May 8 Senate Impeachment Court Record

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
AT 2:10 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the impeachment trial of the Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. Senator Marcos. Let us all put ourselves in the presence of the Lord. Almighty God and Father, we come to You today to thank You for the manifold blessings that You have granted our nation, a nation that must remain united despite the growing voices of discord. As we resume our work today, may we ask for Your continued guidance and mercy. May we, the Senator-Judges, be fair and decisive in our actions. Remind us of our responsibility and accountability to the people. Give us the wisdom to make decisions that will strengthen and inspire our nation. Touch the hearts of all here before You now. Heal the wounds of division and conflict, and open all our hearts and minds to find and to listen to the truth. Above all, Dear God, we pray for the Philippines. Clear the minds of all from confusion and anxiety so that we may clearly see what is reality, and what is not. In these trying times, cause our leaders and our people to strengthen their faith in God and in country. And may the Holy Spirit always give us hope in these trying times, as we pray all these in the mighty Name of Jesus. 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 ................................. Absent** Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present* Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Absent Senator Gregorio B. Honasan ............................................................ Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Present Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Present Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Present* Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Absent** The President ..................................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the May 7, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the May 7, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will now please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.
______________
* Arrived after the roll call ** On official mission
The Clerk of Court. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the parties and/or their respective Counsel to enter their appearances. The Presiding Officer. For the Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President. For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearance. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. For the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. We are also ready. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Before the business for the day, may we recognize Sen. Edgardo J. Angara. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Aurora has the floor. Senator Angara. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, late yesterday afternoon, when we had a break in the session, I was handed a copy of a motion seeking my inhibition. I read it very carefully and I wanted to stand up even then to reply point by point to the false allegations contained in that motion. But unfortunately, we did not go through with the trial because the Defense was unprepared. But now, Mr. President, at the first occasion, I woke up this morning seeing the motion almost bannered by every newspaper and listened to the radio also bannering the story. It eclipsed, Mr. President, the family thrill at seeing my grandson, Edgardo Angara, seven years old, winning a tennis tournament at the Rizal Coliseum. So, I would like you to read the Philippine Star Sports, Angara pull thru in First Gen opener. Well, Mr. President, I am not an athlete, but to me, this is a source of thrill because my grandson, the son of Congressman Sonny Angara, is only seven years old and yet he joined a 10-year-and-under competition. So, that is for the athletic skill of the Angaras. Mr. President, when we were convened as an Impeachment Court, we did not expect, we did not seek this role. It was mandated by the Constitution that we shall sit as Senator-Judges, and therefore, it is a constitutional task assigned to us, Mr. President, and I consider it as a constitutional duty on my part to act as a judge, and no argument, no persuasion can convince me that I should inhibit because this is a duty I will not abdicate. Mr. President, I did not have a hand in choosing Sonny Angara, my son, to be a spokesperson for the House of Representatives. The two Houses are quite separate and distinct, coequal, we honor
their own respective processes. So, I have no hand at all in telling anyone: Please choose Sonny Angara to be one of the spokespersons. But the worst thing about this motion, Mr. President, is the insinuation or the suspicion that I will be biased and prejudiced because of that relationship and this, Mr. President, the malicious insinuation that political favors have been extended to my province of Aurora, in effect, insinuating that my vote has already been bought as a result. They mentioned, Mr. President, three major projects that were just recently approved by the NEDA. And of the three, Mr. President, only one really concerns and was for Aurora, and that is the Baler-Casiguran Concreting Project. Mr. President, that project is not going to be funded by Philippine money, not by the savings and taxes of Filipinos. It will be funded wholly by the Korean government. I got that, Mr. President, three years ago during the past administration, not under this administration. The only thing that happened during this administration is that it was approved by NEDA, which is required for all foreign-funded projects. The other two, Mr. President, is a project, I think a circumferential road in Samar. I am very thankful and I am full of admiration for those who were able to secure that because Samar is such an undeveloped province and putting a circumferential road like that in Bohol would really make Samar a destination of investments and tourism. The third project, Mr. President, is the bridge over Umiray River. Umiray River, for those who do not know it, is a river in Aurora, located in Dingalan, which supplies all the water for Metro Manila through Angat Dam. And that project I hope I was the one who initiated it but I did not, Mr. President it was a project of Governor Suarez and Congressman Suarez funded again by the Japanese government, not by our own government. And yet, Mr. President, the petitioners have the gall and the audacity to suggest that these are political favors for me. So, I reject that, Mr. President, and I reject it as an unthinking and illogical conclusion that serves no purpose at all except to malign and makeI do not want to say itit may be a diversionary tactic on their part because we just scolded them yesterday for their unpreparedness. But I will not say that. Mr. President, they also cited the application of the judicial rule, the Code of Judicial Conduct. Mr. President, even a first-year law student who knows how to read will immediately conclude that the Code of Judicial Conduct is not applicable to the Senate, much less to the Impeachment Court. We have our own set of rules. And the only code or rules we adopted as suppletory are the Rules of Court. So, that is completely irrelevant and immaterial. There they say my son is a party litigant. You see, even a first-year student will know that a party litigant is one who will suffer or benefit from a decision made. My son will not benefit from any decision either way. The only one who will benefit or suffer is our Chief Justice. And here are his lawyers who seem to device a strategy of almost antagonizing half of this Court. First, they want Senator Drilon to be inhibited, then Senator Guingona, they are pointing to Senators Pangilinan and Recto because they simply happen to be partymates of the President. Mr. President, many of us are party members. We are affiliated in one way or the other with one party or another. And all of us, except, possibly, one or two parties, are all supportive of government reforms, of government programs. Does that mean that the entire Impeachment Court is biased and partial? There is no other interpretation I can read in these actuations of the Defense except to destroy the credibility of this Impeachment Court. I think that is the least that they ought to do because this could be the saving grace in our democracy. If you destroy the one pillar of justice, the Senate, which can
stand up even to the Supreme Court or the President, then you are really knocking down the very pillar that one day you may have to seek help and succor from, because it can stand up to any person or institution. And to see how malicious this insinuation is, in their concluding paragraph they said, The only way Senator Angara can redeem himself is to vote for acquittal. Mr. President, you know I have been president of the UP, I have been president of the Integrated Bar, I have been president of the ASEAN Law Association, I have been honored by all of these organizations in various ways. I have never seen logic or legal logic like this. Therefore, Mr. President, I take umbrage at this malicious paper. My good friend Joker, when I showed him the petition yesterday, said, Ed, dont answer it. It is not worth it, because you are doing a constitutional duty. They dont seem to appreciate that. And yet, Joker is very sympathetic and I can share his feelings towards the cause of the Defense. As of now, but after this, maybe not anymore. [Laughter] So, Mr. President, I do not know. I have one outstanding alumnus of the UP College of Law, very able, very skillful, very eloquent and can stand up in argument head to head with anyone. But, he has one outstanding trait. He seems to have a penchant for antagonizing the judge. So, no client will now retain him because what is the use? You may have a good cause but if you antagonize the judge, your cause is lost. No, I am not comparing our set of Defense panel to that one friend of mine who is brilliant, knowledgeable, eloquent, but has a penchant for antagonizing the judge. Thank you very much, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you, Senator Angara. The Chair would like to state for the record that we respect the opinion of others regarding each one of us or all of us collectively. But I assure you that none of you can sway us one way or the other. And if you have any reason to believe that we are dishonest, say so candidly and openly, and we are ready, willing, able to defend ourselves. So, let us forget about this sad incident. Let us proceed with the case. Defense, present you evidence. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the Court, Your Honor, may I be allowed even one or more minutes, Your Honor, to make a little manifestation? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, there had been some insinuation yesterday that the Defense had been trying to delay the proceedings in this case, as evidenced by the fact that we have introduced quite a number of witnesses with no purpose and accomplishment whatsoever, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who was making the insinuation? Was it from this Court or from the...let us be specific. Mr. Cuevas. Well, that seem to be our impression, Your Honor, that apparently the Defense was trying to delay proceedings, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are you suggesting that it was the Court that created that impression?
6
Mr. Cuevas. No, it came from the Prosecution, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, that is the Prosecution. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right.
Mr. Cuevas. And we wanted to be heard in connection therewith, otherwise, we may be said to have acquiesced to that kind of manifestation, Your Honor. If the records will be read, Your Honor, we have introduced quite a number of witnesses in connection with our defense. Some of them they consist of three (3) register of deeds, three (3) city assessors and provincial assessor, Your Honor. Insofar as the register of deeds is concerned, we introduced them for the purpose of showing that there are no properties aside from those mentioned in the SALN, Your Honor, of the Honorable Chief Justice that belong or were registered in his name. We cannot lump up only one testimony or only one register of deeds because the properties were located in different places. So, if we presented the register of deeds of Makati, of Manila and of Quezon City, it was never our purpose to gain time in order to delay the proceedings. Not even the thought of it, Your Honor, but because we cannot do so. The register of deeds of Makati will be highly incompetent, Your Honor, to testify in connection with the records of the office pertaining to Quezon City and Manila, and vice versa. That was our purpose. And, we also introduced in evidence the testimony of the Administrator of the Land Registration Office. From the statements obtained from them on record we were able to show convincingly, Your Honor, that the 45 real estate properties allegedly referred to be registered and owned by Chief Justice Corona do not all belong to him but only five (5) of them. Hence, it cannot be said that our purpose was merely to delay because, apparently, we could read from the records that even the Court was convinced that actually there were only five (5) or six (6) properties that really belong to Chief Justice Corona. Now, how about the testimony of the various representatives of the assessment office, Your Honor? We admit we introduced three (3) assessors: The city assessor of Makati, the city assessor of Manila and the city assessor of Quezon City on the same ground because we cannot make one of them testify for the entirety of the properties not located in their respective places. So, if we presented three (3) assessors, I hope we will not be misunderstood as trying to delay the proceedings but it is because of our recognition that one is not competent to testify as to the other and vice versa, Your Honor. Thereafter, we went further, Your Honor. We introduced in evidence the testimony of Ms. Arceli Bayugan, the Finance Officer of the Supreme Court, in order to belie and contradict the statement on record that there was no income tax return made by the Honorable Chief Justice Corona. Because from the testimony of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, there were no returns for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010, Your Honor. We were able to introduce the returns, identified by our witness, they were duly marked, we took note of the trouble of marking the.... The Presiding Officer. Counsel, we know all of that. It is all in the record. We are not accusing you of delaying. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Because that was our impression that we introduced these witnesses simply to gain time. That is why we are placing on record.... The Presiding Officer. I must admit that yesterday I said you are wasting the time of the Court by introducing someone to testify on whether market fees had been collected from that market.
Mr. Cuevas. We are not in conformity with that, Your Honor. But the plan of the other lawyers came up and we allowed him to take the.... The Presiding Officer. You better advice your other panel that those things are irrelevant. We know what is an irrelevant evidence. Mr. Cuevas. We did, Your Honor. In fact, I gave him a tongue-lashing yesterday for the correction of all these matters that gave rise to the impression of the Court. That is our only purpose, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. to contradict that and so on. Now, insofar as the Land Registration Commissioner is concerned, we called him to the stand in order to testify on the various alleged properties which he ascribes to be belonging to the Chief Justice and we were able to elicit admissions to the effect that they were not properties registered in the name, specifically in the name of.... The Presiding Officer. That is already given, Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In fact, yesterday when Congressman Colmenares of the Prosecution made a manifestation, the tendency of which was to reconsider the ruling of this Chair, on the claim that it will only prolong the proceedings, I denied it. So, you can see that we are giving you all the time to defend the Chief Justice. We know that you are entitled to defend the Chief Justice. So, the impression or statement of the Prosecution is their position but that is not the position of this Court that you are delaying. That is why we are asking you to wind up your manifestation so that we can proceed with the hearing. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much, Your Honor, for the opportunity for being allowed to bring all these matters into the record in order to straighten, at least, the impression that may have been created, both public and upon the other parties involved in this case, that we are trying to delay. That was never our intention. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. Now, in connection with the Motion for Inhibition, Your Honor, the motion was filed because of the feeling of the Chief Justice that, at least, he may not be able to obtain the cold neutrality of a judge insofar as the subject of the motion is concerned. Now, what we did was to file. It is up for the Court.... We never stated that everything stated thereon are indubitably true, Your Honor. What we wanted to express, to give importance to the feeling of the Chief Justice in order that, if a decision is made one way or the other, there is no doubt as to the impartiality and lack of bias on the part of the deciding Members of the Senate. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, thank you for your manifestation. We now proceed with the trial. Do you have any witness? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We have. If Your Honor please, may we ask for authority for Attorney Roy to conduct the direct examination of the witness on behalf of the Defense panel, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Roy. Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honors. May I please the Court.
During my presentation, I will present two (2) witnesses who will testify on the decision pertaining to the ownership of the Basa-Guidote Corporation. I wish to state the relevance before we proceed because consistent with the mood of the Court, I wish to request for admissions. So if you will allow me some leeway, I wish to point out that The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. The relevance of the ownership, of the actual ownership of the Basa-Guidote pertains directly to matters stated in the SALN of the Chief Justice. It involves the P11 million that was borrowed and repaid, and it may involve other acquisitions which may or may not have been drawn from the BasaGuidote funds. That is why we need to present these witnesses. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. May we call to the stand the Clerk of Court of Branch 216 of the RTC of Quezon City, Lucita Cristi. The Clerk of Court. Madam Witness, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Maam. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, on the part of the Prosecution, may we ask permission that Atty. Cynthia Corazon Roxas be recognized to receive the testimony and later on to conduct the crossexamination. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Representative Tupas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Before I proceed, Your Honor, I would like to invite the Prosecution to admit the contentsfor an admission of the substance of the testimony of the Witness which, incidentally, also constitutes the purpose for which the testimony is offered. The Presiding Officer. Well, you better propound the questions first. If I were the lawyer from the other side, how can I agree with you before you open your mouth to ask the question? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, precisely. So if this Witnesswe will proceed with her testimony, first, she will testify that Criminal Cases Q96-68147 and Q96-68148 were heard before the RTC of Quezon City and these two are cases for libelous publication, entitled People of the Philippines against Jose Ma. Basa, et al., the uncle of Mrs. Cristina Corona; Second, Ms. Roxas. Just for the record, Your Honor. May I be excused? We will stipulate on that matter. Mr. Roy. Thank you. Second, her testimony is offered to establish that a decision of conviction was arrived at in these two cases, dated September 5, 2001. May I have an admission.
Ms. Roxas. We will stipulate on that. The Presiding Officer. Those are matters of record. We can even take judicial notice of those things. Just present them. Mr. Roy. If you will allow me, Your Honor, it is to expedite because it appears that the opposing Counsel is willing to stipulate anyway. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. Mr. Roy. We would be very happy if you would allow us to put these on record. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Third, that a Motion for Reconsideration was resolved dated September 2 and that the same became final on October 12, both in the year of 2002 in both cases. Ms. Roxas. We will stipulate on that matter, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Fourth, that a Writ of Execution for the said judgment was issued on April 23, 2003. Ms. Roxas. Again, we will stipulate on that matter, it being a matter of record. Mr. Roy. Your Honors, inasmuch as all the important points to be testified to by this Witness have been admitted by the Prosecution, we ask that the Witness be excused. Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please. May we be allowed? The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed. Ms. Roxas. By way of counter stipulation, will the Defense be willing to admit that insofar as the accused Jose Maria Basa is concerned, he died on August 29, 2002? Mr. Roy. We have no knowledge, Your Honor, I am sorry. Ms. Roxas. Therefore, would the Defense be also willing to stipulate that during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration which was stated by the good counsel of the Defense, there was a pending motion for reconsideration on the conviction as well as on the civil award in favor of the private complainant in this case? Mr. Roy. I am confused. There was a motion for reconsideration when? Ms. Roxas. You said that the motion for reconsideration was ruled upon. Mr. Roy. Resolved. Ms. Roxas. Resolved. Mr. Roy. And then went final on 12 October 2002. Ms. Roxas. Yes. But it is during this periodand we are going to prove thatthat on August 29, 2002, the accused Jose Maria Basa died. Mr. Roy. I am not aware of this...
10
Ms. Roxas. If the accused is not willing to stipulate on this matter, Mr. President, I am afraid that we should allow the Defense to present this Witness. Mr. Roy. Let me just verify. I am unaware of Mr. Basas death. Personally, I cannot... Ms. Roxas. But this is borne of the records. It will be part of the cross-examination. Mr. Roy. All right, we will stipulate that he passed away on August 29, did you say? The Presiding Officer. I thought you have no knowledge? Mr. Roy. No, personal, Your Honor. She says it is on the record. I will take her word for it. Anyway, the records are here, the Clerk of Court is here. Ms. Roxas. Madam Witness, we will be willing to make it of record that indeed this notice of death was given to and submitted as part of the record of the case. Mr. Roy. If you will allow me, I am on direct still, Your Honor. Ms. Roxas. No, but we are trying to expedite. Mr. Roy. Yes, I will ask her the question, I will ask her the question. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, respect this Court. Mr. Roy. With the permission of the Honorable Court, I want to establish the veracity of the proposition made by the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Madam Witness, can you please tell us whether or not there is anything in the records that attests to the death or establishes the time or date of death of the Defendant Jose M. Basa? Ms. Cristi. Wala po, wala pong notice of death. Mr. Roy. So I cannot stipulate then. Ms. Roxas. In which case, if there are no further questions on direct, may we be allowed to go directly to cross? Mr. Roy. On what, Your Honor? Ms. Roxas. Because the Witness is supposed to be here to testify on pertinent records pertaining to this case. And while we did admit the existence of several documents which transpired during the proceedings in this case, there are also several details which are indirect matters which bear, which have an importance in the proceedings. Mr. Roy. If I may, Your Honor. Perhaps, Counsel would be kind enough to request for stipulation likewise. Ms. Roxas. Okay. May we... The Presiding Officer. Point of order. You cannot stipulate. Proceed to direct the questions to the Witness. Ms. Roxas. Thank you, Your Honor.
11
Mr. Roy. Would you like to stipulate? The Presiding Officer. You are directed to proceed with your direct examination. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. With the permission of the Honorable Court. Madam Witness, can you please state for the record your personal circumstances, name and personal circumstances, I am sorry. Ms. Cristi. I am Lucita Masangkay Cristi, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of Valenzuela City. I am the Branch Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court, Branch 216, Quezon City. Mr. Roy. How long have you been the Clerk of Court of Branch 216, Madam Witness? Ms. Cristi. Since October 1999, Sir. Mr. Roy. All right. Now during your time as the Clerk of Court, are you still the current Clerk of Court? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. As Clerk of Court, Madam Witness, can you tell us whether or not you are familiar with Criminal Case Nos. Q9668147 and Q9668148? Ms. Cristi. I am familiar, Sir. Mr. Roy. All right. Can you please tell us what is the title of these cases? Ms. Cristi. This is People of the Philippines...Actually there are two cases. Mr. Roy. Yes. Ms. Cristi. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Maria Basa, Raymunda Basa, Felix Carlos Decentillo, Virgilio Macabenta, Cecilia Basa, Betsie Basa, andcan I look at my record? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the Witness be allowed to refer to the records? The Presiding Officer. Granted. Ms. Cristi. And Flor Maria Guidote-Basa. Mr. Roy. Now, Madam Witness, can you please tell the Honorable Court what was the charge or the nature of the criminal cases? If I recall correctly, this should appear on the face of the pleadings. Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, we already admitted that this is a libel case. The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. Roxas. So, there is no need for the question. Mr. Roy. The Court has directedYour Honor, may I proceed. Please go ahead. Ms. Cristi. The cases were for libel. Mr. Roy. All right. Can you please tell us whether or not and when, if any, a decision was rendered in these cases?
12
Ms. Cristi. A decision was rendered on September 5, 2001, Sir.
Mr. Roy. How many decisions were rendered because you told me earlier there were two cases? Ms. Cristi. Only one decision, Sir, because the two cases were consolidated. Mr. Roy. Does that mean that they were heard jointly? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, what was the decision of thedo you have a copy of that decision with you? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the decision has been previously marked.... Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, we would like to manifest that the Defense has already caused the marking of the same exhibit and this is Exhibit 176 for the Defense. The Presiding Officer. All right, noted. Mr. Roy. Can you tell us, Madam Witness, what is the dispositivewhat does the dispositive portion of the decision state? Can you please attest to the outcome of the decision? Ms. Roxas. We have already admitted, Your Honor, on the same, that there was a conviction. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I am a little perplexed. I thought that there had been no admissions precisely why I have been directed to proceed. Ms. Roxas. We have made several stipulations already on the matters. Perhaps, Counsel here would be able to propound questions on those matters which we have not stipulated upon. The Presiding Officer. I said disregard the stipulation. Let it be Ms. Roxas. We will submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Direct the questions and subject to the objections of the Prosecution. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. May I just therefore request that the Clerk of Court, who is here to certify the decision and to attest to its authenticity, anyway, read the dispositive portion for the benefit of the record and all concerned. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. The Witness may read the dispositive portion of the Decision. Ms. Cristi. WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-96-68147, the Court finds accused Jose Maria Basa III, Raymunda Gorospe Basa and Virgilio Macabenta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the Information for libel. And the Court sentences them to suffer the penalty of four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days as minimum to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days as maximum, ordering them to pay jointly and solidarily Cristina Basa Roco-Corona the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) moral damages; and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for attorneys fees. Accused Cecilia Henson-Basa, Betsie Basa-Chavez and Flor Maria Guidote Basa are hereby ACQUITTED.
13
In Criminal Case No. Q-96-68148, the Court finds accused Jose Maria Basa III, Raymunda Gorospe Basa and Virgilio Macabenta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the Information for Libel. The Court sentences them to suffer the penalty of four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days as minimum to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days as maximum, ordering them to pay jointly and solidarily Cristina Roco-Corona the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) for moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for attorneys fees. Accused Cecilia Henson Basa, Betsie Basa-Chavez and Flor Maria Guidote Basa are hereby ACQUITTED. Let warrant of arrest be issued for the apprehension of accused Felix Carlos Vicentillo. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, September 5, 2001. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Madam Witness. Your Honor, I would like to manifest that the decisions in both cases, I mean, the dispositive portions for both dockets are virtually identical, and that the total civil indemnity of P500,000 was part of the judgment. Now, you mentioned a.... The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I only heard P200,000 plus P20,000, and P200,000 plus P50,000. Why P500,000? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we ask the Witness to clarify. Ms. Cristi. Your Honor, in the first case, P200,000 as moral damages The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Cristi. plus P50,000 as attorneys fees. The Presiding Officer. I thought you said P20,000. So.... Ms. Cristi. P200,000, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, the attorneys fees, P50,000? Ms. Cristi. P50,000, Sir. The Presiding Officer. In the first case. Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. And that is also true in the second case. Ms. Cristi. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, I stand corrected. So, that is half a million. Proceed.
14
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, you mentioned that the decision includes an order for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Is that correct? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, can you please tell us, if anything appears on the record, what did the defendants who were convicted do? After the judgment was rendered by the Court, the Decision was rendered by the Court, what did the defendants do, the accused? Ms. Cristi. Actually, Sir, they did not appear in the promulgation of judgment. Mr. Roy. All right, what else did they do? Was there anything else they did? Ms. Cristi. They filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Sir. Mr. Roy. They filed a Motion for Reconsideration. And if I recall correctly, that was dated September 2, 2002. Am I correct? Ms. Cristi. No, Sir. Mr. Roy. When was it filed? What was the date of the Motion for Reconsideration? Ms. Cristi. October 9, 2001, but filed before our court on October 18, 2001. Mr. Roy. The date was filed on October.... Ms. Cristi. The motion was dated October 9, 2001, but the office or the court received said motion on October 18, 2001. Mr. Roy. Thank you. Now, can you tell us what did the court do with these motions for recon....One motion for reconsideration or two? Ms. Cristi. One motion, Sir. Mr. Roy. What did the court do with this Motion for Reconsideration? Ms. Cristi. The Motion for Reconsideration was set for hearing. Mr. Roy. What else? What was the resolution of the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration? Ms. Cristi. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Mr. Roy. When was this denied? Ms. Cristi. On September 2, 2002, Sir. Mr. Roy. Do you have proof of the denial? Ms. Cristi. The Order, Sir. Mr. Roy. Is there an order to that effect? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. Can you please produce the Order, Madam Witness? The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Counsel. What is the relevance of this with respect to the impeachment?
15
Mr. Roy. Your Honor, as I was pointing out earlier, this will result in the acquisition of the shares of the Basa-Guidote Corporation because of the civil indemnity. There is a levy of execution. But before that, I have to establish the finality of the judgment, Your Honor. Afterwards, we will show you that the shares of the corporation have been acquired by an individual. The Presiding Officer. Acquired by Mrs. Corona. Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor, by someone else, and that has a direct bearing on the.... The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. So, you told me that it was resolved by order of the court, on what date, Madam Witness? Ms. Cristi. On September 2, 2002, Sir. Mr. Roy. All right. And what was the resolution of the court on the order? Ms. Cristi. The dispositive portion, Sir? Mr. Roy. Yes. I think so. Ms. Cristi. Wherefore, finding no cogent reason to disturb or modify the Decision dated September 5, 2001, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, dated September 2, 2002 be marked as Defense Exhibit 249. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, may the Prosecution be allowed to likewise adopt the same as Exhibit Eleven O (OOOOOOOOOOO). The Presiding Officer. Granted. Ms. Roxas. Correction, Eleven P (PPPPPPPPPPP), Your Honor. Mr. Roy. P. Is that Eleven P? The Presiding Officer. All right, granted with that correction. Mr. Roy. Can you tell us, Madam Witness, what is the status of that Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration? Ms. Cristi. Sir, the status? Mr. Roy. Yes. What is the status? Ms. Cristi. Of the order denying the Motion for Consideration? Mr. Roy. Yes, of the denial. What happened after the denial? Ms. Cristi. The Prosecution filed a Motion for Issuance of the Writ of Execution.
16
Mr. Roy. Did the accused file anything? Ms. Cristi. No, Sir. Mr. Roy. Did the accused oppose? Ms. Cristi. No, Sir.
Mr. Roy. Did the accused file another, an appeal or anything of the sort? Ms. Cristi. There was no appeal, Sir. Mr. Roy. No appeal. In other words, what is the status now of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration? Ms. Cristi. It is already final. Mr. Roy. It is final. As of when? Ms. Cristi. As of15 days from receipt. Mr. Roy. And, according to your records, what date is that, Madam Witness? What is the date of the receipt by the accused, Madam Witness? Ms. Cristi. Actually, the counsel received the Order of Denial, Sir, on September 26, 2002. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we make of record that the Witness is showing me what appeared to be registry receipt return cards which indicate that they were received on September 26, 2002, and I invite opposing Counsel to peruse them. This was received by counsel, Madam Witness, am I correct? Ms. Cristi. Yes, sir. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the cards which appear to be registry receipts, acknowledging receipt of the order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, be marked as Defense Exhibit 250. Ms. Roxas. We manifest that The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Ms. Roxas. We join, we confirm. The Presiding Officer. But you know, Counsel, Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor, I stand corrected. These have been previously marked as Exhibit 177-A, to be marked today as Exhibit 177-A. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark it accordingly. But, Counsel, go direct to the point. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. This decision against Jose Basa, et al. became final and executory. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Was it executed?
17
Mr. Roy. The next question is precisely that. The Presiding Officer. You are too verbose. Go direct to the point. Mr. Roy. Was the Writ of Execution issued by the court? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir. Mr. Roy. When? Ms. Cristi. On April 24, 2003, Sir. Mr. Roy. All right. No further questions on the direct, Your Honor. We just have to mark the Writ of Execution. The Presiding Officer. Executed against what? Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That decision was executed for against what? Mr. Roy. Against the defendants, Your Honor, who were convicted. The Presiding Officer. Yes, and what was the effect of the execution? Mr. Roy. That will be testified to by the Sheriff, Your Honor, who is the next witness. The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. Roxas. Your Honor, please, we would like to manifest The Presiding Officer. Cross? Ms. Roxas. The defense already had this document marked as Exhibit 1the Writ of Execution as Exhibit 178. May we be allowed to have the same marked for the Prosecution as Exhibit Eleven Q (QQQQQQQQQQQ). The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly for the Prosecution. Mr. Roy. No further questions on direct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Any cross? Ms. Roxas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Proceed. Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, sinabi ninyo kanina na kayo ay nag-umpisa bilang Branch Clerk of Court noong 1999 hanggang sa ngayon, tama po ba? Ms. Cristi. Opo. Ms. Roxas. Therefore, alam ninyo po bilang taga-ingat ng lahat ng dokumento sa hukumang Branch 216, meron po kayong kaalaman o nasa kustodiya ninyo po ito? Ms. Cristi. Opo. Ms. Roxas. Pagkatapos na mag-file ng Motion for Reconsideration, tama po ba na bago maibigay o bago mabigay ng korte ang Writ of Execution, nagkaroon po dito ng Notice of
18
Withdrawal ang counsel ng akusado na si Jose Ma. Basa at mayroong pleading na sinabmit sa court. Tama po ba? Ms. Cristi. May nabasa po ako based on records. Ms. Roxas. Puwede ninyo po bang tingnan sa inyong mga record exactly kung nasaan po ang dokumentong ito? Your Honor please, just to help the witness, we have a copy of the Motion to Withdraw filed by the counsel for the accused. May we be allowed to show the same? The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed. Who was the counsel for the accused? Ms. Roxas. In this particular case, Your Honor, the counsel for the accused was the law office of Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar. This is dated December 20, 2002. Do you confirm this, Madam Witness? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Maam. Ms. Roxas. Now, this is a certified true xerox copy. Mayroon po ritong nakalagay sa ilalim certified true xerox copy Atty. Lucita D. Masangkay Cristi. Kilala po ninyo kung sino ito? Ms. Cristi. Ako po iyan, Maam. Ms. Roxas. So, pinatotohanan po ninyo itong Motion to Withdraw. Ms. Cristi. Yes, Maam. Ms. Roxas. May we ask, Your Honor please, that this document be marked as Exhibit Eleven R (RRRRRRRRRRR) for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Was that withdrawal prior to the judgment? Mr. Roxas. This was prior to the submission of a Motion for Issuance of the Writ of Execution, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, maaari po ba ninyong tingnan ang lahat ng mga dokumentong kalakip dito sa Motion to Withdraw na ito? Tama po ba na sa kahuli-hulihang pahina ng motion na ito ay mayroong isang sulat na may petsang November 26, 2002 at ang pumirma dito ay isang Ana Basa? Kinukumpirma po ba ninyo ito? Ms. Cristi. Opo. Ms. Roxas. Now, dito po sa dokumentong ito, sinabi ni Attorney Fortun na siya po ay hindi na ang magiging abogado ng akusado. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, with all due respect.... The Presiding Officer. Let the lawyer finish first. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Roxas. Can you read, Madam Witness? Maaari po bang basahin ninyo ang unang talata ng sulat na ini-attach para kay Atty. Raymond Fortun?
19
Ms. Cristi. One of the things that we had to go through, after Dads passing, aside from the emotional vacuum that he left, was to make decisions on matters and concerns that he left unfinished. Ms. Roxas. Sa inyo pong pagkakaintindi, Madam Witness, ano po ang ibig sabihin ng Dads passing? Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor, that is speculative. Ms. Roxas. Your Honor, this is the record of the case. The Presiding Officer. Denied. Ms. Roxas. Ano po ang pagkakaintindi ninyo dito sa talatang ito na lalo na ng sinabi niya na Dads passing. Ano po ang inyong pagkakaintindi doon? Ms. Cristi. Na ang kaniyang ama po ay namatay na. Ms. Roxas. So, therefore, noong November 26, 2002, as of that date, namatay na po si Jose Ma. Basa. Ms. Cristi. Opo. Ms. Roxas. Ayon kay Ana Basa na anak ng akusadong si Jose Ma. Basa. Ms. Cristi. Yes, Maam. Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, may we ask that this particular paragraph be marked as Exhibit Eleven R-1 (RRRRRRRRRRR-1). Sinabi po ninyo, Madam Witness, na alam ninyo na ito ay isang libel case. Alam po ba ninyo kung sinu-sino ang mga partido sa kasong ito? Ms. Cristi. Alam ko po. Ms. Roxas. Alam po ninyo kung ano ang kanilang relasyon sa isat isa? Ms. Cristi. Nabasa ko po sa records. Ms. Roxas. Ang private complainant po sa kasong ito ay si Cristina Corona. Ms. Cristi. Opo. Ms. Roxas. Alam po ba ninyo kung ano ang kaniyang relasyon sa namatay na Jose Ma. Basa? Ms. Cristi. Nabasa ko po na uncle niya. Ms. Roxas. Dito po nakita natin na si Attorney Fortun dinikit ang letter ni Ana Basa kung saan sinabi niya na namatay. Ang private complainant po ba dito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona, sinabi po ba niya na ang kaniyang uncle o tiyo ay namatay? Ms. Cristi. Wala po akong nabasang ganoon. Ms. Roxas. Sapagkat sa ibang kasomarami po kasing kaso ang mga Basaat sa isang kaso mayroon pong sinabmit (submit) si Mrs. Cristina Corona na kung saan sinabi niya na si Jose Ma. Basa ay namatay noong August 2002....
20
Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor. This is not part of the records that the Witness.... The Presiding Officer. I will allow the Witness to answer. Mr. Roy. Alright. Ms. Roxas. August 2002. I would like.... The Presiding Officer. Wait, Counsel. Counsel, I warn you once more. Do not interrupt the Counsel while asking the question. It is improper. Mr. Roy. I apologize, Your Honor. The President. Unethical. Mr. Roy. I apologize. Ms. Roxas. Now, I am showing to you, Madam Witness, a manifestation na kung saan ang petitioners ay si Asuncion Basa Roco at si Cristina Roco Corona, at ito ay may date....Ito ay ibinigay sa ibang korte. At dito sa paragraph (1), maaari po bang basahin ninyo? Ms. Cristi. It has come to the knowledge of petitioners that oppositor Jose Ma. Basa III passed away in Carson City, Nevada, United States of America, in August 2002. Ms. Roxas. Now, kasama po diyan kasi sa mga dokumentong iyan ay isang death certificate ni Jose Ma. Basa sa Carson City. By the way, ang dokumento pong iyan ay may petsang 11 October 2002. Okay. Now, Your Honor, please, may we request that this manifestation and motion be provisionally marked for the prosecution as Exhibit Eleven S (SSSSSSSSSSS). The Presiding Officer. Granted. Ms. Roxas. And the first paragraph as SSSSSSSSSSS-A-1. It consists of five (5) pages. Ms. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the document be similarly marked for the Defense as Exhibit 250, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, klaro dito na hindi lamang sinabi ng abogado ng akusado na siya ay nag-withdraw, sinabi niya rito na base sa impormasyon ng kanyang anak namatay ang kaniyang ama. Pagkatapos noon, just a few days after that, si Mrs. Corona mismo nag-notify sa ibang kaso na ang kaniyang tiyo ay namatay sometime in August 2002. Tama po? Ms. Cristi. Tama po. Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the ground of the objection? Mr. Roy. The objection, Your Honor, is it is immaterial. It has nothing to do with the competency of the Witness, who is the Branch Clerk of Quezon City.
21
Ms. Roxas. Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Ms. Roxas. Already answered, Your Honor, please. That there was actual notice given not only by the accused and counsel, but also by the private complainant herself, Mrs. Cristina Roco Corona. The Presiding Officer. The actual death Ms. Roxas. The actual death of the accused Jose Ma. Basa. The Presiding Officer. Happened when? Ms. Roxas. On August 29, 2002, Your Honor, in Carson City, Nevada. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, sinabi ninyo na nagkaroon ng Writ of Execution? Ms. Cristi. Yes, Maam. Ms. Roxas. Now, nagtataka lamang po ako. Kasi kung may notice na po ang korte at mismong ang private complainant dito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona ay alam na ang akusado mismo ay patay na, papaano ho magkakaroon ng iba pang proseso laban sa akusadong si Jose Ma. Basa? Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor. The question is misleading, because.... The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Ms. Cristi. Puwede pong pakiulit ang tanong? Ms. Roxas. Ibalik lamang natin, Madam Witness, para mas klaro. Iyong Motion for Reconsideration natin ang petsa ay....Ang Motion for Reconsideration natin The Presiding Officer. Ang Motion for Reconsideration.... Ms. Roxas. October 9, 2001. Okay. Ang Order granting the Writ of Execution based on the Motion for Issuance of Writ is April 24, 2003. In the middle of all these things, sa gitna ng mga pangyayaring ito, bago nagkaroon ng issuance of Writ of Execution, nagkaroon ng notice of death, despuwes, ang akusado dito mismo ay patay na. And under the Revised Penal Code, once the death of the accused happens, then both the criminal as well as civil liability is extinguished. Tama po ba? Ms. Cristi. Tama po. Ms. Roxas. Then, kung ang notice of death ay ibinigay na sa korte, papaano pong nangyari na nagkaroon pa ng Writ of Execution. Hindi po ba dapat under the Rules of Court, ang dapat pong mangyari ang private prosecution, for example, dapat na mag-submit ng separate action para sa civil indemnity na limang daang libong piso (P500,000.00)? Nangyari po ba iyon sa kasong ito? Nagkaroon ba ng filing ng separate case dahil sa pagkamatay ni Jose Ma. Basa? Ms. Cristi. Wala po. Ms. Roxas. Wala. At actually ang nangyari, na-issue ang Writ of Execution under the Order dated April 24, 2003. Actually, namatay si Jose Ma. Basa during the pendency of the Motion for
22
Reconsideration because he died actually on August 29, 2002. Iyon lamang po ang material dito August 29, 2002, namatay si Jose Ma. Basa at alam iyon ni Cristina Corona, pero nag-file pa rin po sila ng Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution against the accused Jose Ma. Basa and his wife Randy Basa kaya nagkaroon ng Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2003. Tama po ba? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the Court. Ms. Cristi. Tama po. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. The question, Your Honor, should have been addressed to the judge of record. She is merely a Clerk of Court, Your Honor. She is merely implementing....Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. She is under cross-examination, if she knows the answer. Ms. Roxas. She already answered, Justice Cuevas, and also I would just like to point out that the Witness in this case is not an ordinary witness. Mr. Cuevas. That is correct. Ms. Roxas. She is a lawyer, she is the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 216 of Quezon City, therefore, not only does she have custody of all the records in this case, she would also know the basic rules not only of the Penal Code but also of the Rules of Court. Mr. Cuevas. May we reply, Your Honor, with the kind permission of the court. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. That may be correct, Your Honor. But being merely a Clerk of Court, she has no power nor any authority to prevent the judge from acting one way or another, either denying or granting it. There is a decision in this case, there was a Motion for Reconsideration, it was denied, and therefore the decision became final. The Presiding Officer. You are questioning the competence of the Witness? Mr. Cuevas. Insofar as the issue of why the execution continued, Your Honor, because that is not within her control. Ms. Roxas. But this is your own witness, Mr. Justice. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. The question is only asking for facts. Whether there was a Writ of Execution issued after death. That is a factual issue. Mr. Cuevas. No, that is not the question, Your Honor. With due respect, Your Honor.... The Presiding Officer. What was the question? Mr. Cuevas. The question was: Why was there a Writ of Execution issued even after the death of the accused? Because, apparently, they are of the theory that the moment the accused died.... The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer, if she knows. Ms. Roxas. Already answered.
23
Mr. Cuevas. Ano ang answer? The Presiding Officer. What was the answer? Ms. Roxas. She answered, yes. The Presiding Officer. Yes, what? Ms. Roxas. Tama po na in-issue ang Writ of Execution after the death. Now, one final point, just to make things very clear. Madam Witness, you said a while ago that the Motion for Reconsideration was denied and this is in the Order of the court dated September 2, 2002, tama po? Mr. Cuevas. Admitted, Your Honor. Ms. Roxas. Admitted. Now, kanina sinabi ninyo rin nang nagbigay ako sa iyo ng mga dokumento na nagsabi na si Ana Basa sinabing ang tatay niya ay namatay at sinabi rin mismo ito ni Cristina Corona na ang uncle niya ay namatay. This date is on August 29, 2002. I think the last question I will pose on you is very, very simple. Does the date of August 29, 2002 come before the date of September 2, 2002, which was the date when the Order on the Motion for Reconsideration was issued? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, that is a matter of judicial notice. Ms. Roxas. This is a very simple question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Ms. Cristi. Yes, Maam. Ms. Roxas. Then we have no further questions for this Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Re-cross? Mr. Cuevas. No redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No redirect, okay. No more questions? Mr. Cuevas. No redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, the Witness is discharged. Ms. Cristi. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Next witness. Mr. Roy. We call our next witness to the stand, Mr. Joseph Bisnar, Sheriff of Branch 216 of the RTC of Quezon City. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request for one minute to fetch the witness. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Roy. Thank you. The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please rise. Please raise your right hand.
24
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment proceeding? Mr. Bisnar. I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you, God. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, on the part of the Prosecution, may we be allowed to call on Attorney Ginez to receive the testimony. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, again, I would like to present Mr. Bisnar in order to establish the execution of the decision testified to by the previous witness. And, again, I would like to, in the course of stating the purpose for which we are offering his testimony, invite the Prosecution to admit the same if they are so inclined. The testimony of this Witness is being offered for the purpose of establishing that a Writ of Execution was issued in Criminal Cases Q96-68147 and Q96-68148 by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution?
Mr. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor, but subject to cross-examination on the implementation of the Writ of Execution. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Secondly, his testimony is offered to establish that he was the one who executed the Writ of Execution in the said cases. Mr. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Third, that the execution did, in fact, take place on September 30, 2003. Mr. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. And that, in fact, in the course of the execution, a total of 4,729 shares of the BasaGuidote Enterprises.... The Presiding Officer. How much? Mr. Roy. Four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729), Your Honor The Presiding Officer. Four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729). Mr. Roy. shares of the Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. were sold for the amount of twentyfive thousand pesos (P25,000.00). The Presiding Officer. Sold for the price of P25,000. Mr. Roy. At public auction, Your Honor.
25
The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. Yes. The Presiding Officer. What is the total capitalization of the corporation? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I am not mistaken, the authorized capital stock is 10,000 shares. The Presiding Officer. All issued and outstanding? Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. Only about five thousand three hundred twenty-five (5,325) were issued. The Presiding Officer. Who were the stockholders of the the corporation? Mr. Roy. They are all members of the Basa-Guidote The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly, if you know, state them into the Record? Mr. Roy. I do not have the list with me right now, Your Honor, but may I be allowed to submit them through a manifestation? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, the second The Presiding Officer. Who were the registered owners of this four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729) shares against which the Writ of Execution was levied? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729) shares belong to the Defendant, Jose Basa. The Presiding Officer. All of it? Mr. Roy. Yes. Yes, Your Honor. And in addition, another one hundred ten (110) shares were also executed against the co-accused or co-defendant, Raymunda Basa. The Presiding Officer. So, out of Five Hundred Mr. Roy. Five thousand three two five (5,325). The Presiding Officer. Five thousand (5,000), the balance is six (6) Mr. Roy. Four eight three nine (4,839), Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Nine (9)four seven three six (4,736)? Mr. Roy. Four thousand eight hundred three nine (4,839), Your Honor. One hundred ten (110) shares to Raymunda Basa. So, four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine (4,839) shares were auctioned off for a total amount of twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00). The Presiding Officer. If you subtract four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine shares (4,729) from five thousand three hundred twenty-five (5,325), what is the balance?
26
Mr. Roy. Four hundred eighty-six (486), Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Four eighty-six (486). And who are the owners of this four eighty-six (486)? Mr. Roy. I think Sister Flory Basa would be one of them, although I am not certain as to the remainder. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Mr. Roy. And that this four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729) shares and the one hundred ten (110) shares that were auctioned off by Sheriff Bisnar The Presiding Officer. Four thousand (4,000) Mr. Roy. Seven two nine (729). The Presiding Officer. Seven two nine (729). Mr. Roy. And one hundred ten (110) The Presiding Officer. One hundred ten (110). Mr. Roy. belonging to Raymunda Basa, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Was she a respondent in the case? Mr. Roy. Yes, she was convicted as well, Mr. President. And that total, that sum of shares was sold at public auction for twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00) to one Carla Corona Castillo, the daughter of the Chief Justice. Mr. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. In that case, Your Honor, I can dispense with the direct. The Presiding Officer. And this is the owner of the property that was sold to Mr. Roy. To the city of Manila, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. to the city of Manila? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. For thirty four (34) Mr. Roy. Point seven (7) million. The Presiding Officer. Point seven million (P34.7). Mr. Roy. Yes. The Presiding Officer. That was the asset of the corporation. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. And the purpose for establishing these facts is to demonstrate to the Court that whatever it is was done with the so-called Basa-Guidote funds will, in effect, be capable of ratification by the purchaser of the shares as the virtually the sole stockholder.
27
The Presiding Officer. And when was the sale to the city of Manila? Mr. Roy. That was in 2001, if I am not mistaken, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2001. And the acquisition of the shares by Carla Corona? Mr. Roy. 2003, Your Honor, September 30. The Presiding Officer. And the shares were only sold for twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00)? Mr. Roy. Twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00) in all, Your Honor, in public auction, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. For a corporation that has an asset of thirty-four point seven million (P34.7 million)? Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, go ahead. Mr. Roy. So, I want to know if the opposing Counsel is willing to stipulate. Mr. Ginez. We stipulated already on the fact of the sale, Your Honoron the fact of the issuance of the Certificate of Sale in favor of Carla Castillo, subject to cross, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. All right. Now, we alsoYour Honor, then that is The Presiding Officer. By the way Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. for the information of this Court, this is a peripheral issue but, nonetheless, since you connect it with the Impeachment Case, what was the percentage of this four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine (4,839) to the totality of the shares of stock of the corporation? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, mathematically, that amounts to 90.87 percent. The Presiding Officer. 90.87 percent. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Three percent was the minority? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Did the minority get paid for their shares? Mr. Roy. Not yet, Your Honor. The remaining shares of 485 or 486 have not been acquired by either the Chief Justice or his daughter. They remain in the hands of theif I am not mistaken, some of the siblings of Mrs The Presiding Officer. Is the corporation liquidated? Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. It has not been liquidated.
28
The Presiding Officer. Not yet. Is the board of directors constituted? Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. It is not an operational corporation.
The Presiding Officer. When the property of the corporation was sold to the City of Manila, was there a stockholders meeting to authorize the sale of all or substantially all of their shares? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. There was a valid and legitimate board authorization issued by the board of directors previouslyah, by the stockholders previously. The Presiding Officer. Was there an actual transfer of the shares of stock to the buyer? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, there appears to be a problem with respectthe certificate of sale is construed as the transfer of the shares of stock. The registration of the sale, Your Honor, has not been completed because up to this time, the stock and transfer book has neither been located nor reconstituted. The Presiding Officer. Then who votedwho are the stockholders who voted to authorize the sale of all or substantially all of the shares of the corporation? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the sale of the shares was by virtue of public auction. The Presiding Officer. No, no. I am talking about the sale of the land. Mr. Roy. Ah, the property? The Presiding Officer. The land. Mr. Roy. The property, Your Honor, had been previously authorized even before the corporation ceased operations. A Power of Attorney was issued in favor of Cristina Corona. The Presiding Officer. By whom? Mr. Roy. By the stockholders and the persons in control of the corporation, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Just for the record, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Yes. I think we can refer to the records. The authority of Cristina Corona was issued by the board of directors, not by the stockholders. It is the board of directors, a 14-year old authorization by the board of directors, not the stockholders, Mr. President. Just for the record. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. So, it is not the stockholders consent. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, you are all great corporation lawyers. You better study this angle, ha? Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, that is correct. The board of directors who issued that authorization were also the stockholders of the corporation. At any rate, it was not a stockholders meeting. The Presiding Officer. Even then, even then. Mr. Roy. Anyway, that is the point of the Witness, Your Honor, to establish that the bulk of the shares of the Basa-Guidote Corporation are now owned by Carla Corona-Castillo, the daughter of the Chief Justice. And if
29
The Presiding Officer. And so, the money went tothe proceeds of the sale of the property of Basa-Guidote, P34.7 million, went to Carla Corona? Mr. Roy. That is not quite how it happened, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why not if she is the owner of the corporation? Mr. Roy. As in fact, we will establish later on, this was entrusted to its current custodians. The Presiding Officer. For what? Mr. Roy. It is a matter between family members, Your Honor, and we will show that she entrusted the management of the funds. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, we will come to that, but I will tell you, my understanding of corporation law is, all the proceeds of the corporation property, if sold, will go to the stockholders. Mr. Roy. That is right. The Presiding Officer. Not to anyone else. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Ginez. We will proceed with our cross, Your Honor? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, just a few questions with the sheriff, if you do not mind. Mr. Witness, Good afternoon. Mr. Bisnar. Good afternoon po. Mr. Roy. Yes. Please speak into the microphone. Now, you were the one who executed the writ of execution, am I correct? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Roy. Can you pleasepuwede niyo bang sabihin sa amin, ano pong ginagawa niyo pag pinapatupad ninyo po iyongnoong pinatupad niyo po itong Writ of Execution na pinag-uusapan po rito? Mr. Bisnar. Noong una po, nagpa-receive po ako ng kopya ng Writ of Execution. Sa case po nito, sinabay ko na po ang pag-serve ng Writ of Execution at saka Notice of Garnishment po. Mr. Roy. Mayroon pa po ba kayong ibang ginagawa sa pagpapatupad po nitong mga Writ of Execution? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Pag natanggap na po iyong Writ of Execution at saka iyong Notice of Garnishment at mayroon pong makukuhamayroon po silang ibinigay na, in this case po, iyong may stock sila na binibigay na puwedeng i-garnish, sinet (set) ko po for auction sale iyong shares of stock. Mr. Roy. Papaano ninyo po pinapaalam itong pag-set for auction sale na sinasabi ninyo? Papaano ninyo po ina-anunsiyo itong auction sale?
30
Mr. Bisnar. On the day of the auction sale po?
Mr. Roy. Kung maari lang, pakisalaysay lahat ng paraan kung papaano ninyo po inaanunsiyo iyong auction sale. Although alam naman natin iyan, papaano ninyo ba ginagawa iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Pagka na-receive na po iyong notice of sheriffs sale, i-se-set po ang sale for auction, in this case, sinet (set) ko ng September 30 Mr. Roy. Oo nga ho, papaano ninyo po inanunsiyo sa publiko? Mr. Bisnar. Sa publiko po, sa takdang oras po eh tinatanong ko kung mayroong The Presiding Officer. Hindi basandali lang. Hindi ba mayroong publication iyan sa peryodiko? Mr. Bisnar. In this case po, wala po dahil The Presiding Officer. Bakit? Mr. Bisnar. posting lang po ito. The Presiding Officer. Ha? Mr. Bisnar. Ang publication po yata eh sa real property. The Presiding Officer. O, sige. Kung shares of stock, walang publication? Mr. Bisnar. Sa pagkaka-alam ko po, wala na po. Posting lang po. The Presiding Officer. O sige. Mr. Roy. Ito po ba ay ginawa ninyo? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Roy. Saan ninyo po pinost (post) itong sinasabi ninyong paalala?
Mr. Bisnar. Sa bulletin board po ng courtroom ng Branch 216. Mr. Roy. Ito po ba ay pangkaraniwang gawain? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Roy. Sa madaling salita, pinost (post) ninyo doon sa Bulletin Board at ang petsang nakatakda para sa auction ay ano po? Mr. Bisnar. Puwede sa record ko? Mr. Roy. Sige po. Mr. Bisnar. September 30, 2003. Mr. Roy. September 30, 2003. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Roy. Noon pong araw na iyon, ano po ang ginawa ninyo para ipatupad ito pong Writ of Execution matapos ninyo pong i-post iyong notice doon sa bulletin board?
31
Mr. Bisnar. Noong September 30 nga po, noong bandang o bago mag ika-sampu po ng umaga, bumaba ho ako sa lobby ng Hall of Justice at doon po ay tinanong ko kung mayroon mga interesadong mag-bid doon sa shares of stock. Mr. Roy. Mayroon po bang sumagot? Mr. Bisnar. Ang sumagot po ay isang tao lamang. Mr. Roy. Sino po kung natatandaan ninyo? Mr. Bisnar. Si Carla Castillo po. Mr. Roy. Mayroon pa po bang ibang tao na dumalo doon sa auction? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Wala po maliban po kay Mrs. Corona. Mr. Roy. Mayroon pa po bang iba?
Mr. Bisnar. Wala na po. Iyong abogado po nila. Mr. Roy. Iyong mga abogado. So samakatuwid po, iyong mga naroroon noong ipatupad ninyo po iyong auction ay si Carla Castillo Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Corona Mr. Bisnar. Mrs. Corona po. Mr. Roy. at? Mr. Bisnar. Iyong lawyer ho yata nilalawyer ho nila. Mr. Roy. At siyempre kayo. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Roy. O, iyon. O, ano ho ang nangyari noong nandoon na ho silang lahat at nagsabi na sila ay interesadosino ho ang nagsabing interesado siya doon sa binebenta ninyong mga shares of stock? Mr. Bisnar. Si Carla Castillo po. Mr. Roy. Si Carla Castillo. Ano po ang ginawa ninyo noong nagsabi siya na siya ay interesado? Mr. Bisnar. Noong isinigaw ko nga po na may interested na bidder, eh noong wala pong ibang sumasagot, sinimulan ko na po iyong auction sale. At pagkatapos po noon, nag-bid nga po si Carla Castillo. Mr. Roy. Ano po ang bid niya kung inyong natatandaan? Mr. Bisnar. Ang bid po niya for the total shares eh P28,000 po. Mr. Roy. Magkano po iyong pinatutupad ninyo pong The Presiding Officer. Magkano, magkano?
32
Mr. Bisnar. Twenty-eight thousand pesos po. The Presiding Officer. Ano ang par value ng shares? Mr. Bisnar. Ako po, hindi ko alam po.
The Presiding Officer. Does the Counsel know the par value of the shares? Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor, I haveactually I have the Articles of Incorporation here but I am not sure whether it is stated, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Ten pesos, P100? Mr. Roy. One hundred pesos each, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. So, you are talking here of 4,839 shares. That means, you have P483,900 worth of shares at par value. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And given the value of the property at that time of the sale which was sold at P34,700,000, the fair market value of the share is a lot, lot, lot, lot more than the par value. Mr. Roy. That appears to be the case, Your Honor. Although may I point out that ... The Presiding Officer. We just establish that as a fact. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Well, Your Honor, I am sorry but theWell, that is the par value. The shares were merely subscribed, I think, at that time. So... The Presiding Officer. Nevertheless Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. With respect to the property... The Presiding Officer. the value behind those shares is, at least, P34.7 million, huh? Mr. Roy. Insofar as the property is concerned, Your Honor, yes. If I may proceed, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Roy. So, Mr. Witness, sabi niyo po na nag-bid nga po ng P28,000. Ano po ang ginawa niyo? Mr. Bisnar. Noong nag-bid po ng P28,000 at wala naman pong ibang bidders na, in-award na ho sa kanya iyong shares of stocks na ano... Mr. Roy. Kanino po? Sino po siya? Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po. Mr. Roy. In-award niyo po iyong shares of stock na in-auction? Mr. Bisnar. Opo, bale ho siya ang nanalo.
33
The Presiding Officer. Si Mrs. Corona ba ay hindi nag-bid? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. The Presiding Officer. Pero siya ang inatasan na magbenta noong lupa, hindi ba? Mr. Roy. He would not know, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking kung alam niya. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo alam? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam. The Presiding Officer. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Pagkatapos pong na-award sa kanya, ano po ang ginawa niyo? Mr. Bisnar. Nag-issue po ako ng receipt on behalf of Mrs. Corona. Iyon nga po, ginawa ko ang receipt po tapos pinirmahan po ni Mrs. Corona. Mr. Roy. Maaari niyo bang ipaliwanag sa amin, ano ho ba ang ibig sabihin noong receipt na in-issue? The Presiding Officer. Look, ha, may I justAng bumili noong shares of stock, anak ni Mrs. Corona? Mr. Bisnar. Opo, si Carla Castillo po. The Presiding Officer. Ang tumanggap noong pera doon sa anak na bumili noong shares of stock ang nanay, si Mrs. Corona, di ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. The Presiding Officer. At sang-ayon sa mga dokumento na nandito na sa Impeachment Court, si Mrs. Corona ay ahente noong korporasyon upang ipagbili iyong lupa. Samakatuwid, alam niya ang presyo noong lupa na ipinagbibili niya. All right. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. So, nag-issue po kayo ng receipt mula kay Mrs. Corona katibayan ng pagbayad po noong shares, tama po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Roy. Tapos meron pa po ba kayong ginawa? Ano pang dokumento ang inisyu niyo sa kanila? Mr. Bisnar. Pagkatapos po noon, gumawa po ako ng Certificate of Sale. Mr. Roy. Ano po ang nilalaman noong iyong Certificate of Sale, kung naalala niyo?
34
Mr. Bisnar. Nandito po.
The Presiding Officer. Submit the Certificate of Sale. That will be the best evidence. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, actually, it has been marked. But may I request that the receipt that was mentioned earlier by the sheriff be adopted as Defense Exhibit No. 251. The Presiding Officer. I do not think there is any question about the payment of that consideration for the bid. Mr. Roy. Just for the record, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is there any? Are you questioning that Carla Corona paid that x amount for the 4,839 shares with a par value of P100 each? Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No. No question. Mr. Roy. Very well, Your Honor. In which case, I am done with my direct examination, Your Honor, may I request anyway that the receipt nonetheless be marked. Anyway, there appears to be no objection from the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Mark it. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. With that, Your Honor, I have no further questions. The Presiding Officer. Cross? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Magandang hapon po, Sheriff Bisnar. Mr. Bisnar. Magandang hapon po. Mr. Ginez. Sabi po niyo, kayo ay sheriff ng Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Ilang taon na po kayong sheriff ng nasabing korte? Mr. Bisnar. Mula pa noong 1994. Mr. Ginez. Nineteen? Mr. Bisnar. Ninety-four. Mr. Ginez. So masasabi po natin na kayo ay nasa mga 16 years ng sheriff sa korteng ito, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Puwede na po. Oo. Mr. Ginez. Salamat po. Maaari rin natin pong sabihin at kayo ay sasang-ayon sa akin na sa loob ng 16 years na pagiging sheriff po ninyo, kayo ay bihasa at alam na alam na ninyo ang mga alituntunin at patakaran ng pagpapa-implement ng Writ of Execution, hindi po ba?
35
Mr. Bisnar. Hindi naman ho bihasang-bihasa pero marunong na po siguro. Mr. Ginez. Ito pong pinag-uusapan natin ay ang Rule 39 ng Rules of Court, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Ito pong Writ of Execution, mayroon po ba kayong kopya ng Writ of Execution marked as Exhibit 178 of the Defendants Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. of the Respondent. Ito pong Writ of Execution na pinirmahan noong judge ng korteng ito, ay kayo ay inaatasan na ito ay i-implement particularly ang award of civil damages sa dalawang kasong ito na ang total ay P500,000, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Now, Sheriff, tama po bang sabihin na bago niyo i-implement ang Writ of Execution ay kailangan ninyong i-familiarize at alamin ang mga nangyari bago ma-isyu iyung Writ of Execution sa records ng korte, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Ang sa akin po kung ano pong inaatas sa akin na Writ of Execution ay iyun lang po ang tanging importante. Mr. Ginez. Kanina po sa isang testigo ay inilabas ng Prosecution ang isang Motion to Withdraw na ipinayl (file) ng dating abogado ni Jose Maria Basa III, at iyung kalakip doon sa Motion to Withdraw ay ang sulat ni Anna Basa sa abogado na Fortun-Narvasa-Salazar. Ipapakita ko po sa inyo, Sheriff. Mr. Roy. We admit the existence of the document, Your Honor. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Tama po bang sabihin, Sheriff, na nalaman ninyo at The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang, ano ang answer nung Witness? Mr. Bisnar. Wala pa akong Mr. Ginez. Ipinapakita ko pa lang. I will ask the question now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Ginez. Tama po bang sabihin, Sheriff, na nalaman ninyo na ang pagkaka-file nitong Motion to Withdraw at ang kalakip na sulat ni Ana Basa sa korte na nagsasabi na ang kanyang tatay, isa sa mga akusado na pinagbabayad dito sa korteng ito ng limang daan libong piso, ay patay na, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Ngayon ko pa lang po nalaman ito. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, kayo sabi ninyo kanina, kayo ay pamilyar sa alituntunin natin sa pagi-implement ng Writ of Execution, alam po ba ninyo ang Section 7, Rule 39 ng Rules of Court regarding execution in case of death of party?
36
Ito po, babasahin ko sa inyo, particularly po iyung paragraph (d), In case of death of the judgment obligor against his executor or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or personal property or for the enforcement of a lien thereon. Alam po ba ninyo ito? Mr. Bisnar. Nabasa ko na ho minsan. Mr. Ginez. Ibig sabihin, Sheriff, na pag mayroon na kayong Writ of Execution, at napagalaman ninyo na ang akusado sa kasong ito ay namatay na depende ang gagawin ninyo kung ang inuutos ng korte ay recovery of real property or personal property or for pinagbabayad siya ng sum of money, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ba, Sheriff, alam din ninyo na pag ang utos ng korte sa Writ of Execution ay pinagbabayad siya ng pera kagaya sa korteng ito ng P500,000, hindi po ba pag patay na ang akusado, hindi na po puwedeng i-implement ang writ of execution? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi koin this case po, hindi ko naman alam na patay na. Mr. Ginez. Pero alam po ba ninyo na ang ipinag-uutos ng batasng Rule 39 at ng Section 5, Rule 86 ng Rules of Court na pag ang utos eh sabi ko nga sa inyo, pinagbabayad ng sum of money, ang Writ of Execution sa isang patay na ay hindi na dapat ginagawa, hindi po ba? Alam po ninyo iyan. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi kohindi ho ako masyadong familiar doon. Mr. Ginez. Akala ko po kanina, Sheriff, sabi ninyo hindi kayo bihasa pero sabi ninyo marunong at nabasa ninyo naman na ang Rules of Court. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I think Counsel is arguing with the Witness. The sheriff answered he did not know. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko nga ho alam yung tungkol sa rule na iyon na ano. Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ninyo alam. Mr. Bisnar. Oho. Mr. Ginez. Wala pa pong pagkakataon na kayo ay naisyuhan ng Writ of Execution na ang isang party ay patay na? Mr. Bisnar. Ang pagkakatanda ko po wala po. Wala po. Mr. Ginez. So, ito ang unang pagkakataon ngayong nalaman ninyo na na si Jose Maria Basa III ay patay na bago ma-issue yung Writ of Execution? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Ito ang unang pagkakataon? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Ngayon ko pa lang po nalaman.
37
Mr. Ginez. Ngayon, itong Rules of Court po natin ay mayroon ding specific na section kung papaano natin i-implement ang isang tinatawag na judgment for money at ito ay nakalagay sa Section 9, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Bago po tayo pumunta diyan, hindi po ba, Sheriff, kayo po ay nag-issue ng sheriffs report sa mga ginawa po ninyo? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. At ito po ay dated March 16, 2012. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Kailan nga po ba ninyo ginawa yung auction sale dito? Mr. Bisnar. 2003 po. Mr. Ginez. 2003 at kayo ay nagbigay ng sheriffs report, 2012. Ilang taon po ang nakaraan bago kayo nakagawa ng sheriffs report? Mr. Bisnar. Siyam po. Mr. Ginez. Ipapakita ko po sa inyo ang sheriffs report, certified true xerox copy ni Atty. Lucita D. Masangcay ... Mr. Roy. Your Honor, we admit the sheriffs report. We admit the date as well. Mr. Ginez. We request that it be marked as our Exhibit Eleven T (TTTTTTTTTTT), Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Roy. May we likewise adopt the exhibit as Defense Exhibit 252, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba nakalagay dito sa ating Rules of Court, ito po kasi ang atin pong kumbaga tawagin nating biblia nating mga abogado at mga sheriff, hindi po ba nakalagay po dito sa sheriffs reportsa Rules of Court natin at babasahin ko po para sa inyong benefit: Section 14. Return of Writ of Execution. The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. Hindi po ba ang itinatakda at ang iniuutos sa inyo ng Rules of Court natin sa binasa ko ay immediately, whether partial or full ang satisfaction? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Ang siyam na taon po ba ay immediate, Sheriff? Mr. Bisnar. Kung puwede po akong magpaliwanag, may... Mr. Ginez. Katungkulan po iyan ng abogado ng Depensa para kayo ay magpaliwanag. Salamat po, Sheriff.
38
Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Ginez. Now, Sheriff, hindi po ba dito sa ating Rules of Court pag mayroon kayong mga hindi ginawa na hindi ayon sa ating Rules of Court kayo ay puwedeng makasuhan o mapagbayad? Ito po ay babasahin ko, tatanungin ko lang po sa inyo kung alam ninyo ito. Ito po ay ang Section 17. Penalty for Selling Without Notice or Removing or Defacing Notice. An officer selling without the notice prescribed by Section 15 of this Rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in the amount of P5,000 to any person injured thereby, in addition to his actual damages, both to be recovered by motion in the same action. Ngayon, Sheriff, in connection dito sa binasa ko, sabi ninyo sa pamamagitan at sa pagsagot sa tanong ng abugado ng Depensa, kayo ay nag-posting? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba tama na sabihin natin na ang lahat ng ating mga ginawa sa execution, di po ba dapat iyan ay nakalagay sa ating sheriffs report? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Dapat lahat, anumang detalye, dahil ito ay tinatakda ng ating Revised Rules of Court at ito ay napaka-importante dahil ang sinasabi ng mga desisyon ay dapat mandatorily complied all requirements of execution in order that the said execution and subsequent sale shall be valid, hindi po ba dapat nandiyan lahat sa inyong sheriffs report, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Dapat po, siguro po. Mr. Ginez. Pakibasa nga po ninyo, dalawang pahina ninyo na sheriffs report. Pakibasa po ninyo at tingnan po ninyo ang sheriffs report. Nandiyan po, ibinigay ko ho sa inyo iyong certified true copy. Mr. Bisnar. Sheriffs report po. Mr. Ginez. Opo. Mr. Bisnar. Mayroon po akong kopya. Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ba, Sheriffbasahin po ninyong maigi line by linewala kayong sinasabi diyan sa sheriffs report na kayo ay nag-posting ng notice of sheriffs sale ng mga nasabing shares of stock? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko nga ho nailagay. Mr. Ginez. Salamat po. So pinapaalalahanan ko po kayo, na kayo ay puwedeng maging liable ng punitive damages ng P5,000 and actual damages sa ginawa po ninyong pagbebenta na walang notice. Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, with the kind permission of the Honorable Court, may we be referred most specifically with the section involved? We are trying to locate that any and all things that took place must be recorded in the sheriffs report. We accidentally nowhave been teaching the subject.
39
The Presiding Officer. Counsel may do so. Mr. Cuevas. Ano ho bang section iyon? Mr. Ginez. Section 17. We cited Section 17 insofar as the punitive and actual damages, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Rule 39? Mr. Ginez. Rule 39, Your Honor. Insofar as all matters taken up in the execution should be stated in the sheriffs report and that is. Mr. Cuevas. With the permission of the Court, where is that particular statement that the sheriff must. The Presiding Officer. The Counsel said Rule 39, Section 17. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We were trying to inform ourselves again of Section 17, we see nothing to that effect. That is the basis of our observation. That the sheriff must include any and all acts performed by him, for instance, the posting of the notice and everything which must be made immediately. We do not see that in the. May we be allowed to read Section 17, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Penalty for Selling Without Notice, or Removing or Defacing Notice. They are entirely a different subject matter, Your Honor. Selling Without Notice, or Removing, or Defacing NoticeAn officer selling without the notice prescribed by Section 15 of the rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in the amount of P5,000 to any person injured thereby, in addition to his actual damages, both to be recovered by a motion in the same action and a person willfully removing or defacing the notice posted, if done before the sale, or before the satisfaction of the judgment if it be satisfied before the sale, shall be liable to pay P5,000 to any person injured by reason thereof in addition to his actual damages to be recovered. So there is nothing mentioned in here that the sheriff is under legal obligation to place in the sheriffs report all the proceeding and the action taken by him. That is our point of observation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. He is under cross. Mr. Ginez. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I will go to another point actually, Your Honor. Sheriff, di ba tinanong ko kayo kanina na ang utos sa inyo ng korte, ng Branch 216, ay pagbayarin si Jose Maria Basa at iyong mga kasama niyang mga akusadong na-convict ng limang daang libong piso. And you will agree with me na ito po ay isang judgment for money, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. At ito po ay covered ng Section 9, Rule 39 ng Rules of Court. Hindi po ba, sheriff? Natatandaan ninyo po ba iyan?
40
Mr. Bisnar. Section 9 po, hindi ko na natatandaan.
Mr. Ginez. Ang paragraph (a) po niyan ang nakalagay dito, Immediate Payment on Demand. Babasahin ko po para sa inyong kapakinabangan. The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the lawful amounts stated in the Writ of Execution and all lawful fees. Sheriff, hindi po ba sinabi ninyo kanina sa pagtatanong ng abogado ng Defensa na ang ginawa ninyo ay isinerb (serve) ninyo iyong Writ of Execution noong.... Tama po bang sabihin na noong araw ding iyon ay isinerb (serve) ninyo ang Notice of Garnishment. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. So, magsasang-ayon po ba kayo sa akin na hindi ninyo tinupad ang sinasabi noong paragraph (a) ng Section 9 na kailangan muna na kayo ay mag-demand na bayaran ng kung sinumang akusado ang nakalagay sa Writ of Execution? Wala po kayong ginawa na ganoon. Hindi po ba, Sheriff? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Kasi wala roon iyong akusado. Mr. Ginez. Wala nga po dahil patay na siya, hindi ba? Mr. Bisnar. At that time, hindi ko alam. Ang kuwan doon ay iyong caretaker nila. Mr. Ginez. Okay. Now, in fact, Sheriff, sa korte, nakalagay naman doon kung ano ang mga address ng akusadosila Raymunda at sila Mario Basa. Hindi ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. At ang kanilang address po ay Libis, Quezon City, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Eh, iyong Writ of Execution po ninyo at ang Notice of Garnishment eh sinerb (serve) ninyo sa 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila. Tama po ba iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Tama po. Kasi po sa mga returns po ng mga order ng court at saka mga notices, ang returns doon ay unknown na iyong mga akusado sa lugar na iyon. Mr. Ginez. Maitanong ko po, Sheriff. Sino po ba ang nagsabi sa inyo na ang Basa-Guidote Enterprises na ito ay nasa 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila? Ang private complainant po ba rito, si Cristina Corona? Mr. Bisnar. Ang nagsabi po yata noon ay ang lawyers nila. Mr. Ginez. Ang lawyers ni Cristina Corona. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Natatandaan ninyo po ito, tandang-tanda ninyo? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. At ito po, Sheriff, ay tinanggap ninyo na hook, line, and sinker kumbaga. Iyon nga ba ang ibig ninyong sabihin?
41
Mr. Bisnar. Ang alin po? Mr. Ginez. Na ang Basa-Guidote Enterprises ay nasa 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila. Mr. Bisnar. Dahil iyon po ang ibinigay nung information nila. Mr. Ginez. Hindi na po kayo nagsiyasat sa ating Securities and Exchange Commission kung saan nga ba talaga itong sinasabi nilang Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi na po. Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ninyo nalaman na ang Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. ay nasa 903 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila. Hindi na ninyo nalaman iyan? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi na po. Mr. Ginez. Dahil hindi na kayo nagsiyasat sa SEC. Hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Mr. Ginez. Kayo ay naniwala na sa mga abogado ni Cristina Corona. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. At saka po ang sumagot po roon sa Notice of Garnishment ay assistant corporate secretary ng Basa-Guidote. Mr. Ginez. Ito po ay si Cristina Corona. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Sinabi niya sa inyo na siya ay assistant corporate secretary. Mr. Bisnar. Ang sabi ng records po. Mr. Ginez. Oo. Hindi ninyo na rin ito inalam sa SEC na totoo nga ba kaya na siya ay assistant corporate secretary. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na po inalam. Mr. Ginez. Again, you accepted it hook, line, and sinker kung ano ang sinabi sa inyo ni Ginang Corona. Ano ang sagot po ninyo, Sheriff? Mr. Bisnar. Opo, dahil iyon ang isinabmit (submit) niyang records sa court. Mr. Ginez. Ngayon, noong nagpunta po kayo rito sa sinasabing Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc., 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila, sasang-ayon po kayo sa akin na ito ay hindi opisina, hindi ba? Mr. Bisnar. Matagal na po iyon pero iyon nga po, lumang bahay siya. Mr. Ginez. Lumang bahay. Hindi ninyo po ba napag-alam o sinabi man lamang sa inyo ni Ginang Corona na iyong 901 Lepanto Street, Sampaloc, Manila, ay iyon ang bahay, lumang bahay o ancestral house noong kanyang mga magulang? Hindi po ba niya sinabi sa inyo iyan? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po niya sinabi. Mr. Ginez. So, pagdating po ninyo doon, sa lumang bahay, sa 901 Lepanto Street, wala kayong nakita doon na karatula na Basa-Guidote Enterprises.
42
Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na po matandaan kung mayroon man o wala.
Mr. Ginez. Okay. So, wala rin kayong mga nakitang empleyado doon o mga office workers doon, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Ang lumabas lamang po nga iyong caretaker po. Mr. Ginez. Caretaker. Ito po ba ay si Celebrada C. Pardines? Mr. Bisnar. Iyon po ang pakilala niya sa akin. Mr. Ginez. Pakilala niya, at hindi niya kilala kung sinuman, kung sino si Jose Maria Basa III, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Pagkatanda ko po, ang sabi po niya, bihira lamang po pumunta doon, parang ganoon. Mr. Ginez. At hindi taga-doon si Jose Maria Basa, sinabi niya sa inyo? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po niya sinabi iyon. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba kapag ang sinasabi ng ating Revised Rules of Court na kapag shares of stocks ang ating ii-implement or ang ating iga-garnish eh dapat susundin natin ang Rule 57, Section 7, paragraph C. Basahin ko po sa inyo dahil baka hindi po ninyo naaalala. Stocks or shares or an interest.... Basahin ko po muna ito: Section 7. Attachment of Real and Personal Property Recording Thereof. Real and personal property shall be attached by the sheriff, executing the writ in the following manner: C) Stocks or shares or an interest in stocks or shares of any corporation or company by leaving with the president or managing agent thereof, a copy of the writ and a notice stating that the stock or interest of the party against whom the attachment is issued is attached in pursuance of such writ. Ang tanong ko muna, preliminary, Sheriff, hindi po ito ang unang pagkakataon na kayo po ay nagga-garnish ng isang shares of stocks o nagle-levy ng isang shares of stocks, hindi po ba? Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the basis? Mr. Roy. Misleading, Your Honor. The rule pertains to attachment. The Presiding Officer. What is misleading? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the rule cited by counsel is the Rule on Attachment. The sheriff is testifying on execution. These are two entirely different rules. Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, the Revised Rules of Court provides that if the property to be levied is a personal property or shares of stocks. Your Honor, it specifically says that it will be attached in accordance with the same rules that provide for the preliminary attachment. That is basic, I can cite the rule. The Presiding Officer. Objection overruled. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. So, may tanong po ako, Sheriff. Hindi po ito ang unang pagkakataon na kayo po ay naglevy ng shares of stocks ng isang kumpanya sa loob ng inyong 16 years bilang isang sheriff?
43
Mr. Cuevas. The question is vague, levy under what? Levy under execution or levy under attachment because levy is.... Mr. Ginez. I will clarify again, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Kindly clarify. The Presiding Officer. May I request the Counsel to let the question to be finished? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. I will clarify. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ito ang unang pagkakataon, Sheriff, na kayo ay nag-levy by execution ng shares of stocks ng isang kumpanya, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Sa pagkakatanda ko po, ito po ang first time, ang shares of stocks. Mr. Ginez. Sa loob po ng 16 na taon, ito po ang unang pagkakataon, Sheriff? Mr. Bisnar. Sa pagkakatanda ko po. Mr. Ginez. Maaaring may nangyari na in the past pero hindi ninyo na matatandaan, tama po ba iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po akong matandaan. Mr. Ginez. Now, ang sinasabi po dito sa binasa ko kanina, paragraph C of Section 7, Rule 57, na ang levying ng shares of stock ay dapat iniiwan po ninyo sa presidente or managing agent ng kumpanya. Dito ba sa inyong notice of garnishment, kanino po ba ninyo iniwan ang notice of garnishment? Mr. Cuevas. Again, with the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court, Your Honor, we have objected to this question because the provision of law cited is levy under attachment. This is not an attachment, this is levy under execution, and therefore, is governed by Rule 39, You Honor. There is entirely a lot of difference. In attachment, it is preventive. In levy under execution.... The Presiding Officer. Let the Prosecution answer that objection. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, I will cite the rule. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we go a little further, with the kind permission of the Court? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we invite the attention of the Honorable Court that Rule 57 is strictly applicable only in cases of preliminary attachment. The formalities therein referred to refers to attachment. And what we have in question now is not an attachment but a levy under execution. So, the formalities required by Rule 57 do not apply in cases of execution. That is our point, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is why I am asking the Counsel to answer you. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.
44
Mr. Ginez. It is found, Your Honor, in Section 9, Execution of Judgments for Money, How Enforced, and this is under paragraph (b), Satisfaction by Levy. And I direct the attention of the esteemed Counsel of the Defendant on subparagraph (4), and it states, I read it for the record: Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other personal property or any interest in either real or personal property may be levied upon in like manner and with like effect as under a writ of attachment. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Ginez. So, maybe, Justice Cuevas has forgotten his rules, Your Honor. [Laughter] Mr. Cuevas. I have been teaching the subject for no less than three decades, Your Honor. And the law, together with the jurisprudence and the point, is very specific. You do not apply the rule on attachment. What the law simply means by the levy could be effected similar to that of attachment is merely an analogy of the process that will have to be undertaken. But, definitely, the rule on attachment does not apply in execution. The Presiding Officer. At any rate, this will be evaluated by the Court. What is material here is, he is testing the credibility of this Witness. Because even the Court is interested to find out whether indeed there was machination in the....to be frank about it, whether there was machination in the sale of the shares. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We are very appreciative for the Court going that far. The Presiding Officer. That is the understanding of this Chair with the tendency of the questions. Mr. Cuevas. But if the Court will notice, Your Honor, and with the kind indulgence of the Court, the question before was predicated on Rule 57, not on this particular rule that he is now citing. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, let us not wrangle on this. We are all intelligent people. We will take that into account. Let the Witness answer. Mr. Cuevas. What is the question now? Mr. Ginez. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, Sheriff, ay iyong Notice of Garnishment ninyo na nakaaddress po doon sa Basa-Guidote Enterprises ay hindi po nai-serve sa presidente o sa managing agent nito, hindi po ba? At ang totoo ay sa isang, sabi ninyo, caretaker lamang ng bahay na iyon. Mr. Bisnar. Opo, pero may sumagot po na officer ng Basa-Guidote. Mr. Ginez. Iyon. Pupunta po tayo doon, Sheriff. So, pagkatapos po ninyong mai-serve ang Notice of Garnishment, ang sabi po ninyo ay may sumagot na officer ng Basa-Guidote? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Ito po ay si Cristina Roco Corona, Assistant Corporate Secretary, sa pamamagitan ng isang sulat na ibinigay sa inyo. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. And this was marked by the Defense, Your Honor, as Exhibit 179. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. At hindi po ba, Sheriff, na siat alam ninyo na si Cristina Roco Corona ay siya rin ang private complainant sa kasong ito?
45
Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Siya rin ang iniuutos ng Korte, ng Branch 216, na babayaran kung sakaling mare-recover ninyo iyong P500,000.00, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Ngayon, Sheriff, dito sa Reply ni Ginang Corona, ang sinasabi sa inyo, and I would like to quote it for the record, Your Honor, if I will be allowed. In reply to the notice of garnishment dated May 14, 2003, please be informed that based on records submitted by the accused in Court, the stockholdings claimed by Jose Maria Basa III and Raymunda G. Basa in Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. are as follows: Stockholder Raymunda Basa, number of shares 110, amount P11,000; Jose Maria Basa III, number of shares 4,729, amount P472,900 or a total of P4,839 shares in the amount of P483,900. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, Sheriff, noong ibinigay po ito ni Ginang Corona, ito po ay tinanggap ninyo na as gospel truth? Mr. Bisnar. Dahil wala naman....Sila ho ang title niya doon sa corporation eh wala naman akong dahilan para hindi paniwalaan iyon. Mr. Ginez. Hindi po kayo nagpunta sa Securities and Exchange Commission? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Gng. Cristina Corona na siya ay nag-file ng isang petisyon sa Korte, sa probate court, na ang sinasabi niya sa korte na iyon, ang nagmamayari ng shares of stocks or about 87% ng shares of stocks ng Basa-Guidote Enterprises ay ang kanyang lola na si Asuncion Roco? Hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ito? Mr. Cuevas. Before the Witness answers, may he be served with a copy of the alleged pleading, Your Honor, the alleged statement of fact appearing in the pleading. The Presiding Officer. If the Prosecution has, please show the pleading. Mr. Ginez. We reserve, Your Honor, that the voluminous records that we have, unfortunately, we did not bring the petition for probate but it is a fact, Your Honor, that there was a probate.... Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Court, therefore, we will move to strike out the question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let it stay in the record. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Lacson? Senator Lacson. I am sorry to interject, Mr. President. Interesado lamang po ako. Ito pong mga kapanahunan na pinag-uusapan natin, kung alam ng Counsel ng Prosecution or ng Defense, may katungkulan po ba sa gobyerno si Chief Justice Corona? Siya po ba ay private citizen or kung may katungkulan man, ano po ba ang katungkulan niya itong mga panahon na ating dini-discuss sa ngayon? Mr. Ginez. Mayroon na pong katungkulan. Senator Lacson. Ano po iyon?
46
Mr. Ginez. Noon pong 2001, ay naging Assistant Presidential Legal Counsel po, kung hindi po ako nagkakamali. Senator Lacson. Ito pong panahon na may mga writ of execution, ano po ang katungkulan niya, kung mayroon man? Mr. Ginez. Ang katungkulan na po niya, siya na po ay isang Associate Justice ng Supreme Court. Senator Lacson. Maraming salamat po. The Presiding Officer. You know, Sheriff, Mr. Bisnar. Opo. The Presiding Officer. noon bang nalaman ninyo na iyong nangangatawan ng Corporation Basa-Guidote ay isang babaeng nagngangalang Cristina Corona, alam ba ninyo kung ano ang kanyang relasyon sa Justice Renato Corona ng Korte Suprema? Mr. Bisnar. Noong panahon pong iyon hindi ko po alam, noong panahong iyon. The Presiding Officer. A, hindi mo alam noong panahon na iyon. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi pa po. The Presiding Officer. O, sige. Mr. Ginez. The Defense, Your Honor, is asking for a copy of the petition: In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa. Petitioners: Asuncion Basa Roco and Cristina Roco Corona, Special Proceeding No. 95-76331 and raffled to and assigned to Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, with the kind indulgence of the Court. I am not asking for a copy. Since the cross-examination question is predicated on alleged pleading, it is our stand, Your Honor, that in accordance with the Rules on Evidence, the document must first be shown to the Witness, allow him to read before he answers, Your Honor. We are not asking a copy. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. We will now allow the Witness to.... Ginoong Sheriff, pinapakita ko po sa inyo itong petition.... The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution is instructed to show the document to the Witness. Mr. Ginez. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo kanina, hindi po ba sinabi ni Ginang Corona na siya ay nag-file ng petition na ito sa Regional Trial Court of Manila and in that petition she claimed that Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa is the owner, and I would like to quote, Your Honor, paragraph 3 of the petition: The estate of the testatrix consists of personal properties in the form of 4,665 shares of stocks in the corporation registered as Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc., of which only 70 shares were disposed of as legacies in her will and the household furniture in her residence. The date of the petition is November 29, 1995. Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, we will most humbly request that the question be simplified. It is loaded with several subjects. Hindi ho ba sinabi sa inyo ni Mrs. Corona?, then several other subjects. It cannot be answered by plain yes or no, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Reform your questions, Counsel, so that there will be no further objection.
47
Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Cristina Corona na siya ay nag-file ng petition sa Regional Trial Court, Branch 12? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po siyang nabanggit sa akin. Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ba niya sinabi sa inyo, Ginoong Sheriff, na sa petition po na iyon ay sinabi niya sa korte at pinanumpaan niya bilang petitioner na ang nagmamay-ari ng 4,665 shares noong Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. ay ang kaniyang lola na si Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa, hindi ba niya sinabi sa inyo iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po siyang nabanggit. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, mayroon akong ipapakita sa inyo sa page 3 at saka hanggang page 8 ng certified true copy ng petition na ito at pakitingnan nga po ninyo, Sheriff? Pakibasa nga po ninyo, Sheriff, kung ano po ang nakalagay diyan? Mr. Cuevas. May we know what the document is all about? Mr. Ginez. The petition for the probate. Mr. Cuevas. And what is the question now? If Your Honor, please, may we know the question now? Mr. Ginez. If he knows, Your Honor. If he knows what is written on the petition, Your Honor, if he can read. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko mabasa. Hindi ho maliwanag. The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo mabasa? Mr. Bisnar. Medyo malabo po. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. We would like, Your Honor, to manifest that on pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, on the top page, it appears to be that this is a facsimile copy, Your Honor, but it is certified true copy by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12. And it came from the office of Secretary R. C. Corona, Your Honor. We would like to mark, Your Honor.... The Presiding Officer. What does it say? Mr. Ginez. It is a faxed document, Your Honor, a copy of the Petition and it came from the office of Secretary R.C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Show it to the Defense so that they will Mr. Cuevas. But what is it, Your Honor, and what is the question now? The Presiding Officer. Let the document be shown to you first and then.... Mr. Ginez. May we request for Senator Sotto. Mr. President, while they are looking over the documents, I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes. The Presiding Officer. All right, the trial is suspended for 15 minutes.
48
The trial was suspended at 4:21 p.m. At 4:53 p.m., the session was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The session is resumed. The Floor Leader, what is the status of the case?
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we have the continuation on the document that was being shown by the Prosecution to the witness. The Presiding Officer. The Defense. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the Counsel for the Prosecution was asking us to admit that the document he was holding or presented contains certain words appearing to be the sender of a facsimile. We have no quarrel over the letter of those words. We are curious, however, what is the point? In the first place, this is a mere photocopy. It is not the facsimile, Sir. But we are also curious why he wants us to introduce this into the case at this point? The pleading has no relevance to the SALN or to the issues conveyed to us by the Court yesterday; secondly, it is not clear where this document came from and to whom it was sent. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may reply. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. First, Your Honor, this is where it came from. This is a certified true copy, Your Honor, by the Regional Trial Court and this is signed by the Clerk of Court of the said branch, Your Honor, dated March 21, 2012. The Presiding Officer. It is a part of the court record. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, part of a court record, Your Honor. And as for the purpose, Your Honor, why we are presenting them and marking, we will make a formal offer when the time comes, Your Honor. So, may we request, Your Honor, that this petition be marked as our Exhibit Eleven U (UUUUUUUUUUU). Mr. Roy. Your Honor, before the Court grants the request, may we know from which RTC branch Counsel is referring to. And may we know if this is exactly a reproduction of the document that appears in the file of the RTC or a mere certification that this is a copy of the contents of the pleading. Mr. Ginez. Same copy, Your Honor, this is a certified true copy. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, why do you not examine the document? Mr. Roy. I have, Your Honor. The document appears to be a photocopy of a facsimile. The Presiding Officer. Correct. But did you check, first of all, the title of the document Mr. Roy. My point, Your Honor.... The Presiding Officer. in the case? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.
49
The Presiding Officer. And then the court where it is pending. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, you know all of that. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. But what I would like to know is, he is telling us that this certification pertains to the alleged address of the facsimile sender. Because he is saying that this is a certified document, but he is asking me to admit that it was faxed from a certain fax machine. The Presiding Officer. Since you know the court where the case is pending, this is simple for you to examine the records there and then determine whether the original of that document exists. Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor, I just want to know what it is he claims is being certified by the court of origin. This is the facsimile address that you asked us to attest to or to agree to. Mr. Ginez. This is a certified true copy, Your Honor, by the Clerk of Court, an ex-officio sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. This case is pending The Presiding Officer. What branch? Mr. Ginez. before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. See. Mr. Ginez. They have to verify if they.... Mr. Roy. Your Honor.... At this juncture, the Presiding Officer banged the gavel. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. Sheriff, nabanggit po ninyo kanina at noong tanong ng abogado ng Depensa na pagkatapos po ninyong maibenta ang shares of stocks ni Raymunda Basa at ni Jose Ma. Basa III ay nagbayad si Carla Castillo ng P28,000.00 kay Cristina Roco Corona, hindi po ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, alam ninyo po ba ang relasyon ni Cristina Roco Corona at ni Carla Castillo? Mr. Bisnar. Noong panahon po na iyon, hindi ko po alam. Mr. Ginez. Hindi ninyo po alam. Hindi rin po ba ninyo alam na noong panahong iyon na si Cristina Corona ay asawa ng Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema noon at hanggang ngayon na ang ating Respondent? Mr. Bisnar. Noong panahon na iyon, hindi ako sigurado kung Justice na siya. The Presiding Officer. Sandali lamang, Mr. Counsel. Mayroon lamang nililinaw ang Korte sa testigo. Noon bang ipinagbili mo iyong shares of stock na....Ilan iyon? Mr. Roy. Four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine. Mr. Bisnar. Four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine.
50
The Presiding Officer. Ang presyo ay P28,000.00, hindi ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo.
The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, noong ipinagbili mo iyon, nandoon si Cristina Corona? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Nag-object ba si Cristina Corona? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po nag-object si Mrs. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Hindi. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Samantala, tinatanong ng Husgado ito sapagkat sang-ayon sa tseke na tinanggap niya bilang konsiderasyon doon sa pagbebenta ng lupa ng Basa-Guidote, siya ay trustee ng korporasyon. Alam niya na ang nilalaman ng korporasyon na iyon ay P34.7 million. Bakit pinapayagan niya bilang trustee ng korporasyon na binibili ng isang tao iyong more than 90% ng korporasyon for P28,000.00 samantalang ang judgment na dapat sagutin noong shares of stocks ay half a million? Maiisplika ba ninyo iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko ho alam kung bakit ganoon po. The Presiding Officer. Hindi nag-object iyong trustee? Hindi nag-object si Cristina Corona? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Doon po sa P28,000.00 na amount, hindi po. The Presiding Officer. Counsel? Mr. Ginez. May I continue, Your Honor. And we fully adopt, Your Honor, the questions of the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. No, I am just trying to clarify, for the information of this Court. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. And in the same line, Your Honor, ayon po rito sa sulat ni Cristina Corona sa inyo tungkol po doon sa pagmamay-ari ng shares of stock, ang sabi niya rito ang halaga ng 4,839 shares ay P483,900.00. Noon po bang nag-bid si Carla Castillo, hindi po ba nag-object o tumutol man lamang si Cristina Corona dahil ito ay mababa doon sa amount na sinasabi niyang halaga ng shares of stocks? Mr. Roy. I believe that was just answered by the Sheriff, Your Honor. Mr. Ginez. This is different, Your Honor, because the good Presiding Justice, Your Honor, asked about the P34.6 million that was paid for by the City of Manila to Cristina Corona ITF Basa-Guidote. I am asking the premise of the question is the reply itself, Your Honor, of Cristina Corona to the Notice of Garnishment wherein she stated that the amount of the 4,839 shares is P483,900.00. Mr. Roy. I appeal to the record, Your Honor. He said clearly: Did she object? And the Sheriff said there was no objection whatever. The Presiding Officer. Is it the position of the Counsel for the Respondent that the trustee of the corporation did not object? Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. That is what the Witness testified.
51
Mr. Ginez. Okay, Your Honor. That is what we would like to elicit, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. We would be willing to admit if he would like to state what else he needs admitted. The Presiding Officer. Any other questions? Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Cristina Corona na siya ay nakatanggap ng isang tseke noong 2001 o dalawang taon bago ninyo ibinenta ang property na ito na nagkakahalaga ng P34.7 million from the city of Manila? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Wala pong ganoon. Mr. Ginez. Wala po siyang sinabi sa inyo.
Mr. Bisnar. Wala pong nabanggit na ganoon. Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, pagkatapos po bang makatanggap si Cristina Corona ng P28,000.00 mula kay Carla Castillo, siya po ba ay nagpahanap pa ng ibang property o ibang mga ari-arian para ma-satisfy o mabayaran iyong P500,000.00? Mr. Bisnar. Iyon nga po. Iyong lawyer niya po ang nagsabi sa akin.
Mr. Ginez. Ano po ang sinabi ng lawyer niya sa inyo? Mr. Bisnar. Na mayroon daw silang ipapa-levy na property sa Sampaloc, Manila. Mr. Ginez. Ano pong property ito at kanino po nakapangalan, kung natatandaan po ninyo? Mr. Bisnar. Ang property po ay nakapangalan kay Jose Ma. Basa III. Mr. Ginez. So, mayroon pa ho kayong ginawa at ito ay ang pag-levy ng isang property. Ito po ba ang Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194782 sa pangalan ni Jose Ma. Basa III married to Raymunda Basa? Mr. Roy. We admit, Your Honor, that that was the property additionally pointed to for the satisfaction of the Writ of Execution. Mr. Ginez. Pagkatapos po ninyong ma-levy itong property na ito, Sheriff, ito po ba ay ibinenta rin ninyo ng public auction? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po na-auction. Mr. Ginez. Bakit po, kung anuman ang kadahilanan?
Mr. Bisnar. Dahil nga po noong makakuha ako ng kopya ng certified true copy noong title, may affidavit po ng ano...may affidavit po ng adverse. Pagkatapos po tinanong ko po doon sa lawyer nila na kung puwede malaman ko iyong halaga noong lupa para malaman ko baka ho ma-over-levy ako. Iyon din ho ang dahilan kung bakit hindi ho ako nakagawa ng return kaagad dahil nga po after a few times na nag-usap kami, hindi na ho kami nakapag-usap ulit. Kaya, honestly, nakalimutan ko na hong gumawa ng return dahil ang sabi ho nila ipapa-levy nila. Noong na-levy ko na ho, hindi na ho kami nagkita. That is why sa tingin ko ho dapat ipagsasabi ko na lang po iyong levy ko sa titulo at saka iyong sa auction sale. Mr. Ginez. Sige po. Salamat po, Sir. Mr. Bisnar. Opo.
52
Mr. Ginez. We have no further cross-examination questions, Your Honor. We would like to mark Exhibit 179, Your Honor, of the Defense as our Exhibit 11-V, Your Honor, as in Victory. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Ngayon, Ginoong Sheriff, iyong Judgment na ini-execute mo, ang total ay P500,000.00, di ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Iyon ba ay nabuo na nabayaran? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. As of now, bali lamang po Twenty eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00) iyong halaga noong na-bid na shares of stocks po. The Presiding Officer. Iyon lamang ang na-execute? Mr. Bisnar. Opo as of now po. The Presiding Officer. Iyong lupa, hindi? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi pa ho na-auction iyon kasi nga po hindi pa po ako sinagot ho ng lawyer nila noon kung magkano ho talaga ang halaga ng lupa. Kasi po baka po ako ma-over-levy kaya hindi ko pa ho inu-auction. At saka ano po, mayroon pong affidavit. The Presiding Officer. Eh, bakit mo hindi tinaasan ang presyo noong ipinagbili mo na auction noong shares of stocks? Hindi mo biniripika, tinanong o pinag-aralan? Mr. Bisnar. Iyong The Presiding Officer. Iyong tunay na presyo noong pinagbili na shares of stock? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na ho napag-aralan ho iyon kasi po noong The Presiding Officer. Bakit? Mr. Bisnar. noong nag-bid po si Carla Castillo ng twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00), tapos, wala naman pong objection si Mrs. Corona, eh The Presiding Officer. Oo nga, pero Mr. Bisnar. all the while akala ko po The Presiding Officer. pero ikaw ang Sheriff. Para i-satisfy mo yong five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) na Judgment, hindi ba dapat pinag-aralan mo kung, ito ba talaga ang tunay na presyo nitong shares of stock na ito? Bakit hindi mo ginawa iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Eh, kasi po ang pagkakaintindi ko ho noong panahong yon, ang pagkakaintindi ko po ay dahil Assistant Corporate Secretary po si Mrs. Corona ay siya ang nakakaalam kung anong presyo po talaga. Kaya po noong ibinenta yong Ten Thousand (10,000) The Presiding Officer. Assistant mo, hindi mo Mr. Bisnar. Assistant Corporate Secretary po si Mrs. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Oo nga. Pero ikaw ang inatasan ng gobyerno na humanap ng lupa o ari-arian upang ma-satisfy yong Judgment. Bakit hindi mo pinag-aralan kung iyong presyo na in-offer noong nag-bid na kaisa-isa atCastillo ba ang pangalan noong bumili, Castillo?
53
Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Carla Castillo ay tama doon sa presyo noong shares of stock. Mr. Bisnar. Iyon nga po. The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo ginawa yon, ano? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po, hindi po. The Presiding Officer. Ang pinaniwalaan mo na lamang ay si Mrs. Corona, ha? Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Na kung ano iyong presyong sinabi ni Mrs. Corona, iyon ang pinaniwalaan mo. Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor, dahil Assistant Corporate Secretary kaya naniwala po ako. The Presiding Officer. Ah, ganoon, ha. Sige, salamat. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Liliwanagin ko lamang po dahil marami ng sagot at hindi ko na masyadong nasusundan. Iyong P28,000 po, iyon po ang binayad ng Carla Corona-Castillo na anak ni Chief Justice Corona, tama po ba iyan? Mr. Bisnar. Opo, pero at that time po, Carla Castillo lang po ang ibinigay nilang pangalan. Senator Drilon. Ah, Carla Castillo. Okay, Carla Castillo. Ito po ba ay tseke o cash? Mr. Bisnar. Ang pagkakaalam ko po, cash po eh dahil habang ginagawa ko po iyong resibo ng Senator Drilon. Ah, cash. Mr. Bisnar. may inabot lang ho si Carla Castillo kay Mrs. Corona po. Senator Drilon. Ah, so iyong cash na P28,000 ibinigay sa inyo ni Carla Corona-Castillo, at itong P28,000 ay ibinigay mo kay Cristina Corona, iyong nanay ni Carla Corona-Castillo? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Hindi na ho idinaan sa akin. Silang dalawa na lang ho ang naguusap. Magkatabi ho. Senator Drilon. Ah, silang dalawa na lang ang nag-uusap. Mr. Bisnar. Magkatabi ho sila, eh. Senator Drilon. Bilang anak at saka nanay, sila-sila na ang nag-uusap, hindi na po kayo sumali? Mr. Bisnar. At that time po hindi ko naman po talagahonestly, hindi ko naman po talaga Senator Drilon. Parang usapang pamilya na lang. Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam ang relationship nila that time.
54
Senator Drilon. Okay. At iyan po ayMay I direct this question now to Attorney Roy? Those 4,839 shares constituted 90 percent, more or less, of the corporation? Mr. Roy. To my understanding, Your Honor, yes, that is correct. Senator Drilon. And the sale took place when? 2003, auction sale? Mr. Roy. The auction sale, Your Honor, for the record, will show September 30, 2003. Senator Drilon. September 30, 2003, 4,839 shares which is almost 90 percent of the corporation. The Presiding Officer. 97 percent of the corporation. Senator Drilon. 97 percent. Sorry, Sir, 97. Ah, 90.7. Which is 90.7 percent of the corporation was sold for P28,000 to Carla Corona-Castillo. Mr. Roy. That is my understanding, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And as of June 5, 2001, the corporation had in its coffers at least P34,703,800 which is the proceeds of the sale of the Basa-Guidote property to the City of Manila, is that correct? Mr. Roy. That appears to be the evidence on record, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Yes. So that the corporation was purchased by the daughter of Cristina Corona for P28,000 when Cristina Corona, as assistant corporate secretary, knew at that time that there was at least P34,703,000 in the checking account or in the bank account of Basa-Guidote. Mr. Roy. Not to quibble, Your Honor, but yes, it appears that way. Senator Drilon. You do not have to quibble because those are the facts. Now, where are the shares now? Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, if you are askingare you asking about the certificate? Senator Drilon. No, no, the certificates of stock. The certificates of stock, in whose name is it now? Mr. Roy. I have not seen them, Your Honor. I do know, I think I can tell you candidly that the Stock and Transfer Book cannot be located at this time. Senator Drilon. All right. Mr. Sheriff, noong binenta na po ito, ikaw ay gumawa ng ano ang tawag dooncertificate of sale. Mr. Bisnar. Certificate of Sale po, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Certificate of Sale. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Senator Drilon. At ano po ang nakalagay sa Certificate of Sale? Na ang 4,839 na shares ay nasa pangalan na ng Carla Corona-Castillo? Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po. Senator Drilon. Ha?
55
Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po. Senator Drilon. Carla The Presiding Officer. With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo. Paano mo nalaman na iyong binebenta mo na shares of stock sang-ayon sa writ of execution ay talagang nasa pangalan noong Jose Basa na pinagbabayad ng half a million pesos kung wala, sinasabi ng abogado, the Stock and Transfer Book was not available? Paano mo nalaman kung sino ang mga stockholder at kung magkano ang shares of stock ng bawat isa sa kanila? Mr. Bisnar. Dahil ho doon sa sulat ni Mrs. Corona sa akin. The Presiding Officer. Ah, sinabi lang sa iyo ni Mrs. Corona? Mr. Bisnar. Opo, through a letter. The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga, ang source of information mo na ang may-ari noong shares of stock na ibinebenta mo ay si Jose Basa Corona ay si Mrs. Cristina Corona, hindi ba? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Anong basehan niya? Alam mo ba? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam eh. The Presiding Officer. Walang sinabi ang abogado, ni admission against interest, walang stock and transfer book. Mr. Bisnar. Wala pongwala naman pong sinabi. Walang nabanggit. The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga, oh. Yes. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may? I think the sheriff testified, perhaps he was unable to connect the facts that she was also the assistant corporate secretary The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Corona and would know, would know the stockholdings, presumably should know. The Presiding Officer. How do you know that? Mr. Roy. That was what the sheriff himself said that she informed the sheriff that she was the assistant corporate secretary. And in fact, during the time that the execution was taking place, it would appear that she was the highest ranking officer. The Presiding Officer. But what about the estate proceeding that was pending? The res or property of that estate proceeding are shares of stock in the name of Rosario Mr. Roy. Asuncion, Asuncion. The Presiding Officer. No, no, no, the mother.
56
Mr. Roy. Rosario. The Presiding Officer. Rosario Basa-Guidote. Mr. Roy. Yes, that is right. Your Honor, you The Presiding Officer. Ah, Rosario Guidote-Basa.
Mr. Roy. If we must go into the probate proceedings, it can be established there that prior to the death of Rosario, those shares were transferred and eventually ended up with Jose Basa. That is actually what happened. Although the petition itself is The Presiding Officer. Before the Mr. Roy. in the probate court, Your Honor. There is an audit report to that effect. The Presiding Officer. Was that finishedthat estate settled prior to the sale?
Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. And, in fact, Mrs. Corona was named as the administratrix in that probate proceeding. So, there is an overlap of litigation. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, anyway. Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, can we comment on that because that is very important and that is not true, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Ginez. As of now, until now, Your Honor, the settlement proceedings, the intestatethe testate proceeding is still pending and it is still the claim of Cristina Corona as the special administratrix, that the shares of stock of Rosario Guidote-Basa is still intact, Your Honor. In fact, we did not purposely go to the SEC cases because it will clutter the record. But in the two SEC cases involving the Basas, Your Honor, Cristina Corona is impugning the transfer of shares of stock from Rosario Guidote-Basa to other shares and eventually it ended to Mr. Jose Maria Basa. And yet, Your Honor, in this execution sale, she reported allegedly as the assistant corporate secretary, that it belongs to Jose Maria Basa. What we would like to point out on record, Your Honor, is that Cristina Corona is assuming inconsistent statements whenever it suits her favor, Your Honor. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, please, it was Mr. Basa who claimed to be the owner of the shares, that is why they were levied on. If he did not claim them, they would not be levied on. Correct, she challenged them. The Presiding Officer. Yes, but, Compaero, Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. you are a lawyer. I do not have to teach you that assets of an estate belong to the estate until they are vested by order of the court to the heirs. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And the claim of the heir will not matter. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, Mr. Basa did not claim them as inheritance. But he claimed ownership by acquisition, not inheritance, Your Honor.
57
The Presiding Officer. Well Mr. Roy. That was the dispute. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then it was a disputed claim, okay.
Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, proceed. So that would have been settled in the estate.
The Court will take all of these things into consideration.
Senator Drilon. Ginoong testigo, uulitin ko. Magkano exactly ang binayad po dito sa 4,839 shares? Sarado bang beinte otso mil? Mr. Bisnar. Twenty-eight thousand po, pesos. Senator Drilon. Okay. Ordinarily, hindi po ba sa auction sale, iyong proceeds ng auction ay ibinabayad sa sheriff? Mr. Bisnar. Ordinary po, oho. Senator Drilon. Ordinarily ganoon po ang nangyayari, hindi ba? Hindi ganoon, ganoon iyon. Mr. Bisnar. Ganoon po pero sa case po nito kasi Senator Drilon. Teka, teka muna. Okay. Pagkatapos na magbayad, na makukuha mo iyong proceeds ng sale, ito po ay dini-deliver mo doon sa whoever is entitled to it. Hindi po ba tama iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Senator Drilon. Ngayon, hindi ba may sheriffs fee iyan? Mr. Bisnar. Supposedly meron po. Opo. Senator Drilon. Okay, supposedly mayroon. Magkano ang sheriffs fee ordinarily in terms of percentage? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko kabisado iyong sheriffs fee. Senator Drilon. Ikaw naman, sheriff ka hindi mo kabisado kung magkano ang sheriffs fee? Ikaw naman. Mr. Bisnar. Honestly po, totoo po iyon, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Labingpitong taon ka nang sheriff hindi mo alam kung magkano ang sheriffs fee? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi naman po. Sa praktis po namin doon, hindi naman Senator Drilon. Hindi ko sinasabi iyong hindi legal, iyong legal. Mr. Bisnar. Oo nga po. Senator Drilon. Huh? Hindi mo alam? Mr. Bisnar. Ang kuwan po noon four percent po sa
58
Senator Drilon. Ah, four percent. So, four percent ng proceeds ay sheriffs fee. Mr. Bisnar. Supposedly, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Huh? Is that correct? Mr. Bisnar. Usually po ganoon talaga. Senator Drilon. All right. Dito sa transaksyon na ito, iyong dalawamput walong libo ay in cash ibinayad ng Carla Corona-Castillo sa nanay niya, Cristina Corona. Tama po ba iyon? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Senator Drilon. At sabi mo kanina, silang dalawa na lang ang nag-usap at ibinigay ng Carla Corona Castillo ang cash kay Cristina Corona. Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, hindi ka ba kumuha ng fee mo roon? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Bakit? Mr. Bisnar. Usually naman po, sir, pagka Senator Drilon. Binigyan ka o hindi? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Senator Drilon. Ah, hindi ka rin binigyan. Hindi ka rin kumuha ng fee? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Senator Drilon. Bakit? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Hindi ko na naisip iyong mga ganon ho, eh. Senator Drilon. Huh? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na naisip iyong ganon po. Senator Drilon. Ah. Doon sa ibang transaksyon, naiisip mo ba iyan? Mr. Bisnar. Kung voluntary na lang ho kung sakali, eh. Senator Drilon. Ah, voluntary na lang kung sakali. Mr. Bisnar. Mga expenses lang po sa ano Senator Drilon. Huh? Mr. Bisnar. Mga actual expenses lang po. Senator Drilon. Mga ano? Mr. Bisnar. Actual expenses. Senator Drilon. Actual expenses. Iyong commission na four percent, hindi mo na kinukuha? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi na ho inaplay doon.
59
Senator Drilon. Sa ibang transaksyon na hawak mo? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi rin po. Senator Drilon. Ah, hindi ka talaga kumukuha ng komisyon? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Senator Drilon. Alam mo, irekomenda kita sa Civil Service bigyan ka ng dangal as a very good employee. Ngayon, hindi ba under the judiciary ka? Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Senator Drilon. At hindi mo alamkilala mo ba noong panahon na iyon si Associate Justice Renato Corona? Mr. Bisnar. At that time po hindi ko ho sigurado kung justice na po siya noon, eh. Senator Drilon. Hindi ka sigurado. Pero naririnig mo? Mr. Bisnar. Naririnig ko ho. Senator Drilon. Ano ang narinig mo, na siya po ay justice na? Mr. Bisnar. Na alam ko ho na justice na after the auction sale, doon ko lang narinig. Senator Drilon. After the auction sale. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Senator Drilon. Bago mag-auction sale, hindi mo narinig? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko sigurado, eh. Senator Drilon. Ah, ganoon. Alam mo po ba na si Renato Corona ay associate justice mula pa noong Abril 2002? Hindi mo alam? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam. Hindi ko sigurado. Senator Drilon. Ibig mong sabihin, noong nangyari ang auction sale noong September 30, 2003, mahigit nang isang taon at kalahati na associate justice si Renato Corona, hindi mo pa rin alam na siya po ay associate justice? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po sigurado. Senator Drilon. Ano ang ibig sabihing hindi ka sigurado? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko ho talaga alam na justice na nga po siya noon. Senator Drilon. Pero ikaw ay nasa ilalim ng judiciary. Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Senator Drilon. Hindi mo alam kung sino iyong mga justices? Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko ma-memorize, sir.
60
Senator Drilon. Sige, ganoon na lang at mahirap kung marami kayong hindi alam. So, salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. Any further questions? The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a clarification of the facts and both counsel of both parties may care to comment. The sale of the property, the Basa-Guidote property was done in June of 2001. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Okay. Jose Basa died in August of 2002? Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. The Writ of Execution was in April of 2003 to include the auction sale, April of 2003? Mr. Ginez. The auction sale is September 30, 2003. Senator Pangilinan. Sorry. The writ was issued in April of 2003, in September of 2003, the sale of 90.7 percent of the Basa-Guidote shares happened. So that is September 2003 in a public auction, Carla Castillo pays P28,000.00 and this is received by Cristina Corona. Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. And then sometime between September and December of 2003, Justice Corona receives P11 million cash advance from Basa-Guidote? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. No, no. I am sorry, Your Honor. The cash advance occurred between September 5 and September 30, 2003. Senator Pangilinan. That is correct. Mr. Roy. Because, at that time the cash advance was drawn, the shares had not been sold to Carla Corona. Senator Pangilinan. So that is the. Mr. Roy. That is the connection for the entrythat is the reason why the P11 million is reported in the SALN. After September 30, the facts of the case have changed because the shares are now owned by a different person. The corporation is now controlled by a different person, by Carla Castillo. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. By the way, Mr. Sheriff, how did you transfer the shares of stock of Basa-Guidote to the buyer? Mr. Bisnar. Through the Certificate of Sale lang po, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Certificate of Sale?
61
Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Signed by you? Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The shares of stock were not around when you sold the shares? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. The Presiding Officer. Hindi nakalagay doon ang number of certificate representing those shares? Mr. Bisnar. Paki-ulit lang po, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Hindi nakalagay doon ang certificate number doon sa Deed of Sale? Mr. Bisnar. Wala po, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Basta nakalagay lang number of shares? Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo alam kung totoo iyun o hindi, basta sinabi sa iyo ganoon ang share ni Jose Basa? Mr. Bisnar. Iyun po. Oo. The Presiding Officer. Iyun. Sige. Mr. Roy. May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, in light of the many questions asked of the sheriff and the fact that it appears he has clarified the key issues that the Defense has sought to adduceanswers to the key issues that the Defense has sought to address, I have no redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, you are now discharging him? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, if you have no further need for him, we request that he be. The Presiding Officer. All right, witness is discharged. Mr. Roy. Maraming salamat po, Sheriff. Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Sheriff. The Presiding Officer. Another Witness? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, before we proceed, may I be given a minute. There is an important matter that I would like to address to the Honorable Court and its Members. Yesterday, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. What is that? Mr. Roy. Well, the matter appears on page 57 of the Journal57, if I am not mistaken 52. I am sorry.
62
Anyway, Your Honor, on page 52Sorry.
I was referring to, Your Honor, the mention of the $10 million from Senator Estrada, I believe it is on page 52 or paragraph 1, is it there? I am sorry my copy has mysteriously disappeared. At any rate, Your Honor, I draw your attention to the $10 million that was mentioned by Senator Estrada and as he put it, gentle recommendation, for the Chief Justice to testify in this connection. Now, I wish to draw attention to the fact that this is not a matter within the complaint. Be that as it may, Your Honor, the Defense is not going to skirt from this issue. If the Honorable Court is inclined that we should address this issue, if the Honorable Court is inclined to consider this matter in its deliberations, if the Honorable Court is inclined to make this form part of the basis of any verdict rendered here, we will willingly confront the issue. For this reason, Mr. Presidentwhere is the motion? For this reason, Mr. PresidentI am sorry. We have prepared a request for subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandum againstI mean, to beand we request that this be issued The Presiding Officer. Against whom? Mr. Roy. to a certain Mr. Harvey Que, a certain Ruperto Alerosa, a certain Gibby Gorres, a certain Risa Hontiverosformer Representative Risa Hontiveros, a certain Albert Concepcion, Congressman Walden Bello, a certain Ernest Calayag, a certain Moses Albiento, a certain Tristan Zinampan, and a certain Emmanuel Tiu Santos. In addition, Mr. President, we also request that a subpoena for similar purposes be issued to the Honorable Conchita Carpio-Morales. The Presiding Officer. Put that down in writing. Mr. Roy. We are filing the motion as we speak, Your Honor. Now, the purpose, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. What did you say? Mr. Roy. We are filing the request now. As long as the Court will assure me that it is interested in this matter, we will make the request for the subpoena. The Presiding Officer. Yes, we will. Mr. Roy. But if the Court should declare now that this is not part of this Impeachment, then we will not bother, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, we are not categorizing any asset as illegally acquired asset. But it is still an asset that must be included in the SALN if it exists. Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, the issue of whether it is legal or illegal is of no moment. It is a question of, does this asset exist? And if it does exist, was it included in the SALN? Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And if it was not included in the SALN, then, ergo, it will be a violation of Article XVII, first sentence.
63
Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may. The Presiding Officer. Hindi ba? Hindi ba? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may. Yes. The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking you as a lawyer. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Roy. If the omission is malicious and fraudulent. The Presiding Officer. No, there is no qualification in that sentence. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Very well. The Presiding Officer. You are interpreting it. I am using it as literally as I could. Mr. Roy. Very well, Your Honor. We do not argue over what the law says. I just wish to point out that the matter of the $10 million has never been raised in the proceedings and this is an extraneous matter, that is why The Presiding Officer. Correct. Mr. Roy. I would like to be guided whether or not.... The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Please respect this Court. Mr. Roy. Of course, Your Honor, always. The Presiding Officer. Well, you are not doing it because while this Chair is speaking, your voice is very high. Mr. Roy. My apologies, Your Honor. I was just trying to make sure that I could be heard audibly. The Presiding Officer. I can hear you very well. Saannak a tuleng. [Laughter] Mr. Roy. I apologize, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. You understand. I know your grandfather was Ilocano. Mr. Roy. I apologize, Mr. President. I did not mean to raise my voice. The Presiding Officer. I would like to tell you frankly that any asset not included regardless of its characterization, whether it is legally obtained or illegally obtained, is a function of the SALN. Mr. Roy. Yes, yes. The Presiding Officer. And it must be included. Mr. Roy. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. So, if there is $10 million and it is proven to be there or one dollar and not included, then it is a function of this Court to interpret whether it constitutes a violation of Section 17, first sentence of Article XI.
64
Mr. Roy. I concur, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much.
With that, I take it that the Court will entertain our request and act on it in due course. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. Very well, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, submit the request and we will issue the subpoena. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, further, I would like to put on record now that once these witnesses have put on record what they have to state under oath, we will present evidence to contradict, deny, and rebut them through the testimony of the Chief Justice. Now, we request that the subpoena be issued forthwith and that all the witnesses be heard first in order to avoid the staggered appearance on the part of the Chief Magistrate. I am not certain, Your Honor, how quickly the Honorable Court can respond, but in light of this developmentby the way, Your Honor, I am also in receipt of a motion and request on the part of the Prosecution asking that you be allowed to receive or certain documents be delivered to you. I believe they are with respect to this matter. I raise this up only to show the Honorable Court that we are ready to meet this issue head on. So I would ask, Your Honor, if we be given a continuance. The Presiding Officer. How about the matters presented here earlier about PSBank? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, when the Chief Justice testifies, I believe these questions can be propounded at that time. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. I do not think there is any purpose of evasion. The Presiding Officer. No, I am not asking that. Mr. Roy. On his part, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I am just asking a question. Mr. Roy. Yes, yes. I wish to assure you of the forthright intention of the Chief, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I know that, I know that. Mr. Roy. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. We are happy that you are now cooperating with us. Mr. Roy. It has always been our intention, Mr. President. Thank you. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Let him finish.
65
Are you through? Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, in view of that The Presiding Officer. Make the proper motion and I assure you I will issue the subpoena tomorrow. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. But we move for a continuance in order to prepare also because it is a fairly sudden development. The Presiding Officer. You have no more witness today? Mr. Roy. None for today, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. What is the pleasure of the gentleman from San Juan? Mr. Roy. A 48-hour continuance, Mr. President, please. There is not enough time. This is a considerable list of witnesses. As soon as the subpoenas have been issued, we will proceed quickly, Mr. President. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. PresidentIf I may have the floor, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Counsel. Mr. Roy. Yes, sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Is my impression correct? Is the Chief Justice willing to appear before this Court if and when this Court grants your request to subpoena these certain persons that you have mentioned? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, while his statement is not to testify, it is not conditional. I wish to make that clear. But he himself has also assessed the evidence against him. And unless this particular matter is not raised formally under oath, he feels there would be really no need to testify to address the other issues. But if this particular matter is raised, then he will feel compelled to confront it directly, also under oath. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Well, my name was mentioned a while ago when I was inside the lounge that I mentioned regarding the alleged $10-million deposit. Yes, it is true that I mentioned this alleged $10-million deposit when I appealed to the Prosecution panel to let the respondent appear before this Impeachment Court. Iyong $10 million na nailathala sa diyaryo, nasabi sa mga radyo, na-TV, kaya ko sinabi iyon, if the Chief Justice can voluntarily answer the allegations against this $10-million deposit. Ngayon, if he is willing to answer this allegation regarding this deposit, then he can clear the issue, he can clear the air regarding this particular $10-million deposit. But I am not telling him to clarify it right away. Kung boluntaryo niyang sasabihin, di mas madadali ang magiging desisyon nitong korteng ito.
66
Mr. Roy. Iyon nga po ang instruction sa akin na ipaabot sa inyo na iyong ginagawa sa kaniyang pambabatikos sa labas eh gusto na niyang harapin under oath. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Eh, di paharapin ninyo na. Mr. Roy. Haharap po sa inyo. Tutal iyon pong pagkabanggit ko sa inyo was in the best light possible at nanonood naman po siya noong tayo ay.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. You can assure the Chief Justice, if and when, he appears before this Impeachment Court, we can assure you that he will be treated properly befitting his position as the Chief Justice of this country. Mr. Roy. We do not doubt that, but thank you very much, Mr. Senator. Senator Ejercito Estrada. And I know the Senate President will not allow him to be disrespected in this Court. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. Senator, Mr. President. May I also manifest, Your Honor, that the Chief Justice has issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over him, but not jurisdiction of this Court. That is why he is willing to testify here rather than engage in a word war or submit to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The Presiding Officer. All right. Let me clarify. You are going to ask these named persons by you to be subpoenaed to be your witnesses. Mr. Roy. As hostile witnesses. The Presiding Officer. As hostile Mr. Roy. Witnesses. The Presiding Officer. witnesses. Okay, including the Ombudsman. Mr. Roy. Including the Honorable Ombudsman, who appears to have knowledge of the US$10 million. The Presiding Officer. All right. Well, US$10 million and other accounts. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Whatever allegation it is. The Presiding Officer. And other accountspeso or dollar accountspertaining to the respondent. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Now, why do you include a Member of the House, like Mr. Walden Bello? Mr. Roy. We understand, Your Honor, that he is a complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman. And so, we suppose or we presume that he has knowledge about these dollar accounts or whatever allegations he is making. So, we would like to know. The Presiding Officer. He is the only Member of the House
67
Mr. Roy. To my knowledge, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. the complainant. Mr. Roy. That is right, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. While we have been respecting the interparliamentary relation between the House of Representatives and the Senate, I am willing to sign a subpoena to include him to appear here, if he wants to appear as your witness. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. In connection with this dollar account. Now, after the testimony of these persons as your witnesses, then you will present the Chief Justice. Mr. Roy. He will be one of the other witnesses in this. We may present other witnesses. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. But we will present the Chief Justice. The Presiding Officer. You will present the Chief Justice. Mr. Roy. Yes, yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Roy. Definitely. The Presiding Officer. Continuance granted. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. We just want to state three things for the Prosecution. First is the request that will be filed by the Defense as manifested this afternoon that some of the complainants or all of the complainants in that case filed with the Ombudsman be subpoenaed and including the honorable Ombudsman herself, we just reserve our right to file our comment on that. But we are happy with that manifestation made by the Defense today. Second, the Defense has mentioned about the motion request filed by the Prosecution today and according to the Defense it is a motion for us to allow the Presiding Officer to receive some documents. We just want to correct that, Your Honor, that as of this afternoon we filed this motion and request. This is actually a motion that we are praying that we be furnished a copy of the letter of Mr. Harvey Que and attached document as submitted to the Presiding Officer. So, we just want to clarify that that is the motion filed by the Prosecution. It is not a motion asking the Senate President or the Presiding Officer to receive the documents. And, lastly,...
68
The Presiding Officer. I will respond. Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. Since the documents that were submitted to me were handed in a sealed envelope in my office and I am not sure of the source of these documents, if you know the people who submitted them to me, then you require them to furnish you with copies of the documents because I do not want to be a party to an illegal act. All right? Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir. Actually, Mr. President, it is in our motion that it is based on the report, the media report that came from Mr. Harvey Que. The Presiding Officer. If there is an illegality, a violation of the Foreign Currency Deposit Law, then this Chair is not willing to be a participant to that. Representative Tupas. We submit to the Honorable Presiding Officer. And lastly.... The Presiding Officer. Now, since you know who are the people who brought that envelope to my office, then they are being subpoenaed, I am going to issue the subpoena and we will compel them to submit a copy of the documents that they submitted to my office. Representative Tupas. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Lastly, if I heard it correctly, the Counsel for the Defense has pointed out or has moved for a continuance for 48 hours, is that correct? Mr. Roy. This has been granted, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. No, no. We have not heard that it was granted. Mr. Roy. It was granted. The Presiding Officer. I granted it. Senator Sotto. Granted. The Presiding Officer. Are you asking for a reconsideration? Representative Tupas. We are asking for a reconsideration. The Presiding Officer. All right. What is your reason? Representative Tupas. If it is within 48 hours, meaning there will be no hearing tomorrow? Mr. Roy. Yes. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, there are pending witnesses, who were already issued subpoena by this Honorable Court and this matter that was brought up by the Defense is a different matter, consisting of different witnesses, set of witnesses, with the witnesses who were already issued subpoena and we can count, Your Honor, that there are at least three or four The Presiding Officer. Who are they? Representative Tupas. witnesses who were already issued subpoena by this Honorable Court and we would like to continue tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. Who are those? Representative Tupas. Well, Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima....
69
Mr. Roy. Your Honor.... The Presiding Officer. Why do we not hear.... Representative Tupas. COA, from the Commission on Audit, Lavila, a certain Lavila. From Ateneo, seller of Cubao property, a certain Encina and Attorney Pineda, the Clerk of Court, RTC Makati. They are all subpoenaed already, Your Honor. For the Prosecution, we would like to continue tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. All right. Wait a minute.... Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the relative importance of these witnesses pale in comparison to the urgency.... The Presiding Officer. Yes, but you will still have to present them.... Mr. Roy. We may not even bother to do.... The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Let me finish. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. If.... The Presiding Officer. Let me finish first. You have a panel of defense. There are several lawyers in your panel. My God, cannot one-half of you attend to the preparation of the subpoena that you are asking and interview of the witnesses that you want to present, so that we can use up the.... I agree with the proposal of the Prosecution. Mr. Roy. May I respond, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Roy. Mr. President, we may not even need to present the other witnesses. We feel that we can dispense with them if we be given a chance to assess our position again. In view of the sentiments expressed yesterday.... The Presiding Officer. When are you going to present the.... Are you going to present the Secretary of Justice? Mr. Roy. Actually, we may not even have to do that. The Presiding Officer. Then, why not make a decision, so that we can forego that? Mr. Roy. We need to have a little time, Mr. President. Yesterdays event rushed us into a need to bring this matter forward regarding the US$10 million, the issue of the US$10 million. So, we are just requesting for the kind indulgence of the Court. After all, we are very willing to confront all the issues now. If it is just a matter of the remaining witnesses, Your Honor, I believe that this is more important.... The Presiding Officer. All right, 48 hours continuance is granted. And we will lengthen the period of the trial next week. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before I move to adjourn, I ask that we recognize Sen. Franklin M. Drilon.
70
The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo is recognized.
Senator Drilon. Well, the Counsel for the Prosecution is trying to raise his hand. We are willing to yield the floor. Representative Tupas. Thank you very much, Senator Drilon. We just want to clarify that ruling, Mr. Presiding Officer, 48 hours meaning, do we resume Thursday or Monday? The Presiding Officer. We will resume on Monday. Representative Tupas. So, that is next week, Monday next week. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. Thank you The Presiding Officer. Because we are supposed to have session tomorrow and Thursday. So, we are foregoing two session days. We will have our session on Monday. Representative Tupas. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer; thank you Senator Drilon. The Presiding Officer. That is understood by the Defense. Mr. Roy. Very clearly, Mr. President. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. Just a few clarificatory questions, Mr. President, on Attorney Roy. Mr. Roy. Yes, Sir. Senator Drilon. This is in relation to the PSBank dollar account. In the Journal of February 13, 2012, you confirmed that this bank account will be opened by the Chief Justice. Mr. Roy. I believe, if I recall correctly, Senator, what I confirmed was that the Chief Justice instructed us to make the statement that he would speak up or open up the....roughly. Senator Drilon. That is correct. So, you confirm that the Chief Justice instructed you to open this bank account? Mr. Roy. That is right. Senator Drilon. Now, there are five dollar accounts in the PSBank. That is admitted and established on the record. Mr. Roy. I am unaware that it is admitted, Mr. Senator. Senator Drilon. No, no. In fact, that was presented here in this Court by the president of PSBank except that the amounts were covered. Mr. Roy. I believe, Mr. Senator, to be precise, that was his testimony. I do not believe that the Defense admitted the fact. The Court admitted the evidence if that is what you mean or received his testimony before the TRO was issued. Senator Drilon. Okay. It is on record then. Mr. Roy. Yes.
71
Senator Drilon. It is on record that these accounts exist. Mr. Roy. Yes, by admission. Senator Drilon. This is on record that these accounts exist. Mr. Roy. It is on record that that was the testimony of the President, Senator. I am sorry, Senator, I really do not know if they exist or not. But I do agree with you that that was what the witness said. Senator Drilon. Now, these dollar accounts were not opened. And therefore, because of the TRO of the Supreme Court, we do not know the amounts there. At least, it is not on record. Is that correct? Mr. Roy. I suppose, Mr. Senator, yes. Senator Drilon. Now, is it your position that since the amounts appearing in these accounts cannot, as of this time, be pried open, there is no obligation on the part of the Chief Justice to report this asset? Mr. Roy. It is my position, Mr. Senator.... Senator Drilon. No, can you answer me? Is it your position that the Chief Justice does not have to report this asset in his SALN? Mr. Roy. It is my position that Republic Act No. 6426 provides for the confidentiality. It is also my position, Mr. Senator, not to be evasive, that if you ask this question to the Chief Justice and he favors you with an answer, then that will be that. Senator Drilon. Can you state categorically whether or not there is a dollar account in PSBank? Mr. Roy. I cannot, Senator. To tell you honestly, I do not know the truth of the matter, to tell you honestly. Senator Drilon. All right. Assuming that there is that account, without your admitting it, assuming that there is that dollar account, and since it is covered by the confidentiality of the Bank Secrecy Deposit Law, is it your position that the Chief Justice is exempted from reporting this asset? Mr. Roy. Based on my understanding of the law, Mr. President, anybody would be exempted from disclosing the dollar accounts. That is my reading of the law. Now, if that...it appears plain in the letter of the law that there is no qualification. That is my position. Senator Drilon. That is correct, yes. It is your position and you equate confidentiality with non-disclosure? Mr. Roy. Yes, yes, in order for the protection of the law to be complete by the owner. Senator Drilon. By the owner. And can you cite to me which particular provision of the Constitution or the law requiring the filing of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth which would justify this position that because of this confidentiality, you need not report an asset in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth? Mr. Roy. Yes, Senator. I would cite you Republic Act No. 6426....
72
Senator Drilon. Which is? Mr. Roy. The law regarding the secrecy of foreign currency deposits.
Senator Drilon. The law on the secrecy of foreign deposits would exempt a government employee from revealing the dollar accounts? Mr. Roy. Yes. Senator Drilon. In the SALN? Mr. Roy. In the SALN as well. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, this is just an administrative matter. If I am not mistaken, yesterday or the other day, the Senate President had publicly stated his desire to extend the hours of our proceedings so that we can hopefully terminate the proceedings before we go on sine die adjournment. In fact, there was a proposal to have a.... The Presiding Officer. Not later than the 31st of this month. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. In fact, there was a proposal to have marathon hearings up to ten oclock in the evening. Yesterday, Mr. President, we went through hearings until around before five oclock and today, we will be ending in a few minutes before 6:00, 6:30 and tomorrow we would not be convening and Thursday we would not be convening. So, my concern, Mr. President, is perhaps, this should be discussed in caucus in view of the development and that we are now losing rather than gaining in terms of trial hours that we adjust for next week and come up with a time table that will make up for lost time, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. We will have a caucus on Monday. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, the gentleman from Misamis Oriental. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President. On February 13, 2012, if I am not mistaken, this Court issued a resolution to respect the TRO of the Supreme Court dated February 9, 2012, in connection with the petition filed by PSBank against the Senate Sitting as an Impeachment Court and the majority vote to respect was 13. Thirteen versus ten. And, in light of this development that, you know, the dollar accounts of the Chief Justice are being discussed in the media, Defense Counsel has raised the possibility of the Chief Justice himself confronting the issue head on. So, I believe, Mr. President, my colleagues, that it is time for us also now to really confront this issue of the dollar accounts and since I premised my vote in that resolution on the reasoning that I want to give the Supreme Court time to correct itself. I said that I exercise senatorial statesmanship hoping that the Supreme Court will exercise judicial statesmanship by withdrawing the TRO, but I think a long period of time has passed and the Supreme Court has not acted on the TRO or lifted the TRO on the petition of the PSBank, is that correct?
73
Mr. Roy. Yes, Mr. Senator, may I respond? Senator Pimentel. Yes. Mr. Roy. If I comprehend the tenor of what you are saying, you are going to ask the Honorable Court to reconsider its position of the TRO? Senator Pimentel. Right. Mr. Roy. May I request that if there are any complications regarding the TRO and any information is going to fall within the ambit of the TRO, let it be by waiver rather than by rejection. Perhaps, that might be a more palatable turn of events, Mr. Senator. Senator Pimentel. Yes. But, you know, it is my personal opinion. So, I also premised my vote on that ground that it is a temporary vote, as far as I am concerned, to respect the TRO issued by the Supreme Court, hence, I am informing the Senate President and my colleagues that I am reconsidering my vote and it is from 13-10. It should now be counted as 12-11. I am now voting in favor of enforcing our order for PSBank and the other banks to now divulge to the Impeachment Court all data and information regarding the foreign currency accounts of the respondent. Mr. Roy. Mr. Senator.... Senator Pimentel. But it is still a minority decision. And then, Your Honor, if possible, if we could revisit the resolution dated February 13 in a caucus on Monday, Your Honor. I so move. Mr. Roy. Mr. President, may I just.... The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Mr. Roy. It is a short statement, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, there is a promise here that the Chief Justice is coming to this Court to testify. And, at that point, I assume, given his stature and the importance of his credence as a magistrate to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God and hears this statement ever so often when he presides over the proceedings of the Supreme Court, then we may ask him, at that point, to motu proprio tell, instruct the bank to release his foreign currency bank accounts. So, we will wait until that time. Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Lacson, Mr. President, before.... The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite. Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. Since the Defense panel team is here, I would like to ask you if the Chief Justice would be willing to, in effect, sign a waiver. Mr. Roy. We did not go that far, Mr. Senator. Let us not.... Senator Lacson. If he takes the witness stand and you will just invoke R.A. No. 6426, then we will go back to zero. Mr. Roy. If I may, Mr. Senator. Let us give him an opportunity to hear first.... Senator Lacson. No, I am just asking you as the Counsel. Is there a possibility for you to convince the Chief Justice that when he takes the witness stand, he will, in effect, sign a waiver of his rights under R.A. No. 6426?
74
Mr. Roy. There is a very strong possibility that he will disclose everything. Senator Lacson. That is good enough for me, Mr. Counsel. Thank you. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.
Senator Sotto. Yes, we take note of the motion filed by Senator Pimentel and the manifestation, although we do not have a vote being called. But, nevertheless, we can take it up on Monday during the caucus. The Presiding Officer. Before we adjourn, I just want to find out if your purpose is really to make a full disclosure and this is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, of the bank accounts of the Chief Justice. Why do you not select just a few of those you mentioned to be subpoenaed to be presented as witnesses who can substantiate the contents of the documents that they submitted to my office so that we will shorten the hours of examining witnesses. Mr. Roy. Precisely, Mr. President, we intend to put to very good use the time you have granted us. The Presiding Officer. Yes, evaluate the witnesses. You may not need the 11 people. Mr. Roy. We request, anyway, that the subpoena be issued and we will make the proper evaluation accordingly. If they are merely corroborative, then obviously, there would be no need. The Presiding Officer. All right. With that understanding. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. So with that, Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn todays trial until two oclock in the afternoon of Monday, May 14, 2012. The Presiding Officer. The motion to adjourn at the time and hour and date stated by the Majority Leader is hereby approved. The trial was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

May 8 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

May 8 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

The Court will take all of these things into consideration.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012