Feb 2 Senate Impeachment Court Record

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Thursday, February 2, 2012
AT 2:04 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the impeachment trial of the Honorable Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by the distinguished Senator from Sorsogon, Sen. Gregorio B. Honasan II. Senator Honasan. Father Almighty, we ask You to guide us as we go through the necessary agony of the impeachment trial and as we try not only the accused but our ability to seek justice. Help us emerge from this process united and more determined to pursue the path to lasting peace and progress. As we repair our damaged institutions, guide us that we may respond more effectively to the challenges of poverty, hunger, homelessness, ignorance and social injustice. Allow us to temper our proceedings with civility, mutual respect and a presumption of our collective innocence inside and outside the trial court. As we search for the truth, inspire us to be worthy Prosecutors, Defense Counsels, and Senator-Judges and Jurors. And when our work is done, light our path as we continue to build our nation and work for a better future for our children. All these we ask of You. 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 .................................................... Absent** Senator Franklin M. Drilon ............................................................... Present Senator JinggoyEjercito Estrada ........................................................ Present Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero ................................................ Present Senator Teofisto TG L. Guingona III ............................................. Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan ........................................................... Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ............................................................... Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ...................................................... Present Senator Loren Legarda ..................................................................... Present Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. ..................................................... Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III .......................................................... Absent Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ........................................................... Present* Senator Aquilino Pimentel III ............................................................ Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. .................................................... Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................ Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV .......................................... Present Senator Manny Villar ........................................................................ Present The President .................................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 19 Senator-Judges present in the Chamber, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty, while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 1, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider it approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none; the February 1, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will now call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.
______________ *Arrived after the roll call **On sick leave
The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer.The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the respective Counsels to enter their appearances. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearances. The Presiding Officer. Noted for the Prosecution. Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted for the Defense. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are in receipt of a Motion from the Defense. I move that we discuss the said motion on Monday, during our caucus at twelve noon, to give the other Members of the Court time to appraise and study the motion. The Presiding Officer. Yes, and I would like to announce and seek the forbearance of the Prosecution. There were so many requests for a subpoena submitted to us, and this Presiding Officer would like to submit this to the members of the Impeachment Court in a caucus. Because in the opinion of this Chair, it touches on the principle of separation of powers among the three departments of government and I would like to get the counsel of the Impeachment Court. Thank you. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, may I include that in the motion that we will take, that we take it up on Monday. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion is approved. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we now allow to call the Prosecution to continue with their presentation of evidence. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may now call their next witness. We are still on Article II? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. We are still on Article II. The Presiding Officer. So, proceed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, there is a request by the Members of the Court to ask the Prosecution how many witnesses and who are the witnesses that they will present. Representative Tupas. For the day? Senator Sotto. For today, yes.
Representative Tupas. The first witness is Mr. Gregg Gregonia of the Burgundy Realty Corporation; the second witness is Ms. Ava Venus Mejia from Filinvest. And we have a pending matter. There are two: the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City and the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina. They have been here since three weeks ago. We were not able to discharge them because the Defense reserved their right to cross-examine. And effectively, we have four for today, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. All on Article II, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Is the Defense ready to cross-examine the witnesses who were not subjected to cross yet? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We are ready to cross-examine them. The Presiding Officer. So, maybe we should start the proceeding this afternoon with the crossexamination of the witnesses who have not been subjected to a cross-examination so that to be fair to them, we could dispense their recurrent presence in these proceedings. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we now call on the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City. The Presiding Officer. The Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City may come to the Chamber and take the witness stand under the same oath. Representative Tupas. May we request that Atty. Jose Justiniano be recognized for the Prosecution, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Compaero Atty. Justiniano is recognized. Mr. Justiniano. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are welcome. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we request permission that Atty. Esguerra of the Defense panel be allowed to conduct the cross-examination of these two witnesses. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Witness not around yet, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. May we suspend the trial, Mr. President, while we are waiting for the witness. The Presiding Officer. Trial is suspended until the witness is in the Chamber. The trial was suspended at 2:12 p.m. At 2:13 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Mr. Justiniano. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Justiniano. May we know from the Defense what are the matters which they expect to elicit from our witness? Maybe, if we....
The Presiding Officer. You cannot do that. That is their right to.... Mr. Justiniano. Your Honor, if they can inform me, maybe we can just admit, Your Honors, to dispense with the cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. I leave it to the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. This is cross-examination, Your Honor. And the progress of the cross-examination will depend on the statement to be made by the witness, Your Honor. We cannot stipulate on this, Your Honor. Mr. Justiniano. Okay, Your Honor. I am just guided by the pronouncement of Senator Defensor Santiago that we should expedite. Mr. Cuevas. Actually, we can accommodate.... The Presiding Officer. Normally, cross is not subject to stipulation. We cannot control the Defense how they will defend their client. Proceed. Mr. Esguerra. With the permission of the honorable Presiding Officer and the honorable members of the Impeachment Court. Mr. Witness, you are a lawyer by profession? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Justiniano. Before you were assigned to be the Register or Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City, you were posted with what office of the Land Registration Authority? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, I am the Deputy Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. You have not been assigned to the Head Office, the Office of the Administrator? Mr. Alcantara. I have not been assigned with the office of the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. You were here, according to your direct testimony, Mr. Witness, pursuant to the subpoena issued by this honorable Impeachment Court, am I right? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. And you have identified in the course of your direct examination certain documents in connection with the property/properties appearing in the name of Renato Corona and Cristina Corona, am I right? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. And you also identified other documents, particularly titles in the name of the children of Chief Justice Renato Corona and Mrs. Corona, am I right? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. Can we go to the title first, Mr. Witness, of Carla C. Castillo concerning a property where there was a testimony from you that the lot was bought for P15 million? Can you show that to us?
6
Witness, for the record, Your Honor, is going over his records.
Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125683. Mr. Esguerra. May we request the Prosecution to hand to usif we may borrow rather, this particular exhibit for purposes of easier identification. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution is directed to show theto lend the said exhibit for purposes of his cross-examination. Mr. Esguerra. The Witness, Your Honor, produced for my inspection Exhibits YY, YY-1, YY-2 and YY-3. Is this the very title, Mr. Witness, that is in the name of Carla C. Castillo? This is a cancelled title as it appears here. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is a cancelled title in the name of Mirla Melad Bajar, married to Veneroso E. Bajar, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. Why was it cancelled? Mr. Alcantara. There is an annotation on the face of the title, Your Honor. It is stampmarked Cancelled. The reason for the cancellation of this title is the registration of a sale. This is entered under Primary Entry No. 8708 T125683 Sale. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Mr. Witness. And, by reason of this inscription, evidencing the sale of the property covered by this Transfer Certificate of Title, Exhibit YYY series, there was a new title issued? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. May I have a copy of that new title? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, I have with me the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-327732 registered in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. I am showing to you what has been marked as Exhibits BBB up to BBB-2 for the Prosecution. May I invite you to look at the dorsal portion, second page, under the Memorandum of Encumbrances, Mr. Witness, and focus your attention, invite your attention to the stamp entry here. Can you read that, for the record? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, on the second page of this title, there is Entry No. 2504T-327732, mortgage in favor of Bank of Philippines Islands to guarantee a principal obligation in the sum of P12 million, mortgagees consent necessary in case of subsequent encumbrance or alienation of the property. Other conditions set forth in Document No. 461; Book No. 106; Page No. 301; Notary Public of Quezon City; Delfin R. Agcaoili; Date of Instrument, 5-15-09; Date of Inscription, 5-19-09; Signed, Carlo V. Alcantara, Deputy Register of Deeds, Quezon City. Mr. Esguerra. Your Honor, we would request that this document be marked as our Exhibit 50, consisting of three pages and that particular inscription read, for the record, by the Witness, Your Honor, in the dorsal portion, entitled or described as Real Estate Mortgage with the signature of the Witness above the printed name, Carlo V. Alcantara, be encircled and submarked as Exhibit 50-A.
The Presiding Officer. Is that an encumbrance on the title of Constantino Castillo III? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. We will go to another point, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Esguerra. Do you recall having testified about the Burgundy unit in the name of Renato Corona and Cristina Corona, Mr. Witness? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. Do you have the certificate of authority or authorization to register? You have identified that, if I recall correctly. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. Do you have it? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, I have with me the original or the Certificate Authorizing Registration, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. Is this Exhibit QQQQ? May I invite your attention, Mr. Good Counsel, Attorney Justiniano? I think we have the same, although what I have is a certified true copy, Mr. Witness. Can you just go to Section A, Description of Real Property. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. And there is reference there under the column, Market Zonal Value, of an amount as well as the column, Selling Price. Can you read the market zonal value as entered there, for the record? Mr. Alcantara. The market zonal value is P1,567,500.00. The selling price, Your Honor, is P2,508,000. Mr. Esguerra. Your Honor, we would like to request that this Certificate Authorizing Registration, Exhibit QQQQ, for the Prosecution, identified by the Witness, be marked as our Exhibit 51, and the entries read be both encircled under Zonal Market Value and Selling Price and submarked as our Exhibit 51-A, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark all the documents accordingly as requested by the Defense, including the previous ones because the Chair missed to give a direction with respect to the markings. Proceed. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Your Honor. Do you recall having testified, Mr. Witness, relative to a parcel of land located in what is known as Ayala Heights Subdivision in the year 2010 for P8 million? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. Do you have also the Certificate Authorizing Registration for this property?
Witness is examining his records, Your Honor. [Pause] Did you find it? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. For the record, Your Honor, the copy with the Clerk of Court of this Impeachment Court is previously marked Exhibit III, or triple I. May I invite again your attention to Section A of this particular document, Mr. Witness, and go to the column Market Zonal Value. It states there, thirteen....Can you read it, for the record? I am sorry. Mr. Alcantara. Market zonal value is P13,800,000.00; the selling price, Your Honor, is P8 million. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you. Would this document show who the buyer or purchaser of this lot is? Mr. Alcantara. Sir, indicated on the CAR as the buyer is Amelia y Rivera, et al. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you. Your Honor, we would request that this Exhibit III or triple I for the Prosecution, a document just identified once more by the Witness be marked as our Exhibit 52 and the entries under market zonal value and selling price of P8 million be encircled and submarked as our Exhibit 52-A. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Your Honor. I will go to another point. The Presiding Officer. Mark the document accordingly. Mr. Esguerra. There was another property, this time located in La Vista Subdivision, also in Quezon City, Mr. Witness, the documents of which you have identified. Would you have also the Certificate Authorizing Registration insofar as this property is concerned? The Clerk of Court handed to this representation, Your Honor, a Certificate Authorizing Registration, Exhibit WW for the Prosecution. Did you find it, Mr. Witness? Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. May I invite once more your attention to Section A, Description of Real Properties, particularly under the columns, Market Value, Zonal Value and Selling Price. Can you read, for the record, the entries under these columns, Mr. Witness? Mr. Alcantara. The zonal value is P21,600,000; the selling price, Your Honor, is P18 million. We will request that this document Exhibit WW be also marked as our Exhibit 53 and the entries under those pertinent columns that the witness just read be encircled and submarked as Exhibit 53. The Presiding Officer. Mark the document accordingly. Mr. Esguerra. Two other properties in Quezon City according to you, Mr. Witness, and correct me, if I am wrong, were also registered in the name of one Renato Corona and Cristina Corona. May
I ask if you have the titles with you covering these properties located in Xavierville Subdivision? I have been informed that these are Exhibits QQ and RR , for expediency, please. Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Sir. I have with me the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3191 (163660). This title, Your Honor, is registered in the name of Renato C. Corona, married to Ma. Cristina R. Corona, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. May I invite your attention when was this entered based on your records? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3191 (163660), was issued on April 5, 1971 at 8:20 in the morning. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you. Again, Your Honor, with the kind indulgence of the honorable Impeachment Court, we would request that this particular Exhibit QQ for the Prosecution.... This has already been marked as Exhibit 20. I am so sorry. May I just request for a submarking, Your Honor, of the entry just read by the witness. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Esguerra. The date of the entry be encircled in this particular TCT and submarked as our Exhibit 20-A. Is there any other Transfer Certificate of Title? Mr. Alcantara. Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-141891, Sir. This title is registered in the name of Renato C. Corona, married to Cristina R. Corona, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Again, I am inviting you to this exhibit, particularly the entry as to the date of the inscription. Can you read this for the record, Mr. Witness? Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title was issued on October 23, 1995, at 10:30 in the morning, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. For the record, Your Honor, we would just like to manifest that that particular entry in this particular exhibit, Exhibit RR, has already been previously marked as Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 21-A, Your Honor, insofar as the inscription is concerned. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Esguerra. That would be all for the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Any redirect? Mr. Justiniano. No redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged. Mr. Alcantara. Thank you, Your Honor. Permission, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Next witness. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we call on our second witness for the crossexamination of the Defense, the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina.
10
The witness, Your Honor, is on his way to the Session Hallin few minutes. He is here, Your Honor. Let the witness take the witness stand. Has he been sworn....Under the same oath. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. The distinguished Defense Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that Attorney Esguerra, a member of the Defense panel, be allowed to conduct the cross-examination of this witness. The Presiding Officer. Atty. Esguerra is recognized. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you once again, Your Honor. With your permission and the permission of the other honorable Members of the Impeachment Court. Since when have you been the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina City, Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. Sir, I have been the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina since 2006, that is six years. Mr. Esguerra. And you have identified in your direct testimony, Mr. Witness, certain properties appearing in your records to be registered in the name of Cristina Roco Corona, married to Renato C. Corona. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. Now, as far as your records show, you did not find any Deed of Sale or Deed of Transfer or any form of Deed of Conveyance transferring this particular property to any person. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. And would I be correct in saying, therefore, that you are not aware that these properties covered by the seven (7) titles have already been sold? Representative Barzaga. Misleading, Your Honor. Mr. Esguerra. He spoke of.... Representative Barzaga. Objection, Your Honor, because the Counsel is already assuming a fact, and what is the fact being assumed, that there has been already a Deed of Sale. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Mr. Garcia. As per records, Sir, there is no record of any sale for that matter, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. You would not know a certain Demetrio C. Vicente, Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. Sir, from the records of the Register of Deeds, there is no such name, Sir. Mr. Esguerra. Let me show you, Mr. Witness, and tell this honorable Impeachment Court, a document denominated as Deed of Absolute Sale consisting of five (5) pages, Your Honor. May I simply ask you if you have seen this particular document?
11
Representative Barzaga. Well, actually, Your Honor, there is no basis. The Presiding Officer. He is just asking the witness if he has seen the document. Witness may answer. Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. I have not seen this document. Mr. Esguerra. There is an inscription on page 5, because you have not seen, according to you, this document under the dorsal portion of page 5, an entry in blue ink. Have you seen this particular entry, if at all? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. May I request the Counsel for the Prosecution to be deferent to the Defense Counsel. He is cross-examining. And I think it is proper that the Prosecution should stay where they are. Mr. Esguerra. Your Honor, may we request for a provisional marking of this exhibit because the witness would not be able to identify this at this point in time. We will present, when our turn comes, Your Honor, the appropriate witness to identify this particular entry here about a Certificate of Authorization to Register signed by one Rodrigo M. Lopez, Assistant Revenue District Officer, dated July 30, 1990. Just a provisional marking, Your Honor, so we will not get lost. The Presiding Officer. Let it be marked accordingly. Mr. Esguerra. We request that the document be marked as our Exhibit 54, Your Honor, and that the particular CAR entry here at the last page, page 5, be encircled as our Exhibit 54-A. The Presiding Officer. Let it be marked accordingly. Representative Barzaga. Your Honor, may I be permitted to see the document. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Esguerra. They are with the Clerk of Court, Your Honor, the original brownish document and the photocopy, Your Honor. Representative Barzaga. I will just make a manifestation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Barzaga. That the photocopy.... Mr. Esguerra. Nandoon po sa isang pahina, Kagalang-galang na Kongresista. Representative Barzaga. Yes, we admit that the photocopy is a true and faithful reproduction of the original, to expedite the proceedings. Mr. Esguerra. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense, are you through with the cross? Mr. Esguerra. We are, Your Honor, with the marking of this particular exhibit. The Presiding Officer. Is this document already marked? Is that document already marked for the parties?
12
Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Witness. The Presiding Officer. Is the document already marked for the parties? Please state it into the Record if it has already been marked for the parties. Mr. Esguerra. It has already been marked, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, any redirect? Representative Barzaga. No redirect, Your Honor. I would just like to manifest, Your Honor, that the seven (7) titles involving the Marikina properties, the photocopies have been previously marked in evidence starting from Exhibit HH up to Exhibit NN. However, in the course of the marking, we requested the Defense Counsel if he is willing to stipulate that the photocopies are true and faithful reproduction of the original. And they answered that they would make the stipulation in open Court. That is why, Your Honor, right now I am asking the Defense Counsel if they are willing to stipulate that the photocopies of the seven (7) titles are true and faithful reproduction of the original titles in the possession of the Register of Deeds of Marikina. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. Not only willing to stipulate, Your Honor, we will go on record as making the admission that they are the titles covering the seven (7) parcels, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Are you satisfied with the answer? Representative Barzaga. Yes, very much satisfied, Your Honor. We do not want to have any technicality in the future. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Barzaga. That would be all with the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. The witness is discharged. There is a Member of the Court who wishes to posit questions so the witness. The distinguished Minority Floor Leader has the floor. Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang hapon, Mr. Presiding Officer The Presiding Officer. Magandang hapon po. Senator Cayetano (A). my colleagues at ang Defense and Prosecution. Mr. Presiding Officer, noong mga huling araw, mayroon po kasing confusion sa mga values o sa mga amounts at gusto ko lang i-clarify. I think the RD will be the right person or RDs or people dealing with that land titles and assessment of land will be qualified to answer these questions. And after these questions, I would like to ask the Defense and the Prosecution for a legal memo para very clear tayo sa pinag-uusapan natin dito. Mr. Witness, hindi po ba na iyong fair market value, zonal value at iyong schedule na makikita mo sa Assessors Office ay maaaring iba-iba iyong amount na ito?
13
Mr. Garcia. Posible po. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. At sabihin niyo po kung tama iyong interpretasyon ko pero kung mali po, paki paliwanag. Ang fair market value, iyon yung usual amount na iyung isang tao ang gustong magbenta at iyung isang tao ang gustong bumili na they freely, as Senator Guingona said, may meeting of the minds sila, nagkasundo. So, kung sa isang subdivision nagkalimang bentahan, apat na P10,000 per square, isang P8,000 per square, ang fair market value there is somewhere around P10,000 per square, tama po ba iyon? Mr. Garcia. Opo. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Ang zonal value ng BIR, nilalabas ito ng BIR? Mr. Garcia. Yes, po. Senator Cayetano (A). So, ibig sabihin, fixed na ito? So, kung sa subdivision na iyon sinabi nila na ang zonal value is P8,000, iyon ang zonal value doon? Mr. Garcia. Yes, po. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Pero pag sa Deed of Sale nakalagay P6,000 per square, for tax purposes, you will follow the zonal value? Mr. Garcia. Whichever is higher po. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. The zonal or the Mr. Garcia. Market value. Senator Cayetano (A). assessed value ng Assessors Office, ano? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). And in a lot of areas, ang value sa Assessors Office at sa BIR ay magkaiba? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So, for example, ang assessed value, let us say, for the Assessors Office of the City of Taguig for Fort Bonifacio, puwedeng ang pinakamataas is P30,000 per square, tapos BIR, it is P35,000 pero in reality, ang selling price niya is P100,000. Mr. Garcia. Yes, po. Senator Cayetano (A). That is possible. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Just to make it clear, fair market value, iyon talaga iyong value. Mr. President, I finished my time to ask, but this is the question I would like to ask both to the Defense and the Prosecution. Ang charge po kasi ninyo nondisclosure. Ngayon, nasa batas naman kung ano ang dapat i-disclose. So, I would like to knowand I assume that some of my colleagues would like to know, ano ba ang sinasabi niyong, gaano ka-specific dapat ang SALN, at ano ba iyong amount na dapat
14
nanduon. So, pag sinabing acquisition cost, dapat ba iyong nanduon, iyong zonal value, dapat ba nanduon assessed value or iyong value na nanduon sa Deed of Sale, or kung iyong Deed of Sale ay ibinayad din for tax purposes at ibinaba? So, I think these are points of law, Mr. President. As you ruled before, when it comes to points of law, we will allow the Prosecution and Defense to just either submit memos or argue it, Mr. President. But, I think, this will help us decide in the future dahil in the last few days, iyan ang pinaguusapan natinkung ano ang dapat amount na nasa SALN and whether or not nanduon dapat at kung ano sa mga amount na iyon ang dapat nanduon. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, the Chair just wants to make a comment. Assessed value is for purposes of collecting real estate taxes, that is the valuation of the municipal, city or provincial assessor for real estate purposes. Now, in the case of the zonal value, for purposes of transaction involving real estate, that is the basis. The minimum basis for computing the capital gains, the final capital gains tax. It cannot be less than that; it cannot be higher than fair market value. Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. President. But a few days ago, when Senator Recto rose, he was asking about the P14.6-million price in the Deed of Sale compared to the P6.8 million declared in the SALN. And there was a mention that maybe the P6.8 is the zonal valuation. So what I want the Prosecution and the Defense to clear up is: Is the Prosecution now saying, ang dapat yung amount na nandunano ba? Yung sa Deed of Sale? Kasi yung Deed of Sale na yon 2008 pa, pero tumaas na ang presyo sa Fort Bonifacio ngayon, 2012 na ngayon. On the other hand, what is the side of the Defense? Anong amount ang compliance na with law, Mr. President? And as you said in the past, Mr. President, points of law, we should not argue it but allow the two parties to be the one to come out with their stand on each issue, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Okay, then. Representative Barzaga. A very short response, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. On the part of the The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. On the part of the Defense, Your Honor, may I be allowed in connection with this issue now to read what is provided for under the rules governing the contents of the SALN that must be filed by a public officer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. I am referring to Rule 7, Your Honor, Public Disclosure. The Presiding Officer. Whose rule is that? Mr. Cuevas. This is the rule, Your Honor, made by the Civil Service, Your Honor, in connection with the contents of the SALN. The Presiding Officer. That is issued by what department of government?
15
Mr. Cuevas. Civil Service Commission, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Civil Service Commission, okay. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. May I now proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Every official and employee, except those who serve in an official honorary capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary laborers and casual or temporary or contractual workers, shall file under oath their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth and a disclosure of business interests and financial connections including those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households, in the prescribed form Contents of Statement, Your Honor: The Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth shall contain information on the following: first, real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value, and current fair market value. I would like to state, Your Honor, that the filer has no alternative. All these must be stated as per requirement of these rules, relative to the filing of the Statement of Liabilities. In other words, if the filer states merely the assessed value, that is not sufficient compliance. If he says, Acquisition Cost, it is not because the implementing rules require these matters to be stated in the very document to be filed, Your Honor. Now, insofar as whether the Statement of Assets and Liabilities involved in this particular case, Your Honor, we have not gone this far, Your Honor. Because if the Court will remember, the introduction of evidence in connection with Article II merely refers to 2.2 and 2.3. So the only issue is: Was there filing? There was no statement as to whether what was filed is inaccurate, if there were corrections to be made and so on, Your Honor. So, I submit that these items required to be filed and even if not complied with, this will exempt the filer from any liability whatsoever. In fact, under the same procedure, if after the examination of what was filed, there seemed to be errors or discrepancies, then he is allowed. He is allowed to make the correction. This is the provision of the rules and regulations, Your Honor. So we are not prepared to go on stipulation relative to what it must contain because the law is specific, the rules and regulations. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, I am happy with that answer. Because I believe, then we can agree that the SALN should contain Mr. Cuevas. Correct. Senator Cayetano (A). ... all of that. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Because we all have copies of the SALN and the public can get a copy or can see it through the media, so we can see whether there is compliance or not. But as the Defense has said, they are taking two issues, whether or not 2.2 and 2.3 would include examination of the SALN.
16
Mr. Cuevas. No. I am sorry, go ahead, please.
Senator Cayetano (A). Basically, Mr. President, I am just glad that we can agree na iyon po ang sinabi ng Civil Service, so ang sinabi ninyo poit should contain fair market value, assessed value and acquisition cost. So, if the Prosecution also agrees on that and that is what the law says, then I think at least, as far as that issue is concerned, we will simply examine the SALN and look whether or not nanduon po iyong mga binanggit ng law. Mr. Cuevas. Whatever is our agreement, it will not affect the requirements prescribed by the rules and regulations. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. We may agree otherwise but that will not have the effect of amending... Senator Cayetano (A). I agree, Mr. President, I just wanted to know whether may issue po doon o wala. And I am glad na we both believe Kasi ang nagiging issue, Justice, if I am correct, iyong interpretation ng law. But now the way you read it, it seems that it is very clear to all of us and I can see my fellow Senator-judges nodding. So, we leave it at that. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much also. Representative Barzaga. May the Prosecution respond? Very short only. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may make a response. Representative Barzaga. Well, actually, we agree with the... The Presiding Officer. You have two (2) minutes. Representative Barzaga. Yes. Actually, we agree with the circular coming from the Civil Service and as a matter of fact, it is only a reiteration of what is provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713. The Presiding Officer. So, there is no quarrel about that. Representative Barzaga. Yes. But we want to point out, Your Honor, that although the distinguished Defense Counsel has actually stated that the SALN should contain the acquisition cost, the assessed value and the current fair market value, in the SALNs of the Chief of Justice which happened to be a common exhibit of both the Prosecution and Defense, the column pertaining to acquisition cost as well as the improvements are blank. There is no declaration regarding the acquisition cost of the properties acquired by the Chief Justice in all his SALNs from 2002 up to 2010. The Presiding Officer. Your ground under Article II is culpable violation of the Constitution and/ or betrayal of public trust. Are you offering the SALN as evidence for culpable violation of the Constitution or for betrayal of public trust? Representative Barzaga. Both cases, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Both? Representative Barzaga. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Can you explain to us the culpable violation of the Constitution?
17
Representative Barzaga. Well, because under the Constitution, Your Honor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is required to file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth. And also when the highest official in the Judiciary should not declare accurately and truthfully and should intentionally left some blanks open insofar as acquisition cost is concerned, then we think that that would be the highest form of betrayal of public trust. The Presiding Officer. So, you offer it for both? Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Okay. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Recto wishes to be recognized, then Senator Joker. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Batangas has two (2) minutes. Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President. I invite the attention of the Prosecutor and the Defense since we are talking already of the laws governing the filing and disclosures in the SALN. The Defense earlier mentioned the Implementing Rules and Regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission. And he spoke about Rule 7 on Public Disclosure, is that correct? Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. That is not my opinion, Your Honor, I just read the rule as it is, no subtraction, no addition whatsoever, Your Honor. Senator Recto. Correct. Now, let me invite the attention of the Defense to Rule 8 of the same Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission and I would also like to get the comments from the Prosecution. Rule 8 says, Review and Compliance Procedures. Section 1, the following shall have the authority to establish compliance procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements have been properly accomplished. a) In the case of Congress, the designated committees of both Houses of Congress, subject to approval by the affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned. b) In the case of the Executive Department, the heads of departments, offices and agencies insofar as their respective departments, offices, agencies are concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice. c) In the case of the Judicial Department, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and d) In the case of the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, their respective chairmen and members thereof. In the case of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman. The above officials shall likewise have the authority to render any opinion interpreting the provisions of the review and compliance procedures in the filing of SALN and disclosure of information. Following, it says, In the event said authorities determined that a statement is not properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.
18
Meaning to say, it can be corrected.
And finally, it says, The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation and who, after issuance of the opinion, acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in the Code. What does this mean, Counsel for the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. Well, to us, it is our humble opinion, Your Honor, that if there may have been discrepancies, inaccuracies, incompleteness in the returns, Your Honor, this can be remedied, after a review of the SALN has been made. If it is not intentional, Your Honor, no criminal liability nor any administrative liability is incurred by the filing official, Your Honor. Furthermore, the law on the matter is very clear with respect to review and compliance procedure. And with the kind permission of this Honorable Court, may I be allowed to read the same, Your Honor? Section 10I am referring to the very law itself, Your Honor. The designated committees of Houses of Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statement to determine whether said statements which had been submitted on time are complete and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that the statement is not so filed, the appropriate committee shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, for the information of the Court, what is the penalty of not complying with the required form? Mr. Cuevas. Subject to corrective instructions that may be made by the committee investigating the issue, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. There is no specific penalty? Senator Recto. There are. Mr. Cuevas. No penalty. If it is not malicious, it was not intentional and the committee determines that it is so, no criminal nor any administrative liability. The Presiding Officer. All right. Okay. Senator Recto. Mr. President, there are penalties under the law but I can get to that later on. But can we hear from the Prosecution, the point of the Prosecution on this matter as well? Representative Barzaga. Well, actually, there is a case already decided by the Supreme Court and that would be the case of Presidential Anti-Graft Commission v. Pleyto. In that particular case, this provision cited by the Defense Counsel was also the subject of issue. And according to the Supreme Court, if there has been omission or not a faithful or true declaration of the properties, the filer cannot avail of these provisions. In the particular case, the filer would be liable for perjury because the statement insofar as the SALN is concerned is made under oath and there is a certification at the last portion that all the statements contained therein are true and correct.
19
The Presiding Officer. All right. If it is a crime, is it a high crime? Representative Barzaga. Well, it is The Presiding Officer. Is it a high crime? Representative Barzaga. No, insofar as high crime is concerned The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. I Representative Barzaga. No, Your Honor. It is not a high crime. The Presiding Officer. All right. You read the Constitution. Culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption and other high crimes could be the basis for impeachment. Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So that is the law. Representative Barzaga. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Yes, Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed to make a short reply, Your Honor? The Pleyto case mentioned by my colleague, Your Honor, finds no applicability to the present situation. No analogy. It has no compelling force so as to be considered by this Honorableand there Pleyto has been found to be liable on so many occasions already. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, you know, this is a legal issue and I thought that the agreement was that a legal memorandum be submitted. May we request that we now proceed with the trial and have the witnesses presented, and these issues on theon what constitutes. The Presiding Officer. So let us finish this colloquy and proceed with the . Senator Drilon. We proceed with the trial, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Sorry, sorry. Senator Drilon. And therefore, Mr. . Mr. Cuevas. We have gone this far because there was a query posed by the Honorable Senator from Taguig, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Correct. The Presiding Officer. The only reason why this Chair asked the Prosecution to classify perjury becausein order to relate it to the grounds for impeachment and no other thing. So let us stop this argumentation, let us proceed with the trial.
20
Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So ordered.
Senator Recto. Finally, Mr. President, may I just request both Counsel to submit their legal memorandum to the Impeachment Court. The Presiding Officer. Comply with the request of the Gentleman from Batangas. Senator Recto. And one last final question to the Prosecutor, Mr. President. Just a final question. The Presiding Officer. The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol; then after that, the Gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Recto. Just a final question, Mr. President. In relation to the cross-examination earlier, may I find out from the Defense the nature of that crossexamination earlier, because I did ask the question two or three days ago, if I am not mistaken. Ilang properties na ba ang na-present ng Prosecution insofar as Article II is concerned? At ang sabi nila, mayroon pang pitong properties in Marikina, documents presented but just for my understanding. And today, you did a cross-examination of the witness. Is it your position that in 1990, in effect, is that your position that these properties have been sold already and therefore, they are no longer found in the SALN? Is that what you are saying? Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. Secondly, the property referred to by the honorable Registrar of Deeds a while ago does not belong to the Chief Justice. It is registered in the name of the owner, the daughter, Your Honor, who is of legal age. And then there could be no presumption that could arise under the situation, unless fraud had been proven, Your Honor. Now, in these Marikina properties, if I may be allowed to go a little further in response to the query of the Honorable Gentleman from Batangas, Your Honor, this property is one single parcel. It was subdivided intoMarikina, yes,into seven (7) parcels, Your Honor. It was sold already. There were seven (7) titles, Your Honor, but the buyerwe have the document of sale, we are ready to present it when our time comes, but there was already payment of all the fees required by law, but the buyer did not register it. So it still appears in the name of Senator Recto. And because of that, let me just state for the record and I will sit down and yield the floor to the Gentleman from Makati. Nagtataka ako kahapon, sinasabi ninyo that dahil hindi pa nape-perfect iyong transfer and therefore, hindi kailangang ilagay sa SALN. Okay. Now in this case, baligtad naman iyong argumento ninyo. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, hindi po. Senator Recto. No, becauselet me finish, let me finish. Mr. Cuevas. My apology. Mr. Cuevas. Because in this case naman ngayon, sinasabi ninyo hindi pa nape-perfect to the buyer since 1990 and therefore, hindi pa dapat sa buyer iyon, nasa sa inyo pa rin iyon, based on your arguments yesterday.
21
Mr. Cuevas.
No.
No comparison
Senator Recto. Hindi pa consummated eh. Mr. Cuevas. between that property and this property. The other property, there is a claim that there was already transfer of ownership constructively, Your Honor. We have authorities on the point that we should distinguish ownership from possession. If what was delivered is only possession not ownership, there is no legitimate transfer. Now, in this particular instance, Your Honor, not only possession had been transferred, even ownership. In fact, the real estate taxes are being paid by the buyer. The Presiding Officer. At any rate, all of these will be covered by the memorandum of the parties when they submit their cases to this Court. Senator Rector. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. We will comply, Your Honor, as suggested. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati. Senator Sotto. And then Senator Pimentel, Mr. President. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. I think we should be happy that this discussion arose. We have been hearing the evidence presented back and forth. Now, what we have overlooked here is that we should determine whether the offenses or omissions committed by the Respondent is, or reaches the level of an impeachable offense. That is the criteria. Not every offense, not every omission is an impeachable offense. In other words, even a crime that may have been committed is not an impeachable offense. Now, we should all look at that. And so the responsibility of the Prosecution is to present evidence that would amount to an impeachable offense and the Defense must also refute it. Otherwise, if we are given, or the evidence presented here is just any kind of evidence, then I think it is not fair to the Senate because our criteria is an impeachable offense. Remember that President Clinton was impeached. The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Clinton. It was elevated to the Senate. When the Senate heard it, the Senate said, It did not amount to an impeachable offense, and cleared him. Now, that is the situation now that we have to because otherwise we will be hearing all these. We want this finished, but give us evidence that has reached the level of an impeachable offense as I keep on repeating, it is not just any offense. It must be of a higher bar because we are removing a Chief Justice. This is not to say that it is like, for instance, an omission in this give us something to hang on to. So that is all I would like to say. Otherwise, we will go astray in the course of the proceedings and we have been listening to this That is why I said I am thankful that this issue arose. Thank you, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, just The Presiding Officer. I will recognize first the gentleman from Cagayan de Oro and Misamis Oriental.
22
Senator Pimentel. Mr. President. Yes, clarificatory.
To the Defense Counsel, how many documents, Sir, did you have provisionally marked during the course of the cross-examination? Mr. Cuevas. Of this particular witness, Your Honor? Senator Pimentel. Yes, of this particular witness, Sir. Only one, how many? Mr. Cuevas. Only two. Senator Pimentel. One or two? Mr. Cuevas. Only one, Your Honor, and the others, submarking, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. So one document provisionally marked because you will now have it properly identified by your own witness. Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. But even though it is a provisional marking, can we ask for a copy already? So that we can anticipate your theory and we can appreciate the cross-examination. And that document, Sir, is a Deed of Sale dated 1990 covering the seven (7) titles produced by this witness. Is that it? Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor, he was only confronted with it because it is a document existing in our behalf, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. It is a Deed of Sale, Sir? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, covering seven (7) parcels emanating from one parcel only. Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. But covering the seven (7) titles produced by this witness. Okay. So I want to ask this question to the witness. So the seven (7) titles that you produced before this Court are still subsisting in your Book of Titles. So if someone were to ask for a copy, you would give these titles as still subsisting and valid titles? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. So, that means that 22 years have elapsed and yet the seven (7) titles have not been transferred to the buyer named in that document. Maybe we will just ask your witness why the buyer has allowed 22 years to pass without transferring the title to the buyers name. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, we are not in control of the buyer. We are not privy to him. We have no relation whatsoever. What we did say is that there was a sale made by our client, Mrs. Corona, in favor of this buyer. Now, whether she wanted it registered or not Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. it is her own lookout.
23
Senator Pimentel. I know, I know, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. We cannot.... I am sorry, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Okay. Anyway, so my point is, we are not to fault the Prosecution for pursuing this subject matter because the titles still exist in the name of Ma. Cristina Corona, married to Renato C. Corona. So, it means that the Defense has to explain why the titles are still in the name of the wife of the Respondent. Mr. Cuevas. We are not faulting them, Your Honor. Neither is it our intention. Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. We only wanted to stand with our evidence. And our evidence show that this property had been sold several years ago. It was transferred to the buyer, but the buyer refuses to register. Senator Pimentel. So, as far as I am concerned, I am not faulting the Prosecution and this has not been a waste of time because in my opinion they have correctly pursued this angle. Thank you, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you also. Representative Barzaga. Just a brief response. The Defense is saying that these properties have been sold as early as 1990. Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. Representative Barzaga. However, in our document, which has been previously marked as Exhibit B in the SALN of the Chief Justice for July 1992, the Marikina properties are still included among the list of his properties. And that is the reason we are bringing out these properties. Senator Pimentel. Yes, and you could elaborate on that in your memorandum. Representative Barzaga. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. But why will the Chief Justice, Your Honor,... The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Yes, Counsel, please finish your sentence. Senator Sotto. And then, Senator Escudero. Mr. Cuevas. But why will the Chief Justice be the subject matter of an impeachment proceedings for the failure of the buyer of the property he has? It is unfair. No justice whatsoever, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, we are now discussing the evidence of the Defense. I think let us wait for the Defense to present their defense. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo has the floor.
24
Senator Drilon. Yes. The Senator-Judges were not allowed access to this particular document. This is a Deed of Sale dated....[Pause] Mr. Cuevas. We could have done so, Your Honor. But for fear that we may have been.... Senator Drilon. Just for the record. Just for our information. Mr. Cuevas. This is a Deed of Sale, Your Honor, made by Ma. Cristina Roco Corona Senator Drilon. In favor of.... Mr. Cuevas. in favor of Demetrio C. Vicente, Your Honor, Senator Drilon. Dated.... Mr. Cuevas. dated dated July 26, 1990. Senator Drilon. July 26, 1990. Mr. Cuevas. 1990. Notarized by one Ma. Beatriz S. Montoya, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And how much is the consideration for the transfer? Mr. Cuevas. P509,985.00, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. May I beg the indulgence of the Members of the Court. Let us not vary the order of proof here. Let us wait for the Defense to bring that out and that is the proper subject for cross-examination of the Prosecution. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Senator Escudero wishes to be recognized, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Just three points actually. One, this is raised earlier already. Tungkol po roon sa tinatanong na.... Tinanong ko po ito kahapon. Ano ba ang definition ninyo? Kailan ba idedeklara? Dahil lumalabas po yata na teoriya ng Prosekusyon, sabi ninyo kahapon, Kapagka in-execute iyong Deed of Sale, dapat ay inilagay na sa SALN. Ang sabi ng Depensa kahapon, Kapagka naturnover at tinanggap na, doon dapat ilagay sa SALN. Ngayon po kasi, lumalabas iyong titulo nasa pangalan pa ni Chief Justice Corona, pero may Deed of Sale na. If I may ask the Prosecutor, if it is proven that indeed there is a Deed of Sale, kung napatunayan po ng Depensa iyon pagdating ng turno nila, pero iyong titulo nakapangalan pa po sa kaniya, ayon sa inyo kahapon kapagka may Deed of Sale kahit wala pang titulo dapat ideklara na. Binibilang pa rin po ba ninyo ito? Kung saka-sakaling mapapatunayan niya, bibilangin pa po ba ninyo ito kung may Deed of Sale na nga bagaman hindi pa rehistrado, kailangan ba nakalagay din po sa SALN niya iyon? Mr. Barzaga. Well, that is a matter of Defense and appreciation on the part of the Impeachment Court. Senator Escudero. But, I would like to request, Mr. President, since we requested them to submit a memorandum on this matter, can you kindly include this circumstance because you cannot be inconsistent nor can you have a double standard on this. And the same is true with the Defense, as
25
pointed out by Senator Recto. Hindi ba pupuwedeng kapag ka pumapabor sa magkabilang panig, it should be consistent and one and the same. And second point, Mr. President, Your Honor, I join Senator Arroyo, we might be wasting our time discussing crimes that may not be impeachable. For example, assuming na may video na nag jay walking si Chief Justice Corona, is this of the nature, indeed it is a violation of the law. Is this of the nature that we can impeach him based on this criminal act? Let us say, naglagay siya sa LTO para mabilis-bilis iyong kaniyang pagbigay ng lisensiya, may video din naglagay ng pera, nagbigay ng limang-daan, is this of the nature? What essentially we are asking for is kindly educate us on the gravity and level of crimes that would be and should be considered as impeachable. In the United States, for example, they also require a similar document to be presented as our SALN. They talk and speak of a range. If you go beyond a certain range, then you are liable. But, if you are within a certain range the lower, higher, the actual value, okay lamang iyon. So, in other words, what I am asking for is, kung mahigit isang milyon iyong na-miss niyang hindi idineklara, does that make it impeachable? Kung limang-daan libo lang, does that make it not impeachable? Kung anim ang idineklara tapos lima lang pala talaga, is that impeachable? Can you include that in your memorandum on the part of the Defense and the Prosecution, if possible? Mr. Cuevas. We will, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. After you are through, may we be allowed to... The Presiding Officer. May I request the parties to please be courteous to one another? The counsel for the Defense is still talking and then there is an interruption. Senator Escudero. Mr. President. Representative Tupas. My apologies. The Presiding Officer. From hereon, I will warn everybody that this Chair will impose the rules of this House! Senator Escudero. Mr. President, sans the arguments and debates by the parties again, I am simply requesting for a memorandum on this matter. We need not hear them at this point in time. My last point, Mr. President, Your Honor, is just for clarity because I have been counting the properties. Last time, I heard the Prosecution, they announced that the Chief Justice has 45 properties. Just that I may found out if my count is accurate. So far, the Prosecution has presented how many properties? My count is 18 properties both in his name, in the name of his spouse, in the name of his children, plus six (6) parking lots. That makes it 24, if I will include the parking lots as properties. You announced to the media and here, I guess, in the Impeachment Court as well, that it is 45. Do I take it that you are presenting 21 more titles? Representative Tupas. No, your Honor. The 45 properties was a list from the Land Registration Authority. But, as far as the Prosecution is concerned, so far we have presented 21 titles. Senator Escudero. Twenty-one? Mr. Tupas. Yes, so far.
26
Senator Escudero. Which includes the parking lots? Representative Tupas. Yes.
Senator Escudero. Mr. President, at this juncture, I join the Chair and again, using this as an example in revealing evidence to the public. One side already said there were 45 titles, and here we are waiting for 45 titles to be presented. I hope, Mr. President, Your Honor, that this will serve as a guide, that unless evidence is presented before the Court and accepted, we cannot evaluate it. It is unfair to the Senator-Judges to be accused of, 45 iyan, ano ba naman kayo? Ganyan pa rin ang desisyon ninyo. Ang ipinipresenta pa lang pala ninyo ay dalawamput isa. Do I take it you will not even reach 45? Representative Tupas. We will not reach 45, and we just want to put on record, Your Honor, that the 45 did not come from the Prosecution. It was a letter [Noise]... The Presiding Officer. Order. Representative Tupas. May I proceed, Mr. President, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please, the Counsel. Representative Tupas. Just for clarification. The 45 properties came from the Land Registration Authority. It was a letter. It was a letter coming not from the Prosecution but from a government agency. And right now, it is up to the Prosecution to present evidence. And so far, we have presented 21 properties. We might present some more, but we are not bound by that 45 properties from the Land Registration Authority. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, just one point and I will yield to Senator Estrada. Mr. President, I know that the letter came from the Land Registration Authority, but it was the Prosecution or through its spokespersons that revealed it to the public and told the public about the fact that there are 45 properties. Again, it is putting us in a bind. Because, although it was announced that there were 45, in actuality, only 21, 24, 25 will be presented. We might be put on the spot na hindi namin nakita iyong 45. Ang prinisenta lang naman talaga dito ay iyon lang naman talaga. Again, I just want to make sure of my count. So, it is not 18; it is 21 so far, plus the ones that will be presented. Representative Tupas. Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to Senator Estrada, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Senate President Pro Tempore, Senator Ejercito Estrada. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Maraming salamat, Ginoong Pangulo. Mr. Prosecutor, base sa mga tinanong ni Senator Escudero at base sa sinabi mo, hindi raw nanggaling sa inyo ang listahan ng sinasabi ninyong 45 properties na ari-arian ni Chief Justice Corona. Tama po ba ako? Representative Tupas. Tama po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Sino ang naglabas sa media noon?
27
Representative Tupas. Ang nangyari po noon.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, no. Sino po ang naglabas sa media ng alleged 45 properties ni Chief Justice Corona? Representative Tupas. Hindi po kami ang naglabas sa media. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Sino po ang naglabas? Ang LRA ang naglabas? Representative Tupas. Nag-file po kami ng subpoena ad testificandum at duces tecum at doon nai-attach.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ang tinatanong ko po sa inyo: Sino ang naglabas ng listahan ng LRA sa publiko? Representative Tupas. Kaya po, if the Senator would allow me... Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes or no. Okay. Representative Tupas. Please, Your Honor. I think it was few days before the start of the trial in January that we filed a request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum with respect to the documents and we attached the letter coming from the LRA. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, you are now admitting that you yourself released it to the media? Representative Tupas. We did not release it to the media, Your Honor. We filed it with the Impeachment Tribunal. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. So, are you making it appear that out of the 45 properties of Chief Justice Corona, only 21 belong to Mr. Corona? Eighteen plus the six parking lots. Representative Tupas. Around 24. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, 24. Iyong 21 hindi pagmamay-ari ni Corona iyan. Tama po ba? Forty-five iyong sinasabi ninyong nasa listahan ng LRA. Representative Tupas. Iyong iba cancelled po, Your Honor. Cancelled. Naibenta. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, lumalabas iyan sa diyaryo, pinalalabas ninyo na maraming ari-arian si Chief Justice Corona when, in fact, 21 lamang. Tama po ba? Representative Tupas. Marami rin po ang 24 o 21. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ano? Representative Tupas. Ang alam po namin 24 ngayon. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, 24 lamang, hindi na 45. Representative Tupas. Hindi 45. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Salamat po. The Presiding Officer. Ang pakiusap lamang ng Hukumang ito, kung maaari ay magiging fair tayo sa bawat isa lalung-lalo na na igagalang ang karapatan ng nakasakdal sapagkat iyan ay hindi ko inimbento iyan. Hindi inimbento nitong Hukumang ito kung hindi iyan po ay utos
28
ng taumbayan sa kanilang Saligang Batas at may obligasyon po tayong lahat na sundin ang kautusan ng makapangyarihang taumbayan. So, huwag na nating pag-usapan iyan at isulong na natin iyong paglilitis para nang sa ganoon ay matapos natin itong kasong ito. O, sige, proceed with the trial. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, may the Defense be heard even for one or two minutes only in connection with this specific matter. The Presiding Officer. You have one (1) minute. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. What is revolting to us is the fact that while it is true that there were documents identified and marked, they are not yet evidence in this case. Because the Rules of Evidence require insofar as documentary evidence is concerned, it must be identified, it must be marked, it must be offered in evidence because if not offered, it will not be considered and there must be a ruling of the Court. Eh, wala pa pong nangyayari rito. Minarkahan lamang eh. Ipinakikita na nila sa publiko, Ayan, pag-aari ni Chief Justice Corona. Hindi ho ba very unfair iyan? Iyon lamang ang aming ibig....Wala pa pong ebidensiya sapagkat hanggang ngayon wala pang offer, hanggang ngayon wala pa pong ruling. The Presiding Officer. With due respect, Mr. Counsel, we take note of your remarks. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. Just 30 seconds. We just want to put on record some matters, Your Honor please, around 30 seconds. May I proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Representative Tupas. It was raised earlier by the honorable Senator Escudero and honorable Sen. Joker Arroyo the issue on the nature of the crime or the nature of the impeachment, or which crime that would result doon sa impeachable offense....gaano ba dapat katindi iyong krimen na iyon? And it was mentioned by the honorable Sen. Joker Arroyo that not all crimes would constitute an impeachable offense. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Representative Tupas. In the same way, Your Honor, that.... The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. That is correct. If you read the Constitution, it says, ....culpable violation of the Constitution.... treason, which carries a capital penalty, although it is now reduced to life imprisonment; bribery and there are several types of bribery; and then anti-graft law and other culpable violation of the Constitution; other high crimes. The other high crimes, and as you know, we are both lawyers, is ejusdem generis, meaning, those that preceded this term should have an equal value as to the general statement at the end. Correct, Counsel? Representative Tupas. May I proceed, Your Honor, because I have also a humble position on the matter. In the same way, Your Honor, that not all offenses punishable by statute are impeachable offenses. There are also offenses which do not amount to a crime but would constitute betrayal of public trust.
29
There was a question earlier coming from Your Honor, Mr. President, to one of the Prosecutors about the Pleyto case and the question was whether perjury, assuming there is perjury in that case for the false entries in the SALN or the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networththat is why it was asked by Your Honorwould constitute other high crimes. And it was correctly answered by one of the prosecutors when he said, no. I just want to put on record, Your Honor, that our charge against the Chief Justice is the untruthful entries in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and it would not fall under high crimes. It would fall under betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. Under the definition by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, and I will quote: Betrayal of public trust, intended as a catchall to cover any violation of the oath of office, refers to all acts even if not punishable by statute which would render the officer unfit to continue in office. So, we just want to put on record that our charge is not high crime; it is betrayal of public trust. The Presiding Officer. That is why, Counsel, I asked whether the evidence presented is to prove culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust or both, to be fair to you. And truly, the distinguished Congressman from Cavite said it applies to both. So, I took that, but our opinions about the characterization of a crime, one way or the other, is simply an opinion and we will have to evaluate this. And while I respect the constitutional scholar, Father Bernas, we will have to take his opinion under advisement because we will, ourselves, evaluate what is the meaning of public trust. And that the definition of betrayal of public trust will come from them. Representative Tupas. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. We would like to know if there are other questions to the witness so that we may discharge him. Mr. Cuevas. We are through with the witness, Your Honor. There is no redirect, Your Honor, so may we request that the witness be excused. The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, before a motion that I will be posing in a while, may we recognize Senator Honasan for an inquiry. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon, Senator Honasan, is recognized. Senator Honasan. Mr. President, as a Senator-Judge, I cannot put this issue of premature disclosure of information to the public before it is offered as evidence until we hold both the Prosecution and the Defense accountable and bind them to an order of the Court last week, which required or directed the spokesperson of the Court to confer with the spokespersons of the Prosecution and the Defense so that they may moderate their pronouncements and the information that they disclose to media. Because it was our observation, to which no one objected, that, apparently, the trial outside the courtroom is proceeding faster than the trial inside the Court.
30
So, Mr. President, I would submit that we ask the spokesperson of the Court for a report now on how the order of the Court was implemented. I submit, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I suggest that we take that in our caucus on Monday. Senator Honasan. I submit, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. We will take that up in our caucus on Monday. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, before the Prosecution calls the next witness, I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes. The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended. The trail was suspended at 3:38 p.m. At 4:07 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the next witness of the Prosecution, Senator Ejercito Estrada wishes to be recognized for a manifestation. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, just for the record, when Congressman Tupas answered me earlier that they did not release that particular document stating that Chief Justice Corona owns 45 properties and that list came from the Land Registration Authority and during the break, Mr. President, I chanced upon the TV coverage of, I think, it was ANC, showing that Mr. Tupas, together with the members ofthe spokesperson of the Prosecution panel, showing to the media the list of the 45 properties. Kaya hindi po totoo na hindi po sa kanila nanggaling ang mga listahan at ipinalabas sa media dahil nagpapicture-taking pa ho si Ginoong Tupas. Kitang-kita ko po kanina sa TV. That is why, you know, Mr. President, these people are putting the Impeachment Court or the Members of the Impeachment Court on the spot. Pinapaniwala kami, pinapaniwala nila ang publiko na apatnaput limang ari-arian ang pagmamay-ari ng Chief Justice pero pagdating dito, 24 lang yata ang ari-arian ni Chief Justice. Yung anim doon ay parking lot pa; yung iba nasa pangalan ng kanyang mga anak. You know, Mr. President, I am not defending the Chief Justice. I do not even know him. In fact, he is one of those who conspired to oust my father from office. Ang sinasabi ko lang, kailangan maging patas tayo rito sa Hukumang ito. Huwag po tayong magsisinungaling. Iyon lang po, Ginoong Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. The Counsel. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, Your Honor, my name was mentioned. May I just reply?
31
The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed. Representative Tupas. With utmost respect to the Honorable Sen. Ejercito Estrada, I admitted last week when we were asked by Your Honor, with respect to the spokespersons, that we officially released it a document on January 3, 2012. And this document is the Bellagio document. I was the one who released at the House of Representatives during a press conference and I showed it to the public. But that was the only document which we released to the public because after that, Your Honor raised that and we complied. With respect to the properties, I never released that. There is no picture with the media, no press conference. It was attached as an attachment with the request for a subpoena which was filed around three days before January 16. So, I just want to clarify that, of course, with utmost respect to our Honorable Sen. Ejercito Estrada. Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. May I just remind everybody that apart from being politicians, we who are lawyers elected by the Filipino people are still agents of the Court. And we are governed by the strict rules of our profession and we must behave in accordance with the ethics of our profession. And I would like to appeal to everybody, both sides, to observe the norms of ethical conduct that is required of us as lawyers of this country. So ordered. Please proceed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we understand there is another witness for cross-examination. Representative Tupas. No more. It is a new witness, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. A new witness. Okay. Representative Tupas. So, may we now call our third witness for the day, the Vice President of the Burgundy Realty Corporation, Mr. Gregg Gregonia, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Call the witness to the witness stand and swear him. Representative Tupas. And may we request that Atty. Clarence Jandoc be recognized, Your Honor, to conduct the direct examination for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Clarence Representative Tupas. Clarence Jandoc, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Jandoc? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Compaero Atty. Clarence Jandoc will have the floor to present the witness for the Prosecution. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Where is the witness?
32
Mr. Jandoc. Your Honors, Mr. Senate President, good afternoon. The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon.
Mr. Jandoc. While we are waiting for the witness, may we just manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the Prosecution earlier received an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion dated 20 January 2012 that was filed by Atty. Yolando F. Lim for and on behalf of Burgundy Realty Corporation. In essence, Your Honor please, it states that Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica who was required by this honorable Impeachment Court via the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum dated 17 January 2012, to produce certain documents pertaining to the condominium unit owned by Respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and his wife at 1 Burgundy Plaza is not the custodian thereof but a certain Mr. Gregg Gregonia, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is that? Mr. Jandoc. The addressee of the subpoena is Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica. But based on this Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion that was filed by Atty. Yolando Lim, Your Honor, it stated that he is not the custodian of the documents required in the subpoena but the person in the witness stand, Mr. Gregg Gregonia, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then we will... Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, You Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Do we have to swallow hook, line, and sinker the statement appearing there? He should be here because he was the one subpoenaed, Your Honor, out of respect to the authority and majesty of this Court. That is what we are complaining about. Witnesses had been subpoenaed, subpoena had been issued and then later on, not to be produced, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who was the person requested by the Prosecution to be subpoenaed? Mr. Jandoc. The person we requested, Your Honor, is Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica, who is the president of Burgundy Realty Corporation. But pursuant to this Ex-Parte Urgent Manifestation and Motion filed for and on behalf of Burgundy Realty Corporation, Your Honor, with attachments as to the purported flight of Rogelio T. Serafica out of the country as supported by photocopy of his flight itinerary, Your Honor, and a plane ticket, we deemed it more expedient and consistent with the administration of justice to present the person who, nonetheless, can testify on the records subject matter of the subpoena, Your Honor, to avoid any further delay on this matter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is the other fellow other than Roger Serafica present? Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. He is now on the stand, Your Honor please. He is the custodian, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let him testify if he knows the records that are being sought to be presented in this Court. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor.
33
May I proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Mr. Witness, for the record. The Secretary. Mr. Gregonia, please stand up and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding? [Witness nodded] So help you God. The Presiding Officer. This is without prejudice to calling Mr. Serafica at the proper time. So ordered. Mr. Jandoc. May I proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Please proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Mr. Witness, will you please state your name, age, occupation and other personal circumstances? Mr. Gregonia. I am Gregg Gregonia, married, legal age, vice president of Burgundy Realty Corporation. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honors please, we are offering the testimony of Mr. Gregg Gregonia for the following purposes, Your Honor, to prove. The Presiding Officer. Will you please spell the family name? Mr. Jandoc. GregoniaG-R-E-G-O-N-I-A, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Gregonia. Mr. Jandoc. And the name is G-R-E-G-G, Your Honor. Gregg Gregonia. The Presiding Officer. Greggy Gregonia. Mr. Jandoc. Gregg, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Gregg. Mr. Jandoc. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Gregg Gregonia. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. The purpose of his testimony, Your Honor, is to prove that Respondent Chief Justice Corona failed to declare his acquisition of a parking slot at I Burgundy Plaza for a consideration of P450,000 in all of his SALN from the time of his acquisition thereof in 1997 up to 2010 SALN.
34
The Presiding Officer. Then qualify the witness to establish his knowledge about the SALN of the Respondent. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Jandoc. And also, Your Honor, to prove that respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona likewise failed to declare his acquisition of Condominium Unit No. 21-B at I Burgundy Plaza in his SALN for the years 1997 up to 2002. And his subsequent failure to truthfully declare the same in his SALN for the years 2003 up to 2010 insofar as it is therein manifestly declared at an undervalued amount of only P921,080, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When was the transaction between Burgundy and the Chief Justice? Mr. Jandoc. The transaction started, Your Honor please, or was commenced by reason of a reservation application which is an offer to buy coming as it does from Respondent Chief Justice and his wife, Your Honor, to buy the property. The Presiding Officer. When did it took. Mr. Jandoc. This was July 15 of 1997, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When was the Respondent appointed justice of the Supreme Court? Mr. Jandoc. He was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sometime in 2010, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, what is the relevance of this to the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Mr. Jandoc. With due respect, Your Honor, please, we do believe that this. The Presiding Officer. No, I am just asking. Please state briefly.
Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. The relevance of this, Your Honor, there is a continuing failure on the part of the Chief Justice up to 2010, Your Honor, to make a truthful, complete and timely declaration of all his assets, liabilities and net worth, corresponding to the right of the public to know the same as required by the Constitution. And that, to the submission of the Prosecution, amounts to culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Let the witness testify and let the Defense Counsel react to it according to the rules. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, the matter sought to be elicited from the Witness are legal matters and they should be addressed more properly to this Honorable Court, Your Honor. For instance, when you say, failed to state accurately and so on, that is his appreciation. And this Court should not be bothered with .
35
The Presiding Officer. Counsel, we are going to take that into account and we will hear the Witness to expedite it. I think the members of this Court are quite intelligent enough to segregate the chaff from the grain. Mr. Cuevas. It is not that this Court may not be able to distinguish, Your Honor. My point of objection, Your Honor, is this: he is being made to testify on a matter which is not within his competency, Your Honor. This calls for whether there was an accurate and correct statement in the assets and liabilities, Your Honor. Is that not judicial in character insofar as this proceeding is concerned? The Presiding Officer. That is true, but let us hear the witness. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Jandoc. May I please, Honorable Court? Mr. Witness, you earlier stated that you are the vice president of Burgundy Realty Corporation. Since when have you been such vice president? Mr. Gregonia. Since 1995, Sir. Mr. Jandoc. As such vice president of Burgundy Realty Corporation, will you briefly state, for the record, your duties and responsibilities? Mr. Gregonia. As vice president of the company, I was the one in charge of all the records, business developments, security and other matters, Sir. Mr. Jandoc. Mr. Witness, I am showing to you an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion that was earlier filed by Atty. Yolando Lim for and on behalf of Burgundy Realty Corporation. Will you kindly go over the same and state for the record if you are the same Gregg Gregonia as therein mentioned? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir, I am the same Gregg Gregonia here stated. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you. Mr. Witness, why did you appear before this honorable Impeachment Court? The Presiding Officer. This is within thehe was not subpoenaed, so, okay that is proper proper question. Go ahead. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Gregonia. Our company received this subpoena from this Impeachment Court and I was the one tasked to attend this Impeachment Court, Sir. Mr. Jandoc. And for the record, Mr. Witness, will you kindly explain why were you tasked by your company, Burgundy Realty Corporation, to appear in connection with the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum issued by this honorable Impeachment Court? Mr. Gregonia. As vice president of the company, it is under my jurisdiction and control all documents that are stated in the subpoena to bring in this verybefore this Court, Sir. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
36
Now, may I direct your attention to the subpoena duces tecum et ad testificandum, dated 17 January 2012, issued by this honorable Impeachment Court which requires the presentation of Reservation Agreement pertaining to the purchase by Spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona of the condominium unit at 1 Burgundy Plaza as embraced in Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812. Did you bring the same? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. I have the photocopy of the said title. Mr. Jandoc. No, no, no. The reservation agreement? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. I have the original copy of the Reservation Agreement. Mr. Jandoc. Will you please present the same to the honorable Impeachment Court? May we manifest for the record, Your Honor please The Presiding Officer. Are you familiar with that transaction, witness? Mr. Gregonia. I am familiar with the transaction, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are you familiar with the transaction? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why are you familiar with the transaction? Mr. Gregonia. Because it was all reported to me. All sales and transactions during that time were all reported directly to me, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In the ordinary course of business? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. We would just like to manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the witness is referring to documents and is now in his possession. And may I request, Your Honor please, that it be handed to Counsel. Mr. Gregonia. I have here the original copy of this reservation application, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Date. Date of the reservation? Mr. Gregonia. July 15, 1997, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What month? Mr. Gregonia. July. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Will you please fix your microphone so that your answers are clearly audible? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir.
37
Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor please, may we manifest for the record, that the witness handed to this Counsel a one-page document which appears to be a duplicate original, having a caption Reservation Application pertaining to an offer signed under Mr. and Mrs. Corona for said party to buy condominium Unit D, Floor 21, with the area 62.7, for an indicated gross price of P3,448,500 and a parking space with an indicated price of P450,000 for an accumulated price of P3,208,800. The Presiding Officer. Is that document signed? Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Whose signature is borne by that? Mr. Jandoc. There is here a signature, Your Honor, on top of the printed words Mr. and Mrs. Corona, and also a signature on top of the printed words Burgundy Realty Corporation, the owner/developer, under the caption Approved By, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In other words, that was signed by the couple Corona. Mr. Jandoc. This was signed by Respondent Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. We likewise manifest for the record, Your Honor, that this has been pre-marked as Exhibit JJJJ for the Prosecution, Your Honor. And I am showing the same to the distinguished Counsel for the Defense for stipulation that the marked photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. If the purpose is substitution, Your Honor, we have no objection. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. I again direct your attention, Mr. Witness, to the subpoena dated 17 January 2012, which likewise requires the presentation of the Contract to Sell over the same condominium unit acquired by Respondent Renato C. Corona and spouse Cristina Corona. Did you bring the same? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. I have with me the Contract to Sell. Mr. Jandoc. Would you kindly present the same to the Honorable Impeachment Court? The Presiding Officer. Will you describe that document? Mr. Jandoc. Mr. Witness, will you kindly describe the document? Mr. Gregonia. Here is the copy of Contract to Sell by and between Burgundy Realty Corporation and spouses Renato Corona and Cristina Corona. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honors, may we manifest for the record that the witness handed to Counsel a Contract to Sell consisting of two long pages, Your Honor. And that the same has been pre-marked in evidence as Exhibit KKKK for the Prosecution.
38
The Presiding Officer. And the date of that document is?
Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, it appears that there is no date in this document. The Presiding Officer. Why not? How do we know that it was executed yesterday or 10 years ago? Mr. Jandoc. Well, Your Honor, with due respect, we are just marking the document as the one presented now by the witness. The Presiding Officer. All right. Please proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. May we request the good Counsel for the Defense, Your Honor, to stipulate that the previously marked photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original. Mr. Cuevas. We have no objection, Your Honor, if the purpose is substitution. But may we make of record that on the signature page, reading Renato Corona, buyer, no signature, TIN, no number also; Cristina Corona, buyer, no signature also, signed in the presence of all vacated. Notarization appears vacant. So, this is not a notarized document. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, let it be a part of the testimony of the witness. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. May I please proceed, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, I can refer you to the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum issued by this Court that likewise requires the presentation of schedule of installment payments, provisional receipts, and all official receipts of payments in connection with the purchase of the condominium unit and the parking lot at one Condominium Plaza by spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona. Did you bring the same? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir, I have the statement of account with me. Mr. Jandoc. Would you kindly present the same to this honorable Impeachment Court? The Presiding Officer. What document is that? Mr. Gregonia. Statement of Account, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Statement of Account issued by whom to whom? Mr. Gregonia. By Burgundy Realty Corporation to spouses Renato Corona. The Presiding Officer. Okay. For what year, what month? Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, for the record and for identification purposes, this Statement of Account is captioned Burgundy Realty Corporation and with the date October 5, 2001, referring to Project I, Burgundy Plaza. The indicated buyer here is Renato Corona, with an indicated address at No. 95 Xavierville Avenue Cor. E. Abad St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City. The Presiding Officer. The document is dated 2001? Mr. Jandoc. The document, Your Honor, is dated October 5, 2000.
39
The Presiding Officer. October 5, 2000. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. And it indicates that the subject of the Statement of Account is Unit 21-B with one parking lot. And the contract price also indicated herein is P3,208,800. It has several attachments: one is Official Receipt No. 2171, pertaining to payment received from Renato Corona, in the amount of P50,000. This is dated....[Pause] Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture of the proceedings, Your Honor, we would like to object because it is the lawyer practically testifying not the witness. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor please, with due respect, this humble representation is making only description of what are contained in the document. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely. Mr. Jandoc. It does not in any way vary, much less alter the contents thereof, Your Honor please. Just for expediency, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. I am not. Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Let the description be read. Anyway, you can cross, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Jandoc. The Official Receipt No. 2171, Your Honor, is dated 5/10/97 pertaining to a payment by Renato Corona in the amount of P50,000. By the way, Your Honor, for the record, the top cover which the Statement of Account has been pre-marked in evidence as Exhibit LLLL, for the Prosecution, and that Official Receipt No. 2171 was pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-1. Likewise, appearing as attachment thereto, Your Honor, is Official Receipt No. 2216 with the date 5/15/97, pertaining to payment received from Renato Corona in the amount of P50,000. This has been premarked as Exhibit LLLL-1, likewise, Your Honor. Also, as attachment is Official Receipt No. 1792 dated July 21, 1997 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the amount of P591,760. This has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-2 for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. What is that last receipt for? Mr. Jandoc. This is pertaining to the payment for the account stated in the Statement of Account, Your Honor, involving the payment of a contract price of P3,208,800 for the acquisition of Condominium Unit No. 21-D with one parking lot, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Further, Your Honor, for the record, likewise attached is a copy of the Official Receipt No. 1800 dated July 31, 1997 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the amount of P285,240 which has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-6, Your Honor. Further, Your Honor, as attachment, there is also this Official Receipt No. 3192 dated January 8, 1998 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the sum of P591,760 which receipt has been pre-marked as LLLL-3, Your Honor. Also, Your Honor, attached to this Statement of Account is Official Receipt No. 3191 dated January 8, 1998 pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the sum of P285,240, and the same has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-7 for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. What is that payment for?
40
Mr. Jandoc. All these payments, Your Honor, as covered by these official receipts pertain to the payment of the purchase price for the acquisition of Unit 21-D with one parking lot at one Burgundy Plaza, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Those were monthly payments or quarterly payments or annual payments? Mr. Jandoc. There is no such indicated manner of payment, Your Honor please, but this would show that there were varying amounts paid. The Presiding Officer. Are these installment payments? Mr. Jandoc. Somehow, yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. But they are not in equal installment payments as borne by these receipts, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead. Mr. Jandoc. And, likewise, Your Honor, attached thereto is Official Receipt No. 4092, dated 5/15/1998, pertaining to the receipt from Renato Corona of the amount of P438,500 and this has been pre-marked as Exhibit LLLL-5 for the Prosecution, Your Honor. And as last attachment to this Statement of Account, Your Honor, is Official Receipt No. 4591, dated July 31, 1998, pertaining to receipt from Francis R. Corona of the amount of P438,500, Your Honor, and this official receipt, Your Honor, has been pre-marked in evidence as LLLL-4. May we just like to.... The Presiding Officer. Francis R. Corona? Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Not Renato C. Corona? Mr. Jandoc. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Jandoc. May we just request from the good Counsel for the Defense, Your Honor, to stipulate for the record that the receipts mentioned are duplicate original receipts, and that the premarked photocopies thereof, Your Honor, are faithful reproduction of said duplicate original receipt. The Presiding Officer. Mark them. What is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Gregonia. Another buyers ledger, Sir, for payment for the respective parking slot. Mr. Jandoc. There is a pending request, Your Honor, from the distinguished Counsel for the Defense for stipulation, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. We will admit, Your Honor, that the documents identified by the witness now are genuine reproductions of their alleged original, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. May we make of record, Your Honor, that at the bottom of Exhibit LLLL, which carries the statement Certified Correct by Carmencita Kapangyarihan, no signature, Your Honor. And then, Noted by Cimbalen L. Galero, Account Officer, no signature also. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.
41
Mr. Cuevas. And the notation stating Certified True Copy bearing a signature which is illegible, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor please, there was likewise a request for confirmation from the good Counsel for the Defense if the attached official receipts earlier mentioned and described are indeed duplicate original copies, Your Honor. May we request from the good Counsel to stipulate on that, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. They appear to be copies, Your Honor, but whether they are duplicate original, that we cannot admit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. It is a matter of proof. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, we would just like to request then, Your Honor, that the.... The Presiding Officer. In that case you have to apply the rules applicable to secondary evidence. Mr. Jandoc. We believe, Your Honor, that by mere examination of the document it is a duplicate original because it is just an impression of one single stroke and that is, pursuant to the rules, still considered duplicate original and given full faith and value as that which is the original copy, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We will take that up at the proper time when it is offered. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. And for that reason, given the fact that the good and distinguished Counsel for the Defense would not want to stipulate on that matter, instead of requesting that the faithful reproduction thereof be marked as exhibit, if the witness will be willing to have the duplicate original itself to be marked, as evidence, Your Honor, then may we request said duplicate original to be marked respectively, as exhibit for the Prosecution, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. We have yet to see, Your Honor, the document. The witness is being asked whether he has alleged copies of the duplicate originals, Your Honor. So, we are sorry. As of this moment, we cannot as yet make any comment, Your Honor. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, for the record, the duplicate original adverted to is now in the hands of the Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. We are sorry, Your Honor, that based on an ocular examination of these documents, it merely states Official Receipt. There is no indication therein whether it is original duplicate of what, Your Honor. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, please, given that manifestation. ... The Presiding Officer. So, you do not accept the original character of the document? Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor, I did not get the statement. The Presiding Officer. I think this is the duplicate original, is it not? Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor. They are asking us to stipulate or to admit. That is why I said, I am sorry.
42
The Presiding Officer. To stipulate and admit what? Mr. Cuevas. That they are allegedly duplicate originals.
The Presiding Officer. Precisely. So, if you do not say that you can admit it as duplicate original, then let the Counsel. ... Mr. Cuevas. They have to prove it by their evidence, Your Honor. Mr. Jandoc. May we therefore request, for the record, Your Honor, that the said duplicate original copies of the official receipts be now turned over to the custody of the honorable Clerk of Court for the eventual appreciation by the Members of this honorable Impeachment Court when the time comes that said documents will be formally offered in evidence, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. For the Prosecution. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor, for the Prosecution. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Approved. Mr. Jandoc. May I proceed, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, you were earlier mentioning about Buyers Ledger. Would you kindly present the same to the honorable Impeachment Court. Mr. Gregonia. I have here the Buyers Ledger for the parking slot mentioned. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, may we manifest, for the record, that the witness has handed to this Counsel a one-page document with the caption Burgundy Realty Corporation and entries indicating the name Renato Corona, pertaining to Unit UG Sharp A, with an indicated contract price of P450,000 and also indicated herein are the particulars of amortization payments, each in the equal amount of P15,000.00, starting from 31 July 2001 up to 30 June 2003, for a total amount of P450,000.00. And attached thereto, Your Honor, are likewise duplicate original copies of the following official receipts: Official Receipt No. 10927, dated September 5, 2001, indicating receipt of the amount of P15,000.00 from Renato Corona; Official Receipt No. 11143, dated October 3, 2001, likewise evidencing or indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.00; Official Receipt No. 10942, dated September 5, 2001, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.00; Official Receipt No. 11578, dated December 5, 2001, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.00; Official Receipt No. 11375, dated November 8, 2001, indicating receipt from Atty. Renato Corona of the amount of P15,000.00; Official Receipt No. 13164, dated 28 February 2002, indicating receipt from Renato Corona of the sum of P15,000.00; Official Receipt No. 13162, dated 31 January 2002, indicating receipt of the amount of P15,000.00 from Renato Corona; Official Receipt No. 13168, dated 30 April 2002, indicating receipt of the sum of P15,000.00 from Renato Corona; Official Receipt No. 13166, dated 31 March 2002, likewise indicating the amount of P15,000.00 as having been received from Renato Corona....
43
Mr. Cuevas. May we most respectfully request, Your Honor, that in connection with these receipts and manifestation being made, this appears to be strictly out of order insofar as evidentiary procedure is concerned. First, these are statements or manifestations made by Counsel. He is not under oath, we cannot cross-examine him. Second, we cannot cross-examine the witness on these particular matters because he has not testified on this. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, please propound your question properly so that the witness can be questioned on these individual receipts on cross-examination. Mr. Cuevas. We will therefore move to strike out, Your Honor, all the manifestations of Counsel because they should not be considered as forming part of the evidence in this case. Otherwise, we will be denied of our due process, Your Honor. Mr. Jandoc. With due respect, Your Honor, please, if this humble representation may please reply to the manifestation made by the distinguished Counsel for the Defense, Your Honor. As earlier indicated by this humble representation, Your Honor, they are merely descriptive of what are contained in these documents, Your Honor. It does not in anyway vary, much less alter the tenor thereof. It is for purposes of expediency, Your Honor, and we are now wasting so much time, if again, all these pieces of documents, numerous at that, Your Honor, will be confronted with the witness for him to make the appropriate declaration, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please.... The Presiding Officer. You ask the proper questionwhether these receipts will be a part of the testimony of the witness. Mr. Jandoc. We will oblige, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. So that he can cross-examine the witness with respect to these documents. Mr. Cuevas. If you take the witness stand, we will be happy about that so that we will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine you. But out of respect, Mr. Counsel, we would not like to do that. That is why we made of record our objection to the procedure being adopted. Nowhere under any Rules of Court or any jurisprudence on the point can we find such kind of evidence. Manifestation, how can it be considered evidence, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Counsel, in the spirit of leniency, because that is the request of the Prosecution to hasten this proceedings, I am aware of the rules but, anyway, I allowed it for as long as the Counsel will propound the question properly so that this will become a part of the testimony of the witness. Mr. Cuevas. But as the Court will note it, the witness had never said anything about this. That is why we are being denied of the....But thank you anyway, Your Honor. Mr. Jandoc. There was a mention, Your Honor please, and the record will bear us out, Your Honor, that the witness mentioned about the.... The Presiding Officer. All right. Counsel, lay the basis and ask the proper question. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, in this buyers ledger that you have presented to Counsel, there are attachments thereto which would appear to be official receipts, copies of the official receipts. Will you kindly tell this honorable Impeachment Court what is the relevance of those official receipts?
44
Mr. Cuevas. No basis, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Counsel, what are those receipts in relation to the Burgundy condominium units acquired by Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona? Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, that matter is what this humble representation wishes to elicit from the witness, Your Honor please. And instead of this humble representation responding to the query of the honorable Senate President, Your Honor, may we request that the answer be given by the witness. The Presiding Officer. All right, go ahead. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. What is the relation of those receipts to the acquisition by Respondent Chief Justice.... The Presiding Officer. Wait, wait. No. I said, with respect to the condominium units purportedly acquired by Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona from Burgundy Condominium Corporation. Mr. Gregonia. Your Honor, these are the receipts in favor of Atty. Renato Corona. The Presiding Officer. For what? Mr. Gregonia. As payment for the parking slots attached to the condominium units which they bought from the company. The Presiding Officer. Is that installment payment? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Counsel, it is yours. Mr. Jandoc. Mr. Witness, may you please read into the Record and describe to us what those receipts are that you just mentioned? The Presiding Officer. Already answered. They are installment payments for parking lots. Mr. Cuevas. Besides, if they will be presented as evidence, Your Honor, the best evidence rule applies. The Presiding Officer. Correct. Sustained. Mr. Jandoc. Your Honors please, we will just manifest, for the record, that these receipts were earlier pre-marked as Exhibits MMMM-1 for Official Receipt No. 10927; MMMM-2 for Official Receipt No. 11143; MMMM-3 for Official Receipt No. 10942; MMMM-4 for Official Receipt No. 11578.... Mr. Cuevas. Again, Your Honor, may we be permitted to interrupt Counsel at this moment. He is now making a manifestation. That should be testified to by the witness because we will crossexamine him on that. The Presiding Officer. Will you please present the witness one by one, so that we will not go into a rambling like this. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. Again, Mr. Witness, will you please hand over to me the buyers ledger with attachments that you were earlier referring to? Mr. Gregonia. Here are the buyers ledger with regard to the parking slots, Sir.
45
Mr. Jandoc. You earlier stated, upon query of the honorable Presiding Officer, that these receipts relate to the amortization payments of the consideration for the.... Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, he is already making conclusions and so on which is not allowed under our rules. Mr. Jandoc. The witness has already answered, Your Honor please, upon query of the honorable Presiding Officer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. May I request the Counsels to calm down. Anyway, these are receipts already stated by the witness. It is in connection with the alleged purchase of a condominium unit from Burgundy by Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona. This Presiding Officer will allow the question so that we can finish. Mr. Cuevas. There is no pending question, Your Honor. I was allowed to make a manifestation to support my objection. My objection is, Counsel is making a manifestation again which cannot form part of the evidence. The Presiding Officer. Counsel is cautioned not to testify for the witness, please. Mr. Jandoc. We fully appreciate, Your Honor please. Thank you, Your Honor. I am just making a manifestation as to the premarking made on those exhibits earlier done in the presence of representatives from both the Prosecution and the Defense, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct but you are going really too far. You are already testifying for the witness. So, reform your question. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, will you please describe what are the attachments to this buyers ledger that you have presented to this honorable Impeachment Court? Mr. Gregonia. Attached in this buyers ledger are the photocopy, not photocopy, but the duplicate original of official receipts issued to the buyer, Atty. Renato Corona. Mr. Jandoc. And how many receipts are there that you are referring to as attached to the buyers ledger? Mr. Gregonia. For the parking slots, there are twenty-four (24) receipts attached herein. Mr. Jandoc. Would you kindly state, for the record, Mr. Witness, what are those official receipt numbers and indicate the name of the payor, the amount of the receipt, as well as the date of the receipts? Mr. Cuevas. Will not the best evidence rule apply in this particular instance, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Correct. Counsel, I will give you an example of a question. You have a receipt number there. Do you have? Read one. Read one receipt number. Mr. Gregonia. One particular receipt here is No. 10927, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Issued by? Mr. Gregonia. Atty. Renato Corona dated September 5 The Presiding Officer. Issued by Renato Corona or by Burgundy? Mr. Gregonia. Sorry, Your Honor. Issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation.
46
The Presiding Officer. To whom? Mr. Gregonia. To Atty. Renato Corona. The Presiding Officer. What date? Mr. Greonia. September 5, 2001, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. For what purpose? Mr. Gregonia. As payment for the parking slot. The Presiding Officer. Proceed, Counsel.
Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, please, may we manifest, for the record The Presiding Officer. For what month? Mr. Gregonio. Your Honor, this is dated September 5, 2001. The Presiding Officer. That is for the month of September? Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. That is the way you must present those receipts. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. May I manifest, for the record, that Official Receipt No. 10927 dated September 5, 2001 has been premarked as Exhibit MMMM-1 for the Prosecution, Your Honor. Aside from that receipt, Mr. Witness, what other receipts do you have in your possession? The Presiding Officer. Next receipt. Do it sequentially so that the public will understand. Mr. Gregonia. Official Receipt No. 11143, issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation, issued to Atty. Renato Corona dated October 3, 2001. The Presiding Officer. For what purpose? Mr. Gregonia. As payment for the parking slot. The Presiding Officer. Installment payment? Mr. Gregonia. Installment payment for the parking slot, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, next receipt. Mr. Gregonia. Official Receipt No. 10942 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation, issued to Atty. Renato Corona, as installment payment for the parking slot mentioned. Official Receipt No. 11578 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation, issued to Atty. Renato Corona as installment payment for the parking slot mentioned, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. For what month? State the month so that the receipt will jibe with the month. Mr. Gregonia. This is for the month of October 31, 2001, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, next receipt.
47
Mr. Gregonia. Official Receipt No. 13164, issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation. The Presiding Officer. For the month of? Mr. Gregonia. For the month of.... Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please, may we place on record our observation that the witness is apparently having difficulty in deciphering the documents, Your Honor. Mr. Gregonia. For the month of January 31, 2002, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In what amount? Mr. Gregonia. It is P15,000.00. The Presiding Officer. In installment payment? Mr. Gregonia. Installment payment for the parking slot mentioned, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Another receipt. Mr. Gregonia. Official Receipt No. 13168 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation issued to Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 The Presiding Officer. Covering installment for.... Mr. Gregonia. covering installment for the mentioned parking slots The Presiding Officer. Never mind. Covering what month? Mr. Gregonia. for the month of April 2002. The Presiding Officer. We already know that those are for parking slots. Next. Mr. Gregonia. Official Receipt No. 13166 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation issued to Renato Corona as installment payment for the said parking slot, installment for the month of March 2002. The Presiding Officer. Next. Mr. Gregonia. O.R. No. 13354 issued by the Burgundy Realty Corporation issued to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 as installment for the month of.... The Presiding Officer. You know, you should have arranged those receipts. Mr. Gregonia. For the month of June 2002. The Presiding Officer. Next. Mr. Gregonia. Another O.R. No. 13170 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of May 2002. The Presiding Officer. Next. Mr. Gregonia. Official Receipt No. 13545 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of July 2002. The Presiding Officer. Next.
48
Mr. Gregonia. O.R. No. 14512 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of October 2002. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense, would you not consider accepting all of these receipts, anyway, they are sufficient evidence that they are installment payments for the same parking lot, for the same condo unit, in the same building? Mr. Cuevas. We wanted to very much to our regret but cross-examination is part of the due process. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed, Witness. Mr. Gregonia. Official Receipt No. 14227 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of September 2002. Official Receipt No. 15037 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of December 2002. Official Receipt No. 14737 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of November 2002. The Presiding Officer. For the month of...What amount? Mr. Gregonia. P15,000, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Mr. Gregonia. O.R. No. 15805 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of February 2003. Official Receipt No. 15317 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of December 2002. Official Receipt No. 17009 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000 for the month of.... The Presiding Officer. P50,000.... Mr. Gregonia. P15,000, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. For what month? Mr. Gregonia. Dated July 2, 2003. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Gregonia. And lastly, Official Receipt No. 16111 issued by Burgundy Realty Corporation to Atty. Renato Corona in the amount of P15,000. The Presiding Officer. What year? Mr. Gregonia. Dated April 3, 2003. The Presiding Officer. So, these receipts cover a period of.... Mr. Gregonia.Two years.
49
The Presiding Officer. How many years? Mr. Gregonia. Sir? The Presiding Officer. How many years? Mr. Gregonia. Two years, two years. The Presiding Officer. Two years. From 2002...? Mr. Gregonia. From 2001. July 31st, 2001 to June 30, 2003. The Presiding Officer. Okay. So, Counsel. Mr. Jandoc. May I please proceed, Your Honor. May we manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the Buyers Ledger presented by the witness has been pre-marked as Exhibit MMMM for the Prosecution and that the several official receipts presented by the Witness had been pre-marked as Exhibits MMMM-1 up to MMMM-21 for the Prosecution. And may we request from the good Counsel for the Defense to make a comparison of the marked exhibits, which are photocopies, if they are indeed faithful reproduction of the original documents as presented by the Witness. Mr. Cuevas. We will admit, Your Honor. They are faithful reproduction of their respective originals. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it and submit it. Mr. Jandoc. They have already been pre-marked, Your Honor, as manifested. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, going back to the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum issued by this honorable Impeachment Court, the same likewise requires the presentation of Certificate of Turnover of the One Burgundy Condominium Unit 21-D and its parking slot in favor of spouses Renato Corona and Cristina Corona. Did you bring the same? The Presiding Officer. Pardon me for correcting you. You see, in asking your question, you immediately identified the owner. Why do you not say in favor of the owner? Mr. Jandoc. Because the.... The Presiding Officer. Anyway. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. I am just....This is a matter of style. That is why you meet a lot of objections because you are leading your witness. Anyway, I will allow the question. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor.
50
Did you bring the same, Mr. Witness?
Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. I have the original copy of the document here. Mr. Jandoc. Will you kindly present the same to the honorable Impeachment Court? Mr. Gregonia. I have here the original copy of the Acknowledgment of Unit Completion and Acceptance. Mr. Jandoc. Will you kindly read into the record, Mr. Witness, what unit is referred to in that document? The Presiding Officer. That is covered by the letter. Best evidence rule. Mr. Gregonia. Acknowledgment of Unit Completion and Acceptance, One Burgundy Plaza located along Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, particularly described as Unit No. 21D and received by Cristina R. Corona dated November 10, 2000. Mr. Jandoc. May we manifest for the record, Your Honor, that witness here has handed to this Counsel, Your Honor, a two-page document and that the same has been pre-marked in evidence as Exhibits NNNN and NNNN-1 for the Prosecution, Your Honor. We request, Your Honor please, the good Counsel for the Defense to make a comparison of the pre-marked exhibit, if the photocopy of the same is a faithful reproduction of the original. Mr. Cuevas. We admit, Your Honor, because I have seen this document before. The Presiding Officer. Okay, admitted. Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Mr. Witness, I refer you to the subpoena issued by this honorable Court that requires the presentation of the Deed of Absolute Sale over Condominium Unit 21-D at Burgundy Plaza. Did you bring the same? Mr. Cuevas. I just wanted to make a short observation, Your Honor. Counsel had been using the word presentation. That has a legal significance in the law of evidence. What did the subpoena statebring with you, not presentation. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, please use the proper terminology so that there will be no. Mr. Cuevas. So, that there will be no misleading or misrepresentation or mis Mr. Jandoc. We will oblige, Your Honor. Which requires the Deed of Sale to be brought to this honorable Impeachment Court, did you bring the same? Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir, I have the original copy of Deed of Absolute Sale. Mr. Jandoc. Will you kindly present the same to the honorable Impeachment Court? May we manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the Witness has handed to this Counsel a Deed of Absolute Sale consisting of two pages which appears to be a notarized document, dated October 8, 2003, and the same has been pre-marked as Exhibit OOOO for the Prosecution, Your Honor.
51
We request the Counsel for the Defense to stipulate whether or not the premarked document is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We admit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Jandoc. Mr. Witness, will you please state on the record the date of that Deed of Absolute Sale? Mr. Cuevas. Will not the best evidence be the document itself, Your Honor? Mr. Jandoc. We are just requesting the Witness, Your Honor please, to please state for the record. The Presiding Officer. Let it be preliminary. Let the witness answer. Mr. Gregonia. The date herein described in the Deed of Absolute Sale is October 8, 2003, Sir. Mr. Jandoc. And will you please tell this Honorable Court who are the parties to that Deed of Absolute Sale? The Presiding Officer. The parties are stated in the document. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Mr. Jandoc. Will you please state for the record, Mr. Witness? Mr. Gregonia. It is by and between Burgundy Realty Corporation represented herein by Rogelio T. Serafica, President as seller, and spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona as buyer, Unit 21-D of 21st Floor with 62.70 square meters of One Burgundy Plaza. Mr. Jandoc. Will you likewise state for the record, Mr. Witness, what is the subject of that Deed of Absolute Sale between Burgundy Realty Corporation and spouses Renato Corona and Cristina Corona? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, the best evidence. The Presiding Officer. It is already stated in the document. I sustain the objection, if there is any objection. Mr. Jandoc. Just a description, Your Honor please, stating for the record, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the purpose of that question? Mr. Jandoc. Well, Your Honor please, if we may be allowed, Your Honor, the Deed of Absolute Sale as presented by the witness and already pre-marked in evidence only refers to Condominium Unit 21-D, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct, that is contained in the document. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And the document speaks for itself. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor please. As a preliminary to my next question, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Yes.
52
Mr. Jandoc. And I am now asking the Witness to explain why is it that the Deed of Absolute Sale did not make mention of the parking slot, Your Honor? Mr. Cuevas. Witness is very incompetent, Your Honor. There is no showing. The Presiding Officer. Lay the basis. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. That he is a party to the document. Mr. Jandoc. Based on the documents in your custody, Mr. Witness, will you kindly inform this honorable Impeachment Court whether or not the parking slot is included in that Deed of Absolute Sale you just presented? Mr. Cuevas. Again, the best evidence is in the document. The Presiding Officer. Witness, did the sale of the condominium unit to the spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona include parking lots? Mr. Gregonia. Based on this Deed of Absolute Sale. The Presiding Officer. Did this include parking lots? Mr. Gregonia. Not with this Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, are they covered by a different Deed of Sale? Mr. Gregonia. No, sir, because the parking slots weretransacts separately, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, they are covered by a separate agreement? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Gregonia. With a separate agreement. The Presiding Officer. Counsel. Mr. Jandoc. You mentioned about this separate agreement over the parking slot, did you bring that with you before this Impeachment Court? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir, I have it with me. Mr. Jandoc. Would you kindly present the same? May we manifest for the record, Your Honor please, that the witness has handed to this Counsel, an agreement consisting of two pages, dated October 8, 2003, Your Honor, which appears to be a notarized document, Your Honor. The same has been pre-marked in evidence as Exhibit PPPP for the Prosecution, Your Honor. May we request the good Counsel for the Defense to stipulate whether or not the pre-marked photocopy is the exact reproduction of the original, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We admit, Your Honor. We have examined these documents. The Presiding Officer. All right. Admitted. Mr. Jandoc. That would be all, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Cross.
53
Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, I heard you state that you are the vice president of a realty corporation, am I right? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, sir. Mr. Cuevas. And when you enumerated the functions of your office, I did not hear you state that one of your functions is to appear in court where Burgundy is a party-litigant, am I right? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir. So, what made you appear in todays proceedings relative to this case? Because of the subpoena? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. But you were not the one subpoenaed. It is Rogelio T. Serafica. Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir, but through a counsel, we submitted this ex parte. Mr. Cuevas. NoI am sorry, go ahead please. Thank you. The subpoena was directed to Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica. I am asking you now: How did you happen to appear here as witness for Burgundy or for the Prosecution when it is not one of your functions? Will you kindly enlighten the honorable Court? Mr. Gregonia. Because I wasfirst, the company issued or submitted an ex parte motion for me to appear before this Court. Second, it was my task and. The Presiding Officer. Witness, were you authorized by your corporation to appear here? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who authorized you? Mr. Gregonia. The president of the company. The Presiding Officer. Who is the president? Mr. Gregonia. Rogelio T. Serafica. The Presiding Officer. Did he write his authorization? Mr. Gregonia. We submitted an ex parte motion, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No. Did he write an authorization to make you appear here? Or did he say it orally? Mr. Gregonia. He mentioned it orally, verbally, and he issued a document for me to attend before this hearing, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And you mentioned an ex parte motion. Were you mentioned in the ex parte motion of Mr. Serafica? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Your Honor. We submitted an ex parte. The Presiding Officer. Were you mentioned in the ex parte motion of Mr. Serafica to appear here
54
Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. in lieu of him? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Defense Counsel, your witness.
Mr. Cuevas. May I continue, Your Honor? May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Continue. Mr. Cuevas. And the authorization to you per your allegedthat alleged letter of Mr. Serafica came when, only yesterday? The authorization came only yesterday? Mr. Gregonia. Sorry, Sir, I cannot hear you clearly. Mr. Cuevas. This alleged authorization that you were telling us, did this come only yesterday? Mr. Gregonia. No, sir. Mr. Cuevas. When? Mr. Gregonia. The week that we received this subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but when was that? When was that? January what? Mr. Gregonia. January 17 or 18, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And that wasI noticed that you were referring to an urgent ex parte motion, manifestation and motion. Is this the document you are referring to? Mr. Gregonia. One of the documentsI believe I have this board resolution, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Witness ransacking his files of documents, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. Witness is ransacking his files of documents, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. He is still ransacking his documents. He said he was empowered by a Power of Attorney or Resolution, Your Honor. He is looking for it. You may have left it in your office. It is not there? Mr. Gregonia. It is not here, sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. But you are sure there is thatWhat is it, Power of Attorney or Resolution? Mr. Gregonia. Board Resolution, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. You mean, the Board convened for this purpose? Mr. Gregonia. Secretarys Certificate, sir. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, Secretarys Certificate.
55
Mr. Gregonia. So, it is not a Board Resolution? Mr. Cuevas. It is not, Sir. Mr. Gregonia. So, were you privy to the convening of the Board for purposes of authorizing you to appear today? Mr. Gregonia. I was authorized, sir. Mr. Cuevas. How? Mr. Gregonia. By means of Secretarys Certificate. Mr. Cuevas. What was the wording of that Secretarys Certificate? Mr. Gregonia. To appear to represent the company and to appear before this Court, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And you were instructed on what to testify? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir, just to tell what are to be said here. Mr. Cuevas. Were you likewise instructed to determine whether the alleged transaction here is not covered by the SALN of Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Gregonia. I do not know about that SALN, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. So, that was not the subject of your talk with the Secretary? Mr. Gregonia. I just came here to identify properly based on the documents executed between and by Burgundy Realty and the Spouses Corona. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Witness, you are not answering my question. My question is this, in your discussion with your Secretary of the corporation, did you discuss about the SALN of Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Gregonia. No. Mr. Cuevas. No. All right. So, the offer here made by Counsel in connection with your coming in to testify on the correctness of what is stated in the SALN does not appear to be covered by your coming here, right? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir. You have nothing to do or you have no knowledge of that SALN? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. In fact, you have not seen it up to now? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. So, you are not in a position to determine the falsity, the correctness and the authenticity of what appears in that SALN? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, sir. All right.
56
Now, I noticed that you appeared to be very efficient in testifying. I suppose this is not the first time you testified in court. Mr. Gregonia. This is my first time, sir. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, this is your first time. You have never testified in any other proceedings where Burgundy is a party litigant or involved? Mr. Gregonia. Never, sir. Mr. Cuevas. Never. Now, did you not tell the Secretary that Why will you ask me to testify here? I do not know anything about this? Did you tell him about Is he a female or a male? Babae ho ba o lalaki? Mr. Gregonia. Ang alin po? Mr. Cuevas. Iyong Secretary na sinasabi mo? Mr. Gregonia. Babae po. Mr. Cuevas. Now, did she tell you kung ano po ang magiging subject ng iyong testimony? Mr. Gregonia. Ang pinag-usapan namin ay tungkol lamang dito sa dokumento na dapat iprisenta base doon sa nilalaman ng subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. Wala na pong iba? Mr. Gregonia. Wala na po. Mr. Cuevas. So, noong kayoy pumunta rito, maliwanag na ang iyong gagawin i-produce lamang iyong dokumento na sinasabi ng subpoena? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir, for proper identificatioin. Mr. Cuevas. Nothing more? All right. So, bring the documents mentioned in here and nothing more, is that right? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, do you have any good reason to tell the Court why you were chosen to appear in behalf or for representation of Burgundy in this case? Mr. Gregonia. As vice president of the company, it is under my jurisdiction and control the documents stated in the subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. But I heard you stated that this is not one of your functions, appearing in court as vice president, am I right? Mr. Jandoc. Your Honor, please, the witness has already declared his responsbility pertaining to the custody, Your Honor. We object, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Counsel, he was authorized to appear here. And I think as an employee he has to obey the Board that authorized him to appear before this Court. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. So, from the time you were notified that you should appear in this case, that was the time you examined the records and so on?
57
Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. That is why I noticed you are having a hard time locating them and identifying them, is it not? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Is that the first time that you have seen these documents? Or you have been examining this everyday when you are in office? Mr. Gregonia. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. What is No, Sir? Mr. Gregonia. No, this is not the first time that I have seen these documents. Mr. Cuevas. How many times have you seen it, the documents that you identified now? Mr. Gregonia. First was during the preparation of this Deed of Absolute Sale way back 192000. Mr. Cuevas. And the second was when? Mr. Gregonia. About two weeks ago when we received this subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. And the third was when you are already in Court? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, all right. Now, I noticed that there is a document here identified by you where there are no signatures appearing, Contract to Sell. Kindly go over the same and tell us what you know about it, if you have examined these documents? Mr. Gregonia. The document is Exhibit KKKK, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Which is also our exhibit? Is it our exhibit also? May we therefore request, Your Honor, that this document denominated or marked as Exhibit KKKK be marked as our Exhibit 55, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Cuevas. And the portion carrying the names ofano yung pangalan? with no signature whatsoever, be encircled and marked as Exhibit 55-A, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. [Exhibit referred to by the Defense being marked accordingly] Mr. Cuevas. The document is being presented to the witness for his comment, Your Honor. Yang walang pirma po, pakitingnan ninyo. [Witness going over the document] Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir.
58
Mr. Cuevas. When you were examining the various documents you identified in todays proceedings, did you notice that there are no signatures appearing in that? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Did you conducted any inquiry as to why there are no signatures or it is not necessary? Mr. Gregonia. I conducted why it has no signature. Mr. Cuevas. What do you mean you conducted, you mean, you investigated? Mr. Gregonia. I asked our staff. Mr. Cuevas. Who in particular did you ask? Mr. Gregonia. One of our managers. Mr. Cuevas. Who is he? Mr. Gregonia. A certain Cymbee Galero. Mr. Cuevas. And this investigation is not in writing, it is verbal or oral? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir. And what did you learn from him? Mr. Gregonia. At that time of sales transaction, Sir, pinadala na po namin itong original ng sales contract. Mr. Cuevas. So, without that information, you will not be able to tell the Court what you know about it? Your statement now is merely on the basis of that manager that you mentioned, right? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir. It is not based on your personal knowledge, right? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir. Who is that manager again? Will you kindly name him for the record? Him ba or her? Mr. Gregonia. Her. Mr. Cuevas. Herfor the record. Mr. Gregonia. She is Cymbee Galero. Mr. Cuevas. Has she executed any sworn statement relative to the version or story she gave you? Mr. Gregonia. None, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Why? You did not consider that important? Here is a document for the protection of Burgundy. If there is no signature, you did not consider that important?
59
Mr. Gregonia. Sir, at that time na it is underwe have this sales transaction already, it is much important to us that anyway we have the sales reservation agreement signed by Mr. CoronaAttorney Corona, and they already issued checks to us. So. Mr. Cuevas. So whatever irregularities or infirmity appeared in the previous documentation provided you are paid, no question anymore? Is that what you wanted to tell? Mr. Gregonia. We do not consider it as irregularities, sir. Mr. Cuevas. A document unsigned is not an irregularity? Transferring rights and so on, is that what you wanted to tell the Court? Mr. Gregonia. We have this reservation agreement signed by Attorney Corona and they issued already checks to us. Mr. Jandoc. May we manifest for the record, Your Honor, that witness is presenting or exhibiting the document that was earlier marked in evidence as Exhibit LLLL, for the Prosecution, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let it be recorded. Mr. Cuevas. So you were satisfied that although these documents were not signed by the parties named therein, provided there were payments, you are already . Mr. Jandoc. Objection, Your Honor, the witness is mentioning documents, Your Honor, without even referring to what document is he relating to, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. What is the basis of the objection? Mr. Jandoc. Vague, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Submitted, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The witness may answer standard cross-examination. He is testing the credibility of the witness. Mr. Jandoc. We submit, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Witness reading the document. Anong sagot po ninyo? Mr. Gregonia. Sir, pirmado po iyong reservation application and since nag-issue naman po ng kaukulang pambayad ang buyer at that time, so, sa amin hindi po unusual iyon. Mr. Cuevas. Eh kung ganoon po, bakit pa ninyo inimbistigahan ang inyong manager na sinasabi ninyo tungkol dito sa apparent irregularity na ito? Mr. Gregonia. Natanong ko lang po dahil napuna ko rin na wala pang pirma. Mr. Cuevas. Nagbibiro lang kayo, hindi totohanan iyon. Ganoon ho ba ang ibig ninyong sabihin? Mr. Gregonia. Hindi ho ako nagbibiro dito, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi, noong inimbistigahan ninyo, eh iyon pala walang katuturan, bakit inimbistigahan pa ninyo? Iyon ang tanong ko sa inyo. Hindi ba sabi ninyo, total nagbayad na, tinanggap na ninyo, o bakit kayo nag-imbistiga pa? Kailan ba ninyo inimbistigahan, noong bago magbayad o pagkabayad na ho?
60
Mr. Gregonia. Natanong ko po noong matanggap namin iyong subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. Noon ninyo lang tinanong. Mr. Gregonia. Dahil nagpre-prepara ho kami ng mga dokumento na dadalhin dito at isasubmit. Mr. Cuevas. Now, mayroon kayongyou touched in your testimony about several receipts. I do not see your name or your signature appearing therein. Am I right? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. You are not a party to the said payment? Mr. Gregonia. Hindi po ako nag-i-issue ng mga resibo sa kumpanya. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi iyon ang tanong ko sa inyo. Ang tanong ko sa inyo, you were not a party, hindi yung hindi kayo nag-i-issue. Mr. Gregonia. Hindi po ako kaharap noong mag-pirmahan sila The Presiding Officer. mga resibo. Ang tinatanong sa inyo, hindi raw kayo kasama sa paggawa ng
Mr. Gregonia. Hindi po ako nag-i-issue ng mga resibo. The Presiding Officer. pag-i-issue ng resibo. Kaya nga sagutin mo lang kung kasama ka o hindi ka kasama sa
Mr. Gregonia. Hindi po ako kasama, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Ayun, tama. Mr. Cuevas. Ngayon, komo ang subpoena sa inyo eh i-produce yung mga dokumento na iyan, eh hindi ba ninyo sinabi sa nag-utos sa inyo humarap, Wala akong masasabi diyan, hindi ko naman nalalaman iyang mga resibo na iyan, or payment na yan. Hindi ba ninyo sinabi sa kanya iyon? Haharap kayo ngayon sa husgado, tatanungin kayo sa mga dokumentong iyan na wala kayong kasangkutan at wala kayong kinalaman, hindi ba ninyo sinabi, Eh ako ang pahaharapin ninyo, wala akong nalalaman diyan. Baka magsinungaling lang ako diyan. Mr. Gregonia. Hindi ho pumasok sa akin ang magsinungaling at hindi ho ako magsisinungaling dahil ang pagkakaalam ko eh pinapro-produce po sa amin iyong mga dokumentong nakasaad sa subpoena na may kinalaman sa bentahan ng condominium unit. Mr. Cuevas. Salamat po. Kung ganoon po, maliwanag na maliwanag na kahit na kayo ay walang kinalaman sa dokumentong dala ninyo, basta ang tungkulin ninyo, dalhin lang ang dokumento. Tama po ba iyon? Mr. Gregonia. Oho. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo inalintana o isinaalang-alang na kayo ay maaaring tanungin dito sa mga dokumentong ito tungkol sa nilalaman at kung bakit nagkaroon ng ganitong dokumento. Hindi ho ba?
61
Mr. Gregonia. Pumasok din ho sa isip ko na akoy tatanungin. Mr. Cuevas. Doon? Mr. Gregonia. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. At ang inyong nasa isip ay, Siguro sabihin ko lang wala akong kinalaman diyan, tama na. Ganun ho ba? Mr. Gregonia. Hindi ho, kung hindi patunayan kung ano lang ho yung nakasaad sa dokumento. Mr. Cuevas. Eh bakit kayo magpapatunay yan na ika ninyo ang pagkaalam ninyo kaya lang kayo pinaharap dito para dalhin ang dokumento. Ibig mong sabihin mayroon kayong patutunayan. Ganun ho ba ang ibig niyong sabihin? Mr. Gregonia. Hindi. Ang ibig ko hong sabihin ay patunayan na itong mga dokumentong hinihingi ay totoo at hindi gawa-gawa lamang. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ko naman tinatanong sa inyo kung totoo o hindi. Ang tanong ko sa inyo ay kung yung nakalagay dyan ay alam ninyong personal? The Presiding Officer. Alam mo ba na personal yun o hindi? Mr. Cuevas. Simpleng-simple ang tanong ko sa inyo eh. Mr. Gregonia. No, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. So meron bang nagsabi sa inyo kung ano yang, halimbawa yang mga resibo na yan kung anong kinalaman nyan sa transaksyon ninyo kay Chief Justice Corona at sa kanyang maybahay? Mr. Gregonia. Oho. As kabayaran ho dun sa binili nilang condominium unit. Mr. Cuevas. Yan lang ang sabi sa inyo? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Sino nagsabi po sa inyo? Mr. Gregonia. Yun hong staff namin sa opisina. Mr. Cuevas. Sino po yung staff ninyo na yun? Mr. Gregonia. Cymbee Galero. Mr. Cuevas. Kung hindi nya sinabi sa inyo wala kayong alam tungkol dito? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Now, nadinig kong sinabi ninyo na hindi naman sangkot sa inyong tungkulin or karapatan bilang bise presidente na mag-testify sa husgado. Tama ho ba ako? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Now, did you not also talk with the party or the lawyer responsible for issuing the
62
subpoena against Burgundy what you will be testifying on? Because the subpoena requires you to testify and produce. So testificandum is testimony, produce is subpoena duces tecum. Hindi ba ninyo tinanong doon sa humingi ng subpoena, Bakit ba ako napasangkot dito? Ano ba ang tetestiguhan ko rito? Mr. Gregonia. Dalawang beses ko lang ho nakausap yung isa sa mga abogado nila nung akoy magpunta rito nung January 19. Mr. Cuevas. Samakatuwid po, narito na kayo nung mga unang araw? January 19, according to you? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And ang inyo pong layunin para tumestigo subsequent to the subpoena. Ganun po ba? Mr. Gregonia. Oho, dahil pinadalhan ho kami ng subpoena eh. Mr. Cuevas. Kailan kayo pinadalhan ng subpoena? Kailan po? Mr. Gregonia. January 17 or 18, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. January 17? Mr. Gregonia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Noon ho bang January 17 ang tinutukoy ninyong petsa ng inyong pag-uusap nung isa sa abogado sa kaso na ito? Mr. Gregonia. January 18 ho nung Mr. Cuevas. Ah, 18. So hindi po 17? Mr. Gregonia. I believe we received the subpoena, January 17, at dumating ho kami dito ng January 19. Mr. Cuevas. Ang tinatanong ko po sa inyo ay yung petsa ng inyong pakikipag-usap doon sa isa sa abogado sa kaso na ito? Mr. Gregonia. January 19, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. January 19. Sino po yung abogado na yun? Mr. Gregonia. Certain Attorney Ginez. Mr. Cuevas. He is not the lawyer who direct your direct examination? Mr. Gregonia. Yun ho yung napagtanungan namin dun sa Prosecution room. Mr. Cuevas. Oho. Diyan po sa inyong usapan na yan naging maliwanag sa inyo na hindi kayo tatanungin, o kayo man ay magdedeklara tungkol sa tinatawag na SALN, S-A-L-N. Tama ho ba yun? Mr. Gregonia. Wala ho, sa SALN. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi niyo napag-usapan yun?
63
Mr. Gregonia. Hindi ho. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi rin naipakita sa inyo ang SALN ni Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Gregonia. Wala din ho. Mr. Cuevas. Wala po. Hindi kayo naging interesado diyan sapagkat hindi naman ninyo napag-usapan yan eh? Mr. Gregonia. Hindi ho. Mr. Cuevas. Kaya yang sinabi ng inyong abogado ninyo dito na ang isa sa dahilan kung bakit kayo tetestigo ay para patunayan na ang nakalagay sa SALN, hindi totoo at puro kasinungalingan. Hindi po totoo yun? Mr. Gregonia. Hindi ho yun. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi totoo yun. Mr. Gregonia. Hindi ho naman napag-usapan ang SALN. Mr. Cuevas. Salamat po kung ganun. I am through with my cross-examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Redirect? Mr. Jandoc. No redirect, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. No redirect? Mr. Jandoc. No redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged. Senator Sotto. Senator Ejercito Estrada wishes to be recognized, Mr. President, before we discharge the witness. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Ejercito Estrada has the floor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Counsel of theI am sorry I forgot to get your name. Attorney Jandoc, Yandok, Andoks. Mr. Jandoc. I am Atty. Clarence Jandoc, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Jandoc. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. After one hour and 45 minutes of deliberating this particular issue, what are you trying to prove here, Mr. Counsel? Are you trying to prove that Chief Justice Corona failed to disclose this particular property in his SALN? Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. With due respect, there are two properties here involved: one is the parking slot which has been separately paid for a consideration of P450,000.00. It is nonetheless
64
a real property in point of law as defined under Article 415 (a) of the Civil Code. And the second one is the condominium unit itself which is Unit 21-D at One Burgundy Plaza. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Did he fail to disclose it in his SALN? Mr. Jandoc. Your Honors please.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, no. Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor, I am just answering. Senator Ejercito Estrada. My question is only answerable by yes or no. Did he fail to disclose it in his SALN? Mr. Jandoc. He failed, Your Honor, to disclose in all of his SALNs the parking slot. And that the condominium unit also was not disclosed. Timely, while belatedly, it was disclosed only in 2003 but it was not a correct disclosure given the undervalued amount therein declared. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Usually, if somebody buys a condominium, do you have to stipulate in the SALN, or do you have to include the parking lot in your SALN? Mr. Jandoc. There is no hard-and-fast rule in the real estate industry, Your Honor. Whether or not it should be inclusive of the unit or it should be treated as a separate property. As can be seen in the reservation application executed by Respondent Chief Justice and his wife, Your Honor, they made an offer to buy two items here: one is Unit 21-D for an indicated price; and another one is the parking slot for the price of P450,000.00, which only goes to show that these two items are treated as separate properties for purposes of valuation of its consideration. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, because I have a copy of the SALN of Chief Justice Corona, 2003. It is listed here that the Burgundy propertyI assumed that was what was being discussed for one hour and 45 minutesthe year acquired was 1997 and I believe that was acquired in 1997. It was stated here. But I doubt very much about the fair market value. So, I think, the Chief Justice disclosed this particular property in the SALN, but I do not want to make assumptions here. But according to you, he undervalued the price. Am I correct? Is that my understanding? Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. It was underdeclared, only pertaining to Condominium Unit 21D, because there was never any declaration as to the separate property which is the parking slot. If I may, Your Honor please. The constitutional requirement provided for in Section 17, Article 11 of the Constitution, in relation to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, requires the public officer concerned to make a disclosure of all his assets, liabilities, and net worth; and gives the right to the people to know the assets, liabilities, and net worth. I make emphasis to the word net worth. One cannot make a declaration of his net worth, unless, he makes a complete narration of all his assets and liabilities. In this case, Your Honor, the reservation agreement indicated and that was dated July 15, 1997 it indicated that the contract price is P3,208,800.00. And that there was a down payment made. This was done in 1997, and as confirmed by no less than the Chief Justice in his SALN for 2003, he indicated that he acquired this property in 1997. Then therefore, it is incumbent upon the Chief Justice to indicate, as part of his assets, the total contract price for these properties but has to indicate his remaining balance under the column Liabilities so that in his net worth, it will be reflected how much money came out of his pocket, Your Honor please.
65
That is the true sense that is embodied in the cited provision of Republic Act No. 6713 which is in relation to Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, the bottom line of this whole discussion is that, you are saying that Chief Justice Corona should have stated in his SALN of 2003 the condominium unit with the parking lot? Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor please, because the parking lot is a separate real property. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, ang wala lamang dito ay ang parking lot? Mr. Jandoc. Not only that, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ini-state lang niya iyong...It was properly disclosed, the condo was properly disclosed herewell, I do not know about the value but the condo was listed here puwera iyong parking lot? Mr. Jandoc. The condominium was... Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, ang gusto mo lang ang mailagay dito iyong condo plus iyong parking lot? Mr. Jandoc. With due respect, Your Honor, not only was there non-declaration of the parking lot but while the condo was indeed declared, it was incorrectly declared, Your Honor, contrary to the requirement of the law and the Constitution, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because as you have stated, it was undervalued. Mr. Jandoc. And there is not even any declaration of the acquisition cost as required by Section 8, paragraph (a), of Republic Act No. 6713, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Jandoc. And, if I may, Your Honor, just for clarification. The implementing rules and regulations earlier cited by the distinguished Counsel for the Defense, Your Honor, pertaining to a prior review of the contents in the SALN. It is worthy to mention that the reviewing authority insofar as the Judiciary is no less than the Chief Justice. And here, the Chief Justice, being the reviewing authority, should have known that he is not filing his SALN as required by Republic Act No. 6713 and in relation to Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution, truthfully, timely and completely. That makes the act, therefore, a culpable violation of the Constitution and a betrayal of public trust insofar as it relates to the duty of the public officer respondent, Chief Justice, on public accountability, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are ready to discharge the witness. The Presiding Officer. That is an opinion, but we will consider that when we evaluate this case. Because a culpable violation suggests that the violation of the Constitution must be of such a criminal nature as to be considered a high crime case. But, anyway, the witness is through. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, the witness is discharged, but Senator Arroyo wishes to make a statement concerning the manifestation of the Counsel for the Prosecutor. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol is recognized.
66
Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. I will caution again the Prosecution. On points of law, the agreement was that, the Public Prosecutors, meaning, the House Prosecutors, are the only ones who can argue. Now, the Private Prosecutor is limited to conducting an examination. I did not want to stand up because I do not want to interrupt. But, henceforth, please observe the rule. Thank you. Mr. Jandoc. I am sorry, Your Honor, I beg the kind indulgence of the honorable Senator-Jury. The Presiding Officer. Your next witness? Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Because of the lateness of the hour, we would expect the Prosecutor to present another witness on Monday. Representative Tupas is asking for the floor, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, Your Honor, just regarding the statement issued earlier by Your Honor on the numerous requests for the issuance of subpoena from the Prosecution. If it is not too much to ask for this honorable Tribunal, we have pending request for subpoena. We are not opposed and, if it is not too much to ask, if we can ask the honorable Court to act on those request? But, of course, we knew earlier, as was stated by the honorable Presiding Officer, that there were some matters that should be addressed. The Presiding Officer. You know, Counsel, the reason why I could not decide issuing those subpoena was that you have to lay the basis first for the subpoena. I assume that you must have some semblance of evidence in your possession that you can present to this Court as a basis for requesting those subpoena. And we cannot just subpoena anybody unless you have to indicate to us the relevancy of those things that are to be subpoenaed. Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor, we understand. And, in fact, we are in touch with the office. The Presiding Officer. And then you are requesting us to subpoena the records of the Supreme Court. We cannot request you to subpoena your records, neither can you request to subpoena our records. We have to observe the separateness and co-equalness of the three departments of government. So, if you have evidence aliunde or outside of the things that you want to be subpoenaed, please present them first as a basis for you to ask us to subpoena those records. Representative Tupas. We will do that, Your Honor. I am manifesting this because on Monday, we would like to inform the Honorable Tribunal that we will present witnesses already on Article III, of course, with reservation on other matters pending now with Article II. The Presiding Officer. We will be very liberal in dealing with the presentation of your evidence but tell us next Monday what Article are you going to tackle. Representative Tupas. We will present witnesses for Article III, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How about Article II? Representative Tupas. Article II, we would like to.... The Presiding Officer. You will suspend. Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. We would like to ask for reservation because there are still matters.... May I explain, your Honor.
67
The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Representative Tupas. Because we have pending request for subpoena to the banks, namely; the PSBank and the BPI. So, pending decision by the Honorable Tribunal on those matters and so as not to waste the time of this Honorable Tribunal, we are ready also pending resolution to present witnesses for Article III. The Presiding Officer. I was about to issue the subpoena but, you know, may I request you to canalize the things that you will require. Because under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, the inviolability of persons and things, and papers, and effects of citizens of this country is provided and we cannot conduct any subpoena that might turn out to be an unreasonable search. So, please, when you ask us to issue a subpoena, specify the account number and the particular transaction involved and the documents that you want to be subpoenaed. Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is why I said, specify with specificity so that we will not be accused of unwarranted search. Okay? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your honor. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, before we close todays proceedings.... The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. We are still in the process of cross-examining the BIR Commissioner, Your Honor. And it was the Prosecution who asked that he be given a leave of absence of seven days. Now, we would like to know if they are closing their evidence on Article II, Your Honor, without the testimony of the.... We will not be able to close unless.... The Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer requested some written brief to tell us why CAR is required for shares of stock sold outside the Stock Exchange of the country. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of this honorable Impeachment Court, therefore, Your Honor, may we register our objection to the fact that we go to another Article without disposing of Article II, Your Honor. My only point is, we are not yet through with our cross-examination. I think the honorable Prosecutor will bear us out on this particular aspect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Can you present all your witnesses on Article II tomorrow? Representative Tupas. Monday, Your Honor. In that case, if there is an objection, the only reason we manifested is that we thought that the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue will not be available on Monday. But we just got information that she will be available. So, we will present the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on Monday. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then. The Presiding Officer. All right, we will consider their problem because the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is on official mission, so they have no control over that. So, we will have to be understanding because of that circumstances.
68
Mr. Cuevas. We submit, Your Honor.
Representative Tupas. Your Honor, please, and also with that, I repeat, there is a pending request for subpoena. So, we will present some witnesses for Article II on Monday. That is the case. The Presiding Officer. May I request you to confer with your witnesses so that we will not ramble in the presentation of the witnesses. I am not saying that you are not doing your job properly, but we want the flow of this hearing to be faster and more expeditious. Representative Tupas. We will do that. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Any further remarks? Mr. Cuevas. None, Your Honor. We wanted an adjournment already. It is 6:02 na. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, in compliance with the directive of the Court, Counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona filed on January 31, 2012 the list of witnesses and documentary evidence to be adduced by the Defense, with the reservation to present additional evidence as may be deemed necessary for the information of the Court. Also, we are in receipt of the entry of appearance of additional private prosecutors under the control and supervision of the panel of Prosecutors of the House of Representatives. The entry is signed by Representatives Tupas and Umali and the private prosecutors, Atty. Cynthia Corazon G. Roxas and Atty. Jose Luis Rey S. Munsayac, also for the information of the Court. Mr. Cuevas. There are already 58 private prosecutors, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let us allow them to have all the assistance of counsel who would want to help the Prosecution. Mr. Cuevas. That is part of the liberality of the Court. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement before I move that we adjourn. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Monday, February 6, 2012. The Presiding Officer. The motion to adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Monday, February 6, 2012, is approved. The trial was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

Feb 2 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feb 2 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012