung sa Tagalog po, parang nanalakab kami sa linaw, eh. Rules of Evidence, sinasabi ninyo hindi proof beyond reasonable doubt, convincing lamang. All right. Eh, ano nga po yungeto, meron kaming objection, ganito, ganito, ganito, ganito, ganito. Now, we have other witnesses, Your Honor. We caused them to be subpoenaed, but we were informed only lately that they will not be able to testify. There is a comment here made, Eh, hindi naman ninyo inilagay ang purpose kaya niyo tinatawag si Secretary De Lima. My question is, is there any rule under the Revised Rules of Court which states that in a Motion for the Request of the Issuance of a Subpoena the purpose must be stated? I am not aware of any rule. The Presiding Officer. We have already ruled upon that, Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. I am just The Presiding Officer. So, I think that we shall not prolong this discussion. I hope you also give due consideration to this Court. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, we are. The Presiding Officer. You cannot say that we are not giving you due process. You have all the time during the recess to study the defense of your client Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. to prepare his defense. Mr. Cuevas. And we are very appreciative of that. The Presiding Officer. To tell you the truth, we are quite disappointed that the witnesses that you brought here this afternoon are people who are testifying about the collection of fees. What has that got to do with the Impeachment? To identify records, what has that got to do with the Impeachment Trial? The question here, and I think you know because you are an experienced lawyer is Section 2, Article II. Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, all of those witnesses who were presented this afternoon were irrelevant to that particular issue of Article of Impeachment No. 2. And that is why, we feel a little disappointed.

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

49

Now, do not tell us and lecture to us about due process. We are equally aware of our obligation to extend due process to anybody coming before this Court. Is it your position that there is no prima facie case presented before this Court? Mr. Cuevas. In our evaluation, yes The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking you a question. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is that your position? Mr. Cuevas. In our evaluation The Presiding Officer. Then that is your problem, if that is your position. I will be frank with you. If you think that there is no case presented here in this Court, then that is your problem. Mr. Cuevas. May I continue, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. We are all lawyers trained in the art. And I think we respect your skills and your ability to appreciate the evidence. But equally, we expect you to respect our ability to appreciate the evidence presented to us. The gentleman from San Juan. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, I take note of the statement of the Chief Defense Counsel that I was admonishing the Defense Counsel. Mr. Counsel, I am not admonishing you. That was just my humble recommendation to let the Chief Justice appear before the Impeachment Court. Dahil sa pagkakaalam ko, ang paniwala ko, pag humarap diyan si Chief Justice, ang bayan magiging masaya; ang Impeachment Court magiging masaya. At gusto talaga naming malaman kung ano talaga ang buong katotohanan. And in fact, I am not castigating you. I am just merely voicing the sentiments of my colleagues here, Senator-Judges. Yun lang po, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Senator. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I would like to make it of record that based on our record, the Defense has already submitted seventeen (17) witnesses to defend the Respondent. Mr. Cuevas. Seventeen (17), Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. You presented Congressman Tobias Tiangco. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Araceli Bayuga; Demetrio Vicente; Atty. Irene Guevarra; Atty. Girlie Salarda; Engr. Roberto Villaluz; Rodolfo Ordanez; Engr. Mario Badillo; Atty. Carlo Alcantara; Atty. Randy Rotaquio; Benz Lim, Property Manager, Columns, Ayala Avenue Condo; Carmina A. Dela Cruz, Client Relations Manager, Alveo Land Corporation; Atty. Perlita V. Ele, Clerk of Court

50

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

VII and Ex-officio Sheriff; Atty. Eulalio Diaz III, Administration, LRA; Joselito Atienza; Atty. V. C. Cadangen; Noel Kintanar and the others. That is a matter of record. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, we did so, Your Honor, for a definite purpose and we stated in the offer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, that is why how many more witnesses do we have to expect? We are willing to accommodate you. Present all the witnesses you want. Mr. Cuevas. We only intend The Presiding Officer. That is why we are all ready to give you the due process that you are asking us and we will give you due process, fair trial. I guarantee that you will have a fair trial. We denied the Motion to Quash the Subpoena of the Secretary of the Department of Justice for your sake if you want to present her again. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. But we received information that Secretary De Lima sent an emissary this afternoon. We met him and informed us that she will be available only next week, Your Honor. That is why we werenadiskaril kami, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely becauseI will tell you. This Court will exercise its coercive power to compel the attendance of witnesses for the Respondent to show you that we are ready to give him a fair trial and due process, not only substantive, but procedural due process. But we expected that we will be, at least, given some consideration in not hearing illusory witnesses being presented here to testify on the collection of fees, authentication of documents. There were no more issues about the transaction in the case of the property sold by the City of Manila, including the consideration. Anyway, you want a continuance? Mr. Cuevas. Well, frankly speaking, Your Honor, we cannot proceed now because our witnesses are not available. The Presiding Officer. All right, all right. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. May we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement? Representative Tupas. Before that, before that, Mr. President, may we be allowed to Senator Sotto. Okay. We withdraw, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. reiterate our request? Your Honor, may we just reiterate our request for the Defense to name the witnesses, at least, for tomorrow? Mr. Cuevas. We have requested Representative Tupas. The five (5) or six (6) witnesses, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We have requested for Subpoena to some of them. They are a matter of record, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is that?

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

51

Mr. Cuevas. We are being asked to identify the witnesses that we will present, Your Honor. We said we have requested for the issuance of a Subpoena to compel their appearances. The Presiding Officer. I think the Prosecution should be astute enough to anticipate the witnesses that will be presented by the Defense and prepare your cross-examination Representative Tupas. In that case, we submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. instead of rambling. Representative Tupas. We submit, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make an announcement? Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor, before we close. 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. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. I move that we adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Tuesday, May 8, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? The motion of the Floor Leader is approved. The trial was adjourned at 5:19 p.m.