The Impeachment Files

Estrada Impeachment Dec. 19, 2000 (PM) Transcripts

DECEMBER 19, 2000
AFTERNOON HEARING

AT 2:05 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE RESUMPTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS [MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ]. Please all rise for the arrival of the Senator-Judges, the Honorable Chief Justice, Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the Honorable Senate President, Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER [CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE]. The impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Republic of the Philippines, is now ordered resumed.

We shall be led in prayer by the honorable Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile.

PRAYER

SEN. ENRILE. Please bow your heads and let us place ourselves in the presence of the Lord.

Dear God,

You who are the Creator of all things,

The EternalTree of love and compassion,

The source of all progress and hope

The well of absolute knowledge and the dispenser of true justice,

We wish to offer You our work here in the Senate

As part of our desire to build a nation made from Your image

Rich in empathy, far from despair

Always questing for answers

Never lacking in fairness and equity.

Help us, guide us, lead us to the path

that will best answer our prayers

In times of plenty remind us that material things like love

have meaning only when shared in times of crisis;

Bless us with instincts of good parents so that we could see beyond our personal needs and focus on the common good;

Teach us not to be afraid of the uncertain future

for as long as You are there we know we will be all right;

For as long as we resolve things in the furtherance of Your will, truth will prevail.

As Christmas day draws near shelter us

into the warmth of Your embrace;

May we in this Chamber echo the gesture to each one

as we go about doing our work not as a forced platitude

but a sincere effort to heal relationships, to renew ties and

to find peace in ourselves.

All this we ask, through the mighty Name of Your Son,

Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Please be all seated.

The Sergeant at Arms may make now the proclamation.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE JOURNAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER [SEN. TATAD]. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of this Impeachment Court of Thursday, 14th of December 2000, and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion is approved.

The Secretary will please call the case before the Impeachment Court .

THE SECRETARY. In the matter of the Impeachment against His Excellency Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001-2000 for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

REP. MARTINEZ. Your Honor, Mr. Presiding Justice, the honorable Senate, I would want and I wish to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Martinez is recognized.

REP. MARTINEZ. Over the weekend, I was in Cebu attending to my constituents and yesterday I thought that my absence would have been obscure. I asked permission from my colleagues in Team No. 4 who is attending to the fourth Article of Impeachment. I had to see my dentist and I had to do some bank transactions which could not be done on weekends. However, Your Honors, I realized that I was being paged for and this was by reason of a motion filed by the honorable Senator-Judge Oreta, along with her colleagues, Senator-Judge Osmeña and Senator-Judge Enrile.

Now, I wasn’t quite aware of it at the beginning but there had been so many calls and I tried to catch on to find out just what was the substance and the nature of the accusation hurled against me. And I found out, Your Honors, that it was in relation to an article printed yesterday by the Inquirer. So, I tried last night to get a copy. I came very late because the plane I took had technical problems and I had to move on to another plane and which, in effect, brought me to Manila at about eleven o’clock in the evening.

Now, I was able to get a copy and I realized and I found out that the particular portion which is quoted here says in paragraph No. 1, in the 18th December 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer under the caption, “Sonny O won’t question the video ruling to open bank documents,” found on pages 1 and 20 of the said newspaper. Rep. Clavel Asas-Martinez, a member of the Prosecution panel, was quoted to have said that “there are senator-judges who frequent Malacañang to discuss with the Defense lawyers the strategies that they will use during the impeachment proceedings.”

A copy of the subject news article is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part thereof.

Now, let me go, Your Honors, to Annex “A” of the said motion filed by…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the honorable Prosecutor Martinez, the motion to cite Your Honor for contempt has been duly filed yesterday and the Chair ruled yesterday that it be included in the agenda for this afternoon’s trial.

REP. MARTINEZ. Let me get into that later, Your Honor. If you will allow me a few minutes, I just want to mention substantial…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you.

If you are going to go to Annex “A-1” of the said annex, you will notice on the second column, it says here on the fourth paragraph:

His cousin Senator-Judge Serge Osmeña III said three to four pro-Estrada senators allegedly met with lawyers of the President in Malacañang on Saturday purportedly to discuss the implications of challenging Davide’s decision.

Serge Osmeña said he received a report that the pro-Estrada senators and the Defense panel in the impeachment trial of the President often meet. He, however, refused to identify his colleagues because it would be unethical. He said he was supporting Davide’s ruling. If he, Estrada, has done nothing wrong, why should he be afraid?

Now, we come to that particular paragraph in reference to my so-called interview, and it states here:

Cebu Rep. Clavel Asas-Martinez, a member of the Prosecution panel, confirmed that she too heard that “there are Senator-Judges who frequent Malacañang to discuss with the Defense lawyers the strategies they will use during the impeachment proceedings.” She identified these Senator-Judges as John Osmeña, Tessie Aquino-Oreta and Juan Ponce Enrile. But Martinez said, “John Osmeña and Oreta were not competent to discuss what would be the strategies in the proceedings because both were not lawyers. Enrile is better because he is a lawyer,” she added. Martinez warned that the prosecution…

Well, anyway, that would not be relevant anymore.

Your Honors, when I was interviewed–and the document will speak for itself, which is even made an annex to this motion–I think it should not be taken out of its context. If we talk of fairness, then let fairness prevail. When I said this, I was saying this because I wanted to confirm what I heard. I wonder…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice. excuse me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the honorable Prosecutor Martinez. What is the pleasure of the Senate President?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Chief Justice, it looks like Prosecutor Martinez is already offering a defense to the motion to cite her for contempt, and I think that it might be better if we heard her at the proper time, meaning to say, sometime later this afternoon. Because we have witnesses to examine, I think we are going to disrupt the proceedings here unnecessarily. Because you will have a time to reply, Ms. Martinez.

REP. MARTINEZ. I agree to that, Your Honors. But let me just wind up because this is a preliminary statement to what I am going to manifest before this Court this afternoon. Now, let me just…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, but–I am very sorry, Mr. Chief Justice. Because if we allow this kind of a procedure, there will be no end, there will be no system that we are following. And that is why I am appealing to you, Your Honor, to kindly do your thing at the time when we will discuss this motion to cite you for contempt which will be sometime this afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the reason earlier why the Presiding Officer had called the attention of the Prosecutor that there is an item in the agenda for this afternoon regarding the motion to cite Your Honor in contempt. So I think that would be the more appropriate stage when probably a manifestation may be made in relation to a ruling by the Chair on the motion to cite Her Honor in contempt.

REP. MARTINEZ. That being so, Your Honor, let me just make one statement. In closing, I would say that if we are going to talk of a contempt, then we should abide with Rule 71, Section 3 thereof, that it should be a proper charge and a proper hearing. So on the basis of a motion, it cannot prosper.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. As a matter of fact, the ruling will have to be based on Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court on indirect contempt, and the Court will take the necessary and appropriate proceeding in relation thereto.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Nasaan na tayo? Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was done already. Probably, the appearances of counsel.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. May I now invite the parties to this impeachment trial to enter their appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are so directed.

REP. APOSTOL. The same appearance for the Prosecutors, Your Honors.

MR. MENDOZA. The same appearance for the Defense, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Also in the agenda are the following–before we go into the trial on the merits proper.

The first is consideration of pending issues. 1) As indicated in the calendar on the matter of the Order of the Chief Justice of December 15, 2000 which, inter alia, directed the opening of the sealed envelope containing documents pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum issued on 06 December 2000.

The agreement yesterday was that the Defense, if it chooses to file a motion to reconsider, must file a motion to reconsider on the basis of the Extended Order. And in the event that there are concurring opinions which any member of the Impeachment Court will submit, the Defense may also opt to file a comment or a reply to the concurring opinion. Up to this moment, the Chair has not been given a copy of any motion to reconsider the Extended Order from the Defense. Mr. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor, we were given 24 hours and we will do that within 24 hours. We are ready to file the Motion For Reconsideration now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we will have to defer action. We will make as the last item in this afternoon’s agenda.

MR. MENDOZA. We will file it shortly, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

The second…by the way, also just for the record in connection with that, the Chair was furnished copies of the following concurring opinion of the Senate President, the honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., which is a full concurring opinion and the concurring opinion with reservation filed by Her Honor, Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

The second item for consideration is the Motion To Cite the Honorable Representative Clavel Asas-Martinez For Contempt. This has been, in fact, alluded to earlier by the Honorable Asas-Martinez.

The ruling of the Chair here, because this was officially filed already, would be as follows:

The Court notes the motion. And the Honorable Asas-Martinez is hereby directed to show cause within five days from notice of this Order why she should not be cited in contempt at the Impeachment Court under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. And more specifically, for an improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice and for a misbehavior as an officer of the Court.

You will have five days within which to file your compliance on the show-cause order.

REP. MARTINEZ. Your Honors, may I just inquire. As I stated earlier, that is a motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

REP. MARTINEZ. I would contend, Your Honor, that it should be a proper charge. Because indirect contempt is criminal in nature, being punitive.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, Your Honor.

REP. MARTINEZ. And so I would insist that a proper charge be made and I be given the time to answer and, henceforth, to have a proper hearing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is merely to show cause here. Because if you’d be able to show cause very well and it would be acceptable to the Court, there will be no complaint against you for indirect contempt.

REP. MARTINEZ. If that is the explanation of the Court, then I submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We are only following Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court which has been adopted in a suppletory character to Resolution No. 68 of the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

The five-day period would begin only upon your receipt of the Order, Your Honor. It is not from this very hour. But the Secretary is directed, however, to facilitate the expeditious transcription of the stenographic notes of the Order, as stated, and to release the Order together with a copy of the motion.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then we shall now proceed to the trial proper.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. We are now ready to resume the presentation of witnesses. The direct examination of witness Annie Ngo was concluded yesterday. The Defense may wish to call her to the witness stand for the cross-examination under the same oath.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness Annie Ngo is directed

to be brought back to the witness stand for cross-examination, if

there is any.

An officer of the Impeachment Court should fetch the witness from the holding room.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to manifest that we have already filed the Summary of Offer Testimony on Exhibits on Prosecution witness Annie Ngo consisting of 8 pages, Your Honors, copies of which were distributed to the Defense panel and to all the members of the Impeachment Court and also, of course, the Presiding Officer, together with the annexes earlier marked as exhibits.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer has obtained copies of the Summary of Offer Testimony on Exhibits of the witness.

MR. DAZA. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Attorney Daza.

MR. DAZA. The Defense confirms receipt of a copy of the summary at about 12:30 this noon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And so?

MR. DAZA. And under the agreement that we had yesterday, we have equal time counted from yesterday. And I reckon it is about 18 hours from yesterday to file our counter-summary if we see fit to do so. And that will be until tomorrow morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would it be all right with you if you reserve the submission of a counter-summary and to begin now the cross-examination, if you have any?

MR. DAZA. Yes. Precisely, that is what we intend to do, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that will be a happy compromise. You will be given the time that you had agreed upon within which to submit the counter-summary but you have to start your cross- examination of the witness now. Where is the witness?

MR. DAZA. That is what we intend to do, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your intention is granted. We will have the witness now.

MR. DAZA. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is the witness? Summon the witness.

REP. APOSTOL. The witness is being summoned by the court official.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness should pass that door there, that entrance.

MS. NGO. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Witness, you will be on cross-examination and you will testify under the same oath.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before the cross-examination,

Mr. Chief Justice, may I just ask. How do you pronounce you last name?

MS. NGO. Ngo, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, Madam Ngo, you have to submit yourself now to the cross-examination of lady Defense Counsel, Atty. Verzola.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. With the permission of the honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Permission is granted.

MS. VERZOLA. Mrs.?

MS. NGO. Miss, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Ms. Ngo, you said you are First Vice President of the Equitable Bank at present.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Before you were appointed as such, what was your previous position?

MS. NGO. Vice President, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. I see. You said when you came here yesterday that you were once a Branch Manager.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. What branch?

MS. NGO. Ex-EBC Soler Branch.

MS. VERZOLA. I see. So, that branch is not one of these five branches involved in the account?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. All right. Now, since you were never involved in these branches and you are now First Vice President of Equitable Bank, you never had an occasion to meet Yolanda Ricaforte?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. You came to know of her existence only when you answered the subpoena issued by the Court asking for the accounts you brought yesterday.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. And upon receipt of this subpoena, you asked certain subordinates in the bank to prepare the documents required?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. You were not the one who prepared these documents?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Since you have never met Yolanda Ricaforte, you are not also familiar with her signature, is it not?

MS. NGO. My familiarity….

MS. VERZOLA. Personally. You are not personally familiar with her signature?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor. But then, Your Honor, may I be permitted to answer.

MS. VERZOLA. I will ask you further questions, if I desire.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor. I am sorry.

MS. VERZOLA. Now, since you were not familiar with her signature, neither have you known Yolanda Ricaforte, you cannot come here and state that the Yolanda Ricaforte who opened the branch in Timog, Scout Tobias is the same Yolanda Ricaforte who opened the branch in Diliman, Matalino branch, and the same Yolanda Ricaforte who opened the Pedro Gil, Robinsons branch, the same Yolanda Ricaforte who opened T.M. Kalaw, Luneta branch, the same Yolanda Ricaforte who opened Quezon City Avenue, Scout Albano branch and the same Yolanda Ricaforte who opened the Isadora Hills branch of Equitable Savings Bank. You do not know that.

MS. NGO. On the contrary, Your Honor, based on my astute perusal of the specimen signature card submitted by the six branches,

I can very well verify that the signatures appearing on all the six signature cards are one and the same. And what was also written on the specimen signature card is the valid I.D. submitted by Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte, and this is a California Driver’s License No. A 9151277.

MS. VERZOLA. Thank you, Ms. Witness.

MS. NGO. Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Now, since you were only perusing astutely the records, I am asking you, please listen to the terms I am using, you have no personal knowledge of the opening of these accounts despite your astute perusal of the records?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Thank you.

MS. NGO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that all for the cross-examination?

MS. VERZOLA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are resting the cross-examination?

MS. VERZOLA. I will just ask my colleague here if he has other questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time would you need for that purpose?

MS. VERZOLA. I understand they have no more questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No more question.

MS. VERZOLA. Yes, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the cross-examination is terminated. May we recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Guingona and after that the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon and the honorable Judge….in the order.

SEN. DRILON. Just a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Pardon?

SEN. DRILON. Just for an orderly proceeding. Our agreement, Mr. Chief Justice, if you recall, is that all the…or the lawyers will be allowed to finish their examination of the witness, both for the Prosecution and the Defense, before the senators would avail themselves of the two-minute rule.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the cross-examination was terminated already.

SEN. DRILON. The Counsel for the Prosecution may have some redirect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see. Okay. So following that agreement then, we will inquire from the Prosecution if there is any redirect.

REP. MORENO. No more redirect, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There being none, then it should be the turn already of the honorable members of the Impeachment Court. Earlier, the Chair had recognized the honorable Senator-Judge Guingona. After that, the honorable Judge-Senator Drilon. Then, the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon. The honorable Senator-Judge Leviste. And, finally, the honorable….not yet finally, the honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano. And, finally, the honorable Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

So now, it is your turn, honorable Senator-Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Ms. Ngo–

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. –you stated that you opened, I mean, Yolanda T. Ricaforte had six accounts in your bank, is that correct?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And this totalled P207 million plus interest. About P212 million. Is that correct?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor. That is correct.

SEN. GUINGONA. And most of these funds were checks drawn by Governor Singson. Is that correct?

MS. NGO. Most of…Ah, the checks that were deposited were drawn and issued by Governor Luis Singson, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And Governor Singson did not have any authority to withdraw from those funds. Did he?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor. The checks that were issued by Governor Luis Singson were deposited in the account of Yolanda T. Ricaforte in the six various branches that I mentioned yesterday.

SEN. GUINGONA. And at no instance did Governor Singson withdraw.

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you. Less than two minutes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, thank you very much. Before we go to the honorable Judge Drilon, just for the information of all concerned, the Defense, the Prosecution and the public, the honorable senators had agreed already that in the availment of the two-minute rule, they have decided to ask questions only after the termination of the examination by the Prosecution, the Defense, back to the Prosecution, if there is any redirect. So, we will be able to monitor exactly the expiration of the two minutes for each.

So, now, the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Madam witness…

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. In the course of the direct examination of Prosecutor Oscar Moreno, you identified the signature cards.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Again, can you tell us how you were able to identify these signature cards? Is this part of the records of the bank?

MS. NGO. Yes. On the specimen signature card, if you will notice on the lower left portion of the specimen signature card, are the words “signature authenticated by.” And on the lower right portion of the specimen signature card are the words “approved by.” Which means to say that the signature, specimen signatures affixed on the specimen signature cards were authenticated by a branch personnel. It could be a new accounts clerk or it could be an operations officer. And after checking, if all the data indicated on the specimen signature card are authentic, and if they really jibe with what was indicated on the valid IDs presented to the bank prior to the opening of the account, the officer then affix his or her signature on the “approved by” portion.

SEN. DRILON. And all of those procedures were followed.

MS. NGO. They were followed, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. In all of the signature cards presented.

MS. NGO. In all of the signature cards presented. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And all of these signature cards are official records of your bank.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Now, in the ordinary course, would the officer require some identification card?

MS. NGO. Yes. For a walk-in client like Ms. Yolanda T. Ricaforte, what was required of her is to submit what we would classify as a valid or acceptable ID.

SEN. DRILON. And in the case of Ms. Ricaforte, what was this valid ID?

MS. NGO. She presented a California driver’s license and the number is A915277.

SEN. DRILON. A California driver’s license…

MS. NGO. 9151277.

SEN. DRILON. Is a copy of the California driver’s license retained on the file, if I may ask?

MS. NGO. Unfortunately, the branch personnel did not retain a xerox copy because she was not required to. What was required of her is to compare the signature appearing on the ID submitted and to compare this with the signature affixed on the specimen signature card. And if the comparison jibes, then she will allow the opening of that particular account.

SEN. DRILON. And in the case of Yolanda Ricaforte, this procedure was followed?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. That is all for the witness. Thank you.

MS. NGO. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Ngo, in your testimony during the direct examination yesterday by the prosecution, there was a mention of microfilming some of the documents.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. The microfilming of documents, is this a standard operating procedure in the bank?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor, it is a standard operating procedure wherein all the checks that were deposited by all the bank clients are being microfilmed not only at the branch level, but these are also being microfilmed at the Philippine Clearing House Corporation, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. But you also mentioned yesterday that one of the documents that was supposed to be microfilmed, the microfilm is not available for the reason that there was an overexposure of the film?

MS. NGO. Yes, the microfilm copy was available, except when we were developing that particular frame in which the check was inserted or in which the check appeared, that particular roll of film was overexposed. So what came out was a blurred photocopy of the microfilmed copy, and what the bank did, what our central clearing department did was to request for a retrieval of a microfilm copy at the Philippine Clearing House Corporation.

SEN. BIAZON. How often do the occurrences of overexposure happen in your bank of microfilms?

MS. NGO. Probably five percent.

SEN. BIAZON. Five percent?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. And would you still have this spool, because I understand that in a day’s transactions, you have a spool for the day’s transactions?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor, we do. We can present that.

SEN. BIAZON. Will this spool be still available?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor, these are dated.

SEN. BIAZON. Now, if ask to present this spool, will you be able to present this?

MS. NGO. We will be able to present it, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. And so my last question would be: The overexposure, is it for the whole spool or specific segment of the spool?

MS. NGO. It will be for the whole spool.

SEN. BIAZON. For the whole spool?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the honorable Judge Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Madam Witness, you earlier mentioned to Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon that Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte had opened an account with her ID of her California driver’s license, is that correct?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And you also mentioned that she did not leave it but the person in charge at the bank just compared the signature and her signature in the deposit slip?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Is it not a usual bank procedure that the IDs and photos are left along with the specimen signature card?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor, it is not a standard operating procedure.

SEN. LEVISTE. It is not?

MS. NGO. It is not for all banks.

SEN. LEVISTE. What form of identification had been left in your bank for Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte?

MS. NGO. None, Your Honor. What was indicated in the specimen signature card are the numbers of the ID presented to the branch personnel when an account is being opened.

SEN. LEVISTE. So the person who would have personal knowledge of Ms. Ricaforte would be the person or officer who took charge of her application, is that correct?

MS. NGO. That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And based on the records which you had studied in the bank, the six bank accounts belong to one, only one and the same Yolanda Ricaforte?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. That is all. Thank you.

MS. NGO. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Then the Presiding Officer will now recognize the honorable Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ms. Ngo, good afternoon.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Bilang head ng Western….

MS. NGO. Metro division.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, and having been with the bank for some time, iyon bang isang depositor na kagaya ni Mrs. Ricaforte o kung sino man na nakatira sa Quezon City at nag-open ng several accounts sa different branches ng Equitable, iyan ba ay pangkaraniwang nangyayari o pambihirang nangyayari?

MS. NGO. In this case, it is not really common. But then, we have to take into consideration that the office address given by Ms. Yolanda T. Ricaforte is reflected as Manila Midtown Hotel. So she opened accounts with our branches which are located in that area, specifically Pedro Gil, Robinsons and our Luneta branch. And since her residence is in No. 25 Freedom Avenue which is located in Quezon City, she opened four other accounts within the Quezon City area. So I think it is not uncommon for a client to open various accounts with various branches, considering that her residence is located in another area and her office is located in another area, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi ba pag nag-o-open kayo ng current account, mayroon kayong tinatawag na parang credit investigation?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Dito sa napansin kong Exhibit “LLL-6B”, parang ito iyong customer credit information.

MS. NGO. The individual account record, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, yes.

MS. NGO. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. Napansin ko rito, iyong business address wala; employer, wala; occupation, wala; position, wala. Kataka-taka ba iyan o talagang nangyayari iyan sa Equitable PCI Bank?

MS. NGO. There are some clients who would not divulge the employer’s name or the office address, but I think that is only limited to one branch, Your Honor. But in other branches, I think that was also indicated in the specimen signature card.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi yata totoo iyan, Ms. Ngo, dahil pinag-aralan kong lahat iyong individual account record, wala akong nakita. Anyway, matatapos na iyong dalawang minuto ko.

Bakit ho tinanggap iyong ID na California driver’s license samantalang Pilipino naman siya?

MS. NGO. I think a driver’s licence is an acceptable ID in our bank. And if a walk-in client wants to make a substantial cash deposit and she could present a valid ID and the signature compares favorably with that on the ID then, usually the branch personnel and the branch officer will allow the opening of such account, considering that they also have a budget to keep.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sa laki ng account at sa dami ng account, bakit wala akong napansin dito na parang references ng mga tao o kung sinuman iyong nagrekomenda sa kanya?

MS. NGO. I think she was not referred by anyone when she opened the account with the six bank branches. Had she been referred by anyone, that information would have been indicated in the specimen signature card, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Kahit na isang mataas na opisyal ng Equitable Bank?

MS. NGO. Yes. It would have been indicated in the specimen signature card, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Dito sa mga tsekeng winidro, wala yatang indorsement sa likod.

MS. NGO. Which particular check, Your Honor?

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyong cashier’s check na anim na pagkatapos ay ini-negotiate.

MS. NGO. I would have no idea, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Salamat po, tapos na ang aking dalawang minuto.

MS. NGO. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

We now recognize her honor, Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Ms. Witness, yesterday, for virtually the entire length of the session, you identified and authenticated voluminous documents, and I must say, in exemplary fashion, exhibiting a commendable state of preparedness.

MS. NGO. Thank you.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I was highly impressed with your conduct and demeanor on the witness stand sometimes reciting from memory, outright, virtual, and accurate names of bank accounts, amounts deposited, amounts withdrawn, et cetera. For emphasis and just as a summary, can you please repeat to me what are the names of the personalities who are involved or were involved in all of these transactions that you testified to?

MS. NGO. First, I would like to thank you for your compliment. The account holder of the six various branches is none other than Ms. Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Was there any other personality involved when you were going through these bank documents apart from Yolanda Ricaforte?

MS. NGO. None, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. How about Governor Singson. I think you mentioned his name yesterday.

MS. NGO. His name appeared because he is the drawer of several checks that were deposited to the account of Ms. Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Your Honor.

SEN. DEENSOR SANTIAGO. So his name appeared too.

MS. NGO. Yes. His name appeared.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. So we have Yolanda Ricaforte, Luis Singson. And try and search your memory. Is there any other name that you may have overlooked no matter how marginal the connection was?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. William Gatchalian issued two checks drawn against PCIB in the amount of P35 million each and the check numbers are 617706 and 617707, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. You have just proved what I said earlier about your amazing memory for numbers.

So we have three names so far. We have Yolanda Ricaforte, we have Luis Singson, we have William Gatchalian. Do you need time to think about any other name? Do you think that you might have overlooked?

MS. NGO. I could not recall of any at this point, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. At this time. Of course, you can feel free to tell your lawyer if you remember other names.

So I will now ask my question: Is the name of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada connected in any way with these transactions on the basis of the records that you authenticated for the whole day yesterday?

MS. NGO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Thank you.

MS. NGO. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any further questions from the members of the Court?

The honorable Judge Roco. After Judge Roco, anybody else who would like to ask questions? [Silence]

SEN. ROCO. I will ask questions, Mr. Chief Justice, with your permission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You might be the last already.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Only so that we don’t drowse off.

Ms. Witness.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. You said you examined astutely the records. Did you notice the address of the witness?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. What was the address in that Timog, Scout Tobias branch?

MS. NGO. It’s No. 25 Freedom Avenue.

SEN. ROCO. What was the address in Diliman, Matalino?

MS. NGO. It’s also the same.

SEN. ROCO. No. 25.

MS. NGO. Freedom Avenue.

SEN. ROCO. Freedom Avenue.

MS. NGO. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. What was the address in Pedro Gil, Robinson’s?

MS. NGO. It’s also the same.

SEN. ROCO. What was the address in T.M. Kalaw?

MS. NGO. It’s also the same, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. No. 25 Freedom Avenue.

MS. NGO. No. 25 Freedom Avenue.

SEN. ROCO. And what was the address in Quezon Avenue, Scout Albano?

MS. NGO. It’s also the same, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. So you could not reach the conclusion that the person, Yolanda Ricaforte, were five different persons living in the same address, hindi ba?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Hindi naman siguro limang tao ang parehong pangalan ang nakatira sa parehong address pagkatapos your conclusion is iba ano?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. How about the signatures. Did you look at them?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Are you a trained person in looking at signatures?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor. I attended several seminars, signature verification seminars, at our Central Bank.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, I went through the exhibits as well. Did you notice any difference between the signature when they opened an account in Timog?

MS. NGO. It’s all the same, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Diliman?

MS. NGO. It’s the same signature, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Same signature. Pedro Gil?

MS. NGO. The same signature, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. T.M. Kalaw?

MS. NGO. The same signature.

SEN. ROCO. Quezon Avenue?

MS. NGO. It’s the same signature, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. How about the telephone numbers?

MS. NGO. It’s also the same.

SEN. ROCO. So it seemed logical for you to reach the conclusion that they are one and the same person?

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. I guess that is all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing further?

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

MS. NGO. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet. I am trying to look around if there are some members of the Court who would like to ask questions.

The honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Ginoong Chief Justice, puwede bang pahintulutan akong magtanong ng isang tanong lamang?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted.

MS. NGO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Base doon sa mga dokumento na i-prinesenta ng Prosecution sa ilalim ng inyong deklarasyon, masasabi ba ninyo na

iyong mga pera na dineposito ay pera ni Chavit Singson o pera ni Yolanda Ricaforte?

MS. NGO. A client who opened an account and deposited various check deposits to his account would mean to say that the funds deposited under that particular account belongs to the account holder which is none other than Ms. Yolanda T. Ricaforte.

SEN. ENRILE. Pero maaari rin na pera noong nag-issue ng tseke?

MS. NGO. It is possible, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is now excused. Thank you, Madam Witness.

MS. NGO. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness for the Prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness is Edelquinn Nantes. She is the branch manager of Timog, Scout Tobias Branch, Equitable PCI Bank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness.

REP. APOSTOL. Examining counsel is Congressman Oscar Moreno, assisting counsel is Atty. Joey Peñafrancia, private prosecutor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And for the Defense, who will be the cross-examining counsel and the assisting counsel?

MR. MENDOZA. Cross-examining counsel will be Atty. Jose Flaminiano, assisting counsel will be Atty. Cleofe Verzola, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

Prosecutor Moreno, the witness will be identifying documents?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And have these documents been premarked already?

REP. MORENO. From the documents which had earlier been premarked yesterday, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, no new documents?

REP. MORENO. That’s right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only identification of documents already presented yesterday and testified on by a witness?

REP. MORENO. That’s right, Your Honor, to simplify because there are here six branches, 31 accounts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, this should be one branch?

REP. MORENO. This is one branch and we will be limiting our testimony, Your Honor, to the circumstances under which these accounts were opened.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Administer the oath to the witness, Mr. Secretary. Please rise.

THE SENATE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO BARBO). You, Edelquinn Nantes, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MS. NANTES. I do.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Please sit down.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat, Madam Witness. Prosecutor Moreno, qualify your witness.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

Ms. Nantes, pakisabi po ng pangalan and ‘yong mga personal circumstances ninyo.

MS. NANTES. I am Edelquinn Nantes, 42 years old, married, residing at 35 Scout Fuentebella St., Quezon City.

REP. MORENO. Your Honors please, we’re presenting Ms. Nantes for the purpose of proving the circumstances under which the account with Timog, Scout Tobias Branch of Equitable PCI Bank was opened by Mrs. Yolanda T. Ricaforte, as well as the discussions between Mrs. Nantes and Mrs. Ricarforte in respect of these accounts, including the purchase of the cashier’s checks and the receipt by Mrs. Ricaforte of the cashier’s checks payable to cash, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have now the witness.

REP. MORENO. Mrs. Nantes, ikaw po’y manager ng Timog, Scout Tobias Branch. Ilang taon na ho kayong naging manager ng branch na ‘yan?

MS. NANTES. Seven years na po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And ilang taon na kayo sa bangko, Mrs. Nantes?

MS. NANTES. I have been with the bank for 22 years, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Si Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte eh kilala mo ba?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor, when she opened the account.

REP. MORENO. Kailan po ‘yan?

MS. NANTES. That was last September 1, 1999.

REP. MORENO. And pakisabi lang po, anong nangyari noong nag-open si Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte sa branch ninyo?

MS. NANTES. Ah, sinunod ko po ‘yong bank policies wherein I asked questions on matters that the bank needs.

REP. MORENO. Ano ho ‘yong policy na ‘yan, anong ginawa? May pinirmahan bang…?

MS. NANTES. I requested her to sign the signature cards, the current and savings account forms, the authority to debit, the required forms of the bank in opening an account.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit LLL-2-B and LLL-2-B-1. Pakisabi po sa Korte kung ano itong dokumento na ito?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you showing the original of the document?

REP. MORENO. I am sorry, Your Honor, it’s a photocopy of… which was earlier premarked, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand you have the original documents. Show the original to the witness. She should be testifying on the original documents as marked.

REP. MORENO. Ito po ay may tatlong…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The assisting prosecutor may assist Prosecutor Moreno to expedite and facilitate the withdrawal of the exhibits from the folders of exhibits.

REP. MORENO. Mrs. Nantes, ipapakita ko po sa ‘yo ang tatlong specimen signature cards. ‘Yong una would be savings account specimen signature card Account Number 0157042270. Pakisabi po ng Korte kung ano itong dokumento na ito.

MS. NANTES. Ito po ‘yong pinirmahan niyang savings signature card just to open a savings account, regular savings account.

REP. MORENO. Ito ba’y pinirmahan in your presence?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ito naman pong isang signature card Account Number 01070-06389, pakisabi po ng Korte kung ano ‘yan.

MS. NANTES. These are checking signature card to open a regular current account.

REP. MORENO. Pinirmahan ba ‘yan ni Mrs. Ricaforte in your presence?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Kaninong pirma itong nasa ibaba, approved by — may pirma diyan?

MS. NANTES. Initials ko po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And dito sa dorsal portion ng unang specimen signature card na ipinakita ko sa ‘yo kanina, meron din pirma, approved by. Pakisabi po kung sino’ng pumirma niyan.

MS. NANTES. Initials ko rin po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And ito pong pangatlong specimen signature card Account No. 01070-06389, pakisabi po ng Korte, kung ano ‘to.

MS. NANTES. It’s the second copy of the current account opening. Second copy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what’s the pleasure of the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon?

SEN. DRILON. Can we just ask the Prosecutor to refer to the exhibit number because we are finding it difficult to follow. Unless an exhibit number is mentioned, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The observation is well-taken. The Prosecutor is advised to do that.

REP. MORENO. The last mentioned signature card, Your Honor, is Exhibit “LLL-2-B”, and the dorsal portion is “LLL-2-B-1″. And then the earlier certificate… sorry, card that I mentioned is marked, the copy is marked as Exhibit “LLL-2-C”, and the dorsal portion is “LLL-2-C-1″. And…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the Prosecutor, the Senate President is recognized.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Congressman Moreno, we would like to find out how many documents are you going to present to this witness?

REP. MORENO. Dalawa lang po, yung specimen signature and then ‘yung receipt ng cashier’s check.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right. Because if you have so many of the same thing, we might as well go into a stipulation.

REP. MORENO. And then itong last, ito ‘yung application for cashier’s check. Pakisabi po ng Korte… this is Exhibit

”LLL-2-RR”, Your Honor. Pakisabi po ng Korte kung ano ito?

MS. NANTES. This is an application for cashier’s check by Yolanda Ricaforte for P9l million.

REP. MORENO. Kaninong pirma itong “approved by” na nakasulat?

MS. NANTES. Initials ko po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Mayroong pirma dito, signature of purchaser or authorized signatory. Kaninong pirma iyan?

MS. NANTES. Signature of Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you a credit cashier’s check with …This is Exhibit “LLL-2-SS”, the original I am showing to you, paki-describe po ng korte kung ano ito?

MS.NANTES. This is a duplicate copy of the cashier’s check that we issued to Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte with Check No.13064 dated April l3, 2000 for P9l million.

REP. MORENO. There is a box at the middle portion on the left side, it says, “received” at may pirma. Kanino ho ba iyang pirma na iyan?

MS. NANTES. Yes, it was received by Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte.

REP. MORENO. Bakit mo pirma itong… Bakit mo nasabi na pirma ni Yolanda Ricaforte ito at saka ‘yung mga earlier documents that you have identified?

MS. NANTES. Because she signed the documents in my presence.

REP. MORENO. Now, Mrs. Nantes, pakisabi po kung ano’ng nangyari noong date of opening. Nagkita ho ba kayo ni Mrs. Ricaforte or did she send somebody to open the account on her behalf?

MS. NANTES. She personally opened the account with us.

REP. MORENO. Magkano ang initial deposit niya?

MS. NANTES. Initial deposit was Pl7,210,000.00.

REP. MORENO. Cash or check?

MS. NANTES. Check-a Metrobank Ayala check.

REP. MORENO. And then, was she a walk-in client or referred to you by somebody, or did she bring with her any document that would introduce her?

MS. NANTES. She was a walk-in client, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then ano’ng nangyari noong pumunta

siya sa opisina ninyo?

MS. NANTES. She asked if she could talk to the manager.

REP. MORENO. And then?

MS. NANTES. And then that’s when she inquired about the opening of a checking and savings account.

REP. MORENO. Sino’ng kausap niya noon?

MS. NANTES. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then ano’ng nangyari noong nag-uusap kayo? Usually pag mayroong depositor na pumapasok, siyempre the fundamental principle is that the bank must know its depositors. Now, did you do… What efforts if any, did you do in order to establish that familiarity with the depositors?

MS. NANTES. Well, according to… As per bank policy, we have to know our clients. We have to make interview as to the banking rules, as to the information for the bank.

REP. MORENO. So ano’ng interview ang ginawa mo kay Mrs. Ricaforte, if any?

MS. NANTES. Well, I asked about her … The residence, the occupation.

REP. MORENO. And then ano’ng sinabi niya?

MS. NANTES. And she said she’s into real estate.

REP.MORENO. Ano pa, if any?

MS. NANTES. That’s all that I can recall, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Magkano ‘yung deposit that .. ‘yung initial deposit that she placed?

MS. NANTES. Seventeen million, two hundred ten thousand (P17,210,000) wherein five thousand pesos (P5,000) were placed, were opened for checking account and the balance with savings account.

REP. MORENO. Is this seven zero million or one seven?

MS. NANTES. One seven.

REP. MORENO. One seven million. Then what was your reaction when you received the check, personal check drawn by somebody that ..Is Governor Singson a depositor of your bank?

MS. NANTES. Yes. Pardon, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Is Governor Luis “Chavit’ Singson a depositor of your branch?

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So hindi mo siya kilala?

MS. NANTES. No.

REP. MORENO. So, ano’ng reaction mo when you received the check as branch manager with respect to the request for the opening of an account?

MS. NANTES. Well, I just asked the new accounts clerk to process the deposit.

REP. MORENO. Yeah. Doon sa interview ninyo, interview mo kay Mrs. Ricaforte, aside from asking her kung saan siya nakatira, ano’ng negosyo niya, ano’ng sagot niya doon sa tanong mo kung ano’ng negosyo niya?

MS. NANTES. Well, she said she’s into a real estate and a fishpond business.

REP. MORENO. Now, si Governor Singson, subsequent to that… I am sorry. Si Mrs. Ricaforte, subsequent to that opening, placed cash as well as check deposits with your branch, is that correct?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ilan hong check deposits na iyan?

MS. NANTES. There were seven checks that were deposited.

REP. MORENO. Ilan ho iyong cash deposits na iyan?

MS. NANTES. Twelve.

REP. MORENO. And in each of these deposits, sino ba ang nagdala ng mga deposito doon sa branch ninyo, whether cash…

MS. NANTES. Siya po mismo.

REP. MORENO. Sino’ng “siya”?

MS. NANTES. Si Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte po mismo.

REP. MORENO. And in all of these instances, sino ang kausap ni Mrs. Ricaforte doon?

MS. NANTES. Ako po at saka iyong isang officer namin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And what is the ranking of Mrs. Ricaforte with respect to your branch deposit levels as an individual depositor in relation to the other depositors of your branch?

MS. NANTES. During that time, Your Honor?

REP. MORENO. Yes.

MS. NANTES. She was qualified as our valued client.

REP. MORENO. And was she your largest depositor or not? Was she your largest depositor in your branch?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Tinanong mo ba si Mrs. Ricaforte kung may asawa siya at saan nakatira iyong asawa niya?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ano’ng sagot niya?

MS. NANTES. Doon din po sa address na iyon, iyong ibinigay niyang address sa ano, sa signature card.

REP. MORENO. Yeah. Ano ang sagot niya tungkol sa tanong mo kung saan ang asawa niya — may trabaho ba o wala?

MS. NANTES. A businessman, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Kilala mo ba si Atty. Resti Ricaforte?

MS. NANTES. Nung lumabas na lang po sa ano, sa Senate Blue Ribbon.

REP. MORENO. Prior to that, kilala mo ba siya?

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, doon sa pagbili ng cashier’s check ni Mrs. Ricaforte, isang cashier’s check payable to cash. When the application was presented to you, what did you do?

MS. NANTES. I processed the application.

REP. MORENO. So, is it normal for your branch to issue cashier’s check? Magkano ba iyong cashier’s check na in-issue dito ng Timog-Scout Tobias Branch?

MS. NANTES. Ninety-one million pesos (P91,000,000).

REP. MORENO. So, pagbigay sa iyo ng application, you just processed the application and issued a cashier’s check. Is that correct?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And even if it’s payable to cash?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. You did not ask any question from Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. NANTES. Well, I asked her what she’d be doing with it.

REP. MORENO. Is it a normal practice for a bank to issue a cashier’s check payable to cash for P91,000,000 and just ask kung saan gagamitin?

MS. NANTES. Well, actually, na-mention ko po sa kanya na iyong pay to “cash” is very risky, and that’s why we asked her to sign the Deed of Undertaking.

REP. MORENO. Ano ang sagot niya noong sinabi mo na risky iyong cashier’s check na payable to cash?

MS. NANTES. Okay lang daw po.

REP. MORENO. Tinanong mo ba siya kung saan niya gagamitin?

MS. NANTES. Tinanong ko po pero ang sabi niya gagamitin lang daw po niya talaga.

REP. MORENO. Ito bang si Mrs. Ricaforte who appeared in the middle of October or thereabout in the television in various hearings of the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Senate, is that the same Yolanda Ricaforte who is your depositor?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. That’s all, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination. Atty. Verzola.

MS. VERZOLA. Yes, Your Honor. With the permission of the honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MS. VERZOLA. Mrs….

MS. NANTES. Nantes.

MS. VERZOLA. Mrs. Nantes, the first…the opening of the account of Mrs. Ricaforte was in September 1, 1999.

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. And it was an initial deposit of P17,210,000?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. And another one, 12 additional cash deposits made for different periods?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Now, you said the initial deposit was in Metro Ayala Check No. 1360. Would I be correct if I say that this check deposit was drawn by Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Now, there is another check deposit in the amount of P9,043,000 and this consists of seven checks deposited for the period September 7, 1999 to January 11, 2000. Would I also be correct if I say that this check was also drawn by Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. NANTES. Not all, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Which. How many of these checks were drawn by Luis “Chavit” Singson?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may refer to the documents.

MS. NANTES. (Witness going over the documents) I am sorry, Your Honor. May I ask for a copy of it?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The copy of what?

MS. VERZOLA. Copy of what?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The original documents?

MS. NANTES. The original document of the check deposits.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Produce the original documents, Prosecutor Moreno.

MS. VERZOLA. Seven additional check deposits made for the period September 7, 1999 to June 14, 2000, Exhibit “LLL”.

MS. NANTES. (Conferring with Prosecutor Moreno) Eto po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show them to the witness. Do you need a reiteration of the question, Madam Witness?

(Witness conferring with Prosecutor Moreno)

Are you now ready to answer, Madam Witness?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now answer.

MS. VERZOLA. How many of these checks were drawn by Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. NANTES. It was that seventeen million two hundred ten and the three million seven hundred pesos from Metrobank Ayala Center.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the ladies…..

SEN. DRILON. Again, Mr. Chief Justice–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. –I have to do this. But again, can we request the witness and the counsel to refer to exhibits. Because of the voluminous papers in front of us, we could not follow unless you make a reference of the Exhibit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is well-taken again. The witness is advised to make specific mention of the document if once she would testify on the document.

You were asked about the checks drawn by Luis Singson.

MR. MORENO. Your Honors, witness is referring to Exhibit “LLL-30”….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we request the witness to make the answer?

MS. NANTES. It is under Exhibit “LLL-30” and Exhibit “LLL-30-A”. First, the P17,210,000; and Exhibit “LLL-31” and “LLL-31-A” for the check for P3,700,000, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. In other words, aside from the P17,210,000 check, there were three other checks issued by Luis “Chavit” Singson on the seven additional check deposited in your bank.

MS. NANTES. Attorney, ay…., dalawa lang, Your Honor,

dyan sa….

MS. VERZOLA. I thought you mentioned three.

MS. NANTES. Two–P17,210,000 and the P3,700,000….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just for clarification into the records. Your answer, Madam Witness, is, there are only two checks–

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –issued by him?

MS. NANTES. Two checks only. The P17,210,000 and the P3,700,000.

MS. VERZOLA. Oh, so it’s not two.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you want your conversa-tions to be….

MS. VERZOLA. Let’s make this very clear, Ms. Witness. There were three checks issued by Luis “Chavit” Singson for the….

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. How many?

MS. NANTES. Two checks only. The P17,210,000 for the opening, and the additional P3,700,000.

MS. VERZOLA. Is it not a fact that seven additional check deposits were made for the period September 7 to June 14, 2000 in the total amount of P9,043,000? Is this…. Are you saying that this was embodied only in one check belonging to Luis “Chavit” Singson and the six others were drawn by other people?

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor. The P9,043,000, this would exclude the P17,000,000. I am sorry. Okay.

MS. VERZOLA. Of course, we are talking about the first P17,210,000 and then the additional seven checks deposited for the period September 7, 1999 to June 14, 2000. Please look at your Exhibit “LLL” where the seven additional checks are Item No. 3 in the total amount of P9,043,000. There are seven checks.

I am asking you. Of these seven checks, how many of them were drawn by Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. NANTES. One, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. What amount?

MS. NANTES. The P3,700,000, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. I see. Now, I would be correct then if I say that the deposit of Yolanda T. Ricaforte in your branch was initially opened by a check issued by Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. VERZOLA. Thank you, Ms. Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No further cross? Any redirect?

REP. MORENO. Just one question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On redirect?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. MORENO. Doon sa listahan ng mga deposits, check deposits, Exhibit “LLL-“….Exhibit “LLL-2”….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exhibit LLL-2.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was it mentioned in cross-examination?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor. The summary of the check deposits, the seven check deposits.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. MORENO. Pakibanggit lang kung sinu-sino itong…. or anu-ano itong anim na mga deposits, other deposits beginning from

No. 2 to No. 7?

MS. NANTES. It’s a PNB-Naga Check No. 16135 for P1,697,000. Next is PNB Check No. 16132 for P1,711,000 which was returned on November 12, 1999 for the reason “Stop Payment;” another regional check for P1,890,000; a local check for P15,000; another local check for P15,000; and another local check for P15,000.

REP. MORENO. That’s all, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any question from the honorable members of the Impeachment Court? The honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano; and after him, anybody else who would like to ask questions? There being none, it would only be the honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ms. Nantes, sabi mo kanina noong ininterview mo si Mrs. Ricaforte, ang sabi sa iyo nasa real estate siya. At nang itinanong mo kung ano ang trabaho ng asawa niya, ang sabi ay businessman. Later on, ang sabi mo nakita mo sa telebisyon si Mrs. Ricaforte at saka si Undersecretary Orestes.

Nang makita mo sila sa telebisyon, hindi ba nagbago ang tingin mo at may pinagsabihan ka ba na iyon palang si Mrs. Ricaforte ay hindi real estate woman at si Mr. Ricaforte hindi businessman. May pinagsabihan ka ba?

MS. NANTES. Sa ano lang po, sa office.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi mo inireport sa matataas mong mga opisyal?

MS. NANTES. Hindi po, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi ba kataka-taka iyon, sapagkat sabi mo nga individual ano siya, highest depositor, and yet nakita mo na nagsinungaling siya, hindi ba?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi mo inireport?

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, one last question. Iyong sa application forms, doon sa current at saka sa savings account, sino ang nag-fill up noon?

MS. NANTES. Ipina-type ko po doon sa New Accounts clerk namin, tapos noong pagdating po niya at saka nag-sign doon sa application form.

SEN. CAYETANO. Oo. Hindi, pero napansin ko iyong application form in handwriting. Halimbawa natin, iyong telephone number sa current account ay home number pero sa savings account ay cellphone number, but these were written in … handwritten.

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sino ang sumulat noon?

MS. NANTES. Iyon po kasing first copy, pinapa-fill up.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the exhibit number for that document?

SEN. CAYETANO. I know, but I don’t want that to be counted against my minute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the exhibit number?

REP. MORENO. “LLL-2” and “LLL-3.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show the documents to the witness.

REP. MORENO. Your Honors, current account ho ba iyong itinatanong?

SEN. CAYETANO. Oo, current account at saka savings account application.

MS. NANTES. I am referring to Exhibit “LLL-2-B” wherein the….it was a handwritten….

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyong telephone number?

MS. NANTES. Handwritten po ito ng ano, handwriting po ito ng New Accounts clerk po namin.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay.

MS. NANTES. Bale po ginaya iyong finill-up-an niya na savings account, Exhibit “LLL-2-C” for Savings Account No. 015704227-0, siya po ang nag-fill up nito. Handwriting po ni Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyon ang may cellphone number?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has to modify the earlier pronouncement that it would be the honorable Sen. Rene Cayetano who will ask the question. We have other reservations, the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon, and the honorable Judge-Senator Guingona. One after the other, two minutes each according to our Rules.

SEN. DRILON. Ms. Witness, how long have you been a manager of this branch that is referred to in your testimony?

MS. NANTES. Seven years and eight months.

SEN. DRILON. In seven years and eight months, how many times did you have a walk-in client depositing P17,210,000 as an initial account?

MS. NANTES. Only Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Hindi ka ba nagtataka kung bakit napili niya iyong branch mo?

MS. NANTES. Naitanong ko na rin po, Your Honor, iyon. Ang sabi po niya, “I would like to try Equitable Bank.”

SEN. DRILON. “I would like to try Equitable Bank.” So, seven years ka, ika mo sa bangko?

MS. NANTES. Yes, as manager of the branch.

SEN. DRILON. And this is the only time that amount of that nature was deposited by a single personal depositor?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And you did not tell your bosses that there was this depositor?

MS. NANTES. I was asked by our division head. Kasi po may….

SEN. DRILON. When did your division head ask you?

MS. NANTES. During a meeting.

SEN. DRILON. What prompted your division head to ask you that question?

MS. NANTES. Because of the additional deposit that was made.

SEN. DRILON. And did he wonder how you got that account?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor. I told her that she was a walk-in client.

SEN. DRILON. And in your experience, is this usual that somebody walks in with P17.210 million just being deposited without the same being previously arranged?

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Are there occasions when your President or your Vice-President or your boss would call you to ask you to accomodate a depositor?

MS. NANTES. Not once with me, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. So there were no occasions when your President would ask you to take care of a particular customer?

MS. NANTES. Not with me, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. How about with others?

MS. NANTES. I am not sure with others, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. But not in your particular case?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. To your recollection, you said that P17.210 million was the only time that you received such an initial deposit. How about in other instances, what is the next biggest deposit, if you can recall? Initial?

MS. NANTES. For checking, savings account or for placement, Your Honor?

SEN. DRILON. In the same nature, current or savings account.

MS. NANTES. It’s P6 million, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Well, my two minutes is already up.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

The honorable Senator-Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you.

Mrs. Nantes, could you please clarify iyong tsekeng sinabi mong the source of the drawer was from Naga branch, PNB-Naga?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the exhibit number?

MS. NANTES. It is under Exhibit “LLL-32” and “LLL-32-A” for P1.697 million PNB-Naga check. And another PNB Check No. 16132 for P1.711 million.

SEN. GUINGONA. Would you know the drawer of those checks?

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Judge-Senator Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Miss Ngo, this account opened by….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ms. Nantes.

SEN. BIAZON. Ms. Nantes, I am sorry. Is this account still active?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. And there is still a balance there?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Is there anybody drawing upon this deposit?

MS. NANTES. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Why not?

MS. NANTES. It is….

SEN. BIAZON. Is the deposit under garnishment?

MS. NANTES. It’s on hold, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. By whom?

MS. NANTES. Under hold?

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

MS. NANTES. It was hold by the branch.

SEN. BIAZON. Will you explain?

MS. NANTES. The account was on hold.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes, on whose order?

MS. NANTES. By our legal counsel.

SEN. BIAZON. So, nobody is attempting to draw upon this deposit?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say “yes”, what do you mean?

MS. NANTES. Nobody can withdraw or make deposits on the account.

SEN. BIAZON. Upon the order of your… ?

MS. NANTES. Legal counsel, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. What would be the basis of your legal counsel to issue such an instruction? Are you told?

MS. NANTES. Because it is now in the Court. It is in the impeachment proceedings.

SEN. BIAZON. Since when was this deposit or account was ordered to be on hold?

MS. NANTES. Yesterday, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Only yesterday?

MS. NANTES. Yesterday.

SEN. BIAZON. When was the last time, today?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. When was the last time any amount was drawn upon that deposit?

MS. NANTES. October 5, 2000, when she issued a check payable to Phileast Travel and Tourist Corporation.

SEN. BIAZON. For what amount?

MS. NANTES. For P79,664.80.

SEN. BIAZON. That was the last time any amount was drawn from that account?

MS. NANTES. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. What is now the balance of the deposit?

MS. NANTES. Outstanding balance as of November 29, 2000 is P6,919,069.47, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Per exhibit what?

MS. NANTES. Under Exhibit “LLL”.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I guess no more reservations

have been made. The witness may now be excused. Thank you,

Madam Nantes.

MS. NANTES. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness for the Prosecution.

MR. MORENO. Incidentally, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, before starting with the next witness, the question raised by the honorable Judge-Senator Biazon is indeed very appropriate. Because my understanding is that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me. I do not think it would be proper for you to make a comment on that. The witness has already been excused.

MR. MORENO. No, this is not related to the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would declare you to be out of order. I am sorry.

MR. MORENO. I am sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness.

MR. APOSTOL. Our next witness is Mrs. Rosario S. Bautista, branch manager, Diliman, Matalino, Equitable/PCI Bank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness in.

The Majority Leader.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, since it is only a few minutes before our scheduled first break, I would propose, at this point, a 20-minute break before we call the next witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have the conformity from the Prosecution and from the Defense?

There is a request proposed by the Majority Leader for a suspension of about 20 minutes before the witness shall take the stand.

MR. APOSTOL. We have no objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And what about the Defense?

MR. MENDOZA. No objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the parties unanimously agreed to have a suspension of 20 minutes effective at 3:39.

Thank you.

It was 3:39 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:27 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise. The Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice; the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senate President.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is resumed.

Before the resumption of the trial, upon request of the Prosecution and the Defense, the conference was had between them and together with the Presiding Justice, the Senate President and the members of the Impeachment Court for them to agree on certain matters of procedure intended, one, to further shorten the proceedings and to modify what had earlier been agreed insofar as the testimony of Gov. Luis Singson is concerned.

During the second preliminary conference, the parties agreed that Singson should testify first for Article I, after which he will be cross-examined by the Defense and his testimony to be completed thereafter for Article I. Then later, he will be called to testify as a witness for Article II. Again, after the direct testimony, the Defense was supposed to cross-examine, after which redirect, if any, and then recross, if still necessary.

The parties, however, later on agreed to modify that. And the modification was contained in the supplemental second preliminary conference order. The modification consisted in the agreement between the parties. That Mr. Singson should testify for the first Article to complete his testimony without a cross-examination yet. And then sometime later, he will be called to testify as witness for Article II or the second Article of the Articles of Impeachment. And after he shall have completed his direct testimony, the Defense will now cross-examine him both for Article I and Article II.

Before the resumption of the trial this afternoon during the conference the Chair had earlier mentioned, the Defense and the Prosecution had agreed for reasons stated during the conference that

Mr. Singson will now be called to testify as witness for the second article of the Articles of Impeachment. After that, the Defense will cross-examine him as witness for the First and Second Articles. Meaning to say, that there will be only one cross-examination time for the direct examination in Article I and the direct examination in Article II.

The cross-examination of the witness, Mr. Singson, will be on January 2 and thereafter, until completed, assuming that his testimony on direct examination for the second Article can be terminated before we will have our Christmas recess.

The second agreement was, since the motion to reconsider the ruling of the Chair on the Extended Order regarding the opening of

the sealed envelope was filed only this afternoon but within the period given the Defense yesterday, and the Presiding Officer had only about five minutes to read it when we had the break, and considering that

the Prosecution had requested for time within which to file a written opposition to the motion to reconsider which shall be within 24 hours

as agreed upon yesterday starting at this hour, the consideration

therefore will be tomorrow after the filing within the period of the opposition thereto.

If the parties will now agree that after the submission of the opposition to the motion to reconsider the incidence shall be deemed submitted for resolution without any oral argument, then that would be…the incident would thus be submitted for resolution, sans the oral argument. If the parties would decide to argue further, each would be given ten minutes.

So the third agreement was to defer the presentation of other witnesses and to call back Mr. Singson.

Any comment from the Prosecution on the summary of the agreements?

REP. ARROYO. I think, …How about the Westmont?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Another agreement. Insofar as the production or subpoena duces tecum on documents from other banks, the agreement was that the parties can avail exclusively only of Rule XXVII, meaning, the production of the documents–no longer by way of deposition on oral examination. A subpoena duces tecum for the production of the documents. And for banks which would voluntarily agree, the production may forthwith be done. But for banks which may avail of some other technical grounds for nonproduction, the Defense may file the appropriate pleading in connection therewith.

Yes, Attorney Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. With respect to the motion for production,

I believe, Mr. Chief Justice, that I requested to see first a sample motion and that I was unable to agree on that yet.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, subject to the agreement that the document should be specified, there should be no catchall provision regarding the production of any other documents because that would really be a shotgun proposal or a catchall proposal which would

render the application rather vague and so general which may be unfair to the other party.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, the United Overseas Bank, formerly Westmont Bank, has turned over to this Honorable Court

certain documents last Thursday consistent with or to follow what the Equitable Bank has done the day before. And the bank, Westmont Bank, in fact, their representatives are here, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, because they are willing to proceed with the scheduled deposition tomorrow morning. But given the announcement of the Presiding Officer, I think the Prosecution is prepared to conduct instead an inspection and production of documents rather than a deposition.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No more oral examination of the witness?

REP. MORENO. That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But subject to the condition recommended by the Defense — meaning, only specified documents.

REP. MORENO. That’s right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will you kindly list down the documents from the Westmont Bank and submit the list to the other party?

REP. MORENO. If I may, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And with proper notice, of course, for the opening, if these are in sealed envelopes, for the opening of that envelope from the Westmont Bank, now UBO?

REP. MORENO. UOB, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. UOB.

MR. MENDOZA. Subject to any objection we may raise after receiving the motion, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Of course. You are entitled to all the remedies you may have in mind under the Rules of Court.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, actually, in compliance with the subpoena earlier issued, Westmont Bank, now United Overseas Bank, has submitted to the Senate as an Impeachment Court last Thursday,

so these documents, Your Honors, are already in the possession of

this Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, you can discuss that matter with the Defense counsel after the trial is over.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the agreement we had before we resumed the trial.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, the…

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Arroyo, if Atty. Mendoza is already through.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, you suggested that after

the Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration is filed, the parties

may agree to submit it at the same time you gave us an option to argue

for 10 minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes, yes.

MR. MENDOZA. We would like to avail of that option, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about the Prosecution?

REP. ARROYO. Well, if the Defense would like to avail of that, then naturally, we would like to avail of that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It all depends on whether you will really eventually avail of the ten minutes.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes. I will have to look at the opposition first, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We request the Prosecution, especially the Presiding Officer and, I am sure, the members of the Court, to file the opposition as soon as possible to give us time to read it also.

REP. ARROYO. We will do that, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, per agreement, then we will proceed to Article II, and our first…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only insofar as the testimony of Singson is concerned.

REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because after him, we have to go back and complete the evidence for Article I.

REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice. So, our next witness is…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On that understanding, you can recall the witness and bring him inside the Court to take again the

witness stand.

The honorable Senator-Judge Drilon is recognized.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice, while we are waiting for the witness, I have an inquiry from the Court. May we know, Mr. Chief Justice, if any member of the Impeachment Court filed a dissent to your Extended Order?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As I mentioned earlier, so far,

I only received the concurring opinion with reservation of the honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago and the full concurrence of the Senate President.

SEN. DRILON. May I know, Your Honor, until what time would the Members of the Court be given an opportunity to file their dissent, if any? I recall that we had an agreement there so that we will know if that particular hour would have passed that your Order becomes the Order of the Court, in accordance with our rules?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer issued an Order before regarding the filing of the Motion to Reconsider and also the dissenting or the concurring opinion. I think the message is very clear. It should have been filed not later than today.

SEN. DRILON. All right. Because if there was no filing,

Mr. Chief Justice….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, since we have granted the Prosecution until tomorrow to file an Opposition to the Motion to Reconsider, any member of the Tribunal may file a concurring or dissenting opinion. In which case, if there will be a dissenting opinion, that would be an entirely different matter.

SEN. DRILON. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice. That’s precisely my point. The motion for reconsideration of the Defense and the opposition filed to that motion for reconsideration by the Prosecution is a completely different matter. Because the moment a dissent is filed by any member of the Court under our Rules, that matter is thrown to the entire Court, whereas a motion for reconsideration filed by the Defense would only be resolved initially by the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Because as the Chair had announced earlier, a dissent will be considered, in effect, as a motion to reconsider the ruling of the Chair. In which case, the movant–meaning the one who is opposing the position of the Chair–will have two minutes to support his view, and another will be entertained to speak in contra, after which there will be a voting on the motion to reconsider. In which event, therefore, we have to suspend consideration of the motion to reconsider presented by the Defense.

SEN. DRILON. That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice. So that if there is no dissent filed by any member of the Court, there would be no opportunity today for a voting by the entire Court and therefore, the Extended Order of Your Honor, the Chief Justice, is now the decision of the entire Court, subject, of course, to the motion for reconsideration that is filed by the Defense and the opposition that would be filed by the Prosecution. That is all my point, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well-taken.

SEN. DRILON. So….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?

SEN. DRILON. So if there is no dissent yet filed as of this hour, do we take it to mean that the entire Court, that your Order is now the Order of the entire Impeachment Court?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you moving to that effect? You are moving…..

SEN. DRILON. Yes, I so move, if there is no such motion being filed. Because if I recall correctly, we have until about 4:30 today to….

I am sorry? Oh, five o’clock then. We wait for five o’clock.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will for five o’clock.

SEN. DRILON. Yes. And then we will make the appropriate motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then the motion may be reiterated at five o’clock.

SEN. DRILON. Yes, Chief Justice. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The reservation for reiteration is granted.

SEN. LEVISTE. With the permission of the honorable Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. LEVISTE. We wanted to put on record that I had submitted my full concurrence to your ruling last Friday. It was received by the Court. I just mentioned it because it has not been recorded, I believe, by the Chief Justice, and not mentioned earlier.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I have not received a copy of that, Your Honor, but I would be very, very……

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, around two hours ago, Mr. Chief Justice.

It was full concurrence, of course.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

So, call now the witness.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President. For a while, Prosecutor Arroyo.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Would the prosecutors and the Defense need the transcript of the Blue Ribbon hearings for purposes of Mr. Singson’s testimony?

REP. ARROYO. Yes, we would be very happy to have it,

Mr. President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. We already have them. They have not yet been bound as suggested by the Chief Justice because of bureaucratic delays. But we have the transcripts about one foot thick.

REP. ARROYO. Blue Ribbon?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Blue Ribbon.

REP. ARROYO. We will get our copy, Mr. President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, please.

Mr. Chief Justice, with your permission, we would like to instruct the Pager of the Senate to distribute copies of the transcripts of the

Blue Ribbon hearings to the Prosecutors and to the Defense and to

the Senator-Judges.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To the members of the Impeachment Court. Of course, insofar as the copies of the impeachment court are concerned, the Presiding Officer would suggest that the Secretary or the Office of the Secretary should bind them into at least four volumes so it would be very, very easy for the members of the Court to refer to the pages and volumes whenever a witness is confronted of any testimony given at the hearing of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The Pages will please–Mr. Chief Justice, I am sorry–distribute the transcript first to the Prosecution, one copy, one full set, and another set for the Defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Provide now, the Prosecution first, with that voluminous record of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, and then another copy to the Defense.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, Mr. Chief Justice, only one set for the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. You retrieve that other one. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only one copy. Only one set for the Prosecution and for the Prosecution to consider the possibility of reproducing them for each of the members.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. At their expense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At your expense. The same ruling for the Defense, only one copy.

I think we are now ready to receive the testimony of the witness for the Second Article.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. President, our witness will be Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson. The direct examination will be conducted by a

private prosecutor, Pablito Sanidad, assisted by Prosecutor Oca Moreno, under my control and supervision.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In short, you are now saying that the examining counsel will be Sanidad–

REP. ARROYO. That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –and the assisting counsel

will be?

REP. ARROYO. Prosecutor Moreno, under my control and supervision, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. SANIDAD. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor please, may we formally enter our appearance. I’m Pablito Sanidad of the Free Legal Assistance Group.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you appearing for the Free Legal Assistance Group or as a private prosecutor?

MR. SANIDAD. We are…. That is a group of private…. We are the part of the private Prosecution, Your Honor, helping the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the group entered its appearance as a private prosecutor? Because early on, the Chair recalls there were specific names mentioned as private prosecutors.

MR. SANIDAD. No, Your Honor. It’s just the organization to which I belong. It’s just like a law firm.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you are only identifying yourself as belonging to that organization?

MR. SANIDAD. Yes, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not the organization that is appearing as a private prosecutor too.

MR. SANIDAD. No, Your Honor.

Before the… Since we are waiting for the witness, Your Honor, may I take advantage of the time to clear some preliminary matters.

First of all, since we are merely recalling the witness, may we pray that we be allowed to dispense with the ritual of having to qualify him all over again.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. That is the clear understanding even under the Second Preliminary Conference Order.

MR. SANIDAD. And may we also be allowed to adopt his previous testimony under the First Article of Impeachment?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The old testimony?

MR. SANIDAD. Well, as far as they may be relevant to the Second Article–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any comment from the Defense?

MR. SANIDAD. –so that we will not have to cover the same grounds, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any comment from the Defense on that proposal? Meaning, to adopt that portion of the testimony of the witness as witness for the First Article–

MR. MENDOZA. We have no objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –as testimony for the Second Article so far as relevant?

MR. SANIDAD. Yes, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since there is no objection….

MR. MENDOZA. We have no objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, the request is granted.

MR. SANIDAD. The witness is not yet here. But may we proceed to make the offer, Your Honor, why we are presenting this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make the offer now.

MR. SANIDAD. We are presenting Governor Singson, Your Honor, in connection with and to prove that portion of the Second Article of Impeachment, which states that: “President Joseph Estrada violated the Constitution and stands guilty of graft and corruption when he directly or indirectly requested or received for his personal benefit P130 million out of the P200 million released by Sec. Benjamin Diokno of the Department of Budget and allocated under Republic Act 7171.”

We are presenting the witness to prove the circumstances and manner as to how in the month of August 1998, the said amount of P130 million was released by the DBM and ultimately delivered to President Estrada and members of his family for their personal gain and benefit.

We are also presenting this witness to show that by the nature of his testimony, Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson comes under the coverage of PD No. 749. We are also presenting him to prove the efforts exerted by persons acting in behalf of the President, as well as by President Joseph Estrada himself, to prevent the witness from publicly exposing the abovementioned acts, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is now on the witness stand.

Mr. Singson, the Presiding Officer of the Court would like to advise you that you will be testifying under the same oath.

MR. SANIDAD. May we proceed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Sanidad may now proceed.

MR. SANIDAD. Governor Singson, noong kayo po ay tumestigo rito noong nakaraan na linggo, ang sabi ho ninyo ay kayo ay kasalukuyang gobernador ng Lalawigan ng Ilocos Sur at naging Congressman din kayo ng 1st District ng probinsiyang iyan, tama ho ba iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Puwede ho ba ninyong sabihin kung kailan kayo naging deputado o Congressman ng 1st District of Ilocos Sur?

MR. SINGSON. 1987 to 1992, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Bilang naging Congressman ng 1st District of Ilocos Sur, familiar ho ba kayo doon sa batas, Republic Act No. 7171, na nagngangalang “An Act to Promote the Development of the Farmers in the Virginia Tobacco Producing Provinces?” Familiar ho ba kayo doon sa batas na iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor. Ako po ang principal author noon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. As principal author, sa maikling salita, Governor, sa pananaw ninyo, ano ho ang pangunahing katangian nitong batas na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Mabalik iyong mga….Around 15% of all the excise taxes of cigarettes will go back to the Virginia tobacco-producing provinces para mapaunlad po namin ang kabuhayan ng mga farmers, lalung-lalo na sa mga magsasaka namin sa tabako, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. SANIDAD. We have taken the liberty of distributing copies of Republic Act 7171 to the Defense and also to the members of the Tribunal. We have no intentions of marking it as an exhibit, but we distributed copies so that there will be available for ready reference. And may we pray that Your Honor take judicial notice considering that it is an official act of the legislative body of….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not even a need for a prayer for the Court to take judicial notice of that.

MR. SANIDAD. Thank you, Your Honor.

It appears from Republic Act 7171, Governor, na ito ay naaprubahan noong Enero 9, 1992, noong panahon pa ni Pres. Cory Aquino. Sabihin nga ho ninyo kung na-implement ba itong batas na ito noong panahon ni President Aquino?

MR. SINGSON. Patapos na po iyong term ni Pres. Cory Aquino noon, Your Honor, at hindi na na-implement, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Si President Aquino ay pinalitan ni Pres. Fidel Ramos. Sabihin nga ninyo sa amin kung noong panahon ni President Ramos ay na-implement ho itong batas na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Na-implement po, Your Honor, pero na-delay for almost three years at gusto nilang amendahan noon, pero nung hindi maamendahan, naamendahan din iyong sharing, Your Honor. Instead of 100% pupunta sa probinsiya, 30% lang po ang naiwan, napunta sa congressman, napunta sa mga mayors ang iba, Your Honor, kaya hindi namin nagawa lahat iyong mga proyektong gusto namin sa probinsiya, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Pagdating naman ng kasalukuyang Pangulo, si President Joseph Estrada, ano ho ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Bago po naging presidente si Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, nangampanya sa amin sa lalawigan ng Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, Abra, and La Union, at ipinangako niya na pag siya ang mahalal na presidente, ibibigay lahat iyong pondo namin sa 7171, pati interest na hindi naibigay noong nakaraang administrasyon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano hong election campaign itong tinutukoy ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. 1998, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Tumatakbo ho si President Estrada para sa anong posisyon?

MR. SINGSON. For President, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Saan ho niya sinabi itong pangako na pagpapatupad nang lubusan dito sa Republic Act No. 7171?

MR. SINGSON. Sa Region I, Your Honor, especially sa Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, Abra and La Union. At sinabi niya, pagka manalo siyang Presidente, ibibigay niya lahat iyong pondo pati interest.

MR. SANIDAD. Noong nanalo si Presidente Estrada, ano ho ang nangyari kung meron man?

MR. SINGSON. Noong nanalo ho, Your Honor, ipinaalala ko iyong pangako niya, dahil iyon “Ang pangako natin noong election,” ‘ikako. Sabi niya: “Oo, bakit hindi. Pero sana makatulong ka dahil marami tayong obligasyon noong nakaraang eleksiyon.” Sabi niya sa akin, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Mga kailan ho itong sinabi mong pagpapaalala mo sa kaniya noong pangako niya?

MR. SINGSON. Pag-upung pag-upo, Your Honor. Siguro July ho iyon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Saan ho kayo noong ipinaalaala mo sa kaniya?

MR. SINGSON. Sa bahay niya sa Greenhills, Your Honor, Polk Street, Greenhills.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho uli iyong sagot niya doon sa sinabi mo sa kaniya tungkol sa pangako niya?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi niya, Your Honor, “Sana makatulong ka dahil marami tayong gastos noong nakaraang eleksiyon.” Iyon po ang sinabi sa akin, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho ang naintindihan ninyo doon sa sinabi niya?

MR. SINGSON. Ang pagkaintindi ko po, Your Honor, humihingi ng porsiyento roon. So, ‘ikako naman, “Bakit hindi?” Ang sagot ko sa kaniya, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Porsiyento ho saan?

MR. SINGSON. Sa ibibigay niya na release ng pondo namin sa 7171, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Bakit ho ganoon ang pagkaintindi ninyo, Governor?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po ang usapan namin, Your Honor, noong tinanong ako. So, ‘ikako, “Bakit hindi?” Magkano kaagad ang tinanong, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano naman ho ang sagot ninyo noong nagtanong siya ng: “Magkano?”

MR. SINGSON. ‘Ikako, Your Honor, “Siguro 10%, kung ano man ang mai-release na pondo. “Dahil iyong balanse namin noong araw at that time, Your Honor, is around P4 billion ang hindi naibigay.

MR. SANIDAD. Samakatwid, sumang-ayon kayo doon sa hinihingi niyang 10%?

MR. SINGSON. Napilitan ako, Your Honor, dahil matagal nang delayed iyong project namin na iyon, Your Honor. Dahil pag napagawa namin iyon, sa buong mundo ay computerized na ang mga curing barn. Dito lang sa Pilipinas ang kahoy pa rin ang ginagamit at kawawa ang mga farmers namin, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ten percent ho ng ano ito?

MR. SINGSON. Noong pondo na manggagaling sa release ng 7171, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Pagkatapos itong pag-uusap ninyo ni Presidente Estrada, ano ho ang sumunod na nangyari, kung meron man?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi niya, “Sige at gumawa ka ng request at aaprubahan ko.” So, gumawa kaagad ako ng request, Your Honor. Written request, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Kanino ho naka-address itong written request na ginawa ninyo na inutos ni Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Addressed to the President, Your Honor. Kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Kung ipapakita ko sa iyo ang kopya nitong sulat na ito, sa akala mo ba makikilala mo uli?

MR. SINGSON. Makikilala ko po, Your Honor, dahil iyon ang kauna-unahan na na-release sa probinsiya namin at pinirmahan niya, may marginal note sa bandang kanan ng request ko, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ipinapakita ko sa iyo, Governor, itong sulat, liham na may petsang 30 July 1998. Tingnan nga ho ninyo kung ito ho iyong sulat na tinutukoy ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor. Ito nga po iyon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Your Honor, the Witness is referring to a document which had already been previously marked as Exhibit “OOO”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And copies were given to the Defense and to the members of the Court?

MR. SANIDAD. Yes, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Triple “O”.

MR. SANIDAD. “O-O-O.” Governor, mayroon hong lagda dito sa itaas ng pangalang “Luis Chavit Singson”. Alam ho ba ninyo kung kaninong pirma iyan?

MR. SINGSON. Sa akin po, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Mayroon kayo kaninang tinutukoy na marginal note. Saan ho ba itong marginal note na sinasabi ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Dito ho sa bandang kanan, Your Honor, addressed to the Secretary of Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Secretary Ben Diokno, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Puwedeng pakibasa na lamang ho, for the record, itong marginal note na tinutukoy ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. “To Secretary Ben Diokno: Please see if you can accommodate this request of Governor Singson.” Signed by the President, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Paano ho ninyo alam na itong pirma dito sa marginal note ay pirma talaga o lagda talaga ni Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Ako mismo ang nagpapirma nito, Your Honor, sa bahay niya.

MR. SANIDAD. Pagkatapos hong naibigay ninyo ito kay Presi-dente Estrada at naglagay siya ng marginal note addressed to Secretary Ben Diokno, ano ang sumunod na nangyari, kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Ipinadala ko, Your Honor, kay Secretary Ben Diokno at inantay na namin ang pondo sa aking probinsiya.

MR. SANIDAD. Habang inaantay ninyo kung maaaprubahan ito o hindi, may nangyari ho ba?

MR. SINGSON. Halos araw-araw ay magkasama kami ni Atong noon, Your Honor, at pina-follow up niya kung na-release na iyong pinirmahan ni Presidente. Ikako, “Hindi pa.” So, panay ang follow-up namin sa DBM noon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Itong Atong Ang, ito ba iyong Charlie “Atong” Ang na binanggit mo na noong huling tumestigo ka rito noong

nakaraan na linggo?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon nga, Your Honor, iyong pinakamalapit na kaibigan ng Pangulong Estrada.

MR. SANIDAD. Puwede ho ba ninyong sabihin kung bakit

bigla yatang nakialam itong Atong Ang dito sa usapan nitong release ng pondo sa 7171?

MR. SINGSON. Dahil alam niya ito, Your Honor, dahil halos araw-araw magkasama kami noon at pina-follow up niya sa akin iyan.

MR. SANIDAD. Alam mo ba kung may na-release nga dahil doon sa request ninyo na nanggaling sa pondo ng Republic Act 7171?

MR. SINGSON. Noong malapit nang magtapos ang Agosto, Your Honor, mayroon nang mga notice na dumating sa probinsiya namin, hanggang dumating ang pondo sa Land Bank, Vigan. Tapos, may notice din sa probinsiya namin, Your Honor. Doon ko na lang nalaman na

may-release na nga, na dumating na iyong pondo sa probinsiya namin, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Tingnan ninyo itong Exhibit triple “O”. Iyong hinihingi ninyong release ng pondo ay P500 million. Iyan ho ba iyang buong amount na nai-release sa inyo?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi po, Your Honor. At sabi ni Secretary Diokno ay dalawang daan muna at saka na lamang iyong ibang susunod, sabi niya. So, two hundred muna ang naibigay, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Paano uli ninyo nalaman, Governor, kung

na-release na iyong pondo o hindi?

MR. SINGSON. Dumating po sa probinsiya namin, Your Honor, una iyong SARO, tapos ay may notice na nanggaling sa Land Bank. Ipinaalam naman sa opisina ko, Your Honor. Dumating iyong P200 million na pondo namin sa bangko.

MR. SANIDAD. Noong nalaman na ninyo na dumating na iyong pondo galing sa Republic Act 7171, P200 million, ano na ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Noong nalaman ko na, Your Honor, nag-usap kami ni Atong Ang at sinabi niya sa akin na P130 million ang pinapasabi ni Pangulong Estrada dahil maraming babayaran, katatapos lang ng eleksiyon. Ikako, “Ang laki naman iyan.” “Hindi, marami pa naman iyan. Ako ang bahala at bilyon naman iyan. Kailangan tayo unang makapag-deliver para tayo ang pinakamalakas.” Iyon ang sabi ni Atong Ang, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ang sabi ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Noong una, tumututol ako, Your Honor, dahil pang-down nga sa equipment namin iyon. Pero sabi niya, agad-agad, tutal susunod pa iyong iba. Sa takot ko na hindi matuloy, Your Honor, pumayag ako.

MR. SANIDAD. Magkaano ho iyong….Noong una, iyong usapan ninyo ni Presidente, ikamo, ay 10% ng release. So, magkaano na itong hinihingi ni Atong Ang para sa Presidente?

MR. SINGSON. Hundred thirty million, Your Honor.

MR. SINGSON. Maliban kay Atong Ang at saka sa iyo, may iba pa bang taong nakakaalam nito?

MR. SINGSON. Si Jinggoy, Your Honor. Alam din ito.

MR. SANIDAD. Anong huling pinag-usapan ninyo? Sumang-ayon ho ba kayo na imbes na 10% na lang ay ibibigay iyong P130 million?

MR. SINGSON. Pumayag po ako, Your Honor, sa takot ko na hindi matuloy.

MR. SANIDAD. Noong pumayag na kayo, ano ang sumunod na nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Gumawa na kami ng appropriation–board resolution para sa appropriation ng P200 million, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Sino ho ang gumawa ng board resolution?

MR. SINGSON. Provincial Board, Your Honor, at ako po ang nag-approve, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. In-appropriate ang magkano ho?

MR. SINGSON. P200 million, Your Honor–P170 million iyong cash advance; P25 million iyong infrastructure; and P5 million for the postharvest facilities, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. May binabanggit ho kayong cash advance. Sino ho ang nag-cash advance?

MR. SINGSON. Ako rin po, Your Honor, P170 million, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Para ano ho itong cash advance?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong P130 million, Your Honor, papunta kay Pangulong Estrada at pamilya niya; iyong P40 million para may makita na equipment na project sa amin, Your Honor. So, P130 million napunta kay Pangulong Estrada; P40 million sa supplier, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Sabi mo P130 million para kay Pangulong Estrada. Papano ho makakarating kay President Estrada itong cash advance ninyo na P130 million na para sa kaniya?

MR. SINGSON. Noong una po, Your Honor, ang usapan namin ni Atong Ang, cash na dadalhin. So, iyong cash advance ko, nagpagawa ako ng tseke, sinubukan ko po na i-cash iyon sa probinsiya. Sabi ng bangko hindi puwede. So, tinawagan ko si Atong Ang–hindi raw puwede, kailangan may supplier.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho ang ginawa ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Nagbigay siya ng mga pangalan, Your Honor, na mga supplier, tatlong pangalan. At nagpagawa ako ng cashier’s check or manager’s check, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Natuloy ho ba na naibigay itong para kay President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi rin, Your Honor, dahil sabi ni Atong matagal iyon dahil nagmamadali ang Pangulong Estrada. So pina-cancel ko iyon, Your Honor, at interbank transfer ang nangyari. The same person, Your Honor, iyong mga binigay ni Atong Ang na pangalan.

MR. SANIDAD. Sinasabi mo may tatlong pangalan na galing kay Atong Ang. Natatandaan pa ho ba ninyo kung ano itong tatlong pangalan na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Nakalimutan ko na, Your Honor. Pero noong nakita ko ang mga records, naalaala ko, Your Honor–Alfaro, Rajas at Eleuterio Tan.

MR. SANIDAD. Kilala ho ba ninyo itong mga tao na ang pangalan ay nanggaling kay Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi ho, Your Honor, pero alam ko na malalapit sa kaniya dahil nga malalaking amount iyong ipapangalan sa kanila.

MR. SANIDAD. Sabi mo, naalala mo iyong mga pangalan dahil tsinek mo iyong records. May katibayan ba na napunta nga diyan talaga sa mga pangalan na iyan iyong mga sinabi mong interbank?

MR. SINGSON. Meron, Your Honor. Noong nalaman ko na sa Land Bank, kumuha kaagad ako ng certificate dated September 29 yata iyon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho ba ang partisipasyon ng Land Bank dito sa usapan na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Doon po manggagaling iyong pondong ini-withdraw namin, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Kung makita mo uli iyong certification galing sa Land Bank, makikilala mo kaya?

MR. SINGSON. Makikilala ko, Your Honor, dahil natatandaan ko iyong date.

MR. SANIDAD. Ipapakita ko sa iyo itong dokumento na namarkahan na ng triple “RRR.” Puwede ho ba ninyong sabihin sa akin kung ito iyong certification na tinutukoy ninyo?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that an original document, Atty. Sanidad?

MR. SINGSON. Original po ito, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. SINGSON. Galing sa Land Bank. Nakapangalan po kay Alma Alfaro – P40 million; Delia Rajas – P50 million; Eleuterio Tan – P40 million; total of P130 million signed by the Branch Manager, Elizabeth Balagot, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. May we just make it of record, Your Honor, that the entry referring to Alma Alfaro has been encircled in red ink and marked triple “RRR-1”; the entry referring to Delia Rajas has been encircled likewise in red ink and marked “RRR-2″. And the entry referring to Eleuterio Tan has been encircled in red ink and has been marked as “RRR-3″.

Governor, ipapakita ko uli sa inyo itong Exhibit “RRR”. May nabanggit kayo na mga amount na tinotal ninyo para maging

P130 million. Magkano ho ba yong amount na nakatuon doon kay

Alma Alfaro?

MR. SINGSON. P40 million, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Kay Delia Rajas?

MR. SINGSON. P50 million, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Kay Eleuterio Tan?

MR. SINGSON. P40 million, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Noong na-verify ninyo ayon doon sa certifica-tion na yon na yong pera ay napunta nga kina Alma Alfaro, Delia Rajas at Eleuterio Tan, ano ba ang sumunod na nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Tinawag sa akin ni Atong Ang, Your Honor, na natanggap nila iyong pera. Nag-usap kami na magkita sa bahay ng nanay niya, Your Honor. Sa apartment ng nanay niya sa Mandaluyong, malapit sa Shaw Boulevard.

MR. SANIDAD. Mga kailan ho ito?

MR. SINGSON. Siguro ho mga katapusan na ng Agosto, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. ‘Yong release, natatandaan ho ba ninyo kung anong buwan iyan? Yong release na galing sa DBM?

MR. SINGSON. Noong dumating ang pondo roon, Your Honor, siguro mga August 26 o 27 o 28, yong mga araw na iyon.

MR. SANIDAD. Noong tinawagan ka ni Atong Ang para maghantay doon sa bahay ng nanay niya, mga anong petsa na yon?

MR. SINGSON. Mga katapusan na siguro, Your Honor. Hindi ko maalaala yong date. After noong nai-withdraw iyong pera, siguro trenta o thirty-one, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ng anong buwan ho?

MR. SINGSON. Ng August ho, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Anong taon ho?

MR. SINGSON. 1998, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. So itong lahat nangyari sa iyo iisang buwan, Governor?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor. Dahil nga nagmamadali raw si Pangulong Estrada kaya ang bilis ng release.

MR. SANIDAD. Sinabi mo, tinawagan ka ni Atong Ang para pumunta doon sa bahay ng nanay niya. Saan ho ba itong bahay ng

nanay niya?

MR. SINGSON. Sa Mandaluyong, Your Honor, malapit sa Shaw Boulevard.

MR. SANIDAD. Tinanong mo ba kung anong dahilan kung bakit pinapapunta ka roon sa bahay ng nanay niya sa Mandaluyong?

MR. SINGSON. Usapan na namin, Your Honor, na doon kami magkikita dahil doon namin aantayin iyong pera na pinaalis sa bangko.

MR. SANIDAD. Nagpunta ka naman?

MR. SINGSON. Nagpunta ako doon, Your Honor. Umaga pa lang nandoon na ako, mga bandang alas diyes.

MR. SANIDAD. Sabi mo nagpunta ka roon para antayin ninyo yong pera na pinakuha. Mga hanggang anong oras ka naghintay?

MR. SINGSON. Hapon na, Your honor. Kumain pa kami roon ng tanghalian . Natapos kami siguro mga four to five in the afternoon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Sa pagkatanda mo, sinu-sino ang mga nandoon sa bahay na iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Yong nanay niya, Your Honor, mga kapatid at si Atong Ang.

MR. SANIDA. Sabi mo, pumunta kayo roon para mag-antay, may naantay ba kayo?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon, Your Honor. Yong pera na sinasabi niya, naantay namin, Your Honor.

MR.SANIDAD. Papaano ho dumating itong pera na ito doon sa lugar na pinag-aantayan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Una po, Your Honor, may nakita na ako na pinasok sa mga kuwarto. Tapos, “Antayin pa natin yong mga iba,” sabi niya, Your Honor. So inantay pa namin yong mga iba. Noong sinabi sa akin na nakahanda na, tinawag na ako, Your Honor. “Nag-aantay na si Presidente,” sabi niya, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho ang intindi ninyo doon sa sinabi niya, “nakahanda na”?

MR. SINGSON. Ang pagkaintindi ko, Your Honor, dumating na lahat iyong pera, iyong P130 million at “Nakalagay na sa sasakyan,” sabi niya. So, “Inantay na tayo ng Pangulong Estrada.” So lumabas na kami, Your Honor. Bago kami lumabas sa garahe, sabi niya sa akin na sumakay na ako sa kaniya, sa kaniyang sasakyan, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Saan ho galing ulit itong perang ito bago dumating doon sa bahay ng nanay ni Atong?

MR. SINGSON. Sa bangko, Your Honor, dahil malapit lang doon ang bangko, iyong Land Bank at saka iyong Westmont Bank. Malapit na malapit sa kanila, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Natatandaan mo ba kung paano kinuha ito galing sa bangko o sino ang kumuha?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi po ako kasama, Your Honor. Pagkuha sa bangko ay naghintay lang ako sa bahay nila, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ngayon, noong dumating na iyong sinasabi mong dumating na pera at sinakay na sa kotse, ano ho ang sumunod na nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Tumuloy na kami, Your Honor, pero ni-request niya na doon na ako sasakay sa kaniya. “So, punta na tayo kay Pangulong Estrada,” sabi niya. Tumuloy na ho kami sa Polk Street, Your Honor, sa bahay ni Pangulong Estrada.

MR. SANIDAD. Iyong sinabi mong iyong perang inantay ninyo ay galing sa bangko. Paano ho ninyo alam na galing sa bangko iyong perang iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Matagal na naming hinihintay iyon, Your Honor. Iyon ang usapan naming. At sabi niya na pinapalit. Dahil, ang sabi niya, wala yatang cash na kasya sa bangko yata, Your Honor. So, matagal naming inantay.

MR. SANIDAD. Sabi niya, sumakay ka na sa kaniya. Ano ho ang ginawa ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Sumakay na ako sa kaniya, Your Honor. Nagtuloy na kami sa Polk Street, sa bahay ng Pangulong Estrada.

MR. SANIDAD. Ilan ho kayo doon sa sasakyan niya?

MR. SINGSON. Dalawa lang kami, Your Honor, at sumunod na lang iyong sasakyan ko, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ilang sasakyan ho ninyo ang sumunod?

MR. SINGSON. Isa lang, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Mga ilang tao ho ang nakasakay doon sa sasakyan ninyo na sumunod?

MR. SINGSON. Kundi tatlo, apat siguro, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Gaano ho ba kalayo o kalapit itong bahay ng nanay ni Atong Ang doon ho sa pupuntahan ninyong bahay ni Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Kung walang trapik, Your Honor, mga 15 minutes siguro — 15 to 20 minutes.

MR. SANIDAD. Saan ho itong address ni Presidente Estrada na balak ninyong puntahan?

MR. SINGSON. Polk Street, Greenhills, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Nakarating ba naman ho kayo diyan sa address na iyan?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor, pero bago kami dumating, sinabi ni Atong Ang na maraming tao. “Mabuti pa, Pare, bumaba ka muna para hindi mahalata itong dadalhin ko. Ipasok ko muna ito. Tapos, sumunod ka na lang.”

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho ang ginawa ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Pinagbigyan ko naman, Your Honor, dahil alam ko naman na matatanong ko rin kay Pangulong Estrada. So, bumaba din ako sa kanto, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Pagkababa ninyo sa kanto, ano ho ang ginawa ni Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Napapanood ko, Your Honor, dahil hindi kalayuan iyong kanto at pinasok iyong sasakyan niya. Pumasok sa loob.

MR. SANIDAD. Loob ng alin ho?

MR. SINGSON. Loob ng bahay ng Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor. Noong nakapasok na, sumunod na rin kaagad ako, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Mga gaano ho katagal iyong pagitan pagkatapos mong makitang pumasok iyong sasakyan ni Atong Ang doon sa bahay ni Presidente Estrada bago ka sumunod din na pumasok?

MR. SINGSON. Siguro mga 15 minutes, Your Honor, dahil may nakilala ako roon na kinausap ko pa nang kaunti, Your Honor, bago ako pumasok.

MR. SANIDAD. Nakapasok ka ba doon sa bahay ni Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Nakakapasok ako roon, Your Honor, dahil halos araw-araw noon na nagpupunta ako roon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Pagpasok mo itong okasyon na ito, ano ho ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Pagpasok ko, Your Honor, sa sala na unang-una nasalubong ko, sa living room si First Lady Loi Ejercito Estrada at nagpasalamat kaagad. Ang sabi niya, “Naku, Chavit, maraming salamat, talagang kailangan namin dahil katatapos lang ng eleksiyon.”

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho ang pagkaintindi ninyo doon sa kung bakit nagpapasalamat si First Lady?

MR. SINGSON. Natanggap nila iyong pera, Your Honor, dahil wala naman kaming ibang dala kundi iyong pera.

MR. SANIDAD. Maliban kay First Lady, mayroon pa ho ba kayong ibang taong nakita roon sa loob ng bahay ni Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon, Your Honor. Si Atong Ang at saka si Jinggoy, Your Honor. Hindi kalayuan, Your Honor. Hindi pa na-renovate iyong bahay nila noong araw, Your Honor. At sa hindi kalayuan, nandoon sila, Your Honor, nag-uusap.

MR. SANIDAD. Pagkatapos noon, ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Noong bumaba si Pangulong Estrada, nag-usap kaagad kami sa round table, sa bahay nila. At habang nagkukuwentuhan ho kaming dalawa lang, tinanong ko na kung magkano ang ibinigay ni Atong Ang. Ang sabi niya, “Sitenta. Seventy.” “P130 million iyong dala namin dito”, ikako. Nagalit kaagad at kinawayan niya si Atong Ang. At nagagalit na tinanong kay Atong Ang, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho uli itong perang pinag-uusapan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong P130 milyon, Your Honor, na galing sa aming probinsiya, galing sa excise tax ng sigarilyo na na-release galing sa Republic Act No. 7171.

MR. SANIDAD. Magkano iyong inamin ni President Estrada na tinanggap niya?

MR. SINGSON. Sitenta, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Sabi mo kinawayan niya si Atong Ang. Ano ang sumunod na nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Lumapit naman agad si Atong Ang, Your Honor, at nagagalit na ang Pangulong Estrada. Sabi niya: “Bakit sitenta lang ang ibinigay mo, 130 iyong ibinigay ni Chavit?” “Hindi, kasi ibinigay ko kay First Lady iyong beinte, kinse kay Jinggoy.” At saka in-explain niya iyong beinte-singko na napunta sa kanya. So, nagalit ang Pangulong Estrada. Sabi niya: “Bakit ikaw ang nagbibigay? Kung meron man para sa pamilya ko, bakit ikaw ang nagbibigay? Dapat ako ang nagbibigay.” So, nagalit, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Liwanagin natin ito, Governor. Nakita mo ba iyong pera na ipinasok doon sa bahay ni President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi po, Your Honor. Pero inamin ng Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Nakita mo rin ba na iyong pera, iyong P20 milyon na sinasabi ay inabot kay First Lady?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi po, Your Honor. Pero nagpasalamat si First Lady, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Nakita mo ba na inabot ni Atong Ang iyong P70 milyon kay President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi, Your Honor, pero in-acknowledged. Sinabi ni Pangulong Estrada na pitumpo lang ang natanggap, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Balikan nga natin itong ano, Governor, itong P170 milyon, ‘ikamo, 130 itong pinag-usapan na natin na nai-deliver kina President Estrada. May diperensiya hong kuwarenta. Saan ho ba napunta ito?

MR. SINGSON. Napunta sa supplier, Your Honor, Mr. Nucho Saberio, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Supplier ho ng ano?

MR. SINGSON. Ng curing barn, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Para ano ho itong P40 milyon na napunta sa supplier?

MR. SINGSON. Supposed to be 170 iyan, Your Honor, nai-down payment namin sa kaniya, at P40 milyon na ang naibigay. At iyon muna ang inorder niya, Your Honor, iyong worth P40 milyon na curing barn, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Meron ba namang naitayo na curing barn na makikita natin na pinaggastusan nitong P40 milyon na ibinigay mo kay Mr. Saberio?

MR. SINGSON. Meron po, Your Honor. Si Pangulong Estrada mismo ang nag-inaugurate niyan noong birthday ko noong June 21, 1999 at kasama po si Senator-Judge, the honorable Senator-Judge Jaworski at si Secretary Angara, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Saan ho itinayo itong barn na ito na sinabi mong ini-naugurate mismo ni President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Sa bayan ng Sinaet, Your Honor, na ginagamit na ngayon iyong mga farmers sa tatlong bayan, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Itong Sinaet nasa Ilocos Sur ho?

MR. SINGSON. Ilocos Sur, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. May katibayan ho ba kayo na totoo ngang nagpunta si President Estrada para i-inaugurate itong barns na ito na itinayo sa Sinaet?

MR. SINGSON. Meron, Your Honor. Meron akong dalang picture, mga litrato, Your Honor, kung….

MR. SANIDAD. Itong larawan, dalawang larawan, isa ay namarkahan na ng “PPP” at isa ay “QQQ”. Dito ho sa “PPP”, puwede ho ba ninyong sabihin kung ano ho iyong nailarawan diyan?

MR. SINGSON. Si Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, at ako, Your Honor, saka iyong isa sa mga curing barn, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Dito ho sa larawan meron hong tao dito nakatayo dito sa likod ni President Estrada. Puwede ho ba ninyong sabihin sa hukuman kung sino ho ito? Kung nakikilala ninyo.

MR. SINGSON. Ako po, Your Honor. Ako po iyong nasa likod niya, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho itong tinitingnan ninyo dito sa larawang ito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong curing barn, Your Honor, na dumating doon. At ito nga iyong diniliber muna, Your Honor, na parte nung maraming curing barn na supposed to be darating sa probinsiya namin, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Dito ho sa Exhibit “QQQ”, ano ho naman ang nakalarawan diyan?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong mga curing barn na iba, Your Honor, na dumating at makikita rito iyong mga tabako, Your Honor, na naluto na na computerized, Your Honor. Kaya makikita natin dito maganda ang luto ng mga tabako, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Operational ho ngayon ito?

MR. SINGSON. Operational ho, Your Honor. Malaking kaginhawaan sa mga farmers namin ngayon iyan, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Your Honor, the witness all along was referring to Exhibits “PPP” and “QQQ”.

Bumalik ho tayo doon sa cash advance ninyo, iyong P130 million. Iyon ho ba ay na-settle na?

MR. SINGSON. 170, Your Honor. Hindi pa ho, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Hindi pa. Ano hong ginawa ninyo dito sa 130 na sinasabi ninyong hindi pa na-settle?

MR. SINGSON. Pending po iyon, Your Honor. Pinagtakpan lang namin iyon, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Sino ho ang nagsabing pagtakpan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Ang Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor. Dahil panay ang request ko sa kanya hindi naman nakapag-release ng malaking halaga. Nag-release nga ng konti-konti, Your Honor. So hindi namin matakpan iyong 130. Dahil kung itatakip namin iyong sumunod, parang another problem, Your Honor. So hindi namin napagtakpan. Ang sabi niya, “Gawan n’yo muna ng paraan.”

MR. SANIDAD. Itong pagtatakip o cover-up na sabi niyang gawan n’yo ng paraan, papano ho ginawa ito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong resibo noong P40 million, Your Honor, napakiusapan ko iyong supplier na gawin na lang na 170 habang hinihintay namin iyong pondo. Pagdating noong pundo, saka namin ibibigay sa kanya at ide-deliver din iyong iba, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Noon hong nag-umpisa tayo rito, nagbigay ho iyong dalawang panig ng opening statements. Si Atty. Mendoza sinabi niya tungkol mismo dito sa pinag-uusapan natin ngayon na Republic

Act 7171, lalo na iyong P200 million na nai-release. Sabi ho niya, kayo daw ho ay nagsinungaling, hindi lang nagsinungaling kung hindi nag-falsify ng 13 documents. Ano ho ang masasabi ninyo tungkol dito sa sinabi ni …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Counsel and the cross-examining counsel later on are requested to approach the bench to be accompanied by the other counsel on this issue now to avoid any objection later on.

MR. SANIDAD. Yes, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Sanidad.

MR. SANIDAD. May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed. Are you going to withdraw the question?

MR. SANIDAD. Yes, Your Honor. For the record, may I be allowed to withdraw the last question I asked which was premised on the opening statements of counsels.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. And just for transparency, the two counsels were requested to approach the bench in order precisely to probably put an end to questions relating to confrontation of the witness on the basis of a mere opening statement. The latter is not a fact, and therefore, there is no basis yet to confront the witness about the same. So you wait for the appropriate time.

MR. SANIDAD. We most respectfully submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. SANIDAD. Governor Singson, sabi mo kanina ipinag-utos ni President Estrada na pagtakpan na muna ito o i-cover-up. Ano ho ang ginawa ninyo para nga i-cover-up ayon doon sa utos ni President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon nga ho, Your Honor, pinagtakpan ko muna at nanghiram kami ng resibo para habang inaantay iyong pondo at pending naman iyon sa COA, Your Honor, ganon po iyong cash advance, pending iyong inspection nong COA. Pag nandoon na ang equipment, saka lang tatanggapin iyong resibo, Your Honor, at wala pa nga iyong mga equipment na kasunod noon kaya pending pa, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Dito ho sa P130 million na na-cash advance na napunta kina President Estrada, mayroon ho ba kayong kahit isang sentimo na tinanggap na kaparte?

MR. SINGSON. Wala po, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Itong cover-up na ito na sinasabi ninyo, nakalusot ba naman sa COA ito?

MR. SINGSON. Pending pa, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Noong tumestigo ho kayo noong nakaraang linggo, sinabi n’yo na pagkatapos noong sabi n’yong pagtatangka sa buhay ninyo noong October 3, 2000, at bago ninyo ibinulgar iyong mga nasabi na ninyo tungkol kay President Estrada noong October 9, marami hong tumawag sa inyo o nakausap ninyo sa telepono. Sinu-sino ho uli itong mga nakausap ninyo sa telepono?

MR. SINGSON. Unang-una, Your Honor, iyong anak, Your Honor….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, there is an objection.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor, because that has been the subject of a stipulation that whatever has been testified to before will be adopted in this direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Chair has to….

MR. SANIDAD. That is why we are adopting it as the premise for the question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you have adopted that already before, so it is covered already with the stipulation. You don’t have to repeat that.

MR SANIDAD. Okay.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. SANIDAD. Thank you. It shortens, it makes my job easier.

You said that you talked to Atong Ang. Sabi mo nag-usap kayo ni Atong Ang dahil pinipigil kang ibulgar iyong nalalaman mo tungkol

kay President Estrada. Unang-una, ilang beses kayong nag-usap ni

Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Maraming beses, Your Honor, at kung hindi ako nagkakamali, mga 20 times. Nakikiusap na huwag na lang ituloy at magkita kami ng Pangulong Estrada, ayusin na ang lahat at tatakpan na iyong P130 million, Your Honor, at lahat ng pangako ipinapangako na ni Atong Ang, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho iyong aayusin daw?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong….

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, these are covered by the stipulations.

MR. SANIDAD. No, Your Honor, the previous testimony was on jueteng. This is on 7171. We are zeroing in only on that particular aspect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness may answer. Meaning, the objection is overruled.

MR. SANIDAD. Can we have the last question read back, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Stenographer, kindly reread the question.

Louder, please. There is a microphone now, Caring.

THE STENOGRAPHER. [reading].

You said you talked to Atong Ang dahil pinipilit kang ibulgar ang… Ilang beses kayong nag-usap ni Atong Ang?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer.

MR. SINGSON. Siguro, 20 beses, Your Honor, dahil madalas tumawag at sinasabi nga na mag-usap kami ni Pangulong Estrada. Maski sa Malacañang, maski na sa P. Guevarra at ayusin na lang lahat at tatakpan na iyong P130 million na nakuha nila, Your Honor, at ipinapangako lahat, pati lahat ng Bingo 2-Balls ibibigay pa raw. ‘Kako, “late na yata”, kako, “dahil huli at nakalabas na ako.” So patawag-tawag, Your Honor, hanggang… Yun, pagkatapos naming nag-usap ng Pangulong Estrada at saka iyong mga anak.

So ganoon po ang pakiusap nila, Your Honor, na kalimutan na ang lahat at aayusin ni Pangulong Estrada, tatakpan na lang iyong P130 million. Kako nga nung una e, “Paano ngayon iyong P130 million na napunta sa Pangulong Estrada?” “Babayaran, tatakpan lahat. Mabuti mag-usap kayo para mabalik din sa dati.”

MR. SANIDAD. Paano ho ninyo alam na si Atong Ang nga ang kausap ninyo doon sa telepono?

MR. SINGSON. Madalas kong kausap, Your Honor, at nasa akin iyong mga telepono niya at siya ang unang tumawag sa akin noon. Kaya nakita ko agad, lumabas iyong pangalan niya sa telepono.

MR. SANIDAD. Binanggit ninyo na tinawagan or nag-usap din kayo ni President Estrada. Iyon ba ay bago kayo nag-usap ni Atong Ang o pagkatapos na kayong mag-usap ni Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Bago, Your Honor. Nag-usap muna kami ni JV at nakikiusap na sila na ayusin na lang lahat.

MR. SANIDAD. Sino ho itong JV?

MR. SINGSON. JV, iyong anak ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ho ang sinabi ni JV?

MR. SINGSON. “Kung maaari lang, ayusin na natin lahat,” at iyon ang pakiusap. So maya-maya tumatawag. Siguro every two minutes. Kaya yung anak ko, tinawagan din ako na, “Kung pwede mong sagutin daw iyong… Pwede mo raw tawagan si Presidente dahil pinagagalitan na si JV dahil hindi ka nagre-return call kay Presidente,” sabi niya.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ang ginawa ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. So noong una, Your Honor, tinawagan ko rin

si Presidente.

MR. SANIDAD. Natawagan ho ba ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Natawagan ko, Your Honor, nag-usap kami kaagad at sabi niya, hindi niya naasikasong mabuti yong problema noon at mainit ang ulo niya, maraming problema–iyong Abu Sayaff, saka si First Lady. So “Mabuti pa, pare, ayusin na nating lahat iyan.” sabi niya.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ang pagkaintindi mo doon sa gusto niyang ayusin.

MR. SINGSON. Ayusin na, Your Honor, takpan na yung P130 million at ibalik na rin sa dati.

MR. SANIDAD. Paano ho ninyo alam iyong telepono ni President Estrada, sabi mo ikaw ang tumawag?

MR. SINGSON. Madalas kong tawagan, Your Honor, at nasa akin lahat yung telepono ni Pangulong Estrada.

MR. SANIDAD. Paano mo naman alam na iyong kausap mo doon sa kabila ay si President Estrada nga?

MR. SINGSON. Madalas ko pong kausap, Your Honor, kabisado ko naman ang boses.

MR. SANIDAD. Ilang beses ho kayo nag-usap ni President Estrada uli?

MR. SINGSON. Dalawang beses, Your Honor, yung pangatlo, siya na ang tumawag.

MR. SANIDAD. Ano ang pinag-usapan ho ninyo nung panga-lawang beses?

MR. SINGSON. Ganoon din, Your Honor, nakikiusap na huwag na akong tumuloy. ‘Kako, “Late na masyado dahil yong mga iniwan ko na mga affidavit sa mga abogado ay nakuha yata ni Senator Guingona,” ‘kako.

“Huwag kang maniwala doon,” at masama nga ang sinabi, eh.

MR. SANIDAD. Masama ang sinabi. Pwede hong pasabi? Sabihin ho ninyo kung, with the permission of Senator-Judge Cayetano. Sabihin ninyo. Ano ho iyong masamang sinabi kay Senator Cayetano? Guingona?

MR. SINGSON. “Huwag mong pakinggan iyong si Guingona at luku-luko iyon” sabi niya, Your Honor. ‘Ikako “Nakapagsalita na sa Senate. Sana noong hindi pa ako lumalabas”, ‘ikako. “Hindi. Puwede pang ayusin iyan. Ayusin mo na lang,” sabi niya. Iyon ang pakiusap, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Maliban ho kay Atong Ang at saka kay President Estrada mismo…. I withdraw the question.

Iyong pangatlong tawag, ano ho ang nangyari? Sabi mo si President Estrada na ang tumawag noong pangatlong beses na nag-

usap kayo.

MR. SINGSON. Ganoon din ang pakiusap, Your Honor, na ayusin na lang dahil ang pagkatanda ko ay out of town siya noon, Your Honor. So ganoon din ang pakiusap. At gusto ko ring ayusin ikako pero parang late na masyado at nakalabas na ako at nakakahiya na hindi ituloy. Pagkatapos noon, si Atong Ang naman ang tumawag, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Maliban ho kay Atong Ang at saka kay Presidente Estrada, sinabi rin ninyo noong nakaraang linggo na may iba pang taong nakiusap sa inyo. Iyong pakiusap ba ng ibang tao ay tungkol sa jueteng o tungkol dito sa Republic Act 7171?

MR. SINGSON. Sa jueteng at saka sa Republic Act 7171, Your Honor. Lahat ng kaso ayusin na. Gusto nilang maayos na lahat, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Kagaya ni Secretary Angara. Sinabi mo na nag-usap kayo. Ano ho ba ang pinag-usapan ninyo ni Secretary Angara tungkol sa 7171?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to interpose an objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the basis for the objection?

MR. FLAMINIANO. This has been the subject of stipulation.

MR. SANIDAD. On jueteng, yes, Your Honor, but not on 7171.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Prosecution is correct. It was on jueteng before so the objection is overruled. The witness may answer.

MR. SINGSON. Dalawa po iyong napag-usapan namin, Your Honor, noong nag-usap kami ni Secretary Angara: iyong tungkol sa jueteng at saka iyong 7171 na noong bagong labas ang Pangulong Estrada, kinunan din ako ng P130 million ‘ikako.

MR. SANIDAD. Sinabi rin ho ninyo na nakiusap si Mayor “Jinggoy” Estrada. Iyan ba ay may kinalaman din ‘yung sa 7171?

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor, dahil mayroon ding nakuha na P15 million.

MR. SANIDAD. Si Mayor Lim…. Si ano, Secretary Lim, sinabi rin ninyo na nakiusap sa inyo. May kaugnayan din ba iyan sa 7171, iyong pakiusap niya?

MR. SINGSON. Lahat, Your Honor. Lahat iyon, 7171 at saka jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. SANIDAD. Your Honor, allow me to go over my notes

and see if there are some loose ends that would need to be tied down.

Can I have a five-minute recess?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would that be sufficient for you to tie the loose ends?

MR. SANIDAD. Ten minutes then, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It’s already 5:45. Anyway, we are supposed to have our regular break at 5:45.

MR. SANIDAD. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don’t we avail of the regular break?

The Chair now recognizes the Majority Leader.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I move for a twenty-minute suspension.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The fifteen would be for the regular; the five would be for the Prosecution, as requested. Yes. Granted. Twenty minutes break.

MR. SANIDAD. Thank you, Your Honor.

It was 5:44 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 6:15 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise. The Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice; the Honorable Aquilino Q.

Pimentel Jr., Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed.

Atty. Sanidad may proceed, and after,….I understand that you will be able to terminate the direct testimony, and after the termination of the direct testimony, the Presiding Officer will announce what the Defense and the Prosecution had agreed during a brief caucus.

MR. SANIDAD. If Your Honor please, we have no further questions on the witness. We are terminating the direct testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the direct testimony of the witness for the Second Article is now deemed terminated. The cross-examination for this witness on the Second Article and also in connection with his testimony on direct examination for the First Article will start on the second day of January 2001. Do you want it morning and afternoon, or only afternoon?

MR. SANIDAD. Afternoon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Prosecution is requesting for an afternoon, so the same time but we have to add one more hour. So, it would be 2:00 to 9:00 already; 2:00 to 9:00 because we decided to cancel the hearings on the 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th on the clear understanding that we will have to make up by adding one more hour for our trials in the month of January. That was the understanding yesterday. So, one more hour because of what would be the result of an announcement after the termination of the direct testimony.

MR. MENDOZA. One more hour is eight o’ clock, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The original setting was

2:00 to 7:00.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, one more hour is until eight o’ clock.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then we have one more hour in lieu of the cancellation of the hearings on 26, 27, 28, and 29 December. And now for the cross-examination, one more hour as a consequence of what you have agreed here just a few moments before we resumed.

Anyway, if you cannot physically sustain anymore the ordeal of a trial, I don’t think the Court will be so inhuman enough not to allow some kind of accommodation. But we will cross the bridge as soon as we come to it, when there is a need for it.

Yes, the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. There are some clarificatory questions that this representation wish to ask of the witness. Will this be done now that the direct had already been terminated or will it be on January 2?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. January 2, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is now excused to come back on the 2nd of January 2001 at two o’ clock in the afternoon. In the meantime, the Chair will make the announcements on what had been agreed upon by the Prosecution and the Defense during the brief caucus.

SEN. SOTTO. May I, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the honorable Senator-

Judge Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. Just a clarification on the question and answer given to Judge-Senator Biazon. The questions to the witness would be done after the cross-examination?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After the cross-examination.

SEN. SOTTO. But those who have not asked this witness yet, because there have been….the agreement was two minutes per witness. They did not say “per Article.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And so, you will be entitled….In which case, therefore, each member of the Court will be entitled to a total of four minutes. Two minutes for the witness as a witness for Article I and two minutes for the witness as a witness for Article II. Because you will have a dichotomy of the witness.

SEN. SOTTO. I just want that clarified. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, at 4:30 this afternoon, this representation requested for a clarification and ruling from the Chair on the issue of the extended opinion that His Honor issued in relation to the matter of the materiality of the records referring to Jose Valhalla, Equitable-PCI Bank. The ruling of the Chair was that, our agreement was that the members of the Impeachment Court will have until 5:00 this afternoon within which to file a dissent, if any. And this is important because a dissent will require a votation of the entire Impeachment Court under Rule VI. It is now 6:21 in the evening. For the record, may we know from the Secretary if any dissenting opinion was filed on the Extended Order of the Chief Justice. May we know from the Secretary, Your Honor?

THE SECRETARY. So far….(inaudible)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We cannot hear you,

Mr. Secretary.

THE SECRETARY. So far, Mr. Chief Justice and honorable Senator-Judges, we have not received as of today, as of this hour any dissenting opinion, only concurring opinions.

SEN. DRILON. In the absence, therefore, of a dissenting opinion, Your Honor, as certified now by the Secretary, may I move that, under Rule VI, the Extended Order of the Chief Justice be now considered as a judgment of the Senate in accordance with the Rule VI.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before doing that, Your Honor,

I should just like to make it of record that the Chair received a copy of the concurring opinion of the honorable Senator-Judge Juan M. Flavier.

Yes, Senator-Judge Rene Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, a motion has just been made by Senator Drilon, and I am pleased to second it because it is in accord with our consensus yesterday.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Is there a need for such a motion since the Rules specifically say that in the absence of any dissenting opinion, I mean the Rules….

SEN. DRILON. With due respect, Mr. President, I would now wish that an opinion, ruling be rendered because of the published statements in the newspapers which touched a certain degree of doubt as to whether or not this be now the judgment of the Senate and because of our agreement during the caucus that we have until five o’clock, until today within which to file a dissenting opinion.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Just this final comment, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. I would certainly hate to see the day when after every ruling of the Chief Justice and there is no dissenting opinion, we have to affirm that judgment when as a matter of fact the Rules already say that the judgment is our judgment.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. President, this was our agreement during the caucus. That is the only reason why I am raising it now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, I am not going to disagree; but, Mr. Chief Justice, from the beginning we were very clear that the moment the Chief Justice says anything and nobody disagrees, that becomes the ruling of the Senate. As it is though, so as of right now that is the ruling of the Senate. For myself, Mr. Chief Justice, I don’t want any dilution to that Rule. We have accepted and we have get our piece and so that is the Rule. Let me just finish. But whether we like it or not, there is a motion for reconsideration. And the Prosecution has asked for time to answer, but as of now, until there is reversal, the Rule is today, if we are concerned with the publicity. As of now, those documents will be opened because that is what the Chief Justice has said. No need for any affirmation, because I don’t want later on affirmations. Then we have a two-vote system.

So, that is, Mr. Chief Justice, if we can, leave it be. There are reconsiderations, of course, that is up to their counsels. But as of right now, that is the rule, except that pending reconsideration, I guess, we will have to listen to how it is finally resolved.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. As we earlier mentioned, there is a difference between the motion for reconsideration which will be filed or have been filed by the Defense and the dissent from a member of the Impeachment Court. Because under Rule VI, it is very clear that a dissent will, in fact, trigger a votation of the entire Senate.

And I would repeat, I would like to think that this was our agreement during the caucus a few days ago that we have until five o’clock today so that without any dissent having been filed, all that this representation is asking for is an affirmation that, in effect, under Rule VI this now becomes the judgment of the Senate without prejudice to the motion for reconsideration being filed by the Defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Majority Leader is recognized before I make a ruling on the motion.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we can simplify the matter. The agreement in caucus among the senators is that we would have until today to study the extended order. And if there be any dissent, it should be filed so that a voting could not take place. Without any dissenting opinion, the ruling stands.

Now, if there is any necessity to affirm, I believe the Chair can simply say that there being no dissenting opinion from any Senator-Judge, the ruling stands.

Thank you.

SEN. DRILON. That is all that we are asking for.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear first from the honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I respectfully oppose the motion on the ground that it is redundant, superfluous, tautologous and absolutely unnecessary. Thus, the rule is very, very clear. If no Senator objects, then the ruling of the Chief Justice is automatically the ruling of the entire Senate as an Impeachment Court. There is no need to file a motion and go into a votation because in that case, we might set the risky precedent that each time there is a ruling of the Supreme Court, we all need to vote on whether or not we object or support the ruling when, very clearly, the intention of our rules is to go to voting only when there is an objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, anything…

SEN. DRILON. I am asking a statement from the Chief Justice. That is all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will now make a statement.

Yes, Prosecutor Apostol, what is your pleasure?

MR. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, just a little administrative matter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me finish first our work here. There is a pending incident. This incident cannot just be interrupted.

The Chair will make a statement which, at the same time, will be a ruling.

When there was an agreement to grant the members of the Impeachment Court time to study the extended order and to file a dissenting opinion not later than five o’clock this afternoon, the Chair made it very clear that the dissenting opinion will be considered as a motion to reconsider the ruling of the Chair. Since there is no dissent-

ing opinion, the ruling of the Chair therefore stands and that ruling, according to Rule VI of Resolution No. 68 of the Senate adopting

the Rules on Impeachment Proceedings, is actually the ruling of the Impeachment Court.

So, the only matter left would be the deliberation tomorrow on the standing motion to reconsider filed by the Defense, and if the Prosecution will file a motion for….rather, the opposition, the matter will be taken up tomorrow.

And now, some announcements on what the parties should agree.

Yes, Attorney Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Perhaps I should not be interjecting any views on this. But in light of the ruling of the Chair, our motion for reconsideration would now be considered a motion for reconsideration of the ruling of the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A ruling on what?

MR. MENDOZA. Would now be a motion for reconsideration of the ruling of the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Obviously, because there was no motion to reconsider by any member of the Tribunal.

The parties had agreed during the brief caucus on the following:

The Prosecution will present the witnesses tomorrow and had taken the responsibility to call back those witnesses earlier announced, but who were not presented because of the presentation of Governor Singson;

In addition, another witness will be presented by the Defense,

Mr. Rufo Colayco; the subpoena ad testificandum was issued but it

was supposed to be for his appearance on the 22nd day in order that the three-day period, the three-day notice shall be observed; the Defense, however, had waived that notice. And so, it will be the duty of the Prosecution to produce said witness and the subpoena already signed will have to be modified as to the date of appearance from 22 to 20, and the Prosecution is directed to follow up the subpoena for appropriate service.

Was there anything else that you had agreed which the Chair may have forgotten?

SEN. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. I think there was a tentative agreement to try out examination and production of documents, and this will be very critical for hastening the process. And I thought that there was an agreement that immediately after we adjourn, considering that it is not yet seven o’clock, the lawyers, whoever they may wish, will now look at the Westmont or the United Overseas Bank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we have agreed on that, too.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. And so by tomorrow we can have some assessment from the counsels on whether, in fact, the production of documents for….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They can make a report on that by tomorrow.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And finally, there was also a clear understanding that in the matter of request for issuance of subpoena duces tecum, the applicant therefore must specify the documents and there should not be any request, any blanket request for other documents, otherwise, the Presiding Officer, as the issuing authority, will not approve any request for a blanket request for certain documents not specifically specified therein, or a catchall request.

Yes, the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Just some housekeeping concern, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. BIAZON. In reference to the remark of the Defense Counsel on the filing of their motion for reconsideration, in relation to what he said as a Senate ruling, I think we should not be confused between the identity of the Senate and the Impeachment Court, because the two has two distinct differences in powers and functions.

So, for the record, I think that what the Defense Counsel might have been referring to is rulings of the Impeachment Court.

MR. MENDOZA. Perhaps I was not altogether clear, but I recall having said the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

SEN. BIAZON. Well, I heard the Senate.

MR. MENDOZA. Well, if….

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, anyway, if that is clarified.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there was some kind of communication gap, it should be corrected now.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Reference was made to the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.

SEN. BIAZON. For the Record, because I am very sure that in future times, we are setting a precedent here and some studies will be made of this proceedings in the future, and I think that point must be clarified. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, thank you also for that point raised. This Impeachment Court will have its own Journal and will have its own record of the proceedings, distinct and separate from or independent of that of the Senate sitting as a Legislative Body.

Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. I am sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, but I think it is just a small matter. We also agreed that in this request for production of documents, the Prosecution will make some indication of the reason or as to the purpose.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As to the purpose. Yes. Even in the general way, at least, there should be some kind of indication of the purpose. So the Defense will be accordingly guided. And, perhaps, if the purpose is relevant, they will not even offer any objection. Meaning that all attempts should be done to avoid disagreement between the parties which will only cause delay in the prosecution of this case.

The Majority Leader….Yes, Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. I was about to say a while ago about a little administrative problem that we are facing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How big is the problem?

REP. APOSTOL. Little only.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oh, a little only.

REP. APOSTOL. Yesterday, December 18, at four o’clock, we filed a request for subpoena for taking of depositions and also for witnesses for tomorrow. We have complied with the three-day notice because we furnished the other side a notice. At about six o’clock today, the Secretariat, especially, the Office of the Legal Counsel, are still drafting the subpoena for 13 individuals.

May we request and pray that the staff of the Office of the Legal Counsel be requested to stay overtime and to finish our request for subpoena. And early tomorrow morning, the same be sent. And in the meantime, I wonder if the Chief Justice will also sign our request for subpoena.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sure that the Legal Office will act accordingly. And I also hope that I would not be made to sign the request or the subpoenas late in the evening. I also need to rest.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

The other witness that we are still checking with the hospital on the condition of our witness, Raul de Guzman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. If he will be physically fit to testify, is it possible that we can request immediately a subpoena from the Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will check on his physical capacity to testify? I think the Prosecution should take the proper

move. Inquire from the hospital if the patient would now be ready to appear and to testify.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. But we will be requesting the Senate doctor to check on the physical condition of

Dr. Raul de Guzman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just file the appropriate pleading for the purpose.

REP. APOSTOL. We will do that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Majority Leader now.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we suspend this Impeachment Trial until 2:30 tomorrow afternoon, without prejudice to our earlier agreed resumption at 10:30 concerning a specific incident pending before this Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, meaning that the Impeachment Court will meet tomorrow for the continuation of the consideration of the incident on contempt at 10:30 in the morning. And for the trial proper, it would be at 2:30 in the afternoon.

Any objection to the motion? There being none, the motion is approved.

It was 6:38 p.m.

The Nature of Impeachment (Prof. Dwight)

TRIAL BY IMPEACHMENT

by
Prof. Theodore W. Dwight

Source: The American Law Register (1852-1891), Vol. 15, No. 5, New Series Volume 6 (Mar., 1867), pp. 257-283.

I. The Nature of an Impeachment.-When a criminal act has been committed, it may evidently be regarded in three aspects: first, the injury to the individual or his family may be considered; second, the wrong to the executive officer charged with the administration of the laws may be looked at; and, third, the mind may dwell upon the general wrong done to the state or “the people,” as we say in modern times. This view was early taken in the common law; the injury to the individual was redressed by a proceeding called an appeal; the injury to the king, by a process called an indictment; the wrong to the entire nation, by a proceeding termed an impeachment. In process of time the injury to the individual came to be regarded as a private and not as a public wrong, so that in the progress of the law there remained two great criminal proceedings-indictment and impeachment.

The relation of these proceedings to Magna Charta may be briefly noticed. It will be remembered that the leading provision of that instrument is that no freeman shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, except by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land. These words only apply to a proceeding on the part of the king, and do not affect one on the part of the nation. In other words, they have reference to criminal proceedings in ordinary courts’ of justice, and have nothing to do with the process of impeachment: 2 Hallam’s Const. Hist. 445. The United States Constitution, following the same idea, provides that the trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment shall be by jury.

It will tend to a clearer understanding of our subject if the resemblances and contrasts of an indictment and impeachment be carefully pointed out. An indictment is a presentment in writing by a body of men not less in number than twelve nor more than twenty-three, of crimes committed within their own county. This presentment is made in an ordinary court of justice, e. g. the King’s Bench. Its only effect is to pronounce the opinion of a majority of these men (grand jury) that there is apparent reason to believe that there has been a criminal violation of the law of the land by the person against whom the indictment is found. He is therefore arrested, and either held in custody or required to find sufficient security to await his trial. Notwithstanding his indictment, the law still presumes his innocence, and takes no action against him except that which is necessary to secure his attendance at the trial. Anything more than this, any deprivation of property, any forfeiture of his civil rights, while the indictment is pending, is wholly opposed to the genius and spirit of the common law. The indictment in due course of law is brought on to trial before an assigned term of the criminal court. The case must now be presented to a trial-jury presided over by a judge. The government who has in charge the criminal must, notwithstanding the indictment, overcome the presumption of the prisoner’s innocence ; and only by the superiority of its proofs can a verdict be obtained against the prisoner. When judgment is entered upon the verdict, for the first time commence the penalties and forfeitures of the law. The convicted criminal may lose his property, his liberty, or life, as the result of the proceeding. It is thus seen that an indictment is nothing more than a method of trial established to introduce solemnity, deliberation, and caution into judicial proceedings. It pre-supposes the existence and definition of crimes. It is a method of trial, and nothing more.

If we now recur to an impeachment, it will be found that it, too, is a presentment by a body of men that a crime has been committed. It is no longer a presentment by a small number of twenty-three men, but of the entire House of Commons, representing the state which is supposed to have been injured. It, too, is made in writing under the name of Articles of Impeachment. The tribunal before whom the articles are brought is a court of justice, not the ordinary court, it is true, but still a court composed of the members of the House of Lords. It may entertain a presentment for any crime, whether it be a felony or misdemeanor, whether it be committed by a peer or commoner, and may attach to conviction the ordinary punishments. As a matter of course, an impeachment is not confined to a particular county, as an indictment is, but the House of Commons may present cases arising anywhere within their jurisdiction. For this reason, impeachments were sometimes resorted to, because if treason were committed in Scotland or Ireland by an Englishman, though it might not be triable in an ordinary criminal court in England, as it was not committed in an English county, it is still under the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Thus Lord Lovat, who, while in Scotland, was concerned in the rebellion of 1745, was impeached, as he had committed no overt act of treason in England so as to bring the case before an English jury: 5 Campbell’s Lord Chancellors 106. His co-conspirators in England were indicted and not impeached.

The effect of an impeachment, like that of an indictment, is simply that there is apparent reason to believe that there has been a criminal violation of the laws by the individual impeached. He may in proper cases be arrested and held in custody or required to give security. The law still presumes his innocence, and can do no more than to take such steps as may be necessary to render his attendance at the trial certain. The trial must be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence observed in the ordinary courts; the person impeached can only be convicted of a crime known to the law; the punishment follows that attached to. the same crime by the ordinary courts. Forfeiture of rights can only occur after conviction. Impeachments, like indictments, are methods of procedure in criminal cases, and nothing more.

The proceeding by impeachment being purely judicial, it must be distinguished from a Bill, of Attainder and of Pains and Penalties. These must be regarded as pure legislative acts. The two houses then enact that a particular person is guilty of a crime. They may sometimes go through certain forms of judicial inquiry, but their decision is a law, not a judgment. Such bills are in utter violation of the principles of true constitutional government, as they confound legislative with judicial power. An impeachment is decided by the House of Lords alone. Any attempt on the part of the House of Commons to participate in this judicial power has always been highly resented by the House of Lords, and would not now be claimed.

It is also important to distinguish an impeachment from a trial before the u Court of the Lord High Steward.” The office of this court is briefly this: whenever a peer is indicted in the ordinary courts, in order that his case might be removed thence to be tried by his ” peers,” a commission was issued by the king to a particular nobleman to act as judge (Lord High Steward). Such other peers as the king thought fit to name, not less than twelve in number, were associated with the Lord High Steward to act as triers of the questions of fact, or as jurors. It is substantially a court of commission of oyer and terminer; the High Steward decides the law; the other peers try the fact: 4 Hatsell’s Precedents 278. This court differs from a court of impeachment in three respects : first, it only tries an indictment found by a grand jury in a county ; second, it may, and perhaps now must, be held during a recess of Parliament; third, it may, at common law, consist of a number less than the whole House of Peers. The king might resort to this tribunal to ruin a hated nobleman, as he could pack it with his own creatures. It was for this reason that the great Earl of Clarendon fled from England, because he learned that Charles II. intended to bring him before the Court of the Lord High Steward.

It is the more important to distinguish the Court of Impeachments from that of the Lord High Steward, as the president of the former court in capital cases is called by the same name. It is therefore easy to confound cases in the two courts, unless care is taken to observe the distinctions which have been pointed out.

The result is, that there are in general by the English common law two parallel modes of reaching a particular criminal: he may either be indicted or impeached. If he is indicted first he may be impeached afterwards, and the latter trial may proceed notwithstanding the indictment. On the other hand, the King’s Bench held in Fitzharris’s Case, that an impeachment was no answer to an indictment in that court.

It may be asked, why, then, is the cumbrous process of impeachment ever resorted to? The answer is, that there were often found in England persons who could not readily be tried by the common law courts, either owing to an influence which overshadowed the ordinary tribunals, or because technical rules of practice made the usual remedies scarcely worth pursuing. Moreover, impeachment was often adopted as an instrument of faction, and was especially active when society was disturbed by party contests or was in the throes of a revolution. In fact, through this process, Parliament ultimately triumphed over the executive, and parliamentary government with ministers responsible to the Commons for executive acts was formed.

When the United States constitution was framed, trial by impeachment was fully developed. It was not, however, adopted in that instrument as a regular mode of criminal procedure, to be employed in lieu of an indictment. It was made a means of trial of a crime so far as it had a political bearing. It is used as a means of depriving officers of their offices and of disqualifying them from holding such positions in the future. Still it is requisite that a crime should be committed as a basis for the accusation. The constitution provides, in substance, that the offence, so far as it has a purely criminal aspect, shall be tried in the ordinary courts; while so far as it affects the official character, it shall be the subject of impeachment. Though the English theory and procedure still substantially continue, impeachment in our law has a comparatively narrow scope. The House of Representatives, in analogy to the English House of Commons, has the exclusive power of impeachment, and the judicial power is vested in the Senate, in analogy to its deposit in the House of Lords.

Estrada Impeachment January 8, 2001 Transcripts

JANUARY 8, 2001

AT 2:01 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE CONTINUATION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS (MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ). Please all rise for the entrance of the Senator Judges.

Please remain standing for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and the Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE). The continuation of the trial on impeachment of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now called to order.

And Miss Jamie Rivera shall now lead us in the singing of the national anthem, which will be followed thereafter by another song from her.

(Singing of the National Anthem)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can sit down in the meantime.

(Another song by Miss Jamie Rivera)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Ms. Rivera.

Please rise for the prayer. We will be led by the Honorable Senator Judge John Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). This is a very simple prayer. We all know it, and we hardly remember what it says.

This nation is divided like at no other time, not in the Revolution of 1896, not in the Japanese War of 1942, not in the Marcos Years of the ’70s. And the division is characterized by bitterness, hatred and deep animosity.

So let me therefore read this prayer:

“Lord, make us an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let us sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is discord, unity. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is error, truth. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is sadness, joy. Where there is darkness, light.

O, Divine Master, grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.”

St. Francis of Assisi.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated.

The Secretary, this being Monday, will now call the roll.

THE SENATE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO G. BARBO). Roll call of members.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary, reading

Senator Teresa Aquino-OretaPresent

Senator Robert Z. BarbersAbsent

Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon…….. Present

Senator Renato L. “Compañero” Cayetano ………….Present

Senator Anna Dominique M. L. Coseteng ……………Present

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. Present

Senator Franklin M. Drilon …… Present

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile ……. Present

Senator Juan M. Flavier ……… Present

Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.. Present

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan ….. Present

Senator Robert S. Jaworski …… Present

Senator Loren B. Legarda Leviste. Present

Senator Ramon B. Magsaysay, Jr…. Present

Senator Blas F. Ople…………. Present

Senator John Henry R. OsmeñaPresent

Senator Sergio R. Osmeña III Present?

Senator Ramon B. Revilla……. Present

Senator Raul S. Roco…………..Present

Senator Vicente C. Sotto III….. Present

Senator Francisco S. Tatad……. Present

Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.Present

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With 20 Senator-Judges being present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall now make the proclamation.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we defer consideration of the Journal of the Impeachment Court of Thursday, January 4, 2001 which has just been distributed to the members to a later time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection? (Silence.) There being none, the motion is approved. The Secretary is directed to call the case.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Impeachment Case No. 001-2000, entitled, In the Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I invite the parties to this impeachment trial to enter anew their appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Parties are hereby directed to do so.

REP. APOSTOL. Same appearances for the prosecution. We are ready, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. For the defense, same appearances, ready.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before we shall proceed to the trial proper, the Chair recognizes the Senate President-Judge Pimentel, for important announcements.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, my office received letters, two letters actually, one from Senator Robert Barbers regarding his status or his condition after his operation. And No. 2, a letter from the Tan Acot and Lopez Law Offices regarding the commitment of Atty. Serapio to submit to this body a treasurer’s affidavit relating to the incorporation of the foundation when he was still under investigation by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

With your permission, Mr. Chief Justice, may we ask the Secretary to kindly read into the records these two letters which I am handing over to the Secretary.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary shall do so.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. (Reading.)

“Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.

Senate President

Philippine Senate, Pasay City

Dear Senate President Pimentel:

Allow me to update Your Honor of my present status. Last 30 October 2000, I underwent a throat operation here in the United States. Although the operation was a total success, it nevertheless affected my speech. Because of this, my doctors advised me to rest completely and to undergo speech therapy. Thus, under strict orders from my doctors, I just began a six-week speech therapy which will last until 10 February 2001 so that I can fully recover from my speech facility. Nonetheless, since I left the country, I have been receiving regular updates, relevant papers and materials, including video tapes from my staff, especially on the impeachment proceedings which are transmitted to me through my children and close relatives who have been ultimately visiting me in the U.S.

My family has also been in constant touch with my office and staff by phone. I, therefore, would like to assure the Senate President that I have every intention of voting at the conclusion of the impeachment trial of the President. If necessary, I am more than willing to go home anytime even before the end of my speech therapy, staying in the country for a number of days for me to take my oath as a member of the Impeachment Tribunal and cast and explain my vote accordingly. After that, I will return to the U.S. to finish my said therapy.

May I request therefore a few days’ advance notice so that I can make the necessary arrangements with my physicians and therapists. May I also request that this letter be read in the ongoing impeachment trial so that it will be officially entered into the records of the Impeachment Tribunal.

Maraming salamat at mabuhay ka, Manong Nene.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT Z. BARBERS”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The second letter.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. (Reading.)

“The Honorable Chairman, Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon)

Senate of the Philippines

GSIS Financial Center

Roxas Blvd., Manila

Dear Sir,

We write on behalf of our client, Atty. Edward Serapio, who gave testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee concerning the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation on 13 November 2000. Towards the end of the hearing, Senator Raul S. Roco requested from Atty. Serapio a copy of the treasurer’s affidavit relating to the incorporation of the foundation.

Atty. Serapio did not have that document. What he had in his possession was a list of members and their contributions as certified by the treasurer of the foundation. Atty. Serapio gave a copy of that document to Senator Roco through a staff member. For convenient reference, a copy is also attached hereto as Annex “A”.

Atty. Serapio did not have the opportunity at that time to explain that the treasurer’s affidavit, which certifies as to the amount of paid-up capital held by the treasurer in trust for a proposed corporation is not a requirement for the incorporation of the non-stock, non-profit corporation such as the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Incorporated.

As far as Atty. Serapio could recall, no such treasurer’s affidavit was required of the foundation during the incorporation process. What the foundation submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission was, as one of the incorporation requirements, was the list of members and their contributions, Annex “A” hereof. Atty. Serapio testified in the morning of 13 November 2000. Later that day, the House of Representatives filed the Articles of Impeachment against President Joseph Estrada with the Senate. As a result, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee ordered an indefinite suspension of its hearings.

Atty. Serapio believed that such suspension of the Blue Ribbon proceedings operated also to defer the submission of his explanation concerning the treasurer’s affidavit requested by Senator Roco. However, in the course of the ensuing impeachment trial, Senator Roco reportedly made an allusion to Atty. Serapio’s inability to submit to the Blue Ribbon Committee the treasurer’s affidavit relating to the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Incorporated. Hence, this explanatory letter to the Committee.

Atty. Serapio trust that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee will find his herein explanation sufficient.

Very truly yours,

TAN ACOT & LOPEZ

By: (Signed) EDMUNDO L. TAN.

Copy furnished: Senator Raul S. Roco”

SEN. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Just to confirm that I received a copy of the letter and that maybe we should note it. But I have not had the opportunity to double check with the SEC as regards as to the rules and regulations. But we are happy with the explanation, subject to confirmation as to the

We did not realize that the piece of paper furnished to us listing the amounts was supposed to be in lieu of a treasurer’s affidavit. But we will confirm this with the SEC and we will act accordingly, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, it is addressed – Technically speaking, it is addressed to that particular Committee of the Senate.

So, we shall now proceed to the trial proper. Considerations of some of the pending incidents will be taken up after the first break.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, for the trial proper, the prosecution will continue its presentation of evidence. Witness Ms. Maria Caridad Rodenas will continue her testimony on direct examination. The principal and assisting examining counsel are Prosecutor Oscar Moreno and Atty. Joey Tenefrancia, respectively, and the principal and assisting cross examining counsel are Atty. Sigfrid Fortun and Atty. Jose Flaminiano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

We are now calling the witness, Mrs. Rodenas, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is the witness?

REP. MORENO. She’s now here, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. This is a continuation of her testimony?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Witness, you will continue your testimony under the same oath that you took the first time that you came to the Impeachment Court.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Your Honors, good afternoon to you all.

Madam Witness, you previously testified that on August 28, 1998, Alma Alfaro came to the branch Shaw Boulevard Branch of Land Bank to withdraw the P40 million interbranch deposit made on August 27, 1998, is this correct?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who were the other persons, if any, with Alma Alfaro when she arrived at your branch, Land Bank Shaw on August 28, 1998?

MS. RODENAS. Kasama po ni Alma Alfaro si Mr. Eleuterio Tan at si Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So all three of them came together?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. How did you come to know that the persons who came with Alma Alfaro were Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas?

MS. RODENAS. Ipinakilala po sa akin ni Alma Alfaro si Eleuterio Tan at si Delia Rajas.

REP. MORENO. Who introduced Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas to you?

MS. RODENAS. Si Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. How did Alma Alfaro introduce Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas to you?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi po niya sila ay mga kaibigan niya at kung puwede ko daw po silang tulungan at may dala silang mga demand drafts, kung puwede kong i accommodate, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. When you say “accommodate,” what do you mean by that?

MS. RODENAS. Encash, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you three demand drafts previously marked as Exhibits “XXXX”, “YYYY” and “ZZZZ”, respectively. What relation, if any, do these documents have with the three demand drafts which you mentioned?

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice, we are willing to stipulate…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). We are willing to stipulate that if confronted with these exhibits, the witness will be able to identify them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you say, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, we would appreciate that, however, there are some markings on the drafts which we would like the witness to identify, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). If counsel would like us to stipulate on the matter, we would be most pleased to do so.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably you can show all the documents to Atty. Fortun and you might eventually decide to agree on all the matters indicated or reflected in the documents.

MR. FORTUN (S). I have a copy of the set of documents that counsel is using for purposes of direct examination. If counsel would like to guide me through the materials which he would like me to stipulate on, I’d be willing to do so.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning to say, that you are prepared to agree that if the witness will be called to testify on any of the matters entered in these documents, she will say in the affirmative, meaning, she can identify?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There you are, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Then, we are proposing the following stipulations, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There are still other documents for this witness?

REP. MORENO. In regard to the drafts, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about other documents thereafter?

REP. MORENO. Yes…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. This was the suggestion of the Court last week.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, but last week, the defense specifically excepted to some proposed stipulations, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). We excepted only on the identification cards, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I guess so.

MR. FORTUN (S). And this is consistent with the testimony of the witness this afternoon …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many more documents do you have which the defense could possibly admit?

REP. MORENO. On the account opening forms, Mr. Chief Justice, which …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly enumerate all the documents, and at the same time, Atty. Fortun, go over the your copies of the exhibits.

MR. FORTUN (S). Certainly, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. The account opening form, Exhibit “VVVVV”, the specimen signature card, this is the specimen signature card of Shaw Blvd. Branch, Land Bank, pertaining to the account of Eleuterio Tan, No. 05610446 00, with three with six, rather, specimen signatures of Mr. Eleuterio Tan sub marked as Exhibit “VVVVV 2″, and the signature of the witness …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the members of the Court have each a copy of these documents, could you just probably mention the exhibit number …

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. So Exhibit …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … for stipulation purposes?

REP. MORENO. “VVVVV”, Exhibit “WWWWW”, these are the pictures of Eleuterio Tan appearing on two IDs; and then the account opening form, the specimen signature card of Delia Rajas, Exhibit “FFFFFF” with its sub markings, and the identification cards two identification cards of Delia Rajas, Exhibit “GGGGGG”; and then with respect to the specimen signature cards pertaining to Alma Alfaro’s account, 0561 0445 38, this is Exhibit “RRRRR”, bearing three specimen signatures of Alma Alfaro, and the ID, the two IDs, Mr. Chief Justice.

The other documents, Mr. Chief Justice, are the three applications for cashier’s checks previously marked as Exhibits “ZZZZZ”, “AAAAAA” and “BBBBBB”, respectively. And in each of the application forms, Mr. Eleuterio Tan signed and whose signature was previously marked as Exhibit “ZZZZZ 1″, “AAAAAA 1″, and “BBBBBB 1″.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). I think the defense had clearly stipulated that we are willing to stipulate as regards the existence of all of these documents. We are willing to stipulate that insofar as this lady had affixed her signatures on some or all of these documents, that she will be able to identify her signature. But as regards the identification cards of three persons whose names had been identified by the gentleman, together with the manner by which the signatures were affixed on the signature cards or what he refers to as account opening entries, we are unwilling to do that because we ourselves would like to find out exactly how this thing occurred. So we would like to confine, therefore, our stipulation to that which we had made last Friday, namely, existence.

And as regards the matter of the witness confirming that she had, indeed, some participation in the execution of these documents and the signature or initial appearing in one of the boxes in each of these documents, we are willing to state that she will be able to identify those initials or signatures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER In other words now, you can just simply limit the questions on the matters not admitted …

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … more on the specimen signatures and the circumstances surrounding the same…

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …insofar as the execution thereof rather is concerned.

REP. MORENO. And I take it to mean, Mr. Chief Justice, that the defense has also covered in the stipulation that the name Kaye Manahan in all of these three drafts…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that is included in the…

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor. I just wanted to clarify that because that was the maiden name of…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There were only two qualifications made. So, concentrate now…

REP. MORENO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …on proof on these points.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, thank you.

Now, Madam Witness, if you see Eleuterio Tan again, will you be able to identify or recognize him?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. If a photograph of Eleuterio Tan is shown to you, will you be able to recognize him?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you a computer generated photograph of one Victor Jose Tan Uy, previously marked as Exhibit “MMMMMM 2″. What relation, if any, does this person have in the photograph with the Eleuterio Tan who was introduced to you by Alma Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po iyong taong pumunta sa branch namin na nag open ng savings account under the name of Eleuterio Tan.

REP. MORENO. What special circumstances, if any, made you recall Eleuterio Tan?

MS. RODENAS. Well, he is the type of man that leaves a lasting impression.

REP. MORENO. What do you mean by “lasting impression”, crush mo ba?

MS. RODENAS. At that time, crush ko ho siya kasi single pa naman ho ako noon. At dahil siya ay guwapo. Siya ay very neat, very fair at…iyon po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Madam Witness, defense counsel has previously stipulated that Eleuterio Tan opened Savings Account No. 0561 0446 0 with the Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Blvd. Branch on August 28, 1998.

Miss Witness, who in particular personally requested for the opening of a savings account for Eleuterio Tan?

MS. RODENAS. Si Eleuterio Tan po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who was with Eleuterio Tan at this time, if any?

MS. RODENAS. Kasama po niya si Alma Alfaro at si Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What documents, if any, did Eleuterio Tan fill up in connection with the opening of a savings account with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Nag fill up ho siya ng specimen signature card, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I may have to show these documents, Mr. Chief Justice, because the defense did not include this in the stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may, you may.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you a Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Blvd. Branch specimen signature card of one Eleuterio Tan, previously marked as Exhibit “VVVVV.” What relation, if any, does this document have with the specimen signature card which you referred to?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. These are original documents?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have already stipulated on the photocopies.

If I may repeat my question. The specimen signature card of Eleuterio Tan, Exhibit “VVVVV”, what relation, if any, does that document have with the specimen signature card which you referred to?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po iyong signature card ni Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In that document there appears six signatures previously marked as Exhibit “VVVVV 2″. Whose signatures are these?

MS. RODENAS. Kay Mr. Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Why do you know that these are the signatures of Mr. Eleuterio Tan?

MS. RODENAS. Nilagdaan po niya ito sa harap ko, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In this document, there appears a signature below the words “APPROVED BY”, previously marked as Exhibit “VVVVV 3″, whose signature is this?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who provided the data in that specimen signature card regarding the name and address of Eleuterio Tan?

MS. RODENAS. Si Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What other documents, if any, did Eleuterio Tan submit in relation to the opening of said account?

MS. RODENAS. Nag present din po siya ng dalawang IDs, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you an E.T. Enterprises, Inc. identification card previously marked as Exhibit “WWWWW 1″. What relation if any does this identification card have with the identification card which you referred to?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po ‘yong isa sa mga IDs na prinisent niya po sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In this E.T. Enterprises, Inc. identification card previously marked as Exhibit “WWWWW 1″ there appears a picture above the name Eleuterio Tan. What relation, if any, does this person in the photograph have with the Eleuterio Tan who opened Savings Account No. 0561 0446 00 with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po ‘yong taong pumunta sa branch namin at nag open ng savings account under the name Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you a Solid Builders Center identification card previously marked as Exhibit “WWWWW 3″. What relation, if any, does this identification card have with the identification cards which you referred to earlier?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po ‘yong isa pang ID na prinisent niya sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In this Solid Builders Center identification card previously marked as Exhibit “WWWWW 3″, there appears a picture above the name Eleuterio Tan. What relation, if any, does this person in the photograph have with the Eleuterio Tan who opened Savings Account No. 0561 0446 00 with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po ‘yong taong pumunta sa branch namin upang mag open ng savings account under the name Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Defense counsel has also stipulated previously that on August 28, 1998, the same day that Eleuterio Tan opened Savings Account No. 0561 0446 00, the amount of P40 million was credited to said account by means of interbranch credit. Further, defense counsel also stipulated the three cashiers checks in the total amount of P90 million were issued by your branch in favor of Eleuterio Tan. Madam Witness, who in particular personally gave you the instructions for the purchase of three cashiers checks in favor of Eleuterio Tan?

MS. RODENAS. Si Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who was with Eleuterio Tan at this time, if any?

MS. RODENAS. Kasama niya po si Delia Rajas at si Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What documents, if any, did Eleuterio Tan fill up for the purchase of these cashier checks totalling P90 million?

MS. RODENAS. Application for Cashiers Check, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you, Madam Witness, three Applications for Cashier Checks previously marked as Exhibits “ZZZZZ”, “AAAAAAA” and “BBBBBBB”, respectively. What relation, if any, do these documents have with the application forms which you referred to?

MR. FORTUN (S). This is part of our stipulation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already admitted.

MR. FORTUN (S). That the witness when confronted with these documents will be able to identify them.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, then. Let me move on to the next question, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

REP. MORENO. Who provided the data contained in all of these application forms?

MS. RODENAS. Si Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Defense counsel has previously stipulated that on August 28, 1998, Delia Rajas opened Savings Account No. 0561 0445 97 with the Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard Branch. And on the same day, the amount of P50 million was credited to said account via an interbranch credit. What relation, if any, does the amount of P90 million represented by the three cashiers checks issued by your branch in favor of Eleuterio Tan have with the amount of P50 million previously credited to the savings account of Delia Rajas?

MS. RODENAS. Pagka withdraw po ng pera ni Delia Rajas sa branch namin, ito po ay ininstruct ako na ipa purchase ng cashiers check para kay Eleuterio Tan amounting to total amount of 90 million, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who gave you the instruction?

MS. RODENAS. Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who was with Delia Rajas at this time, if any?

MS. RODENAS. Si Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What documents if any, did you ask Delia Rajas to execute for this purpose, the authorization granted to you?

MS. RODENAS. A withdrawal slip, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Matter subject of our stipulation, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Yes…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where we….?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …Prosecutor Moreno? Just consider the other matters not covered by the stipulation.

REP. MORENO. After the issuance of the cashier’s checks, the three cashier’s checks for 30 million each, totaling 90 million pesos in favor of Eleuterio Tan, what call or calls, if any, did you receive from any banking institution in connection with these three cashier’s checks?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin pong recollection, wala po akong natanggap na tawag, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, let us proceed to Delia Rajas. Defense counsel has previously stipulated that on August 28, l998, Delia Rajas opened Savings Account No. 056l-0445-97 with the Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch, and on the same day, the amount of 50 million pesos was credited to said account by an interbranch credit. Mrs. Rodenas, what documents, if any, did Delia Rajas fill up in connection with the opening of a savings account with your branch?

MR. FORTUN (S). These are matters subject of our stipulation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. Then our next question should be, who in particular personally requested for the opening of a savings account in the name of Delia Rajas?

MS. RODENAS. Si Delia Rajas po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who was with Delia Rajas at this time, if any?

MS. RODENAS. Si Alma Alfaro at si Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What other documents if any, did Delia Rajas submit in relation to the opening of her account with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Nag-present din po siya ng dalawang IDs, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you a Solid Builders Center identification card previously marked as Exhibit “GGGGGG-1”. What relation, if any, does this identification card have with the identification cards which you referred to?

MR. FORTUN (S). If confronted, the witness will be able to identify these identification cards, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was that covered by the stipulation?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. I’m afraid not, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the witness answer.

MS. RODENAS. Ito po yung isang ID na pin-resent ni Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In this Solid Builders Center identification card, previously marked as “GGGGGG-1” there appears a picture above the name Delia Rajas. What relation, if any, does this person in the photograph have with the Delia Rajas who opened a savings account with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po yung taong pumunta sa branch namin upang mag-open ng savings account under the name of Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you an E.T.Enterprises, Inc. identification card previously marked as Exhibit “GGGGGG-3” what relation if any, does this identification card have with the identification cards which you referred to?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po yung isa pang ID na pin-resent ni Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In this E.T.Enterprises, Inc. identification card previously marked as Exhibit “GGGGGG-3” there appears a picture above the name Delia Rajas. What relation, if any, does this person in the photograph have with the Delia Rajas who opened a savings account with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po yung taong pumunta sa branch namin upang mag-open ng savings account under the name of Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, Mrs. Rodenas, after August 28, l998, how many times, if any, did Delia Rajas go back to your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Mga walong beses pa po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who was she with, if any, in any all these times?

MS. RODENAS. Kasama siya parati ni Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who else?

MS. RODENAS. Lagi po siyang kasama ni Alma Alfaro, Your Honor, at mayroon pa ho silang iba pang kasama.

REP. MORENO. Could you recall kung sino itong mga kasama, marami pang ibang kasama ni Delia Rajas?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi ko na po kilala ang mga pangalan nila, pero sa mukha po kilala ko ho, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What was the purpose of Delia Rajas, the visits of Delia Rajas with your branch, you said, eight times, if any?

MS. RODENAS. Sinasamahan niya po si Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. To do what in your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Kasama lang po siya ni Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ano’ng ginagawa ni Alma Alfaro sa branch ninyo?

MS. RODENAS. May mga transaksiyon po siya, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ano itong mga transactions na ito?

MS. RODENAS. Telegraphic transfers, withdrawals, deposits.

REP. MORENO. And itong mga telegraphic transfers, withdrawals, deposits, was Alma Alfaro doing this with respect to her own personal account?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to object to this question because this had been already touched upon in the last hearing and our objections to these questions were precisely sustained by the Chair regarding these other transactions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, the question is, does it relate to other transaction or to the very transaction in question?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, other transactions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, if it would be other transactions, the objection has to be sustained.

REP. MORENO. You mentioned that anyway, let me go back to that, Mr. Chief Justice.

With regard to Alma Alfaro, you previously identified a specimen signature card of Alma Alfaro previously marked as Exhibit “RRRRR”. Who provided the data contained in this document?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show the document to the witness.

MR. FORTUN (S). These matters, Your Honor, were also asked last Friday and the witness had in fact confirmed that it was Ms. Alfaro who provided the information here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, we have to check the TSN, the Transcript of Stenographic Notes. Perhaps, just to avoid loss of time by going over the TSN, the witness may just answer the question.

REP. MORENO. The question was, in the specimen signature card of Alma Alfaro, Exhibit “RRRRR”, who provided the data contained in that document?

MS. RODENAS. Si Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Specifically Mrs. Rodenas, who provided the data for the entry “c/o Power Express” in the application previously marked as Exhibit “RRRRR”?

MR. FORTUN (S). We will have to object, Your Honor, to this question. This was the matter subject of the testimony last Friday as well. And this is why we’re objecting to it now because the witness had in fact confirmed all of the matters here already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair seems to recall indeed that that was covered already by a testimony last Friday.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. So, I’m glad that

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, we have to sustain the objection for having been answered already before.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Defense counsel has also previously stipulated that the 40 million peso interbranch deposit made on August 27, 1998 and credited to Alma Alfaro’s Savings Account No. 0561 0445 38 was withdrawn by Alma Alfaro on August 28 the following day. And you testified that this withdrawal was made in cash. In what denomination, Mrs. Rodenas, was this cash withdrawal of 40 million pesos made?

MS. RODENAS. In thousand bills, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. How was this 40 million pesos in cash packed or package, if you know?

MS. RODENAS. Isang pack, Your Honor, is 10 bundles containing thousand bills. Per bundle is 100,000. So, one pack is one million, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then how did Alma Alfaro take this out, the cash from your branch, if you know?

MS. RODENAS. Nilagay niya po ito sa mga bag, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ilang bags ‘yon?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin pong recollection, apat na bags, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who, if any, assisted Alma Alfaro in taking out this P40 million in cash from your branch?

MS. RODENAS. May mga kasama pa ho siyang ibang mga babae na tumulong ho sa kanya, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. How many Ilan ba ang kasama ni Alma Alfaro na tumulong?

MS. RODENAS. Tatlo ‘yong mga babae so apat ho sila, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, tig iisang bag bawat isa?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What did you observe, Mrs. Rodenas, with regard to the conduct or behavior of Eleuterio Tan, Delia Rajas and Alma Alfaro in relation to each other while they were at your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Na observe ko po na sila po ay magkakaibigan dahil sabay sabay ho silang pumasok sa branch namin at ipinakilala po sila ni Alma Alfaro sa akin bilang mga kaibigan n’ya, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Mrs. Rodenas, you previously testified that you have previously dealt with Alma Alfaro in her capacity as authorized representative of your client in certain bank transactions. Is this correct?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who was Alma Alfaro representing in these bank transactions?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object for being immaterial, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection sustained.

REP. MORENO. Your Honor please, the identity of the principal of Alma Alfaro is material and relevant in respect of the ease by which Alma Alfaro was able to open an account with this branch on August 27 and withdraw the same P40 million that was credited to that account the following day. It is also material, Your Honor, in establishing the relationship between Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas.

If you will recall, please Your Honor, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas opened their savings accounts in this branch only in the afternoon of August 28, 1998. And in the same afternoon, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas were able to buy three cashier’s checks, all payable to Eleuterio Tan in the total amount of P90 million, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, you are going to prove that the representation was made in favor of any of those mentioned?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any of those names mentioned?

REP. MORENO. No, in connection with Alma Alfaro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it. Insofar as her representation of another account holder is concerned, are you referring to an account holder whose name has been mentioned already?

REP. MORENO. Not yet, Mr. Chief Justice, but this may be a valued account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How would you connect it to the Article that you are trying to prove?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, just the identity of the principal and because that would be relevant in facilitating the opening of the transaction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, but you could explain what relationship has that principal to any of the main causes under the Article that you are going to prove.

REP. MORENO. There is a relationship, Mr. Chief Justice. The principal is the mother of Charlie “Atong” Ang.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object to this argument being espoused by Congressman Moreno, Your Honor. I think he’s indulging in too much speculations and conjectures. The familiarity of this witness with Alfaro stems from the fact that Alfaro had been going to the Shaw Boulevard Branch many many times. And that was that will explain the ease with which this money was withdrawn. So we have to maintain our objection, Mr. Chief Justice, for being immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are saying that if the purpose is to connect her to the mother of Dante Tan Ah, Dante Ang.

REP. MORENO. I’m sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, Charlie “Atong” Ang.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atong Ang. So, this is now in connection with Article I?

REP. MORENO. Article II, Mr. Chief Justice, Republic Act 7171.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. 7171?

REP. MORENO. The Tobacco Excise Tax.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. The witness may be allowed to answer.

REP. MORENO. Tanungin ko ulit. Mrs. Rodenas, who was Alma Alfaro representing in all of these bank transactions with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Catalina Ang, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who else, if any, acted as authorized representatives of Catalina Ang on this…

MR. FLAMINIANO. We’ll have to object to the question, Your Honor, because the witness answered “Catalina Ang,” and Catalina Ang has nothing to do with any of the Articles of Impeachment, if Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the succeeding questions make the necessary connection?

REP. MORENO. Just to show that there were…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if you cannot make any connection, the Chair will have to sustain the objection. But if it is preliminary to another fact to be elicited precisely to achieve the purpose, it may be allowed.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, be frank to the Court if you can really have the connection.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, we do have the connection and all of these questions were preliminary.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, there have been too many preliminary questions, up to now we do not see the point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now a commitment by the prosecutor, as an officer of the Court, that the next question will make the necessary connection. Because of that assurance of an officer of the Court, it may be allowed. But we cannot prolong any longer, after that, any preliminary matter.

The question may be allowed, the witness may answer.

REP. MORENO. Uulitin ko po. Who else, if any, acted as the authorized representatives of Catalina Ang in these transactions with your branch?

MS. RODENAS. Mayroon pa hong iba. Si Jocelyn Angeles at Lea Paruhino, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Madam Witness, after August 28, 1998, what call or calls, if any, did you receive in connection with the transactions of Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas on said date of August 28, 1998?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We will have to object, Your Honor, for being immaterial. The direct examination has gone too far, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. The witness may answer; still relating to Alfaro, Rajas and Tan.

REP. MORENO. Uulitin ko po. Mrs. Rodenas, after August 28, 1998, what call or calls, if any, did you receive in connection with the transactions of Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas on August 28, 1998?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object, Your Honor, because it assumes a fact that there were such calls; the question has no basis, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The ground for the objection is belated already. That should have been included in the first objection. The witness may answer.

MS. RODENAS. Mayroon po akong natanggap na tawag from a certain Yolanda Uy at ang sabi po niya sa akin, hinihingi niya muna ho – the first call – hinihingi niya muna ho iyong telephone number at pager number ng aming manager; tapos hinihingi niya rin ho, nire-request niya kung puwede kaming lumabas at mag-usap. Ang sabi ko po sa kanya pumunta na lang siya sa bangko dahil marami po akong ginagawa. At…

MR. FLAMINIANO. May we kindly interrupt the witness, Your Honor, because she’s making a narration. We would rather ask the counsel to propound questions and not allow the witness to make a narrative, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is a justifiable observation because witnesses — unless the parties should agree that the witness will testify in a narrative form, then they have to propound the appropriate questions. And the witness is advised to answer the question and not to make a story afterwards.

REP. MORENO. Okay. So, ilang beses si Yolanda Uy tumawag sa iyo?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Objection, Your Honor. That assumes the calls were several.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. Witness may answer.

MS. RODENAS. Apat na beses, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what happened in those four telephone calls? First call muna – anong nangyari doon sa first call?

MS. RODENAS. Hinihingi niya po iyong telephone number and pager number ng aming manager na si — aming manager; at sabi niya kung puwede daw po kaming magkita, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, sa second call?

MS. RODENAS. Gano’n din po, nire-request niya kung puwede kaming lumabas, pi-pick-up-in niya ako sa bangko at may pag-uusapan ho kami, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, anong sinabi mo?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi ko po hindi ho puwede dahil marami po akong ginagawa; kung puwede, sa bangko na lang siya mismo magpunta, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then what happened after that? Ano pa ang usapan ninyo, if any?

MS. RODENAS. Sabi niya po sa akin, “Hindi ho puwede dahil marami po akong ginagawa.” Kung puwede, sa bangko na lang siya mismo magpunta, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Then what happened after that? Ano pang usapan ninyo, if any?

MS. RODENAS. Sabi niya po sa akin, may kokonsultahin siya sa akin, may hihinging pabor at kung puwede daw hong i rasen (erase) na lang lahat ng records ng Power Express sa bangko namin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ano’ng sinabi mo noong sinabi niya iyan?

MS. RODENAS. Sinabi ko po na, “Hindi ho puwede dahil iyon po ay mga documents, original documents, na nasa file na ho namin iyon, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then iyong third call, anong nangyari doon sa third …

MR. FLAMINIANO. May I please … the Chief Justice. These questions tend to elicit something that has not been subject of the offer of testimony of this witness, Your Honor. In other words, the direct testimony has gone far beyond the intended offer that was initially made by the distinguished public prosecutor. We have to object to these further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the purpose of the question? And what fact do you want to elicit from the witness?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, the purpose of the testimony is to elicit a fact that after the expose’ took place, there were calls made on the witness, Mrs. Rodenas, by Mrs. Yolanda Uy, among others, to destroy the records of the branch pertaining to Power Express, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

MR. FLAMINIANO. If Your Honor please, it would seem that the witness is being asked to make some testimony relating to a very important matter the destruction of commercial documents. And this has not been even intimated when the public prosecutor made an offer of testimony. So, this is an afterthought. It is simply not covered by the formal offer of testimony of the witness. So, we have to vigorously interpose an objection to this further questioning, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In order that the exchanges of manifestations would not tend to send message to the witness as to the testimony to be covered, the parties are requested to approach the bench.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 3:06 P.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed.

Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

Doon sa sinabi ni Yolanda Uy, according to your testi¬mony, kung puwedeng sirain iyong records in your branch pertaining to Power Express, ano’ng sinabi mo sa kanya when she said that?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi ko po, hindi ko po magagawa iyon dahil iyon po ay tapos na at mga original po iyon na trans¬aksyon, kaya tinanong ko ho sa kanya na ano ba talaga ang pag uusapan natin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ano’ng sabi niya doon – ano’ng sagot niya doon sa tanong mo?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi niya sa akin, tinanong niya ako. “Aware ka ba doon sa Chavit Singson scandal?”

At that time hindi ko po alam ‘yon, hindi pa ho ako aware doon kaya sabi ko, “Hindi pa ho”. Tapos kung puwede pa rin kami magkita, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Was that in the second call or the third call or the fourth call?

MS. RODENAS. Second call.

REP. MORENO. What happened in the third call?

MS. RODENAS. Ganun din lang po ang request niya, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What happened in the fourth call?

MS. RODENAS. Ganun din po, Your Honor, ang request niya.

REP. MORENO. Sino ba itong si Yolanda Uy?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po ay anak ni Catalina Ang, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. That is all for the witness, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross examination.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Fortun will conduct the cross examination, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

Atty. Fortun, you may now proceed with your cross examination.

MR. FORTUN (S). With the Honorable Court’s permission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Permission is granted.

MR. FORTUN (S). Ms. Rodenas, good afternoon.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, sir.

MR. FORTUN (S). Allow me to ask you just a few questions on the matters subject of your testimony last Friday and today.

I recall your having stated that your current designa¬tion is that of a cashier of Land Bank Shaw Boulevard?

MS. RODENAS. At that time, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). At that time.

MS. RODENAS. At that time, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). That’s right. This was in 1998.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And currently you have the rank of … what is your current designation, ma’am?

MS. RODENAS. Cashier. Branch cashier, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Branch Cashier. So your designation has not changed from 1998 to the present?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Isn’t it the case, madam, that when new account such as that opened by Ms. Rajas, Alma and Mr. Eleuterio Tan that these matters are normally handled by the new accounts officer?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Are you saying that at that particular time in 1998 there was no new accounts officer such that you have to pinch hit for that particular designation?

MS. RODENAS. Nandoon po iyong new accounts, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Then what was your role, you were assist¬ing the new accounts officer, is that what you are saying, ma’am?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your new accounts officer, would you recall her name now at this time?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). What is her name, ma’am?

MS. RODENAS. Allen Sequijor, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And it was Ms. Sequijor who actually provided all of these materials from the signature specimen cards to the deposit slips, etcetera to the three persons you mentioned?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And what then was your role in respect of the opening of these accounts if Ms. Sequijor was already doing what she was supposed to do in the branch?

MS. RODENAS. Ako po ang nag assist, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Nag assist.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Did this mean that while these people, Eleuterio Tan, Ms. Alfaro and Ms. Rajas were filling up the signatures specimen cards and other documents you identified as having been filled up by these people, you were also present?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And this was filled up, in fact, in front of you?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor. Sa desk ko po, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Sa desk mo. That would mean that they were filling all of these up one after the other in front of you, say about two feet away?

MS. RODENAS. Around three feet away, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Three feet away. So, let me clarify this for the record. Insofar as a certain Eleuterio Tan is concerned, when he signed the specimen signature card marked as Exhibit “VVVVV”, he signed these six specimen signatures about three feet away from you?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And when he filled up all the other materials, all the other information contained in this exhibit, it was also done in your presence?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). The same thing with Mister — I am sorry, with Ms. Alfaro and Ms. Ragas — Rajas?

MS. RODENAS. Iyong kay Ms. Alfaro, kay Alma Alfaro, it was done a day before August 27.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see, all right. When you accepted the identification cards, these identification cards were actually examined by you to determine whether the photo as well as the information contained in the photograph coincide with the information indicated in the signature specimen cards, correct?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). So, it was you personally who had seen these people signed and all of them presented themselves to you in person?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And that is why you can testify that these people are exactly those whose photograph appears in …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show the exhibits to the witness.

MR. FORTUN (S). … Exhibit “MMMMM” in respect of a certain Eleuterio Tan and as regards Ms. Alfaro, it is this photograph indicated in the identification cards which you say was submitted to you on that day, I refer to Exhibit “SSSSS”?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you objecting?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, because the picture that the exhibit referring to Alma Alfaro, the picture is not clear, Mr. Chief Justice, so, I don’t think …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was that the very picture identified by the witness on direct examination?

REP. MORENO. No, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then show that picture identified during the direct examination.

MR. FORTUN (S). Please answer the question, Madam. Is this the photograph which you examined, and as you have mentioned earlier, you had evaluated the photograph appearing in this Exhibit “SSSSS” and had made certain that the photograph here is exactly that of the person who had identified herself as Alma Alfaro?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, I have to object because the photograph …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the ground of the objection?

REP. MORENO. Because the photograph that the witness — is misleading, Mr. Chief Justice. Because the photograph that the witness said bears the picture of the one who was in front of her at that time, was the photograph of Delia Rajas. This one, Mr. Chief Justice, looks like the photograph of Alma Alfaro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you answering for the witness?

MR. FORTUN (S). That is what he is doing, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer.

MR. FORTUN (S). Please answer, Madam. I think the question is fairly lucid to you.

MS. RODENAS. I beg your pardon, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Is this the photograph of Alma Alfaro who presented herself to you?

MS. RODENAS. Ang nasa akin pong tinitingnan ay malabong picture, xerox copy ng sinasabi ninyo hong picture ni Alma Alfaro.

MR. FORTUN (S). But this is exactly what I was talking about, Ms. Rodenas. May I ask counsel to step back, Your Honor, because we are not concerned about the document which he is suggesting the witness take a look at.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prosecutor is advised just to make the appropriate objection, not to show to the witness any other document when somebody is cross-examining the witness on the basis of another document. Make the appropriate objection.

REP. MORENO. I beg for the indulgence, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. But for the record, this is the original of the xerox copy of the picture of this one named Alma Alfaro. It’s still not clear.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was not the point of the Chair. When a witness is under cross-examination, you should not come closer to her and show her another exhibit. Probably, you can have your time during redirect.

REP. MORENO. I am sorry, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun may proceed.

MR. FORTUN (S). Thank you, Your Honor.

Will you please answer the question now, madam?

MS. RODENAS. What’s again the question, Your Honor?

MR. FORTUN (S). The question, ma’am, was, you had confirmed earlier this afternoon that you had evaluated the identification cards of the persons who had presented themselves to you and one of them was a certain Alma Alfaro. Now, since you had stated that earlier this afternoon, I now ask you how could you have done that with respect to Exhibit “SSSSS”…

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). …when you can see very clearly the quality…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let Atty. Fortun finish.

MR. FORTUN (S). …the quality of this particular piece of exhibit and the difficulty with which you could even identify the letters much less the photograph appearing in this exhibit. How can you now testify under oath and say that the person whose signature — whose photograph appears in Exhibit “SSSSS” was the same Alma Alfaro who presented herself to you in that afternoon in 1998?

REP. MORENO. I have to object, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground?

REP. MORENO. Because it is misleading. The witness did not testify on the ID of Alma Alfaro this afternoon.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, that is the reason why we could not stipulate earlier, and then the witness was confronted with the identification card and she said that it was the same one.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. The witness may answer. She is a very intelligent witness.

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, at that time iyong prinisent (presented) po sa akin original ID. At saka mayroon ho kaming xerox copy of the original IDs.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see.

MS. RODENAS. Iyon po iyong aking hininging identification kay Alma Alfaro.

MR. FORTUN (S). And you remember very distinctly that those identification cards, the machine copies of which are with you, is the same as those marked as Exhibit “SSSSS”.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Pareho ho iyan?

MS. RODENAS. Pareho po sila, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Okay. Let’s now take a look at the identification card of a certain Delia Rajas. You are certain that this lady whose photograph appears in identification cards marked as Exhibit “GGGGG” — sorry, “GGGGGG” – is exactly the same person who signed and filled up certain specimen signature cards in the afternoon of August 1998?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes. You had mentioned that these people had dealt with you and you recalled them very distinctly precisely because of the enormity of the amount which they were withdrawing from your bank.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Just perhaps as information for this Honorable Court, will you tell us, madam, whether Land Bank of the Philippines is a government institution?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po ay government institution.

MR. FORTUN (S). You, therefore, madam, are covered by Civil Service rules?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). You also are covered by the Law on Anti-Graft?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes. And accordingly, a transaction which you cannot — or which you will be unable to confirm as having been regularly done could constitute graft, correct?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes. And that is the reason why when the prosecutor asked you all of these questions, it was inevitable for you to answer that you remember all of these things. Because for you to be unable to confirm the regularity of these transactions, you could be — you could get yourself into trouble, correct?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see. In respect of Jose — sorry, Victor Jose Tan Uy — I again show you Exhibit “MMMMM-2,” will you tell us whether you recall how tall this gentleman is?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin pong recollection, siya po ay mga around 5’8″ or 5’9″ ang taas.

MR. FORTUN (S). Was he wearing eyeglasses? This photograph, Exhibit triple or “MMMMMM” doesn’t have or shows a picture of a person without spectacles. Will you say at the time that this gentleman approached you and filled up specimen signature cards in the afternoon of August 28, 1998, he wore spectacles?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin pong recollection, wala po siyang salamin at that time.

MR. FORTUN (S). Wala siyang salamin.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). You note you confirmed this afternoon that you saw all of them affix their signatures on all the specimen signature cards as well as the collateral documents attendant to opening an account? You saw each of them affix their signatures in the manner by which the specimen signature card confirms exactly the same style of writing, correct?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see. And in respect of this Mr. Uy, he was also signing using his right hand, Madam?

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, ang lumapit po sa amin is a certain Eleuterio Tan.

MR. FORTUN (S). Oh, I’m sorry, Eleuterio Tan.

MS. RODENAS. So, noong nakita ko po siya, siya po ay pumirma sa signature card sa kanyang handwriting.

MR. FORTUN (S). Kanan o kaliwa?

MS. RODENAS. Sa aking recollection, sa kanan po.

MR. FORTUN (S). You are certain of that, Madam?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin pong recollection, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And you probably will be unable to recall who this Victor Jose Tan Uy looks like if you see him again, as in today, for instance?

MS. RODENAS. Kung makikita ko po si Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Eleuterio Tan, I’m sorry.

I withdraw the question and we’ll replace it with the correct name.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But it was already answered.

MR. FORTUN (S). If you saw if you saw or if you see….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you recalling? It was answered already by the witness.

MR. FORTUN (S). I’m recalling my reference to Victor Jose Tan Uy, I’d like to substitute it with…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, all references made by you to Victor Uy C. Tan Uy, you actually refer to “Eleuterio Tan”?

MR. FORTUN (S). No, Your Honor, only for this particular question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see, go ahead.

MR. FORTUN (S). Thank you, Your Honor.

If you are able to see as a gentleman whom you had known as a certain “Eleuterio Tan” and whom you say is the same person as this gentleman whose photograph appears in Exhibit “MMMMMM”, you will be able to recognize him?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And what about Delia Ragas, if you see…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Rajas.

MR. FORTUN (S). …Rajas, I’m sorry, if you see Delia Rajas again, as in today, for instance, will you be able to identify her?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). You are certain about that?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Ms. Rajas is currently in the gallery, can I ask you, with the permission of the Court, to stand up and take a look at the gallery and tell us whether you recognize who Delia Ragas is or Rajas is?

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, kailangan po i present niyo po siya sa akin sa harap ko po. Hindi ho…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can you can stand and walk around the gallery.

MS. RODENAS. Kasi ho maraming tao, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Perhaps, I will make it easy for the gentle lady, she perhaps can refer back to the photograph which she had identified this afternoon as a government employee, and for her to step towards the gallery on the right side and perhaps take her time to do the same thing on the left side as well, and I’d like you to tap her on the right shoulder so that she can stand up and be identified.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. It may not be fair to subject the witness to all these people. Even in a police lineup, maybe there are 12, maybe counsel would want to present 12 and let the witness select one.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is cross examined and her credibility is questioned and probably it will not take time for her to go over the faces of those in the gallery.

SEN. ROCO. No, but…Mr. Chief Justice, beyond a certain number, memory begins to be…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. We should not preempt what the witness can do.

SEN. ROCO. We will submit to the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, in trial courts all over the country, at the beginning of a criminal trial, the plaintiff or the complainant is asked to stand and identify from the entire room full of people, most if not all of them strangers which one the accused is.

I believe we can do the same thing in this analogous proceeding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the position of the Presiding Officer, because the witness is being tested insofar as credibility is concerned. Earlier, the Chair already ruled that you have a very intelligent witness.

Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, for purposes of this identification of Delia Rajas, did you say…?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Delia Rajas.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes. Perhaps we can allow the witness to go up the gallery.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. First to the left side…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then to the right.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. …accompanied both by the counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the Secretary.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, and the Secretary and then subsequently, if she finds that there is no Delia Rajas there, she can go to right gallery, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side.

MR. FORTUN (S). In fact, Your Honor, I would be fair with the witness. We would not want to tax her memory on the matter. She may even use the exhibit which was presented by the prosecution and identified by her this afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. FORTUN (S). She can use it as basis for her to refresh her memory, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She can do that.

The Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice. I have been through this myself with Atty. Flaminiano in a celebrated case. And I would only ask, Mr. Chief Justice, with your permission, that the counsel for the defense assures the witness that there has been no change of appearance, some kind of incognito clothes, etcetera, etcetera, in order not to mislead…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will leave it to the witness.

SEN. CAYETANO. No, no. May I finish.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. And also as a last suggestion, perhaps we can ask all the women if we can to stand up…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All the women.

SEN. CAYETANO. …because it’s very difficult for a witness to really go through these aisles where there are men and women.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There are very few women in both sides. I think…

SEN. CAYETANO. It’s just a suggestion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The suggestion of the Senate President was well taken.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, if I make one other matter for stipulation for the comfort of Senator Judge Cayetano.

Ms. Rajas had not changed her physical appearance. She is not into any moustache thing or… Nothing which will alter…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Anyway, the Chair would recognize now the Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano for a final word.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, point of order.

It is not for me to, you know, have comfortable feeling about the identification. I’m suggesting it in fairness to the witness.

So, I move to strike out that statement, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The word “uncomfortable” or the entire statement?

SEN. CAYETANO. In reference to me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. First, the Chair would recognize the Honorable Senator Judge Jaworski, then after that the Honorable Senator Judge Loren Legarda Leviste.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, Your Honor, I think the most important aspect is to get ahead with this hearing. We have already heard the ruling of our Honorable Presiding Officer. We don’t seem to understand. This is a very small place. And if any Judge here knows Rajas, please go with the witness, so you can identify Rajas already.

I think that’s the best because we want to find out who this Rajas is.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is a very valid observation. And the request of the defense is also a valid request because that is very common in litigations. It is testing the credibility of the witness to prove that she could really identify any person referred to in the in her answer.

So, the Honorable Senator Judge Legarda Leviste.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I just wanted to clarify whether in the statement of the defense…Did the defense counsel say that assuming Rajas is here, can the witness identify Ms. Rajas? Or is he making a statement of fact that Rajas is indeed here within the premises? I just wanted that clarified, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). We’re saying both, Your Honor. We’re saying that she’s here, we’re saying that the witness had confirmed her ability to identify her this afternoon.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. I will repeat my question, Mr. Chief Justice, with your kind indulgence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. I just wanted to clarify the statement or the question of the defense counsel to the witness. Is he saying that assuming Ms. Rajas is within the premises can she, the witness, identify Ms. Rajas or is it a statement of fact that Ms. Rajas is indeed in the gallery today and can she identify Rajas? Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the answer of Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). Well, the lady said on the witness stand that she can identify Ms. Rajas today. I think the question was very plain. And I had said that if she can do that, if she could please look around in the gallery and pick out Ms. Rajas from among the persons in the gallery.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Justice, I don’t think my question has been answered. It’s very simple. Is Ms. Rajas here?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, she is here. I think I mentioned that awhile ago.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes. That is the point of clarification I wanted made clear.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, ma’am.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Ms. Rajas, according to Atty. Fortun, is present in the gallery today at this very moment.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And you were asking the witness to identify her. Is that correct?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. It is not an assumption if she were here, would you be able to if she is here, please identify her.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. The Honorable Senator Judge Flavier.

SEN. FLAVIER. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m being naughty now but I mean it. Can we request that the doors be closed so that there is no chance that after a place has been examined, she is brought in to be present in the chamber? Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Very valid observation and suggestion. The Chair will now direct the Sergeant at Arms to close all the entrance and exit doors before we can proceed with the request and to be accomplished in the manner as suggested by the Senate President.

Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

I hope that the defense is very certain on this that Ms. Delia Rajas is in the Session Hall.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have the assurance.

REP. MORENO. Is the same I’m sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, if I may continue. Is the same Delia Rajas whose picture appears in the two IDs that have been identified?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have the assurance of counsel that this woman is here.

REP. MORENO. Because that name could have been an alias, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). You are interjecting a new fact.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, Compañero, I think we are all officers of the Court.

So, close all the doors before…

Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Some clarificatory question to the witness before this, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We cannot yet proceed to that, Your Honor, until after the cross examination is over. After the cross.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. But this is material, Mr. Chief Justice, for this purpose. Because what I would like to ask May I go to you?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Okay. Oh, yes.

Suspended briefly.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:35 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 3:35 P.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Resumed.

Are doors closed now, Sergeant at Arms?

The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m not I’m not Delia Rajas. I would like to go out for a while. Liquidity problem.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will open the door very briefly only for you and close it afterwards upon your return.

Suspended for two minutes.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:36 P.M.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. For the witness to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the witness to probably the witness may start moving around in the meantime. You try to start. Probably you can just the witness may stand now and make some preliminary view of those in the gallery.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet. We suspended to await the arrival of the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. DRILON. Can we resume so that there are some questions that we would like to raise, some suggestions. For example, there was a suggestion that all the women should stand up so that the identification …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the witness should really go around because some women some, some of them might not stand up.

SEN. DRILON. No. Then require all the audience, women lady audience to stand up in their seats in their places.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. That can be taken into account.

The Honorable Senator Judge Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. Mr. Chief Justice, since it seems like it’s suggestion time, may I just suggest that everybody sit down and just let the witness go around row by row, aisle by aisle, seat by seat and look for the person she is supposed to look for, because now we don’t know at the rate there are some a little bit of semi commotion on this side and on this side, you know, it becomes more confusing. So, if everybody just sits down, then I think the witness would have an easier time and we’re not going to waste more time in the process.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She can take her time. That was precisely the suggestion of the Senate President earlier that she can go around accompanied by a representative of the prosecution and a representative of the defense, together with the Secretary of the Senate.

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, may I say something?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet. We have not resumed young lady.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 3:40 P.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is now resumed.

We can now proceed. The Honorable Senator Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Relative to the suggestion of Senator Judge Coseteng, Nikki, in addition to that, maybe we will require everyone to just stay put while this thing is not yet finished and for the pages to see if anyone moves in to one seat after the witness has already inspected the row.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the public would cooperate with the process. I am sure it is enough that the Secretary will accompany, one of the prosecutors and one of the counsels for the defense.

MR. FORTUN (S). Perhaps, Mr. Chief Justice, if I can suggest, the Secretary of the Senate or the secretary of this Court can accompany the witness by himself without need for the counsel for both parties to be present and for him to make…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, if counsel for the prosecution will agree by way of an amendment to the proposal of the Senate President, well and good.

Would you agree that only the Secretary of the Senate would accompany the witness?

SEN. BIAZON. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Another one, Mr. Secretary, I am afraid the stills photographer and the cameramen might be cluttering up the whole place by following the inspection. They should stay put.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Another very good suggestion. So we request the cameramen to stay put, not to disturb, bother or whatever the process to be undertaken.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Perhaps we can also ask the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary to accompany the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms can accompany. Okay then, the witness may now proceed.

Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. During the break, the witness manifested that if she can be permitted to say something. Can we hear that, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may be allowed to say something.

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, maa identify ko po si Delia Rajas as from my recollection of her during that time na sinama siya ni Alma Alfaro sa akin at ipinakilala. Kung nag iba man po ang kanyang hitsura, wala na po akong control doon. Pero kung iyon pa rin ho ang hitsura niya ay maa identify ko po siya noong time na iyon po ang hitsura niya. Ganoon po kaikli ang buhok at ganoon din po ang built niya.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you can do that. In the meantime now you can probably start and let’s see how far you can go in the matter of identification and how much you can recollect of the incidence at the time.

MS. RODENAS. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the Secretary and the Senate Sergeant at Arms should now accompany the witness. Probably you can begin on the last row on the left side.

MS. RODENAS. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To the left insofar as the Presiding Officer is concerned.

(Ms. Rodenas is accompanied by the Senate Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms.)

There is no suspension of session.

No cameramen please. You were directed to stay put.

Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. Requesting permission to approach the Chief Justice please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted.

(Ms. Rodenas is still going around the Session Hall, accompanied by the Senate Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms to identify Delia Rajas.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about the front gallery at the back of the Secretary you have not gone around, Madam Witness, in that area? Yes, may we now continue? It seems that the witness had gone around the galleries.

Just before we start, the Chair would only like to inquire from the Secretary if he had accompanied the witness to all the rows of the galleries.

THE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor, we did.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel may now proceed.

MR. FORTUN (S). We would like to manifest as well, Your Honor, that the witness had gone through the gallery, left side facing the Presiding…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can ask the question.

MR. FORTUN (S). …Officer twice. Just for the record so I need not ask her anymore about the matter, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will not ask anymore?

MR. FORTUN (S). So my question still stands.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Use the microphone.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mrs. Rodenas, I now revert back to the question I had asked you prior to your having stepped off your seat to look around the gallery, both sides, and confirm your previous statement that you would be able to identify this lady whom you said had presented herself to you and who had filled up numerous documents in respect of an account on August 28, 1998 and who had given herself a name and identification cards stating the name “Delia Rajas.” Will you tell us now, Mrs. Rodenas, if you had, in fact, been able to do that given the opportunity to do so this afternoon?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin pong recollection ng itsura niya noong dumating po siya sa aming branch na ipinakilala ni Alma Alfaro para mag encash o para magpa accommodate ng demand drafts, based sa aking recollection, ang itsura niya po, at tiningnan ko ho dito sa room na ito, wala po siya dito sa room na ito.

MR. FORTUN (S). You are certain that she is not in this room, ma’am?

MS. RODENAS. Sa aking recollection ng kanyang itsura, wala po siya sa room na ito, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Thank you.

In respect of the bags…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before that question. The doors may now be opened.

VOICE. Hindi pa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet? Why?

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness had answered already.

SEN. BIAZON. Yeah, but we will have to ask, Mr. Chief Justice, the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. The doors shall remain closed.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. If the defense is intending to bring out Rajas from among the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. From the outside.

SEN. BIAZON. …people here. I saw some movements of ladies at that back there and two moved on this portion, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then we can…

SEN. BIAZON. So the question is, is the defense going to show that Rajas is indeed in the room before we can open the doors, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We keep the door closed.

MR. FORTUN (S). We do not intend to present Ms. Rajas until our turn comes. But we are stating as an officer of the Court that she, in fact, is here. The documents which had been presented by the prosecution as Exhibits “UUUUU” showing her SSS, thumb marks, showing her signatures, etcetera, can be confirmed by her. We will be able, at the proper time, to have her sign and confirm the veracity of the fingerprints.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Renato Cayetano is recognized first.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, in fairness to all the Senator Judges, and specifically to this representation, I have been through this, as I said, a number of times. And after the witness has either identified or failed to identify the person being sought from the witness, the person is produced before the Court. So that the Senator Judges and the Presiding Officer would know that, in fact, that person exists in this hall. It is not fair, Mr. Chief Justice, that Ms. Delia Rajas, if she were here, is not produced, not only fair to the witness but not also fair to the Senator Judges. So I ask, Mr. Chief Justice, that the defense counsel be directed …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will do that later. We will do that later.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice, we are willing to present her …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no. The Chair will still recognize members of the Court.

MR. FORTUN (S). I’m sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Biazon, then after that, the Honorable Senator Legarda Leviste.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, it was very clear in the answer of the defense to the question of Senator Legarda, that Ms. Rajas is in in the room. If she is not going to be produced, I would manifest, Mr. Chief Justice, that a dirty trick had been played in this Court. What if Ms. Witness, in her moment of, say, panic, just pointed to anyone and then to find out that there is no Ms. Rajas in the hall. So I manifest, Mr. Chief Justice, that the defense produce Ms. Rajas today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will go to that. We will first listen to the Honorable Senator Judge Legarda Leviste.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Just a point of clarification from the defense counsel, Atty. Fortun. Did I understand it correctly, Atty. Fortun, that in due time, your Ms. Delia Rajas will be able to identify her signatures on the documents presented by the witness, is that correct?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes. And, therefore, this Ms. Rajas which you say is in the gallery right now and which you will eventually present to this Impeachment Court is the same Ms. Rajas who had opened an account and had withdrawn the money from LBP Shaw, is that correct?

MR. FORTUN (S). No, Your Honor. That is not our point. As I previously mentioned, it is the Delia Rajas which the prosecution, through their Exhibit “UUUUU” …

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes.

MR. FORTUN (S). … had identified as will be the same Delia Rajas which is currently in this hall.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes. You are saying then, Atty. Fortun, that the Ms. Rajas whom you are saying is in the hall right now is the same person or has the same photo as the Ms. Rajas whom the witness had identified. But you are saying that that photo is not the person who has the LBP Shaw bank account, is that correct?

MR. FORTUN (S). What we are saying, Your Honor, is that the Delia Rajas who appeared before this lady is not the Delia the true Delia Rajas who is an employee of a certain Catalina Ang. And that the prosecution’s own exhibit will disclose that this lady whose SSS signature and thumbprint appear as Exhibit “UUUUU” is the real Delia Rajas. The lady who claims to be Delia Rajas and who appeared before this witness is not the real Delia Rajas.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. A simple question. There is a photo identified by the witness. Is the photo identified by the witness and the Delia Rajas present here today the same Delia Rajas …

MR. FORTUN (S). No, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. … the photo …

MR. FORTUN (S). No, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. So there could be two Delia Rajases, as plain and simple as that?

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, this is the Delia Rajas which this witness had identified and our position …

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. So the Delia Rajas present here in this gallery today does not have the same face as the Delia Rajas in the ID which the witness had identified?

MR. FORTUN (S). That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There you are. Anybody else who would like to make any comment? The Honorable Senator Judge …

Yeah. You may continue. I’m sorry.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. If I may just comment then. I believe, Mr. Chief Justice, if I heard the witness correctly, she said in Tagalog, “Kung ang itsura po niya ay pareho pa noong araw na nagbukas siya ng account sa aking bangko ay maaari ko siyang i identify.” I think it is unfair to the witness to ask her to identify a person who looks differently from the same person who confronted her on that day that she opened and withdrew the account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She gave the explanation already.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. That is all. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. For the record, Your Honor, the witness was looking at the picture appearing in “GGGGGG”, which is the ID of one who purports to be Delia Rajas in Solid Builders Center and E.T. Enterprises, Inc. This was the Delia Rajas which the witness said approached her and opened an account.

Now, the counsel is telling us that the real Delia Rajas is the one whose signature and thumbmark appeared in the SSS record, which is not the same Delia Rajas whose picture appears in the IDs that are marked as Exhibit “GGGGGG”.

So, it is not a fair process that the witness or that the witness was required to go through nor is it a fair process that this counsel had this Impeachment Court go through because the witness was identifying the picture on the basis of the IDs presented. And now he says this is not the real Delia Rajas because the real Delia Rajas is the one whose records appear in the SSS, which is marked as another evidence and no picture was in that ID was in that SSS paper.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?

MR. FORTUN (S). Well, the theory of the prosecution has always been that all of these documents identify a Delia Rajas including the SSS document. This was not our exhibit, Your Honor. This is the exhibit of the prosecution and we are precisely testing the credibility of this witness in respect of the prosecution’s own documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, may I know from the witness whether the signature appearing on the SSS document tally with the signature imprinted by that Delia Rajas on the signature card when she opened the bank account?

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor…

SEN. ENRILE. No, my question is very simple. Just please answer, yes or no.

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, ang prinisent ho sa akin na exhibit ay iyon pong aming mga IDs na prinisent ni Delia Rajas.

SEN. ENRILE. No, ang itinatanong ko po sa inyo…

MS. RODENAS. Hindi ko pa po nakita…

SEN. ENRILE. …nandito po iyong mga dokumento na iprinisenta sa inyo ng prosecution kanina na pinagbatayan ninyo para ma identify iyong Delia Rajas na nagbukas ng bank account. At sinabi ninyo noong binuksan niya iyong bank account, pumirma siya doon sa signature card. Dito po sa dokumento na iyan na ginamit upang patunayan ninyo, na kilala ninyo iyong Delia Rajas, may signature diyan. Nakikilala mo ba iyang signature na iyan at iyan ba ay kamukha noong pirma na inilagda noong Delia Rajas na nagbukas noong bank account noong binuksan niya iyong bank account?

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, I have to clarify something. Kasi po, ang prinisent sa akin na exhibit ay iyong mga IDs ba prinisent sa akin ni Delia Rajas. Hindi ko pa ho nakikita itong SSS, kaya hindi ko po siya mako confirm.

SEN. ENRILE. Ay hindi ba prinisenta sa inyo ng prosecution iyong SSS na iyan…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes…

SEN. ENRILE. …iyong dokumento?

MR. RODENAS. Ang nakita ko po ay iyong mga IDs na prinisent sa akin.

SEN. ENRILE. I have no question, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the pleasure of the Honorable Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, just to clarify. The witness, Mrs. Rodenas, testified on the IDs E.T. Enterprises, Inc. and Solid Builders Center, whereas, the SSS papers were testified on last Friday by the SSS representative, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, and not by the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair realizes that that was so. So, it is now a question of whether the process was correct or not as questioned by the Honorable Senator Drilon. The process was undertaken, there was no prior objection to it. And therefore, I do not think that we can recall the process. Let it stay on record it is a matter now of the Judges’ evaluation of the evidence.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, Mr. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). I am sorry.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. I think, Mr. Fortun, you owe it to this Court that you must identify if indeed Miss Rajas, whom you say is here in this Court, is actually here in this Court. Otherwise, we will be forced to sanction you for misleading the members of this Tribunal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In addition to what the Senate President has said, it was precisely a commitment that was demanded by the Presiding Officer before we undertook the process.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor. And I am willing to identify my…

SEN. ROCO. But in addition to that, Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. … the representation of counsel led me to believe that it is this same person who deposited or who opened the account.

MR. FORTUN (S). No.

SEN. ROCO. They are saying now “No.” You see. Then, that means it was just a trick of mirrors. They asserted that this same Delia Rajas was the one who opened the account. Now, they are telling us it is not. So it really misled the poor witness. That’s terrible. That is a contempt of this Court.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, we had made very clear what are the premise of our question.

SEN. ROCO. No, no, no, no. No, counsel. Atty. Fortun, this one was a dirty trick. Senator Judge Loren Legarda, Cayetano, I was not the one. I was just listening to them. And it was very clear from your representation that this same person sitting in the stand was the same person who opened the account. If it is not, then there was no use for this exercise.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, what was very clear even in the questions which I asked the witness was whether she will be able to recall the Delia Rajas who allegedly…

SEN. ROCO. No, no, no. That was your question. But on…

MR. FORTUN (S). That is exactly why I said that the real Delia Rajas is here currently. And that is…

SEN. ROCO. Candor under our Code of Responsibility. As an officer of the Court, you owe us candor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, that is exactly what I am doing.

SEN. ROCO. No, no.

MR. FORTUN (S). And that’s the reason why I am willing to call on Miss Rajas now for us to identify…

SEN. ROCO. But it is pointless. Since it is now admitted by the counsel that this Rajas whom she will call had nothing to do with the opening of the account.

MR. FORTUN (S). She is the Rajas, Your Honor, under Exhibit “UUUUU”. This is the prosecution’s own evidence, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. With the permission of Senator Roco.

Just for the satisfaction of the Court, I think we need to know whether or not there is a Delia Rajas in this courtroom as manifested by counsel.

SEN. ROCO. So long as it is understood…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. … that she has nothing to do with the opening of the account.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, whatever it is, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Whatever it may be worth. There is a commitment. That was precisely the premise before. That was the assurance given.

SEN. DRILON. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we should now demand compliance with that assurance, whatever will be the merit or the probative value of the matter will be left entirely to the Court.

SEN. DRILON. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator.

SEN. DRILON. We are I myself would like to see that Delia Rajas as long as it is our understanding that that Delia Rajas is the one whose SSS personal data record appears in Exhibit “UUUUU” and not the Delia Rajas whose ID was presented to the witness when she opened the account which is marked “GGGGGG”. On that basis, we produce Delia Rajas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, Your Honor, I am not a lawyer. But what we are trying to look for is who went to talk to this lady. You know, so if we bring her here and she says, “That’s the lady.” Then, that’s it. Who else are we looking for? I do not know but that is my understanding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

May we know the point of the defense? What is the point in presenting the original Delia Rajas who is not supposed to be the Delia Rajas that went to open the bank account to get the bank draft. What is the point? I take it that what you are saying is that there are documents presented by the prosecution that are not connected to the Delia Rajas that opened the account.

MR. FORTUN (S). That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. Is that the point? Just spell it out because I think you are being misrepresented by some of our judges here and that was initially what I thought also, that you were trying to deceive the Court. But apparently, what you want to do is, please state it.

MR. FORTUN (S). We want to clarify precisely the prosecution’s own theory and which we have now confirmed as not true that the persons who opened this particular account are not actually the persons whose faces appear in any of the identification cards.

SEN. SOTTO. In other words, those persons that opened the account there…

MR. FORTUN (S). Are fictitious.

SEN. SOTTO. Are fictitious persons?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. Their names are not Delia Rajas or…and company?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. That is the point that you are bringing out?

MR. FORTUN (S). They are not Eleuterio Tan, they are not Alma Alfaro…

SEN. SOTTO. And they are not Delia Rajas?

MR. FORTUN (S). They are not employees of Atong Ang.

SEN. SOTTO. They are some…okay, then therefore…

MR. FORTUN (S). They’re probably Mr.Singson’s employees.

SEN. SOTTO. If that is the case, Mr. Chief Justice, in the issue that was brought out by Senator Roco, I appeal to the records if ever there was a …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway…

SEN. SOTTO. …deception to that effect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …the Chair would only ask one question on Atty. Fortun. Do you agree to the manifestation of Senator-Judge Drilon?

ATTY. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, to show that the lady whose signature and whose thumbprints are affixed in the prosecution’s own Exhibit “UUUUUU” is the same Delia Rajas who’s currently in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s have a clarification from the Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon. Because that’s the only way to put an end to this controversy.

SEN. DRILON. That the person that they are going to produce to be the Delia Rajas is the one whose personal data record appears in this… records of the Social Security System and marked in evidence as “UUUUUU-3” and she is not the Delia Rajas who presented herself before the witness whose identification card, the witness identified to have been presented to her by this Delia Rajas, and now marked as “GGGGGG”.

MR. FORTUN (S). We are willing to make a stipulation as to the first one. We do not even know who the second one is. What we’re saying, Your Honor, is that the real Delia Rajas may not even be this person.

SEN. DRILON. I am not asking for stipulation. I’m asking that the records will show that that is the testimony of the witness.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, certainly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you agree on the condition and the qualifications made?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So with that qualifications and conditions I think the Chair will have to rule now in favor of the request of the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Identify her.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is that?

MR. FORTUN (S). The defense calls on Ms. Delia Rajas. Please rise Ms. Rajas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is she? Let her come forward.

MR. FORTUN (S). May I ask the real Delia Rajas y Ilan, whose name appears in Exhibit”UUUUUU-3” with given address as 48 Calbayog Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, and with SSS No.33-2365508-7…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are referring to the exhibit pointed out by the Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is she?

MR. FORTUN (S). Stand up.

THE PRES. OFFICER. It is not only standing up but let her come down.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, Mr.Chief Justice..

MR. FORTUN (S). Please come down..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For identification.

SEN. CAYETANO. Can we ask her to be here in front of us, Mr.Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think… Is there any objection for the witness to–for that lady to come forward? The Honorable Senator-Judge Osmena.

SEN. OSMENA (S). Mr. Chief Justice, since this witness’ name was probably obviously used as the basis for fake identification, is it all right for the judges to question this witness–this new and original Delia Rajas?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can let her take an oath and questions can be asked.

SEN. OSMENA (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please stay at the middle.

The Presiding Officer will ask the name of the witness.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, before you proceed, can we have a little order so that there’s some semblance

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, yes, a little order, please.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Kindly stand up.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Administer the oath.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Raise your right hand, right, right, make it higher, put your left on the Holy Bible and answer me.

You, Delia Rajas, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, help you God.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Okay. Sit down.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please, the Honorable Senator Judge Legarda Leviste.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Just an inquiry, Mr. Chief Justice.

There were two other ladies who stood up when Delia Rajas was called earlier.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Two, two.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. I was just wondering whether they were accompanying her or just thought that they were the ones being called and they are still in the gallery.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Where is the other lady?

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. I do not think I am not sure whether it is material or relevant to the two ladies’

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Were they pointed to by the

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. I believe these were the two ladies who stood up when the name “Delia Rajas” was called. And I’m wondering whether they came together with Ms. Rajas or if they just decided to stand up.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have placed her under oath and let’s see if the others may also step down later.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, maybe we can proceed with the proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can proceed with this lady first.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please state your name for the record.

MS. RAJAS. Ako po si Delia Rajas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s your middle initial?

MS. RAJAS. Ilan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How old are you?

MS. RAJAS. Thirty five years old.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is your civil status?

MS. RAJAS. Widow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is your residence?

MS. RAJAS. 230 Pilar Street, Mandaluyong City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Rene Cayetano and the other members of the Court may ask questions. And after that, the Honorable Senator Loren Legarda Leviste and then the Honorable Judge Guingona.

SEN. CAYETANO. May I ask some question to the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Gng. Rajas, kilala ho ba n’yo si Mrs. Rodenas?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi ka napupunta sa Shaw Boulevard Branch ng Land Bank?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Wala kang kilala doon?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ngayon, bakit ka naririto?

MS. RAJAS. Dahil ‘yon pong pangalan ko nasangkot sa kaso.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, sino ang sumundo sa ‘yo?

MS. RAJAS. May kasama po ako.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi. Sino ang sumundo sa ‘yo? Sino ang kumontak sa ‘yo para magpunta ka rito?

MS. RAJAS. Bale po ‘yong mga kasama kong mga

SEN. CAYETANO. Sino sila? Sabihin mo lang

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. State the name

SEN. CAYETANO. ‘Yong mga kasama mo, ‘yong naroroon?

MS. RAJAS. Opo. Pero, hindi ko po hindi ko po masyadong

SEN. CAYETANO. Sabihin mo lang ang pangalan, please.

MS. RAJAS. Hindi ko po alam ang pangalan.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi mo alam ang pangalan nila?

MS. RAJAS. Ngayon ko lang po sila nakasabay kasi ‘yong

SEN. CAYETANO. Sinundo ka nila.

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po. Dito na po kami nagkita.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, dito na kayo nagkita.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ang ibig mong sabihin, pumunta ka talaga dito para manood?

MS. RAJAS. Inaano po namin ‘yong sa kaso po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ano’ng kaso?

MS. RAJAS. ‘Yong nasangkot po ako sa kaso.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, pumunta ka sa defense counsel, ganoon ba ‘yon? Magsabi ka ng totoo lang, please. Kailangan natin ang katotohanan. Sino ang kumontak sa ‘yo?

MS. RAJAS. Si attorney po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sino’ng attorney?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi ko po masyadong kilala.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ayan, o, ituro mo kung sino diyan.

MS. RAJAS. Siya po. (pointing to Atty. Raymond Fortun)

SEN. CAYETANO. Lapitan mo lang kung maaari.

(At this juncture, the witness approached the defense panel and pointed to Attorney Raymond Fortun.)

MS. RAJAS. Siya po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the lawyer identify himself for the record.

MR. FORTUN (R). Attorney Raymond Fortun, Your Honor, for the defense.

SEN. CAYETANO. Maupo na po kayo rito, Mrs. Rajas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat again.

SEN. CAYETANO. Kailan ho kayo kinausap ni Atty. Fortun?

MS. RAJAS. Kagabi lang po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Kagabi lang.

SEN. DRILON. With the permission of Atty. Cayetano, may we ask the two ladies who were identified earlier as her companions be required to step out of this room so that they cannot hear the testimony of this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who were they?

SEN. DRILON. And they should be under the custody of the Sergeant at Arms and they should not be allowed to listen to the testimony of this Rajas so there should be no…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who are the two identified persons, Judge Drilon?

SEN. DRILON. There was a lady in red identified earlier as having what’s her name?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is she? Got the name of the lady?

SEN. DRILON. Ma. Cecilia Asuncion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the other one?

SEN. DRILON. Ms. Caballero, I understand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The two are where are they right now? Right now, where are they? The Sergeant at Arms is directed to bring out said ladies in the meantime to be brought to a place where they cannot hear the testimony of this witness on the possibility that they might be called again.

The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, what’s the purpose of excluding these two persons from the courtroom? Are they going to be used as witnesses and, if they’re going to be used as witness, are they going to be used as witnesses for the defense or for the prosecution or as impeaching witnesses?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That seems to be the message telegraphed by the manifestation of the Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. ENRILE. We better hear first from the prosecution if they agree with my fellow judge that they will present these two witnesses as impeaching witnesses.

SEN. DRILON. I never implied that, Your Honor. There is impression created that there was some misrepresentation made on the Court and we went through this process. There were two ladies who were clearly seen. I saw them myself who were prompting this Rajas to stand up and even approached her. I saw it. And, therefore, we are trying to find out what is the truth. And, therefore, we may ask questions on these two ladies.

SEN. ENRILE. I agree, Mr. Chief Justice. But evidently we are already going far beyond the Rules of this Court. We are adopting rules that are not agreed upon by this Court. And so, therefore, I move that before we exclude anybody in this Court, let’s put it into a motion and a vote.

SEN. DRILON. This is a matter of procedure…

SEN. ENRILE. I have a motion, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a motion to put it into a vote.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Can we have a brief recess, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about the two ladies there?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. We can allow them to stay on for a few minutes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would not the body want to ask some more questions on this lady?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. I’m sure they will but we can continue that after a brief recess, Mr. Chief Justice,

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request for a suspension.

The Majority Leader. Well, before the Majority Leader …

SEN. DRILON. To avoid any further delay, I withdraw the request.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn. The two ladies shall stay.

The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. My purpose in raising this question is so that we have an orderly proceeding here. Evidently, each one of us is assuming that he can change the Rules of this Court. None of us can change the Rules without the consent of the others.

SEN. DRILON. We are not changing any rule, Mr. President.

SEN. ENRILE. That’s why I’m asking whether these persons are being excluded so that — because they are going to be presented as witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was already withdrawn, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, it’s 46 minutes past our regular first break, I move to suspend.

SEN. ROCO. I object, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, we could dispense with the break.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have gone much beyond the regular break period.

SEN. ROCO. If the Majority Leader will just… I think we should get rid of the two before taking a break; then, it will facilitate and, eventually, it will turn out to be more expeditious because…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the Majority Leader, can we continue in the meantime just to dispose of this lady.

So, who was on the floor? The Honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, for coming to my succor. This would have been my third interruption.

Gng. Rajas, ano po ang sabi sa inyo ni Atty. Fortun nu’ng kayo ay kausapin?

MS. RAJAS. Magsabi daw po ako ng totoo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi. Pumunta rito.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, can you please do not interrupt me, Mr. Chief Justice. If you have some…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chief Justice is not interrupting you. (Laughter).

SEN. CAYETANO. No, no, not the Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I’m very, very carefully listening to the questions.

SEN. CAYETANO. Not the Chief Justice, Mr. Chief Justice. Anyway…

Pinapunta kayo ni Atty. Fortun para magsabi ng totoo. Ang tanong ko ho ay, ano ang sinabi nga sa inyo?

MS. RAJAS. Iyon lang po – magsabi…

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyon lang, sinabi sa inyo na kayo pala ang Delia Rajas, totoo ba iyon?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Papaano ho kayo nadiskubre?

MS. RAJAS. Basta na-ano ko lang po na nasama ako doon sa ano ni Singson.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sa dami-dami ho ng tao sa Metro Manila, over 4 million, kayo ay nadiskubre ni Atty. Fortun. Papaano po?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Pumunta ka sa kanya? Pinuntahan ka niya?

MS. RAJAS. Nagkausap po kami.

SEN. CAYETANO. Papaano nga kayo nagkausap at nagkilala?

MS. RAJAS. Kinausap po niya ako kagabi na sinabi niya na pupunta kami dito?

SEN. CAYETANO. Para ano daw ang gagawin mo?

MS. RAJAS. Para magsabi po ng totoo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. This time, magsabi tayo ng totoo. Saan ka nagtatrabaho?

MS. RAJAS. Kay Mrs. Ang po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, Mrs. Ang. Ito ba iyong Catalina Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ito ang nanay ni Atong Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Kaya ikaw ay nadiskubre ni Atty. Fortun, hindi ba?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ngayon, ano ang trabaho mo kay Atong Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Nasa kusina po, nagluluto.

SEN. CAYETANO. Nagluluto.

MS. RAJAS. Doon po sa nanay ni Atong Ang.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ano ka, katulong o cook?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, ikaw ay nagtatrabaho kay Catalina Ang.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ang nanay ni Atong Ang.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi ba ang kapatid ni Atong Ang iyung si Josefina Uy?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi ko po kilala iyung pangalan niya.

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyong Yolanda Uy?

MS. RAJAS. Iyong tawag lang po namin Alan.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sino ang mga kapatid ni Atong Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Iyong mga tawag lang po sa kanila ang nakikilala ko.

SEN. CAYETANO. Saan nakatira si Catalina Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Sa Mandaluyong po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sa Mandaluyong?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyon lang po.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice. My time is up.

Maraming salamat sa iyo, Mrs. Rajas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You still have 4 seconds, Your Honor. (Laughter).

SEN. CAYETANO. I’ll leave it to the others.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, thank you very much.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, we will recognize now the Honorable Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste. After that, the Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Salamat po, Mr. Chief Justice.

Kaunting katanungan lang, Gng. Rajas.

Sabi po n’yo kagabi po nakausap n’yo si Atty. Fortun sa telepono siguro ‘no, o harapan ba ito?

MS. RAJAS. Harapan po.

SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Ah, harapan. Dahil nasabi n’yo nasangkot kayo sa kaso ni Singson, iyon ang pagkasabi n’yo. ‘Di ba ho?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Oktubre pa ho ay simula na ang Blue Ribbon hearings tungkol dito at nabanggit na ang pangalan n’yo kasama ni Tan at nu’ng isa pa. Bakit ngayon lang kayo nag-isip na magpunta kay Atty. Fortun at hindi pa nu’ng Oktubre nu’ng nasangkot nang unang beses ang inyong pangalan?

MS. RAJAS. Bale po, hindi naman ako nanonood ng TV, e.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Hmmn. Oo, nga. Kailan n’yo ba unang nalaman na nasangkot ang inyong pangalan sa kontrobersiyang ito?

MS. RAJAS. Matagal na po.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Matagal na nga pala. Iyon nga ang ibig kong sabihin. Noong Oktubre pa pumutok ito. Bakit po ngayon lamang kayo nakipag usap kay Atty. Fortun para po maklaro ang inyong pangalan na hindi nga kayo iyong Delia Rajas na sinasangkot sa problema ni Chavit Singson.

MS. RAJAS. Ang ano ko po, wala naman sa akin iyong ano, e, na masangkot ako sa kaso.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Wala sa inyo iyon?

MS. RAJAS. Wala, po.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Bakit po n’yo sinabi kanina na kaya nga kayo nagpunta rito dahil po nasangkot ang pangalan ninyo. Medyo iba po yaong sagot na iyon. Ano pong kadahilanan na nagpunta kayo rito at nakausap kayo ni Atty. Fortun kahapon nang harapan kung bale wala sa inyo iyon at alam n’yo na matagal na pala na nasangkot ang pangalan n’yo?

MS. RAJAS. Bale, ngayon lang po kami nagkita, e. Ngayon ko lang po siya na meet.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Alam ko po iyon. Ang gusto ko lang po malaman, bakit… ano pong nag udyok sa inyo na makipag usap kay Atty. Fortun para magsalita po sa Senado? Sino o ano po ang nag udyok sa inyo?

MS. RAJAS. Para malinis po iyong pangalan ko.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Para po malinis ang pangalan n’yo. Bakit po ngayon lang po, Enero 2001? Noong Oktubre Year 2000 ay pumutok na po ang kasong ito at ang Delia Rajas po ay nasa radyo, telebisyon at pahayagan.

MS. RAJAS. Wala po akong ano, e, wala po akong choice na humarap sa ano, sa Senado.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Kayo ba ay sumubok po na magpunta sa Senado o kumuntak maski kanino po noong Oktubre, noong nabanggit ang pangalan ninyo?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Sino po ang tumulong sa inyo para makakontak kay Atty. Fortun? Si Atong Ang ba?

MS. RAJAS. Si Mrs. Ang, po.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Ah, si Mrs. Ang. Iyong nanay ni Atong Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Kayo ba ay talagang may SSS number?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Ah, mayroon talaga. At nakakatanggap kayo ng benepisyo ng SSS siguro ano, pag kayo ay miyembro ng SSS?

MS. RAJAS. Wala pa po.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Wala kayong natatanggap na benepisyo pero mayroon kayong SSS number?

MS. RAJAS. Bale iyong amo ko pa ang nag ano ng SSS.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Kailan kayo binigyan ng SSS number?

My last question. Pakisagot lang po.

MS. RAJAS. Wala pa po sa akin iyong SS number. Basta sinabi po nila na mayroon akong SS.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The Honorable Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Miss Rajas, mayroon kayong SSS number, ano?

MS. RAJAS. Mayroon po.

SEN. BIAZON. Mayroon. Anong trabaho n’yo sa bahay ni Mrs. Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Sa kusina po, nagluluto.

SEN. BIAZON. Cook?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. Oo, okay. Noong 1994, nag apply kayo ng social security sa Social Security System?

MS. RAJAS. Opo, pina alam po sa akin ng amo ko.

SEN. BIAZON. Kayo mismo ang nagpunta doon?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. BIAZON. Hindi. All right. Mayroong signature dito sa Exhibit “U… Mr. Chief Justice, it is … 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, sextuplet U, “UUUUUU”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly show that to the witness, Atty. Fortun.

SEN. BIAZON. Nandidiyan iyong pangalan ng tatay n’yo. Sino’ng pangalan ng tatay n’yo?

MS. RAJAS. Claudio Rajas.

SEN. BIAZON. Claudio?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. Pangalan ng nanay?

MS. RAJAS. Dolores Ilan.

SEN. BIAZON. Dolores Ilan?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. Ang pangalan dito ng nanay n’yo, Dolores Rajas?

MS. RAJAS. Dolores Rajas, po.

SEN. BIAZON. Dolores Rajas.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. Now, doon sa ibaba kung titignan mo sa kanan, pababa ka pa nang kaunti, mayroon doong nakasu¬lat na “Delia Rajas Ibarra.”

MS. RAJAS. Opo, iyon pong Ibana, sa asawa ko po.

SEN. BIAZON. Ah, sa asawa mo. Ikaw ba ang pumirma nito?

MS. RAJAS. Opo, iyon pong nasa baba.

SEN. BIAZON. Itong Delia Rajas Ibarra?

MS. RAJAS. Ibana, opo.

SEN. BIAZON. Ikaw ang pumirma nito?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. So, ikaw ang nagpunta mismo sa Social Security System para i fill up ito?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po. Iyong form lang po ang dinala sa amin.

SEN. BIAZON. Na pipirmahan mo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. So, ito’y pirma mo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice, may we ask that the witness be asked to give specimen signature.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many specimen signatures?

SEN. BIAZON. Three probably is the standard number, normally.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk or rather the … Atty. Fortun, you can provide a clean sheet of paper for the witness to give three specimen signatures. You can use that.

Write your customary signature thrice and after that, Atty. Fortun, would you kindly deliver the same to the Honorable Judge Biazon?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. While the counsel is moving here, huwag mo munang i ano I don’t know at one point in time where the witness, Mr. Chief Justice, may be allowed not to answer questions considering that she is making a statement under oath and that she is not represented…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. By…?

SEN. BIAZON. By counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why? What about the next ques¬tion, would it incriminate her that she needs the assistance of counsel?

SEN. BIAZON. It might, Mr. Chief Justice, considering that she is making testimony under oath.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s correct. She testified because she was pointed to as the Delia Rajas by the de¬fense.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Coming from not an expert on hand¬writing, they seem to be the same signature, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same?

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So?

SEN. BIAZON. Cursory inspection. But that is not very important.

What is important is the next question, Ms. Rajas. Now you can start that clock.

Question, Ms. Rajas, is: Noon bang sinundo kayo kaha¬pon kagabi ni Atty. Fortun, mayroon bang sinabi sa inyo ang inyong amo?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. BIAZON. Walang sinabi sa inyo ni Ms. Catalina Tan Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. BIAZON. Wala. Ang kumausap lang sa inyo si Atty. Fortun?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. BIAZON. Ano ang sinabi niya?

MS. RAJAS. Iyon lang po. Sabihin ko iyong totoo na ano sa kasong ito.

SEN. BIAZON. Ano ba ang pagkakasabi niya tungkol sa kaso? Anong kaso ang pagkaka alam mo sapagkat sabi mo hindi mo naman nakakapanood ng television at saka nakakapagbasa ng radyo nakakapagbasa ng diyaryo o nakakakinig ng ano ba ang sabi niya tungkol sa kaso na ito?

MS. RAJAS. Sabihin ko po iyong talagang ano ng pagka¬tao ko.

SEN. BIAZON. Sinabi ba niya kung ano iyong kaso?

MS. RAJAS. Sabi po niya sa akin, sabihin ko iyong talagang actual sa sarili kong pagkatao.

SEN. BIAZON. Hindi niya binabanggit kung ano iyong kaso, ano iyan, magpa participate ka ngayon?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. BIAZON. Hindi sinabi kung ano iyong kaso?

MS. RAJAS. Sinabi po iyong ano, iyong kaso ko na na¬sangkot ako sa ano, na ako ang naka ano doon sa ano ng bangko.

SEN. BIAZON. Sinabi niya kung ano iyong uri ng kaso?

MS. RAJAS. Sa ano po ng ano, iyong sa pera.

SEN. BIAZON. Aling pera?

MS. RAJAS. Iyong sa pera po ni ano, ni Chavit.

SEN. BIAZON. O, ano iyong problema nung pera ni Chavit?

MS. RAJAS. Iyon po iyong ano ng nasangkot ako sa kaso.

SEN. BIAZON. At sa pamamagitan noon, pumunta ka na rito?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. BIAZON. Nandito ka ngayon, eh.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your time is off, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes, I am waiting for that answer. Ibig sabihin, bakit ka nandito ngayon?

MS. RAJAS. Para po mapatotoong ako si Delia Rajas, na hindi po ako iyong nasa ano, nag-withdraw sa bangko.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Judge Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then after that, the Honorable Judge Coseteng, and finally …

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … Guingona and finally, the Senate President and then Osmena. Not yet, not yet. It would be Judge Sotto yet.

SEN. GUINGONA. I just wanted to say, Mr. Chief Justice, that you have recognized me earlier, even earlier than Judge Biazon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry, Your Honor, I was unable to see your hand being raised. I am really very, very sorry. Anyway, we can …

SEN. SOTTO. This will only be very brief, Mr. Chief Justice, this will be very brief, he can take over my …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After the Honorable Sotto, with the permission of the Honorable Judge Coseteng, can we recognize first Senator Guingona?

SEN. SOTTO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, I would — do you mean we should recognize him first before I speak?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. Okay. This is very brief.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After that, Senator Guingona.

SEN. SOTTO. This might just be able to save time, Mr. Chief Justice. In my opinion, the witness looks like she is not intending to lie and she does not have anything to lie about. She is just an employee of Mrs. Ang. She is Delia Rajas. She is not the one that went to the bank. I think my question should be posed to the defense counsel, Mr. Chief Justice, if that is possible?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably after the witness is through.

SEN. SOTTO. Well, okay. Well I was thinking …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because there are some reservations, yeah.

SEN. SOTTO. … the answer might save us a lot of time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But we have some reservations made by the Judges.

SEN. SOTTO. Then, may I be recognized after the witness so that I can ask these questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Honorable Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Rajas, kilala mo si Atong Ang, di ba?

MS. RAJAS. Kilala ko po.

SEN. GUINGONA. As a matter of fact, si Atong Ang, siya ang anak ni Catalina Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. GUINGONA. At siya ang kapatid ni Yolanda Uy?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. GUINGONA. At saka dito sa SSS Registration, si Atong Ang ang employer mo, di ba?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. GUINGONA. Sino?

MS. RAJAS. Si Catalina Ang.

SEN. GUINGONA. Hindi ba nakalagay dito ang employer mo ay iyong Power Management and Consultancy, Incorporated?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. GUINGONA. Hindi ba ang may-ari nito ay si Atong Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Sa pamilya po ng Ang.

SEN. GUINGONA. Ano?

MS. RAJAS. Sa pamilya ng Ang.

SEN. GUINGONA. Kaya nga. So, ang employer mo ay ang kompanya, Power Management and Consultancy, Incorporated.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. GUINGONA. At dahil iyan ang employer mo, sila ang nag-contact kay Atty. Fortun o dati mo nang kilala si Atty. Fortun?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi ko po dating kilala.

SEN. GUINGONA. Totoo ba na nandoon ka sa bahay ni Catalina Ang noong August 28, 1998?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. GUINGONA. Kilala mo ba si Chavit Singson?

MS. RAJAS. Nakita ko lang po sa TV pero hindi ko po kilalang personal.

SEN. GUINGONA. Nakita mo rin si Chavit Singson sa bahay ni Catalina Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. GUINGONA. Pero ikaw nakakasiguro na ikaw ay employee ng Power Management and Consultancy, Incorporated?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. GUINGONA. Pero hindi cooking?

MS. RAJAS. Cook po ako doon.

SEN. GUINGONA. Ah, cook ka.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. GUINGONA. Eh nakalagay dito trading eh.

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po, cook po talaga ako.

SEN. GUINGONA. Magkano’ng suweldo mo?

MS. RAJAS. Two thousand po a month.

SEN. GUINGONA. Mahusay ka bang magluto?

MS. RAJAS. Medyo po.

SEN. GUINGONA. At any rate, thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too. The Honorable Senator-Judge Coseteng, then after that the Honorable Judge Roco, and finally, the Senate…Well, after Judge Roco, it would be Judge Sergio Osmeña III, then the Senate President.

You may now proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, actually, my question is not for Ms. Rajas. But I just want to find out if the Blue Ribbon Committee issued a subpoena to a Ms. Delia Rajas and if the Blue Ribbon Committee had issued the subpoena, was it actually received by this Ms. Rajas or was it the other Ms. Rajas? Basically, that’s my question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That should be addressed to the Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee. May we recognize now the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, we will have to dig into the records. But my recollection is, we did look for Delia Rajas even while we were still conducting the investigation into the jueteng scandal so-called.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes, because…

Mr. Chief Justice…Thank you, Mr. Senate President.

Mr. Chief Justice, I just want to find out where was the subpoena addressed. So, if they are going to look into the records, maybe just one question to Ms. Rajas. Nakatanggap ba kayo ng subpoena galing sa Blue Ribbon Committee dahil iyong subpoena na iyon naka-address sa Delia Rajas?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. COSETENG. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

Then the Honorable Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Is it appropriate, Mr. Chief Justice, to stand up now because my questions are really for counsel?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To counsel.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we do that afterwards…

SEN. ROCO. Of course, of course.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …just like in the case of Senator Sotto?

SEN. ROCO. Yes, together with Senator Sotto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the Honorable Senator-Judge Osmeña III.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Ms. Rajas, mayroon ba ho kayong ID sa korporasyon ni Atong Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Walang ID?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Kilala mo ba iyong — may I ask the prosecutors to furnish her with Exhibit “GGGGGG”, the one with the Delia Rajas ID and the photograph.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the prosecutor may accommodate the request and show that document to the witness.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Nakikita ho ninyo iyong litrato dito, ang nakalagay ho, naka-typewritten ho rito iyong pangalan ho ninyo, Delia Rajas, pero may photograph po.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). At kilala ho n’yo ba itong tao na ito?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Alam ho ninyo kung nasaan iyong Solid Builders Center?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). At saka iyong E.T. Enterprises?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi rin po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Okay. And may I ask the witness to be provided with…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exhibit.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). …Exhibit “WWWWWW”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Moreno, kindly show the witness said exhibit.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). It might be “WWWWW” iyong ID ni Eleuterio Tan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Moreno, show that to the witness.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Ms. Rajas, kilala mo ba si — iyong isang kaibigan ni Mr. Atong Ang si — ang tawag po sa kanya sa Cebu si Jojo Uymasuy?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). May kilala ho kayong Mr. Eleuterio Tan?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Kilala ba ho ninyo si Ms. Conchita Tan?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi rin po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). At iyong litrato po dito sa ID ni Eleuterio Tan, kilala ho ninyo kung sino ang taong ito?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Okay, that’s all.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

Then the Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago first.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will yield to Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago. Okay.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Thank you, Mr. Senate President.

Ginang Testigo, ano’ng natapos ninyo sa pag-aaral n’yo?

MS. RAJAS. Grade 6 lang po.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Grade 6. Saan?

MS. RAJAS. Sa Camarines Norte.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Nakatuntong man lang ba kayo sa high school?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Sa college?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Sa college of law?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Anong pakiramdam mo nang narinig mo na mayroon palang gumamit na pangalan mo sa kasong ito dito sa Senado?

MS. RAJAS. Nagulat po ako.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Nagulat ka.

Ngayon, mayroon ka bang pagkakataon, mayroon bang lumapit sa iyong tao o may nagbukas bang pagkakataon para masabi mo sana sa buong daigdig o sa madla o kung sino mang may gustong makinig na hindi ikaw iyong tinutukoy na Delia Rajas, nagkaroon ka ba ng ganoong pagkakataon?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Good. Thank you very much. Maraming salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you too.

Now, it’s the turn of the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, just this one question: Mayroon ba kayong ID ngayon sa iyong katawan na puwede mong maiwan dito sa Impeachment Court para malaman talaga namin na ikaw nga ‘yon si Delia Rajas?

MS. RAJAS. Mayroon po ako dito bale sa medical certificate ID.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right, puwede mo bang maipakita sa Impeachment Court ‘yan?

And for purposes of identification, Mr. Chief Justice, maybe we can have this marked as Exhibit “IC,” we had three previous ones, so, “IC A or… A, Rajas.” “IC …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. 1 Rajas.”

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. …1, Rajas.” Maybe we can have this photocopied also, Mr. Chief Justice and….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have the ID now?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. It’s here. It’s being brought forward to us.

So, I will with your permission, Mr. Chief Justice, I will read it into the records:

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you may do so.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Okay, Mr. Chief Justice: “This is an AETNA A E T N A Card, bearing this No. 1 01292 000099 00. Member: Rajas Delia I.; Company: Energetic Security; Birth Date: 15 June 1966; Sex: Female; Effective: 01 September 1999; Expires 31 August 2000; Preferred Clinic: Any Accredited Hospital; Dentist: (blank); Waiver: None; Semi private room and board, pre existing covered your health care and life insurance company.”

I’m reading from one side of this card, Mr. Chief Justice. The other side, reads the contents of the other side, read as follows:

“For inquiries or questions, please call the AETNA Call Center, 1 800 888 9900/750 9000. This card is non transferrable and is not valid without signature.” “Member’s signature,” this has not it’s blank, Mr. Chief Justice. It’s not been signed. And then below the words: “Member signature” are the following: “AETNA, your health care and life insurance company. AETNA Health Care Incorporated, AETNA Center 104 Herrera Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, www.aetna.com.ph.”

Isang katanungan na lang, Ms. Rajas, bakit hindi mo pinirmahan ito?

MS. RAJAS. Kasi hindi po nagamit.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. O, hindi nagamit.

MS. RAJAS. Na expire na lang.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. O siguro puwede mo nang pirmahan para ma ipa photocopy namin ito at maibalik sa inyo, ano ha? Can you kindly sign it now?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Immediately after signing, have it photocopied. And it would be the photocopy that we will mark as “IC 1 (Rajas)”.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable unless the Senate President is not yet through.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. No, no, I’m done as long as she signs that card right now.

Pirma pakipirmahan mo nga, Ms. Rajas, sapagkat pagkatapos mong pirmahan, ibalik mo doon sa page para maipa photocopy namin. (At this juncture the witness is affixing her signature.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have that photocopied immediately.

The Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Just a few questions.

Ms. Rajas, paano ho kayo pumunta ngayon dito sa Senado?

MS. RAJAS. May kasama nga po ako.

SEN. DRILON. Sino ang kasama mo?

MS. RAJAS. Bale ngayon ko lang po sila na meet.

SEN. DRILON. Saan mo sila na meet?

MS. RAJAS. Sa may Makati po, sinundo ako.

SEN. DRILON. Sinundo ka sa may Makati. Sino po ang nagdala sa inyo sa may Makati?

MS. RAJAS. Si Ate Alan.

SEN. DRILON. Sino?

MS. RAJAS. Si Alan.

SEN. DRILON. Sino si Alan? Kapatid…

MS. RAJAS. Kapatid ni Atong Ang.

SEN. DRILON. Kapatid ni Atong Ang. Saan ka sinundo?

MS. RAJAS. Galing po ako sa bahay.

SEN. DRILON. Galing sa bahay. Sinundo ka ni Alan, dinala ka sa Makati?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. At mula sa Makati, may sumundo sa iyo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. Ilan ang sumundo sa iyo?

MS. RAJAS. Dalawa po.

SEN. DRILON. Dalawa. Iyon bang dalawa, iyong kaninang katabi mo doon nakaupo ka sa gallery?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. Anong sinakyan ninyo papunta rito mula sa Makati?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi ko po matandaan masyado iyong ano noong ano sasakyan.

SEN. DRILON. Auto ba, jeep ba o kalesa? Ano bang sinakyan ninyo papunta rito mula sa Makati?

MS. RAJAS. Parang Revo.

SEN. DRILON. Ah, parang Revo. So, sumakay ka sa Revo, parang ganoon?

MS. RAJAS. Oho.

SEN. DRILON. At pinaupo ka na rito. Ngayon, mayroon kang pass, saan galing iyong tag mo?

MS. RAJAS. Iyon pong kasama ko ang nagbigay sa akin.

SEN. DRILON. Ah, iyong kasama mo ang nagbigay ng pass. Tinanong mo ba siya kung saan galing iyong pass?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. DRILON. Ah, hindi. Sino ang nagpakilala sa iyo noong dalawang babae na kasama mo?

MS. RAJAS. Si Attorney po.

SEN. DRILON. Sinong Attorney?

MS. RAJAS. Attorney.

SEN. DRILON. Sino? Let the record show that the witness is pointing to Atty. Raymond Fortun.

So, si Atty. Raymond Fortun ang nagpakilala sa iyo sa dalawang babae?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. Saan niya pinakilala?

MS. RAJAS. Bale sinabi po niya sa akin kagabi.

SEN. DRILON. Anong sinabi sa iyo, may ipakilala sa iyo na dalawang babae?

MS. RAJAS. Opo. Iyon daw po ang makakasama ko sa loob.

SEN. DRILON. Ah, iyon ang makakasama mo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. Sa Husgado papunta rito?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. At itong dalawang babae ang siyang sumundo sa iyo sa Makati?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. Dito ba sa Husgado, nakita mo kinausap ka ulit ni Atty. Fortun, hindi na?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. DRILON. Basta dumiretso…Sino ang nag…Dumiretso na kayo sa gallery?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. Kayong tatlo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. DRILON. Salamat po, Ginang Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

Just for the record, we should like to correct the marking of the exhibit. It should be Exhibit “IC E Rajas”. You already had a “C” before.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President may proceed.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes. Before we take our break, may I just read into the records this reply of the Office of the Sergeant At Arms on the Subpoena Ad Testificandum addressed to Eleuterio Tan and Ms. Delia Rajas, issued in connection with the Blue Ribbon investigations which was raised by Senator Coseteng. And it says here:

“25 October 2000

For:Senator Pimentel

Chairman

Blue Ribbon Committee

Attention:Emilia Pueyo

Legislative Committee Secretary

From :The Sergeant At Arms

Subject : Subpoena Ad Testificandum

Please be informed that the Subpoena Ad Testificandum addressed to Mr. Eleuterio Tan and Ms. Delia Rajas issued by Your Honor were not served. Mr. Tan and Ms. Rajas were not known to the occupants of the respective addresses given by the Committee.

Attached is the Subpoena Server’s Report for your reference.

For Your Honor’s information.

B/GEN. LEONARDO P. LOPEZ

Legislative Sergeant At Arms

of the Senate

And very briefly, Mr. Chief Justice, this is the report of the Subpoena Server:

“Please be informed that the Subpoena Ad Testificandum issued by the Blue Ribbon Committee addressed to the following persons stated below were not served due to the reasons stated herein, to wit:

“l. Mr. Eleuterio Tan of No. 20 Pilar Street, Mandaluyong City. The undersigned surveyed the above address and inquired about the identity of the subject. However, neighboring houses do not don’t ever do not, even, have heard such a name in the area. We sought the assistance of barangay chairman of Barangay Addition Hills, Mr. Victorino dela Cruz, through his kagawad, Mr. Dioscoro Posadas, and they told us to call him tomorrow morning, October 26, 2000 at Telephone No. 5320661.

“We proceeded to the other address given by the Blue Ribbon Committee at 137 N. Domingo Street, San Juan, Metro Manila. However, the occupants of said address was Aljevon Beauty Salon. We proceeded to Libertad Street at Mandaluyong City at California Garden Square and inquired at said office. The guard on duty, Mr. Roberto Balasbas of Arks Security Agency said there were no there was no Eleuterio Tan listed in the officers and employees of the said company.

“We proceeded to the office of barangay chairman of Barangay Highway Hills, Mr. Jose Akong, and sought the assistance his assistance, inquiring on inquiring personally under the California Square Garden. Mr. Akong assured me that he will inquire in writing and ask the names of Mr. Eleuterio Tan and Ms. Delia Rajas and instructed me to call him tomorrow at Telephone No. 5329773 and 5319432 on the result of the inquiry.

“2. Ms. Delia Rajas of Barangay Corazon de Jesus, San Juan, Metro Manila. The undersigned surveyed the area of said barangay, covering a rich residential area and some squatter areas. We visited the barangay hall and their barangay captain, Napoleon Viloria, Sr., the barangay secretary referred us to the Municipal Election Officer, Mrs. Floriana Ortiz Nequia de Guia. After verification from the list of voters of Barangay Corazon de Jesus, no Delia Rajas was registered. The same person was not known to the Barangay Chairman Viloria.”

This is the report of the process server, Your Honor, which we probably will have to mark as Exhibit “ICE “IC …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “F”.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. … “F”; the cover letter and the attached “F 1″ and “F 2″. Rajas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request the Secretary to come forward for the marking of these exhibits. Atty. Yap. Atty. Yap.

In the meantime, the Court the Honorable Judge Magsaysay also made a reservation for some questions on the witness.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Itong Magandang hapon, Delia.

MS. RAJAS. Magandang hapon din po.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Ano’ng oras kayo dumating dito sa ating gusali, dito, dito sa GSIS?

MS. RAJAS. Mga ala una y media po.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Tatlo kayo magkakasama?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Ano ano ang numero ng iyong card number? Puwede ba natin basahin?

MS. RAJAS. 05831.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. 05831.

Kayo ba’y pumirma sa ating guest book?

MS. RAJAS. Ako po? Ako po?

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Pumirma ba kayo?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Kasi dapat pumipirma ‘no. Sino’ng pumirma para sa inyo?

MS. RAJAS. ‘Yon pong kasama ko.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Ano’ng pangalan nila?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi ko nga po sila kilala. Ngayon ko lang po sila naano.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. ‘Yong tag number, 05831?

MS. RAJAS. Opo, ‘yon sa akin.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. ‘Yan ang ibinigay sa inyo noong dalawang kasama ninyo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Sino naman itong si Sonia Rivero? Hindi n’yo kilala?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. At si Bing Alamesa Alameda. Alameda. Sino itong si Belen Llamonte?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi ko rin po kilala.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Kasi ‘yong tumanggap noong 05831 hindi si Delia Rajas kung hindi, ang nakalagay dito, si Belen Llamonte. So, pseudonym, ‘yong hindi ginamit ‘yong pangalan ng Delia Rajas kung hindi Belen Llamonte. Bakit po ganoon? So, bagong pangalan ‘yan. Hindi n’yo kilala?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Maraming salamat po.

Ngayon, doon sa inyong SSS application, iyong anim na “U”, (“UUUUUU”) exhibit, can we have the prosecution show the lady the SSS application form which she had signed when she applied in 1994. Iyan ay signature ninyo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Ibana, kayo ba ay may asawa?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Apat ang anak?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Iyan ba ay thumbprint ninyo, iyong ganoon?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Iyan eh sa bahay ni Mrs. Catalina Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Sino ang nagdala?

MS. RAJAS. Iyon pong nag aano sa opisina.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Kayo ba ay tsini check ninyo kung iyong inyong membership ay binabayaran buwan buwan?

MS. RAJAS. May tiwala po ako sa amo ko.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Oo, pero kayo ba ay nakautang na sa SSS?MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Ni minsan since 1994?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi pa po.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Okay. Iyon lang, Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

The Honorable Senator Judge Revilla.

SEN. REVILLA. Aling Delia, gaano katagal na kayong naglilingkod sa pamilya ni Atong Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Ten years na po.

SEN. REVILLA. Ten years. Mabait ba silang amo?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. REVILLA. Marunong ka bang magsalita ng Intsik?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. REVILLA. Dahil kamukha kang Intsek kasi. Pero wala kang lahing Intsik?

MS. RAJAS. Wala po.

SEN. REVILLA. Bicolana ka?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. REVILLA. Teka muna. Maiba ako ng usapan. Tungkol dito kay Raymond Fortun, pinuntahan ka sa bahay. Sa bahay ka pinuntahan ni Raymond Fortun, ni Atty. Fortun?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po.

SEN. REVILLA. Saan?

MS. RAJAS. Sa isang opisina po ng ano …

SEN. REVILLA. Opisina nino?

MS. RAJAS. Sa ano po ni Atong Ang.

SEN. REVILLA. Ah sa opisina ni Atong Ang.

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. REVILLA. Mabait ba si Atong Ang sa iyo?

MS. RAJAS. Hindi po kami madalas magkita.

SEN. REVILLA. Ah, hindi. Ang tanong ko kung mabait siya sa iyo?

MS. RAJAS. Siguro po.

SEN. REVILLA. Ah, siguro. Mabait talaga iyang si Atong Ang.

Ngayon gusto kong malaman, sino ang nagpakilala sa iyo kay Atty. Fortun?

MS. RAJAS. Si Attorney po?

SEN. REVILLA. Oo. Sino?

MS. RAJAS. Si Mrs. Ang po.

SEN. REVILLA. Mrs. Ang?

MS. RAJAS. Opo.

SEN. REVILLA. Sige, hanggang doon na lang ang pagtatanong ko sa iyo. Naubusan na ako, eh.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Now …

SEN. REVILLA. Thank you at maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Let’s go back now to the Honorable Senator Judge Sotto. I understand that the question will be directed to counsel?

SEN. SOTTO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, if we’re finished with the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After the witness.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes. If we’re finished with the witness, may I just…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have no more questions on the witness? None?

SEN. SOTTO. I do not …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand also that Senator Judge Roco will have no question on the witness. It is a reservation?

SEN. ROCO. Yeah. Chief Justice, this Bicolana is telling the truth. But it has nothing to do with the case.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we can excuse the witness now, unless the defense would have some questions.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, yes, if I may please, also with the lady who is still on the stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You would refer to …

MR. FORTUN (S). Miss Rodenas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, you have to finish the cross examination of that lady. But what about Mrs. Delia Rajas?

MR. FORTUN (S). May I just ask one question, Your Honor, of her?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair saw the Honorable Senator Judge… You may proceed, Atty. Fortun. And afterwards questions will be directed to you by, first, the Honorable Senator Sotto. And then second, the Honorable Senator Roco.

SEN. ROCO. I am sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chief Justice, but only because of the way it was presented. We would wish to ask questions before he continues so that he can continue with cross examination at leisure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Of Rodenas?

SEN. ROCO. Yes. But only because of the way it was presented. And I’d like to have it cleared. Because I have high regard for all lawyers and this counsel, and I’d like to be clear as to what has just happened. But since Senator Sotto has been ahead, I would request that he be given the chance. Yes, just one question, and then I’ll ask him some questions.

SEN. SOTTO. Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Sotto is recognized.

SEN. SOTTO. It is a very, very short question to clear my mind and also …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor, you may proceed.

SEN. SOTTO. … just in case some of us might miss the point completely.

Are you driving at the… driving home the fact that this is Delia Rajas, she works for Mrs. Catalina Ang, but she is not the one that went to the bank to get the money or withdraw the bank draft? That was the point that you were driving at.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. That was a completely different woman. She was not Delia Rajas as alleged by the documents that have been presented. Is that your point in all the scenario that happened?

MR. FORTUN (S). One of the points, Your Honor, yes.

SEN. SOTTO. One of the points. Is there another point that you want to make?

MR. FORTUN (S). Well, we had sought to establish through this witness that the prosecution had always been explaining that the persons mentioned are employees of Mr. Atong Ang, and what appears clear this afternoon is a totally different fact altogether.

SEN. SOTTO. The names are real employees of the… or the Ang family but they are not the ones that went to this bank?

MR. FORTUN (S). Went to the bank, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. I see. Okay, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. As a compañero in the law profession, I’m very concerned with what has just happened. And that’s the reason gusto kong makapagtanong para maintindihan kung ano ang nangyari.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. From the beginning, noong sinabi mo sa amin mga judge na si Delia Rajas nandito, eh totoo naman ‘yon, hindi ba?

MR. FORTUN (S). Opo.

SEN. ROCO. Delia Rajas. At alam mo rin noong tinanong ka ni Senator Cayetano at ni Legarda Leviste na hindi talaga iyon ang tinutukoy doon sa ID ng testigos.

MR. FORTUN (S). Hindi ko din po alam iyon eh. I would assume that this lady will be able to identify her at some point.

SEN. ROCO. Eto, Atty. Fortun, magkakatalo tayo bilang abogado because of the duty of candor. Sa Exhibit “GGGGGG”, ang address ay Barangay Corazon, San Juan, Metro Manila, hindi ho ba?

MR. FORTUN (S). Opo.

SEN. ROCO. Nakasabi naman diyan. Pero dito naman sa Exhibit ninyo na anim na “U”, ang address…

MR. FORTUN (S). Sa prosecution po ‘yan.

SEN. ROCO. Oo, well, basta ‘yon ang tinutukoy mo.

MR. FORTUN (S). Opo.

SEN. ROCO. Na eto naman ay 48 Calbayog Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.

MR. FORTUN (S). Opo.

SEN. ROCO. Samakatwid, kahit sa dalawang dokumentong ito talagang mukhang iba. Hindi, kung ang dalawang dokumentong ito pareho, tama, hindi ko ano…

MR. FORTUN (S). Hindi ho. Iyon nga po ang gusto naming punto na ihayag dito sa husgado kung sino po ba talaga ang Delia Rajas na sinasabi. Kaya’t kami po ay on cross examination at minarapat po naming itanong iyon.

SEN. ROCO. Alam ko ‘yon. Pero klaro, kahit sa dokumento, na magkaiba. At ngayon nga, napatunayan mong iba, di ba, because itong si Delia Rajas ay hindi naman nakilala ng testigo. Kaya noong pinahahanap mo, alam mo naman na hindi makikilala sapagkat itong Bicolana kong kababayan eh hindi naman talaga kamukha nitong Solid Builders I.D. ng Delia Rajas.

MR. FORTUN (S). Eh hindi nga ho ako sigurado kung itong si Ms. Rodenas ay nakausap iyong tunay na Delia Rajas. Kaya po ‘yan ang gusto po naming malaman at napatunayan naman ho namin sa pag amin ni Delia Rajas na ito babaing ito ho pala ang tunay na Delia Rajas at hindi iyong nasa litrato na pinapakita ng testigo.

SEN. ROCO. Ngunit sapagkat alam mo o alam ng kapatid mo Kapatid mo ba ito si… ito mas gwapo sa ‘yo ito eh. Kapatid mo?

MR. FORTUN (S). Opo.

SEN. ROCO. Okay. Itong mas gwapo mong kapatid, alam n’yo na talagang iba at posible ngang dalawa ang Delia Rajas. Hindi ho ba? Posible lang. Just to be candid.

MR. FORTUN (S). Ang alam ho namin eh iyong Delia Rajas na nakausap po ng kapatid ko. Ngayon, hindi ho namin matiyak kung itong testigo ay ma identify siya kasi ganoon din ho iyong nangyari doon sa dalawang tao na binabanggit nitong testigo, iyong Eleuterio Tan at saka iyong Alma Alfaro. Hindi din ho namin alam kung iyon din ang taong nakalagay din ho doon sa kanilang mga ID.

SEN. ROCO. Balikan ko lang iyong katanungan ko. Pero posible na dalawang tao ang Delia Rajas or ginagamit ang pangalan ng Delia Rajas. Mukhang iyon ang pun…

Hindi ho ito covered ng two minutes. I’ll ask for… No, sapagkat abogado po ‘yan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President says it is included.

SEN. ROCO. Mr… The rules clearly allows us, pagka-counsel, that is why I asked for counsel because it is very serious. And I have committed to the extent possible that even with counsels, we will restrict to two minutes. But in this particular case, considering the representation that misled, and now I am talking of candor to the Court, and that is why I asked and that is why, Mr. Chief Justice, eh mabuti ngang – it’s better that I ask the counsel because it may clarify and I don’t want this court to continue without being sure that counsel has been candid to the court. It is not a question – I am not even binding. This is not testimony. This is just counsel.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, my understanding of the situation is that counsel, who is now being questioned, is on cross. And it’s up to the prosecution to watch out for the kind of questions and cross technique that the defense was applying. Are we now in a situation where, in effect, raising an ethical…

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

SEN. ENRILE. … conduct on the part …

SEN. ROCO. That is correct.

SEN. ENRILE. … of the lawyer in this court?

SEN. ROCO. That is exactly what I said…

SEN. ENRILE. What is the canon of ethics violated?

SEN. ROCO. Candor as an officer of the court, he owes us a duty of candor and he is nodding his head and I am trying, as a member of this court and as a judge, to clarify. I don’t want to leave this court with now feeling that counsel has been lacking in candor.

SEN. ENRILE. But my understanding, Your Honor, of the situation is that, this counsel knew that there was a real Delia Rajas…

SEN. ROCO. Oh, counsel…

SEN. ENRILE. … and that he was actually testing the credibility of that witness and with the purpose of, in fact, impeaching her, as I think he did.

SEN. ROCO. That is why I am asking him because I don’t know the intentions. But, you see…

SEN. ENRILE. Precisely, that is why I am raising the question of ethical conduct because if you do not know the purpose of the cross, then how can you now say that there is unprofessionalism?

SEN. ROCO. No. I have asserted that this is a question of ethical conduct precisely.

SEN. ENRILE. Then, charge him in the proper forum not here.

SEN. ROCO. No. We can settle this among us lawyers if he can just explain because, as he is explaining…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I think the Senate President had called the attention of the Presiding Officer regarding the time limit. And taking into account the thrust of the question now that it would be charging a member of the defense for unethical conduct, then, indeed, the Presiding Officer agrees that the proper motion should be made and then the prospective respondent should be made to put that in writing.

SEN. ROCO. No. Mr. Chief Justice, I do not — I am distressed even at the prospect of charging such a gallant lawyer as Atty. Fortun. But when I stood up, the reason I asked really for counsel was because under the rules we are allowed. And I am the one who said, to the extent possible, I will restrict. I don’t ask questions of witnesses because that may affect the case. But counsel, as erudite as they are, whatever they say could not possibly be … And I am only trying to clarify what was foisted upon us. Go around, go around, knowing fully well that there was no such person who could have been identified.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not his Honor believe that if that is really the thrust of the, or that is the objective, that Atty. Fortun should be made to show cause why he should not be dealt in contempt but we should give him time to respond?

SEN. ROCO. No, no, no. All I – I may even see the value of the trial tactic. But earlier, prosecution objected to misleading and he was overruled and yet…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was overruled because of misrepresentation that the Delia Rajas is here. That was the position.

SEN. ROCO. That was the misrepresentation…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly.

SEN. ROCO. … because it turns out to be different.

Now, Mr. – my final statement, Mr. ano, and maybe counsel can answer this. This particular case, we have two, Eleuterio Tan with another name. We have apparently at least two Delia Rajas. We even have a Jose Velarde. And the pattern, the pattern of duplicate identities, is what is coming out. And that is why I am concerned, Mr. President, because if this duplication is foisted upon us consciously, then it’s not fair. And I like to believe na hindi ‘yun ang intensyon ni Atty. Fortun. ‘Yan ang gusto kong sabihin mo, hindi ‘yun ang intensyon mo.

MR. FORTUN (S). I was on cross-examination, Your Honor, and I precisely had wanted to elicit from this witness whether she would be able to recognize the real Delia Rajas. And we wanted to find out, in fact, precisely from this witness what it is that she knows about this particular account, whether she in fact had done what she said she did. And it is important for us that the matter be brought up as early as this time because we had realized that even the Eleuterio Tan here would, probably, not be the same person referred to.

SEN. ROCO. Well, magtatapos na ako, Mr. Chief Justice, para hindi naman nakakahiya. Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

The Honorable Senator-Judge Oreta.

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Thank you, Mr. Chief, Justice. I’d like to direct my question to the Defense counsel.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Defense counsel, Exhibit – how do you call it?

MR. FORTUN (S). Sextuple “U”, Your Honor.

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Sextuple “U” and Exhibit “GGGGGG” are these – these two exhibits were both given in by the prosecution?

MR. FORTUN (S). That is correct, Your Honor. I simply used them.

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Okay. If you look at the Exhibit “GGGGGG” and you will see the picture of Delia Rajas, it says Solid Builders Centre. And then, there is a signature of Delia Rajas down, it says, it wrote, “D. Rajas” below the picture.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. And if you look at Exhibit “UUUUUU” and you see a signature of Delia Rajas Ibarra, down…

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. …and if you look closely at these two signatures, they’re different. I was just wondering if Prosecution took this into account by submitting both these exhibits and they both bear different signatures. That’s all, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

What would be the pleasure of the Honorable Judge Cayetano? You were able to ask questions earlier already. Is it directed to the counsel?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, yes, Mr. Chief Justice, with your permission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

SEN. CAYETANO. Malaki po ang paggalang ko sa mga kapwa nating abogado pero sabi n’yo ho kanina maliwanag na maliwanag. Ito ho ang aking pagkakaintindi, tinanong n’yo si Ms. Rodenas kung makikilala niya ‘yung mukha na si Delia Rajas dito sa picture na ito. At ang sabi niya, ang rekoleksyon ko, “Makikilala ko ho”. At sa katunayan noong humingi ka ng opportunity para tingnan dito sa gallery kung mayroon ngang Delia Rajas, sinabi mo pa nga at narinig namin na kung maaari dalhin mo pa itong picture na ito. Tama ho ba ako, Ginoong Companero?

MR. FORTUN (S). Opo, sinabi ko po ‘yun sa dahilang ang previous statement nga po niya ay kilala o maa-identify niya ‘yung Delia Rajas?

SEN. CAYETANO. Totoo. Pero ang sinabi niya ‘yung Delia Rajas na humarap sa kanya at nagbigay nitong picture na ito.

MR. FORTUN (S). Pero ang punto ho namin, we wanted to test her credibility in respect of, kung kilala talaga niya ‘yung taong umupo sa harap niya at pumirma ng Delia Rajas.

SEN. CAYETANO. ‘Yun nga ho ang hindi natin pagkakaintindi siguro, ano. Kaya marami ho siguro – kami mismo, Senador-Huwes ay nagulat ng sabihin n’yo na ang hinahanap pala n’yo ay the real Delia Rajas. Siguro dahil ang pagkakarinig nga namin ay sapagkat ang pagkakatanong niyo sa ating witness na si Mrs. Rodenas ay ‘yung Delia Rajas na humarap sa kanya at ang picture pa nga ay pinakikita n’yo at sabi n’yo, “Puwede mong dalhin itong picture.” Kaya siguro tayo medyo nalilito rito.

MR. FORTUN (S). Oho. Ang katotohanan ho niyan, the real Delia Rajas is here. Kaya nga ho tinatanong natin sa testigo on cross-exam to test her credibility was whether she would, in fact, be able to identify the real Delia Rajas. At kung ii insist ho niya, as she was insisting all the time, na iyong mga dokumentong ito ay talagang in examine niya, in evaluate niya at the basis of her testimony is based on the IDs which were marked by the prosecution, ‘di ang katotohanan ho niyan ay mukhang hindi ho yata talaga niya na evaluate ito nang mabuti, kasi ang lumalabas ho, she cannot identify the real Delia Rajas.

SEN. CAYETANO. Well, okay. Gusto ko lang tapusin. Anyway, we can appeal to the record, hindi ba? Pero hindi ko ho narinig, ngayon ko lang for the first time, na sinasabi ninyo at naririnig ko na ang tinatanong ninyo daw sa testigo natin, si Ms. Rodenas, kung maa identify niya ang real Delia Rajas. Hindi ko po narinig iyan, ngayon ninyo lang sinasabi. At kung sinabi ninyo siguro sa witness na si Rodenas ay sasabihin siguro nito na base sa kanyang rekoleksyon, kaya nga pinapadala po ninyo iyong picture.

MR. FORTUN (S). Hindi ho. Kaya ho malinaw ho iyong tanong ko sa kanya. I think the records will bear out that my statement…

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Maraming salamat sa inyo.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

Yes, let me see. Would it be a question on the witness, Madam Senator Judge Santiago? On the counsel?

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Your Honor please, these are questions for counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Counsel, I will read to you the Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 6:

“Cross Examination, Its Purpose and Extent. Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross examined by the adverse party as to any matter stated in the direct examination or connected therewith with sufficient fullness and freedom…” with sufficient fullness and freedom “…to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias or the reverse and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.”

Question: Were you, in this afternoon’s proceedings, attempting to test the credibility of the witness by exercising sufficient fullness and freedom?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Now, let me go to Section 11:

“Impeachment of Adverse Party’s Witness. A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called by contradictory evidence.”

By contradictory evidence.

Question: Were you attempting to impeach the credibility of the witness now on the stand by the contradictory evidence presented by this second witness?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, I was.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I have attempted to indulge all presumptions in your favor, Mr. Counsel. But I must say that, together with the rest of the observers of our proceedings this afternoon, I was struck by the fact that your conduct was, to put it at its kindest, unconventional, to say the least, and flamboyant. Perhaps, in future occasions, it might be better for counsel to introduce evidence in the conventional way rather than in this unconventional and unexpected way.

Thank you.

MR. FORTUN (S). Certainly, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the matter have been fully…

Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. May we just request that the transcript of stenographic notes for this hearing be immediately produced so that we can determine, at least on my part, whether there was an attempt by Atty. Fortun to make misrepresentations before this Impeachment Court and so that we can make a conclusion as to whether we will file a motion to cite this lawyer in contempt, if indeed there is a basis, on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes, which we intend to examine.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When can the transcripts be available?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The usual, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Later tonight or early tomorrow morning, the transcripts will be available already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Early tomorrow morning. At least before noon tomorrow morning.

So in the meantime, we have to excuse Delia Rajas and we can proceed with the cross examination of Rodenas.

MR. FORTUN (S). May I be allowed to ask one question with respect…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On Delia Rajas?

MR. FORTUN (S). On Delia Rajas. So that we need not call her as our witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. FORTUN (S). Ms. Rajas, can you tell us maaari mo bang sabihin sa amin kung nasaan ka noong Agosto 28, 1998, noong itong account na ito ay binuksan sa Land Bank Shaw Boulevard?

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice. I must invite the attention of this Court that this is not the witness of the defense. This is the witness of the Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be true. Indeed, the matter had become so unconventional…

SEN. DRILON. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …and the witness testified earlier that she was not in the house on August 28. So can we not allow the defense to ask a follow up question?

SEN. DRILON. Well, as earlier characterized, this proceeding or the procedure has really become unconventional if that is the wish of the Chief Justice, I have no …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no. It is not the wish of the Chief Justice. It just turned out to be like that because there was an assurance that the witness, this lady, was around. And the Court required her to come forward and questions were asked on her. So what can the Presiding Officer do if that was the wish of the Court?

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And questions, as a matter of fact, were asked by many senators.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. I have not asked any question from this witness. I’ll own that question so that we can finish this matter to be asked to this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the Honorable Senator Enrile has adopted that question of counsel. The witness may answer.

MR. FORTUN (S). Nasaan po kayo, Ms. Rajas, noong Agosto 28, 1998 noong itong account na ito ay binuksan?

MS. RAJAS. Bale noong araw na ‘yon, nasa bahay ako ng kapatid ko. Nagpapahinga kasi kapapanganak ko pa lang, two months, kapapanganak ko pa lang.

MR. FORTUN (S). I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a matter of fact, that was not your question. It was adopted by the Honorable Senator Enrile.

MR. FORTUN (S). For which I thank the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the witness may now be excused, I mean, Delia Rajas. And Atty. Fortun can continue the cross examination if there are still some questions on the witness, Rodenas.

MR. FORTUN (S). I have no further questions on Ms. Rodenas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Also on Rodenas?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then that would be the turn now of the Members of the Court to ask the questions. So …

REP. MORENO. For the record, Mr. Chief Justice, we have no redirect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No redirect. So that would be … Yes, so we will have the listing of the senators who would like to ask the questions. I don’t know who raised first.

The following have made their reservations according to the order mentioned to me by the Senate President: the Honorable Senators Judges Jaworski, Guingona, Cayetano, Coseteng, Sergio Osmeña III, Legarda Leviste. That will be the order.

Then we recognize the Honorable Judge Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me. The Majority Leader has been standing for sometime. What’s the pleasure of Your Honor?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Well, I thought that the Senator Judges had a lot of time asking questions of the last witness. Perhaps we can take a break and I propose that we combine the two breaks into one.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that would be for how many minutes then?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Fo r 30 minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did we not waive the first break?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. We did not quite waive it. We just postponed it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We didn’t. So it was not expressly waived. So 30 minutes, please. I hope even the public would realize the need for a 30 minute break.

Suspended for 30 minutes.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. And perhaps we should allow the witness also to answer …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The witness may be accompanied by a page if there is a need for her to …

MS. RODENAS. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … stay out of the room.

Suspended for a total of 15 30 minutes. Thank you.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 5:41 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 6:20 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., and the Honorable Presiding Officer, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is now resumed.

The Honorable Senator Judge Jaworski has waived his right to examine the witness so we will proceed with the next, the Honorable Senator Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Miss Witness, mayroon kayong regulation sa bangko na kung walk-in depositors, mayroong mga regulations na dapat tuparin, di po ba?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And this include proper identity and proper references, di po ba?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. All right. All these three witnesses — all of these three persons, namely: Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan and Ms. Rajas were all live persons, were they not?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And they all had — they went through the procedure of the bank pursuant to opening the accounts?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. All right. In the case of Ms. Alfaro, she opened an account although you were already known to her previously, were you not?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. All right. And she gave her address as Power Express, is that correct?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor, business address.

SEN. GUINGONA. Business address?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And do you know who owns Power Express?

MS. RODENAS. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. You do not?

MS. RODENAS. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Do you know Atong Ang?

MS. RODENAS. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Do you not know that Power Express had previous dealings through Jessica — through Ms. Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s that again? What’s the name, Your Honor?

SEN. GUINGONA. Alma Alfaro not Jessica. And Ms. Rajas, also opened an account through the proper references?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Sino ang reference?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po ay pinakilala sa akin ni Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, but who referred Alma to you?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po ay dati nang may transactions sa bangko namin, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Through Power Express?

MS. RODENAS. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Through what?

MS. RODENAS. Dahil noong na-assign po ako, Your Honor, sa Shaw Boulevard Branch ay existing na po iyong account, principal depositor niya. Ngayon po, noong 1998, siya na po ang naging authorized representative noong principal depositor na ito.

SEN. GUINGONA. Pero itong si Delia Rajas, itong may litrato “GGGGGG” to “GGGGGG-1”, “GGGGGG-2”, “GGGGGG-3”, “GGGGGG-4” ay proper identification ito?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. All right. Is it not a fact that in your bank, you are a branch and therefore you have limitations on withdrawals?

MS. RODENAS. Wala po, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, your time is off.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you too.

The Chair will now recognize the Honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed now, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mrs. Rodenas, ang sabi mo noong Biyernes ay bago mag-open ng account itong si Alfaro, ay kilalang-kilala mo na siya, di ba?

MS. RODENAS. Kilala ko po siya dahil mayroon siyang mga transaction sa aming branch, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. So bago nga siya nag-open ng account. Ngayon, alam mo ba kung may trabaho si Alfaro? Is she employed at the time?

MS. RODENAS. Ang alam ko po ay siya ay authorized representative ng isang depositor namin.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi. Ang tanong ko, alam mo ba kung siya ay may trabaho o hindi? May employment o hindi?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi mo alam. Ang alam mo lang eh siya ay authorized representative …

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. … ng isang depositor?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Na ayaw mong kilalanin dahil sa sabi mo, ito ay against the Bank Secrecy Act, di ba?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. O, mamaya na nating pag-uusapan iyan. Ngayon, sabi mo rin noong Biyernes ay itong si Alfaro ay madalas inuutusan nitong principal na depositor sa bangko n’yo na magkaroon — mag-telegraphic transfers ng pera sa mga branches ng Land Bank all over the Philippines?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Matatandaan mo ba ang mga pangalan, kung natatandaan mo, iyong mga transferees nitong telegraphic transfers?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi ko na po matandaan sa dami po nila, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sa dami. Ano ito? Three times a week, ‘ka mo, hindi ba, ano?

MS. RODENAS. Mga three times, at least three times a week, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ngayon, kanina nakita mo iyong tunay na Delia Rajas. Siya ba ang nakita mo noong nag-prisinta sa iyo at nag-open ng bank account?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi po siya ang ipinakilala sa akin ni Alma Alfaro bilang Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi siya. Kaya masasabi mo ba na ngayon mo lang siya nakita?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Kilala mo ba si Mrs. Catalina Ang?

MS. RODENAS. Kilala ko po siya bilang aming depositor, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, I don’t know whether this should be counted with my hour.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. About what, Your Honor?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes. The witness has claimed that she could not identify the principal of Alfaro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She gave the reason why she cannot disclose.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes. And, Mr. Chief Justice, my reading of the Law on Secrecy of the Bank Deposit covers deposits of whatever kind. It does not cover the name of the depositors.

Number two, Mr. Chief…Let me finish, let me finish.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, I think Section 2 is very clear, without the consent of the depositor…

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, let me finish.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …and in impeachment cases.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But if it would be the latter, there must be some connection between the person impeached and any of the deposits.

SEN. CAYETANO. Well, anyway, I will not debate this further. I’ll continue my question now.

Kailan mo huling nakita si Mrs. Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. Bago po ako ma-assign sa another branch, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyong perang tina-transfer mo through telegraphic transfer, magkakano ang mga halaga nito?

MS. RODENAS. Iba-iba, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Give me an example, please. Isang libo, sampung libo, limang libo?

MS. RODENAS. Mas malaki po doon, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ito’y sa mga individual?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. At iba-ibang probinsya?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Give us some examples of provinces.

MS. RODENAS. Branch namin sa Calapan, sa Quezon. Marami po, Your Honor, all over the Philippines, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Walang mga pamilyar na pangalan sa iyo, like Magbuhos?

MS. RODENAS. Wala po akong natatandaan, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Like Viceo?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi ko na po matandaan, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Pero different branches?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ang telegraphic transfer?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. At iyong mga different branches naman ang nagbibigay ng pera doon sa transferees?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hanggang doon lang po.

Marami pong salamat. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too, Your Honor.

Then the Chair will now recognize the Honorable Senator-Judge Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I just wanted to ask the witness.

When Eleuterio Tan and Ms. Alfaro opened their accounts, they gave vague addresses. Is it a policy of the bank, you know, to allow large depositors or depositors for that matter to simply open accounts and just write the barangay or some other vague address without specifying the number of the house and street?

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, sa bangko po namin puwede pong mag-open ng savings account ang isang tao kahit wala po siyang identification na ipapakita kung ito po ay referred or introduced by a known client. In the case of Delia Rajas at si Eleuterio Tan, sila po ay may hawak na demand drafts. At ang gusto po nila — the purpose for which na in-open po nila iyong account ay para lang po — it is not a deposit account but a fund transfer account. Meaning, may inaantay silang maki credit sa account po nila.

So, wala ho silang hindi po ito deposit account at ang purpose talaga nila ay kunin po ‘yong pera dahil ang hawak po nila ay demand draft.

SEN. COSETENG. So, hindi mahalaga ‘yong kung tunay ba siyang tao, hindi mahalaga kung ‘yong tirahan ba nila ay tama o may specific na tirahan at basta mayroon silang inaasahang pera, puwede silang magbukas ng account?

MS. RODENAS. Ma’am, noong nag open po sila ng account, sila po ay hiningan ko ng mga identification cards which they produced naman ho. At…

SEN. COSETENG. Yes, but the identification card also contained a general address rather than a specific address?

MS. RODENAS. ‘Yon po ang nakalagay po sa IDs nila.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes, barangay lang…

MS. RODENAS. Oho.

SEN. COSETENG. …at ‘yong isa wala ring wala ring pangalan ng kalsada or number?

MS. RODENAS. Ito ‘yon po ang nakalagay sa ID nila.

SEN. COSETENG. So, as long as…

MS. RODENAS. Sila po ay sila po ay pinakilala sa akin ni Alma Alfaro kaya po sila po ay napayagan kong mag open ng account.

SEN. COSETENG. But Alma Alfaro also has a general address. It’s also not a specific address, isn’t that correct?

MS. RODENAS. Base po sa signature card na kanyang finil apan, ang residence address niya po ay sa Negros Occidental at ang business address niya c/o Power Express.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes. So, walang specific, basta sabihin lang sa inyo na Negros Occidental, tama na ‘yon dahil may inaasahan silang pera, ganoon ba ‘yon?

MS. RODENAS. Sila po’y hinihingan namin ng mga identification cards, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes, but their identification card is also of a general nature in terms of address? Kasi Land Bank is supposed to be, sabi niyo kanina, isang government bank?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. At sinabi ninyo din kanina na covered kayo dito sa mga proseso na dapat isagawa, na dapat ituwid at dapat tama. So, ‘yon ba ay general rule o ‘yon ay exception ‘yong nangyari dito sa kasong ito?

MS. RODENAS. Pina open ko po si Alma Alfaro ng savings account dahil siya po ay known client na po sa amin. Halos araw araw po ay nandoon siya sa bangko para mag transact.

SEN. COSETENG. And so, hindi importante na maliwanag kung saan ang tirahan niya dahil kilala niyo lang siya?

MS. RODENAS. Importante din ho, Your Honor. Kaya nga po hiningan po namin siya ng mga identification cards.

SEN. COSETENG. But in their identification cards, does it show their exact address, based on the signature card that was filled up in the bank?

MS. RODENAS. Sila po ang nag fill up nito at pumirma ho sila.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes, but I’m talking of the address, kasi mahirap n’yong ma identify ‘yong tao kung hindi ninyo alam kung saan nakatira.

MS. RODENAS. Kung ano po ‘yong sinulat nila, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. So, tinatanggap niyo kung kahit ano’ng isulat nila, kahit hindi maliwanag ‘yong tirahan, okay na sa inyo bilang isang bangko?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi naman po ganoon.

SEN. COSETENG. No, but in this particular case, mahirap na paikot ikot tayo eh, gusto ko lang malaman kung itong patakaran na ito ay talagang patakaran ninyo sa pang araw araw o dito lang.

MS. RODENAS. Tinitingnan rin po namin ‘yong information sa identification cards ay tama din doon sa signature cards, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. My time is up. I just wanted to make that clear point…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. COSETENG….that the addresses were very vague.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The Chair will now recognize the Honorable Senator Judge Sergio Osmeña III.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Madam Witness, bakit pa kayo humihingi pa ng ID sa bangko kung hindi naman ninyo kino confirm kung tunay na ID ho ‘yong binibigay ng kliyente o ‘yong ng depositor po sa inyo?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po ay para makita po ‘yong kanilang some information about them at ‘yong kanilang pirma, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Okay, so, nakita po natin kanina na ‘yong tunay na Delia Rajas daw ang sumipot dito kaninang ngayong hapon ngunit nagkaroon ho yata ng — a second Delia Rajas na ginamit po ‘yong SSS identification number ng original Delia Rajas.

So, hindi ho ninyo kino cross check ‘yan?

MS. RODENAS. Minsan ho, hindi na ho, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Minsan. Minsan minsan. Alam ho ninyo…So, ang sinasabi po sa Korte ang sinasabi po ninyo sa Korte na ito ay ang masasabi lang ho ninyo, mas maa identify mo lang iyong mga kliyente, si Eleuterio Tan, si Delia Rajas at saka si Alma Alfaro by sight. Hindi mo…You are not certain that Alma Alfaro is the real Alam Alfaro in real life? You are not certain that there exist a real person named Eleuterio Tan? And you are not certain that the Delia Rajas who came to you several times is, in fact, really called Delia Rajas, am I correct?

MS. RODENAS. Sila po iyong pumunta sa bangko namin dahil based doon sa identification cards na ibinigay po nila sa akin ay nag tally naman ho doon sa finil apan nilang signature cards.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Tama ho iyan. At mayroon ho tayong kopya ng identification card, ‘no. Ngunit iyong mga kompanya ho…Those companies are companies associated with Atong Ang. Unfortunately, wala ho iyong mga pangalan ni Eleuterio Tan doon po sa mga nakukuha naming listahan sa mga empleyado doon po sa kompanya ni Atong Ang.

So, therefore, you’re completely dependent that the identification that is given to you is, in fact, a valid identification card? Puwede hong i peke iyan.

MS. RODENAS. Dahil sila po ay ipinakilala rin sa akin ni Alma Alfaro noon.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). So, si Alma Alfaro po ang nagiging character witness? Parang…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the answer of the witness for that question?

MS. RODENAS. Dahil siya po ang nagpakilala sa akin, siya rin po ang makakapag prove na sila po iyong si Eleuterio Tan din at si Delia Rajas.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Honorable Senator Judge Loren Legarda Leviste is recognized.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Just a brief clarificatory question from Madam Witness. Binanggit ba ninyo sa inyong testimonya, i clarify ko lang na si Ms. Delia Rajas noong siya’y nagbukas ng account sa inyong bangko ay nagpunta roon upon representation by Ms. Catalina Ang? Or did I not understand correctly?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi po. Ang sinabi ko po si Delia Rajas ay kasama ni Eleuterio Tan na kasama rin ni Alma Alfaro nang pumunta po sila sa bangko at ipinakilala po sa akin ni Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Wala kayong sinasabing konektado or dahil valued client si Ms. Catalina Ang ay nakatulong siya dahil sa problema sa pagkuha ng 40 million ni Tan at ni Alfaro, hindi?

MS. RODENAS. Wala po, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Wala…Hindi po ninyo nakilala si Ms. Catalina Ang?

MS. RODENAS. Kilala ko na po siya bilang aming depositor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. She is a valued client? She’s a depositor?

MS. RODENAS. Depositor of the bank, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Kilala ninyo siya bilang depositor ng inyong bangko?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Did she at any time intercede for and in behalf of Ms. Alfaro, Mr. Tan or Ms. Rajas?

MS. RODENAS. Hindi po, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Wala siyang binabanggit na maski ano para matulungan sila sa pag ayos ng kanilang pag retrieve noong 40 million at least kay Tan at kay Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. Wala po, Your Honor.

MS. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Iyon lang, maraming salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MS. RODENAS. Salamat din po, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the witness may now be excused.

The Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Madam Witness, you have invoked the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law insofar as the principal of Alma Alfaro is concerned. Therefore, Mr. Chief Justice, I will not touch on the deposits and the withdrawals since the witness has invoked the Bank Secrecy Deposits Law, although I have my own view on that point.

I will touch on the telegraphic transfer which is clearly not a deposit. Now, who was Alma Alfaro representing in her application for telegraphic transfer?

MS. RODENAS. Si Catalina Ang, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Catalina Ang. All right.

Now, that will be all for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The witness is now excused. Thank you, Madam Witness.

MS. RODENAS. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, for a while. Still with the witness or no more.

SEN. DRILON. No more, no more.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No more with the witness.

So, the witness is finally excused.

The Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. Before we took a break, I have asked the stenographer for the immediate production of the transcript of stenographic notes for purposes of determining whether or not there is a basis for this representation to file a motion to cite Atty. Fortun for contempt.

In that regard, Mr. Chief Justice, there were two ladies which Ms. Delia Rajas mentioned as having fetched her and who were in the in the gallery. I think up to this point, they are still in the premises. I think the Sergent at Arms has held them upon the request that they be witnesses. May we call them to ask for a few questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would we continue the unconventional way which you described earlier?

SEN. DRILON. Well, this is in relation to the testimony of Delia Rajas which was already accepted by this Court, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. In an attempt to accommodate the request of Senator Drilon, may I volunteer the offices of the good offices of the Senate President to cause the investigation of these two ladies tomorrow at 8:30 in the morning so that we can ask questions that Senator Drilon might wish to ask of the two.

SEN. DRILON. Can we do it after the session, just for a few minutes?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Tonight?

SEN. DRILON. Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right. Sure.

SEN. DRILON. Thank you.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, if we may be heard on this point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Daza.

MR. DAZA. I distinctly heard the statement made by the Chief Justice, that if any member of the Senate, any Senator Judge would wish to hold Atty. Fortun to account for the events this afternoon, that there should be some charge in writing so that he can respond. And it is on then that an investigation, I think, should be timely.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was exactly the reason why the Presiding Officer asked, before the break, as to when the TSN would be available. Because the transcript of the stenographic notes may be the valid basis for any show cause order or any motion to cite Atty. Fortun in contempt at the court.

MR. DAZA. If there is an SCO or show-cause order, Atty. Fortun is entitled to reply in writing before a formal investigation happens.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that the suggestion of the Senate President was for him to conduct an investigation on the two.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. On the two witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But that would not be part of the investigation to be conducted by the Impeachment Court.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, exactly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That should not be considered as part of the trial of this case.

MR. DAZA. But may we inquire what the objective is of that investigation?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, probably, the question should be…

MR. DAZA. To hold Atty. Fortun for account?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, no. It is not to hold Atty. Fortun immediately to account for. The investigation is supposedly on the two companions…

MR. DAZA. Ah, the presence of the two companions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … of Delia Rajas. It has nothing to do with as of this time ‘no, it would appear that it would have nothing to do with a show cause order, if at all there will be, on the basis of a valid complaint for misconduct or misrepresentation or for contempt.

MR. DAZA. Well, thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, in the light…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. In the light of these circumstances, may we instruct the Senate Sergeant at Arms to produce the two ladies before the at the Office of the Senate President immediately after we adjourn for tonight or suspend the session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted. And the Sergeant at Arms is so directed.

So, next witness for the prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness, Mr. Chief Justice, is Atty. Ferdinand Sales of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Examining counsel is Public Prosecutor Clavel Martinez; assisting counsel is Private Prosecutor Joey Tenefrancia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Assisting Prosecutor is…? May I have the name again?

REP. MARTINEZ. Atty. Joey Tenefrancia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And for the defense, who would be the examining the cross examining and assisting cross examining counsel?

MR. FORTUN (S). The same counsel, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning?

MR. FORTUN (S). Fortun and …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Fortun and …?

MR. FORTUN (S). … Flaminiano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … and Flaminiano?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, before we start with the examination of the witness, may Atty. Raul Gonzalez be allowed to say something or manifest something?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What would be the …?

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, at the start of the proceedings this afternoon, Your Honor mentioned that the incidents will be discussed after the break. And we are concerned with the fact that our request for premarking of documents were stopped this morning…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Stopped?

REP. GONZALEZ. … on the opposition of the defense on the ground, Mr. Chief Justice, that they have filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena and duces tecum on Atty. Ruben Almadro and on Mr. Jose Yulo.

Now, we are in a quandary whether even the premarking is dependent on the desire of the defense. Because otherwise, Mr. Chief Justice, we cannot proceed with the presentation of our witnesses because then we will be asked here for documents to be distributed to the judges as well as to the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be for Article III?

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many witnesses will be ready this afternoon for Article II or part of Article I? Because we will make some rulings afterwards on the pending incidents.

REP. GONZALEZ. Well, okay. After the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. For Article I, just as I manifested last Friday, we are not ready because we have three pending incidents on our witnesses.

On Article I and II, on the Citibank, may we request that the witnesses be allowed to testify tomorrow? And then may we request the Chief Justice to direct the Citibank representative to come back tomorrow?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later on…

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … just in case he cannot testify now.

But this morning, during our mid trial conference, the prosecution mentioned that it is expected to conclude the presentation of its evidence on 19 January. And that for Article I, it would still have five witnesses whose testimony would be brief, probably for about a total of two hours.

Then for Article II A or B, four witnesses …

REP. APOSTOL. … A, A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … II A, four witnesses. For Article III, five. For Article IV, two or three. And there was an understanding that insofar as Article II B is concerned, that would be taken last. That was the understanding.

So, why don’t we finish first Article I and Article II A?

REP. APOSTOL. We are not in a position to present our witnesses for Article I because we have a pending incident, our motion. And the defense …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are not referring to the motion of the incident regarding Alma… Alma …

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we are referring to our witnesses Ricaforte, Anton Prieto and Raul de Guzman for Article I.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of declaring them as adverse …

REP. APOSTOL. … hostile witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … adverse witnesses.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. And then on Raul de Guzman for examination by him …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The issues thereon are not yet properly joined because the other party was made to comment.

REP. APOSTOL. Three days from Friday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, okay. So in the meantime, we will have the witness.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. So, may we go back. Our witness is Ferdinand Sales of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Again, our examining counsel is Public Prosecutor Clavel Martinez and the assisting counsel is Private Prosecutor Joey Tenefrancia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Atty. Ferdinand Sales?

Swear in the witness, Mr. Secretary.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left hand on the Holy Bible and answer me.

You, Ferdinand Sales, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. SALES. I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat, Atty. Sales.

Prosecutor Martinez, the witness is yours.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Your Honors.

Atty. Sales, will you please state your personal circumstances, your name.

MR. SALES. I am Ferdinand B. Sales, 36 years old, single, resident of Francisco Homes Subdivision, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan; a lawyer, designated as officer in charge of the Corporate and Partnership Registration of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

REP. MARTINEZ. Your Honors, the purpose of presenting this witness is to prove the following:

One, that Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated, the corporation which obtained the Pagcor contract for Bingo 2 Ball, was incorporated on September 26, 2000 or 21 days after Pagcor awarded the Bingo 2 Ball contract to the said corporation.

Number two, Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated has a paid up capital stock of only 625,000, an amount drastically below the required 10 million cash bond allegedly posted by Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated in its contract with Pagcor for the operation of Bingo 2 Ball.

We have earlier pre-marked our documents which is primarily the Certificate of Incorporation of Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated and have thus marked it as “EEEEEEE” and “EEEEEEE 1″, “EEEEEEE 2″, “EEEEEEE 4″, “EEEEEEE 5″, “EEEEEEE 6″, “EEEEEEE 7″, “EEEEEEE 8″, and “EEEEEEE 9″, “EEEEEEE 10″, “EEEEEEE 11″, and “EEEEEEE 12″.

Now, if the defense counsel would be willing to stipulate on these documents which have earlier been pre-marked, copies of which have also been furnished the defense and the members of the Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). Gladly, Your Honor.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you.

Atty. Sales, you said that you are connected with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun agreed to stipulate.

MR. FORTUN (S). I agreed to stipulate.

REP. MARTINEZ. You did. Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To stipulate on what? The existence of the documents?

MR. FORTUN (S). The existence of the document that if asked, the witness will be able to identify this and he probably may even be able to state that these are certified machine copies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you have stipulated.

MR. FORTUN (S). …as part of the record.

REP. MARTINEZ. Correct, yeah, Your Honor.

I’ll just ask a few questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Outside of the stipulated facts?

REP. MARTINEZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you.

Now, Atty. Sales, you said you are connected with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In what department are you connected with?

MR. SALES. I am connected with the Company Registration and Supervision Department under the new SEC as reorganized.

REP. MARTINEZ. Now, I will show to you this Certificate of Incorporation…

Yeah, I know, but it’s admitted that’s why I’m making it as the basis of my question, okay. Thank you.

Now, you will agree with me that on this exhibit, Exhibit “7”, ah, 777 – no, “7-EEEEEEE”, Exhibit “EEEEEEE”, “EEEEEEE-1” and “EEEEEEE-2”, on this said document, particularly “EEEEEEE-2”, there is a date 26 of September 2000. Will you please tell this Honorable Court just what is the meaning of that?

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what is the pleasure of Atty. Fortun?

MR. FORTUN (S). The document speaks for itself.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will have to sustain the objection.

REP. MARTINEZ. All right. Considering, Mr. Sales, that on the face of this document there is a 26 day of September registered below, will you agree with this representation that such would mean as the start of the existence of Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated?

MR. FORTUN (S). Same objection, Your Honor. It is a matter of law.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A matter of what?

MR. FORTUN (S). Law. It’s something which appears in the document and it’s something which needs not be, need not be explained by the witness.

REP. MARTINEZ. No, no, no …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Besides, besides, there had already been stipulation as to the existence of the document. So, what will be the purpose of the question?

REP. MARTINEZ. The purpose of the question, Your Honor, is to establish the precise date when the corporation started to be – to have…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not you believe that indeed the best evidence should be what you have stipulated on the existence of the document itself?

REP. MARTINEZ. Well, I agree, Your Honor, but that was preliminary to my question.

All right, my next question is, would you say then, Mr. Sales, that prior to the 26 of September when the Articles of Incorporation of Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated, the said corporation was not in existence?

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, that is a conclusion which the witness will not be able to make.

REP. MARTINEZ. No. I disagree, Your Honor, because he was with the SEC.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is a question of law which I think may not be asked anymore because you agreed on the existence of the document.

REP. MARTINEZ. Your Honor, what this representation was trying to do was to establish the juridical personality which started as far as Prominent…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, with more reason. If that is the purpose, with more reason that I have to sustain the objection.

REP. MARTINEZ. All right, thank you.

Now, if you go over this document, Mr. Witness, there is on Exhibit “4” after “EEEEEEE-4”, page 4 rather, “E-4”, “E-4” – “7777777” and down there at the bottom marked as “8888888” is the sum 625,000. Will you agree that the amount at that time the paid-up shares then was only 625,000?

MR. FORTUN (S). The document will be the best evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you. So, with that, Your Honors, this representation will have no more questions in the sense that with the stipulations and the agreement of the defense as far as the date when the juridical personality started and the paid-up capitalization of the said corporation has, in fact, been established and admitted by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Any cross?

MR. FORTUN (S). No cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. MARTINEZ. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any question from the members of the Court? (Silence.) There seems to be none, thank you very much. The witness is excused.

MR. SALES. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness for the prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness is Ruben Almadro. May we request, again, that Atty. – Public Prosecutor Gonzalez be allowed to manifest.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice…

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Compañero.

MR. DAZA. Did we hear correctly that the name announced of the next witness is Ruben Almadro?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is the name announced.

MR. DAZA. That is on the third article and it is precisely the subpoena for him-that’s the subject of our Motion to Quash that we filed this morning in accordance with the agreement and that was supposed to be considered this afternoon.

REP. GONZALEZ. That it is precisely, Mr. Chief Justice, why I raised the point earlier because this morning when we…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, yeah. Before we proceed into that, does not the Prosecution have any other witness available for Article I and for Article II?

REP. GONZALEZ. As we mentioned this morning, Mr. Chief Justice, precisely because of the explanation mentioned by Congressman Arroyo in order to save time, we are willing to present evidence on the third article starting this afternoon.

MR. DAZA. The question of the Chief Justice, I think, is whether the Prosecution has a witness whose proposed testimony is not the subject of a Motion to Quash on the subpoena that brought them here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement this morning was that this particular issue of the quashal of the request for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum affecting Ruben Almadro, Jose Luis Yulo and the other one is…

REP. GONZALEZ. Marian Corpuz.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …Marian Corpuz, will be taken up. As a matter of fact, it is now included as an addendum to the agenda. This is agendum number one.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor, because as a matter of fact, this morning, if you will recall, during that conference, the Defense mentioned that they have filed already a Motion to Quash.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is.

REP. GONZALEZ. But there was a Motion to Quash which was filed at 12 o’clock noon. At the time when we were having the conference, there was no Motion to Quash yet, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. DAZA. No, what I said, Mr. Chief Justice, I think I ought to remember what I just said this morning. I said that this morning we are going to be filing a Motion to Quash and we did file this morning that was after the conference.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, we received…we noticed that the Motion to Quash was filed at 12 noon and we received it at ten minutes before one this afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was received actually by the Office of the Secretary at…I think this is 12:23.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. GONZALEZ. And we received it – it was not morning anymore, Mr. Chief Justice. We received it ten minutes before one o’clock in the afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, you are opposing this urgent Motion to Quash.

REP. GONZALEZ. We are certainly opposing that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You need time or you want to argue now?

SEN. ROCO. Point of inquiry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, inquiry of the Court, Mr. Chief Justice. Isn’t it, and I was consulting my friend here, Senator Santiago, isn’t it a fact that anybody can testify. You don’t need a subpoena to testify. So if the person is present, he or she may testify. And the only, and I don’t know if my distinguished colleague there is saying that they are not ready to listen to Article III. But anybody can testify even without a subpoena. So quashing or the issue on whether the subpoena has been a valid issue is academic if the witness is there.

MR. DAZA. But, Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is exactly the issue being raised, Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. So, there is an issue on whether we…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have allowed the parties to file pursuant to the Rules of Court…

SEN. ROCO. Yes, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …Motion to Quash is a request or a subpoena or even already a subpoena issued. And that was the agreement this morning that a Motion to Quash will be filed. It is not a matter at time because there was an assurance on the part of the defense that it would be filed before noon. Unfortunately, it was filed at 12:23.

MR. DAZA. Your Honor, the stamp here shows that at exactly 12 noon, we served a copy on the prosecution. I have here. It says, 12:00.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can easily solve the problem. Would the prosecution want a little time or would you want to argue the motion now?

REP. GONZALEZ. We are willing to argue without prejudice to the filing of formal written opposition.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don’t you just file the formal written opposition? You can present the witness tomorrow if the Court will agree.

REP. GONZALEZ. But before that, Mr. Chief Justice, this morning, we presented documents for premarking as required by this Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Involving…?

REP. GONZALEZ. Involving the same matters, subject of the Motion to Quash. But the Motion to Quash was not filed at that time. When we were starting to premark, Atty. Celso Valmores for the defense objected to all premarking, according to him, by instruction of Atty. Dickson Berberabe of the Fortun, Narvasa Law Office, etcetera.

Now, Your Honor, the opposition to premarking refers to all documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, the PSE and BW Resource. If we present the witness here tomorrow without these documents, we will not be allowed to present this witness, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You be…

REP. GONZALEZ. I wonder whether even premarking is controlled by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the reason for the objection of the premarking?

MR. DAZA. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I do not know. But if the records will show that the request for subpoena were filed only on Thursday late in the afternoon.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. DAZA. We saw it for the first time last Friday.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of Atty. Daza…

MR. DAZA. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …the Senate President is recognized.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Congressman Daza, the issue raised by Mr. Gonzalez relates to premarking not to the subpoena.

MR. DAZA. Yes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. So will you kindly just address that particular issue, so we do not get derailed in this argumentation.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Senate President, the premarking is by reason of the subpoena that we have filed a Motion to Quash.

REP. GONZALEZ. But then it would seem, Mr. Chief Justice, that everything will be dependent on the resolution of this Motion to Quash.

MR. DAZA. The subpoena duces tecum covers these documents that we have filed a Motion to Quash, and that’s probably the reason why our lawyers during the premarking…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes. But at that time, the premarking was stopped. There was no Motion to Quash yet. And so I find that very strange, to say the least.

MR. DAZA. With due respect, Mr. Senate President, this morning in the presence of the prosecution, we manifested that we were going to file a Motion to Quash these three subpoena, which included subpoena duces tecum, on one or two witnesses. And I cannot see any reason why the prosecution now would express surprise or dismay, because even if we had not filed the written motion, this morning at about nine o’clock, they knew that we were going to file a Motion to Quash the subpoena duces tecum covering these documents.

REP. GONZALEZ. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, you see we have to comply with the requirements of the Court on the premarking of documents. We cannot even reproduce copies for distribution to the members of the Court and to the defense without first premarking the originals, and that will take time, Your Honor. So if we will wait, then when we present a witness here, assuming that the witness does not even need a subpoena, but this witness will not testify without a subpoena. All these witnesses that I’ve mentioned will not testify without a subpoena.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, let us put it this way. You are willing to go ahead with the premarking without prejudice to the Motion to Quash?

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And later on for the defense to object to any of such premarked evidence whenever these are offered?

REP. GONZALEZ. Well, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Subject to the objections made by them on the basis of their urgent Motion to Quash?

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes. Atty. Yap will tell us, I think, Your Honor, that he stopped the premarking this morning because of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s why, do you agree on that basis…

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …subject to the condition alleged in the Motion to Quash?

REP. GONZALEZ. We will agree, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And provided, further, that nothing of this document, if premarked, will be published. It would be kept entirely in a sealed envelope at the proper time.

REP. GONZALEZ. But for purposes of reproduction, Mr. Chief Justice, otherwise how can we reproduce? We will be asking for another one hour in the midst of the proceedings in order to reproduce?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There are many documents involved?

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor, they are voluminous documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Daza.

MR. DAZA. Yes. I’m sure that they can be accommodated in the safe or the vault of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I mean, the continuation of the premarking without prejudice to the Motion to Quash.

MR. DAZA. Yes. As long as these documents or exhibits are subject to our motion and our objection and, as stated by the Chief Justice, that they be not distributed until a resolution on the motions comes…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only for the premarking.

MR. DAZA. The safe or the vault of the Senate can accommodate these documents after they are premarked. Because what we are afraid of…

REP. GONZALEZ. So we can already reproduce, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can have the reproduction but it will not really be well, I mean, made public in the meantime until after a resolution on the Motion to Quash.

REP. GONZALEZ. We accept.

MR. DAZA. Yes.

REP. GONZALEZ. We accept, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. DAZA. But yes, yes, only on these specific documents, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the documents supposed to be …

MR. DAZA. Yes. Subject of the subpoena now …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … in question.

MR. DAZA. … in question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. That’s a very sound compromise without prejudice to taking up the grounds alleged in the Urgent Motion to Quash and also without prejudice to your Opposition to the Motion to Quash.

In the meantime, the premarkings may continue.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may we now know from the prosecution as to their pleasure as to whether they want to argue on the motions now, or they would wish to ask for time to file written opposition?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In light of the compromise which the parties had agreed on on the continuation of the premarkings, probably the prosecution may just submit an opposition to the Motion to Quash and we’ll take that up tomorrow.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Fine.

MR. DAZA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. May we request the courtesy of being provided a copy of that before two o’clock because we might want to file tomorrow …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean the …

MR. DAZA. … not later than tomorrow, give us one or two hours to file a reply.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No need probably no need anymore to file a reply to the opposition. You can just immediately argue …

MR. DAZA. Well, we can argue …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … on the basis of the Motion to Quash and the opposition thereto.

MR. DAZA. We can argue in that case, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Each one of you will be given ten minutes each only.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. DAZA. Agreed, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. GONZALEZ. We will furnish the counsel before two o’clock. You can be sure that it will be before two o’clock.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it before noon, …

REP. GONZALEZ. Well, we will try our best, Mr. Chief Justice, because …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … Prosecutor Gonzalez, probably before noon.

REP. GONZALEZ. … because it’s difficult to make a commitment of the morning and then file it in the afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense might again say it was given to it at about 1:59 o’clock in the afternoon. So better yet if it would be before noon.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. DAZA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the premarking shall continue. But the parties should agree on the matter of securing the evidence and preventing any undue publicity thereon until we shall have resolved the issue on the Motion to Quash.

MR. DAZA. Yes.

REP. GONZALEZ. And we can be assured, Mr. Chief Justice, that counsel for the defense will be present at the premarking because there were instances when the counsel of the defense …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense should have one duly authorized representative during the premarking.

MR. DAZA. I will send a representative from the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will yes, you should.

MR. DAZA. Yes. May I just, Mr. Chief Justice, before leaving this question, point out that there are two motions, one on the main calendar and the other one on the supplemental calendar, bearing on the same issue.

The one on the main agenda on the principal agenda, involves a motion in regard to certain documents subject of a subpoena duces tecum from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. So may we understand, Mr. Chief Justice, that the defense would file their written opposition, if they so desire, on these two motions and then tomorrow, we be given ten minutes on each motion to argue on both sides?

REP. GONZALEZ. Actually, Mr. Chief Justice, I think we have already filed our comment or opposition to the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Here there is. It appears on record here, Item III under Letter F of the Agenda, Motion to Quash, Re: the Prosecution’s Urgent Ex Parte Request for Issuance of subpoena duces tecum to Honorable Lilia Bautista, Chairman, SEC in connection with Memorandum Order No. 73 issued by the President dated 6 September 1999; Memorandum Order dated November 19, 1999 addressed to the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, directing the latter to refrain from issuing public statement, etcetera; minutes of the Commission en banc meeting beginning October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000; tape recordings of the Commission en banc meeting beginning October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000 and several other documents enumerated, Mr. Chief Justice, on this urgent motion ex parte.

I understand that in open court this has already been granted, Your Honor, but no official subpoena has been…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prepared?

REP. GONZALEZ. …prepared. I understand that my understanding was that because of that order in open court, there is no need anymore for a formal subpoena to be released.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There’s still a need for a formal subpoena because what we granted was only the request for the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum.

REP. GONZALEZ. In that case…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the Presiding Officer expected the preparation of the subpoena duces tecum.

REP. GONZALEZ. In that case…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, we can follow that up with the Office of the Secretary.

REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, next witness?

REP. APOSTOL. Before I make my manifestation, may I be allowed to approach Senator Judge Roco?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Manifestation?

SEN. ROCO. I had a reservation on Miss Padua. I have not been able…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, that’s correct.

SEN. ROCO. …Yes, but I have not been able they were ticked and I was looking for a pattern.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But were certified true copies of the required documents submitted already to the Office of the Secretary?

SEN. ROCO. I don’t know. An informal submission I have, but I don’t have the certified.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The certified copies?

SEN. ROCO. Yes. No, I don’t have. So, if tomorrow it’s very brief. In any event if I ask her questions, if at all, it will be very brief.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you want now the certified true copies to be delivered to you, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Please, Mr. Chief Justice, so that then I can dispose of it even before the beginning of the hearing if I don’t intend to ask her any question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, my information is that they have prepared enough copies for distribution to the Members of the Court as well, so probably…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, these copies can be distributed to the members of the Court…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …including the Presiding Officer.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, at the back of the Secretary’s chair is so many voluminous records. I think that’s…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, probably, some people can help the Secretary to distribute the documents.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, just one point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes? for subpoena for production or inspection of documents was the matter of the Philippine National Bank which is still pending before the Honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that’s still pending before the court. The issues there are joined already?

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then tomorrow we will take that up too.

REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you, thank you.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, our next witness is supposed to be the witness of Atty. Congressman Raul Gonzalez. Since he cannot testify, I must confess we are helpless on this. The other witness is the one who will undertake the examination is Prosecutor Oscar Moreno, he’s very tired.

So, may we request… May I beg the indulgence of the Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. …may I beg that we be allowed for continuance till tomorrow?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How tired is Congressman Moreno?

REP. APOSTOL. He could hardly smile, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, because we really can still have one more witness. It’s still 7:20 in the evening.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, but…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The assisting counsel can present the witness if the witness is available. Remember, that this morning when had the mid trial conference, the prosecution has assured those who attended the pre trial
no, the mid trial conference that the prosecution will be able to rest its case on or before 19 January. So we have to take advantage of the little time that we have this evening. If we can finish one more witness for the prosecution, better yet.

The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, in view of a very urgent personal commitment of this representation, I would like to ask the indulgence of the court to that I be allowed to leave subject to my reservation that in case of any pending matter that would require my vote in the course of the proceedings this evening that I’ll be given time to come back to this court to exercise my right to vote on any motion or issue that will be presented before the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection to the request of the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. No objection. But I wish to make of record that this should never be taken as a precedent for any other Senator Judge who might be placed in the same situation.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the request is granted.

REP. APOSTOL. We will bow to his request, perhaps, if we will be allowed to follow also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You’ll make a request for?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. We will be requesting still the continuance till tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request for the continuance until tomorrow.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, if the reason is that Mr. Moreno is tired, Mr. Moreno is only one half the age of Atty. Titong Mendoza or Prosecutor Flaminiano. And, you know, if they use that kind of an argument, the other side can very well also allege that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And besides, there is an assisting counsel.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, if the court will allow the testimony of Mr. Almadro subject to the continuing objections, we are ready to present him now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is the other witness present?

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Yulo is also here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yesterday, during the mid trial conference this morning, the prosecution said that it has still five witnesses for Article I.

REP. GONZALEZ. Well, that is why it has been mentioned this morning…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. GONZALEZ. … the predicament was expressed by Congressman Arroyo but…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What we have earlier agreed was only the premarking.

REP. GONZALEZ. No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So if you do not have any other witness…

REP. GONZALEZ. We have our witness for Article III here, Your Honor. And if you will request the witness, we will be happy to present this witness subject to continuing objections.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was already a ruling earlier an agreement of the parties. If the prosecution does not have any other witness this afternoon then probably Prosecutor Apostol was correct.

REP. GONZALEZ. Well, we have a witness for Article III.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who?

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Almadro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was subject to the earlier agreement. He will testify on the documents to be premarked, isn’t not?

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There you are.

REP. GONZALEZ. Because it would seem to me that we are thinking about the continuance and so forth, the prosecution really has witnesses present except for that situation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In addition to Mr. Almadro, who are the other witnesses present?

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Yulo is here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who else?

REP. GONZALEZ. Jose Luis Yulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who else?

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Yasay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Yasay. Who else?

REP. GONZALEZ. These are the three…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For Article I?

REP. GONZALEZ. Not for Article I.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. None. None.

MR. DAZA. Well, in other words, Mr. Chief Justice In other words, they have no witness to present to support Articles I and II. And if they are asking for continuance, then I think that is what is at what is before the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Besides, there was the request earlier of Prosecutor Apostol that the reason for the continuance is because Prosecutor Moreno is already tired meaning that Prosecutor Moreno for the Second Article would be ready with witnesses.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There you are.

REP. APOSTOL. The only thing is, he is tired.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you have witnesses for the Second Article?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, he is here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So why don’t we present and receive the evidence of the witnesses for the Second Article.

REP. APOSTOL. Okay. If that is the pleasure of the Chief Justice, we will bow to your…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. But the court should not be made to believe that there are no witnesses for the Second Article when in truth and in fact the prosecution has.

REP. APOSTOL. We have. We have.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Mr. Chief Justice. In the case of witness Atty. Padua, we asked for a summation of the amounts concerning the Bingo 2-ball…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Emily Padua?

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was also the reservation of the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco on the certified true copies of the documents. But the latter has requested for a deferment of the continuation of his questions until tomorrow, until tomorrow.

REP. APOSTOL. So Mr. Chief Justice, our next witness is the Vice-President of the Citibank, examining counsel is public prosecutor Oscar Moreno, assisting counsel is private prosecutor Augusto San Pedro.

THE PRES. OFFICER. Just for the record, how many more witnesses for the second article are available this evening?

REP. APOSTOL. Only one.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who?

REP. APOSTOL. The vice-president of..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The vice-president.

REP. APOSTOL…of the Citibank. But he will be testifying for Articles I and II.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the same time?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t think there is any objection from the defense on that? That could be allowed.

MR. FORTUN (S). None, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Produce the witness. The Secretary may now swear in the witness. Where is the witness? Swear him in.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left hand on the Holy Bible and answer me. You, Victor Lim, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. LIM. Yes, I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat, Mr. Witness. Honorable Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have you rested enough?

REP. MORENO. There’s still energy, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. Although probably, as a starter, I must say that I may ask for a continuance because this might take long.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can take your time.

REP. MORENO. Just a caveat to our good Senators-Judges. Before I start, Mr.Chief Justice, I understand that the witness has a private counsel of his own and he may want to enter his appearance for the purpose of…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a what? As a private prosecutor?

REP. MORENO. No, Mr.Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In like manner that we did for others, the private counsel should stay merely as an onlooker.

REP. MORENO. He manifested, Mr. Chief Justice, that he would be appearing as counsel for the witness, not as a private prosecutor, Mr.Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. This is an Impeachment Court. I don’t think that would be a permissible scenario.

REP. MORENO. I think he realizes that, we realize that, Mr.Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Maybe if the Senate is acting as a Senate during a committee hearing.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, before I begin, may I ask from the defense panel as to their comments on the proposed stipulations that we have submitted last week.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. First qualify the witness.

REP. MORENO. I’m sorry, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Witness, would you like to please tell this Honorable Court, your name and personal circumstances.

MR. LIM. Good evening. I’m Victor Lim, married, of legal age

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder, please. The name again?

MR. LIM. Good evening. I’m Victor Lim, married, of legal age. I’m currently holding office at the Ground Floor, Citibank Center, Paseo de Roxas, Makati. My current position with Citibank is Branch Banking Head, Vice President. I’m also a member of the Senior Management Team. I’ve been working with Citibank for 16 years, three years in my current position.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel may proceed.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I was about to ask the defense panel as to what their position is in regard to the proposed stipulations which the prosecution has submitted last Friday and which Atty. Fortun mentioned or stated to this Honorable Court a reaction or their comment would be forthcoming today, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, I had indeed mentioned last Friday that I would be in a position to address the proposed stipulations handed to me by Prosecutor Arroyo prior to the close of last Friday’s session and subject to our position that the matter subject of the stipulation are immaterial and irrelevant insofar as the Articles of Impeachment are concerned.

We are willing, however, to stipulate that the matters contained herein, particularly the documents, the checks, the savings account of the persons named here exist and that they are genuine. Although again, this stipulation does not make any admission as to their truth.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you say, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. In that case, I would propose to read the proposed stipulations, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did you furnish the other party a copy of the proposed stipulation?

MR. FORTUN (S). We have a copy, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was there a counter proposal?

MR. FORTUN (S). We have no other counter proposal. In fact, we are proposing to them our admission of the existence and genuiness of the matters enumerated.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, what will be read into the record will be those that you have agreed upon only?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, subject to the premise of our

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Subject to the conditions and qualifications you have earlier stated.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you can read now into the records what you have agreed upon and again, subject to the conditions and qualifications stated by the defense.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

The stipulations are:

1.That Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson issued a Metrobank Check No. 0001388 dated September 29, 1999 payable to Cash in the amount of eight million pesos.

2.Said check was deposited at the Citibank Greenhills Branch in CA/SA Account No. 166820 on 4 October 1999.

And number 3 unless the defense panel would wish to react per item basis. I understand that I can read the rest of the stipulations.

Number three, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me. What you are reading are facts admitted by the other party.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Yeah.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, I would advise Atty. Fortun not to take the letter and to find out whether what had been read are the agreement are the points reached in agreement by way of stipulation.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, No. 3, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is that this account belongs to First Lady Luisa “Loi” Ejercito.

4.That the following documents are authentic and duly executed; are on file with the bank and accurately reflect the transactions mentioned there.

Letter A.Original of the bank’s copy of the deposit slip for the deposit of Metrobank Ayala Center Branch, Check No. 0001388 dated 29 September 1999 in the amount of eight million pesos, deposited with Citibank Greenhills Branch Account No. 166820 in the name of Ma. Luisa P. Ejercito on 4 October 1999. These are Exhibits septuple seven Fs, just to be precise, Mr. Chief Justice, and its submarkings;

Letter B. Microfilm copy of Metro Ayala Center Branch Check No. 0001388 dated 29 September 1999 in the amount of P8 million issued by Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, deposited with the said Citibank Greenhills Branch on 4 October 1999.

And Letter C, the original account opening form for the Citibank Account No. 166820 in the name of Luisa P. Ejercito.

Mr. Chief Justice, these are Exhibits “FFFFFF” and its submarkings and “FFFFFFF 5″ and “6″, respectively.

Number 5. Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson issued a Metrobank Check No. 0001332 dated 21 August 1999 payable to William Gatchalian in the amount of P46,350,000.00 previously marked as Exhibit “GGG”.

MR. FORTUN (S). Perhaps it would be useful, Mr. Chief Justice, if they provide us already with the copies of the exhibits which Prosecutor Moreno is currently identifying.

REP. MORENO. They have already been provided copies of these, Mr. Chief Justice, last Friday.

Just for the record and to avoid any doubt, Mr. Chief Justice, with regard to the documents, the third item of these documents is the original account opening form for the Citibank Account No. 166820 in the name of Luisa P. Ejercito which is “FFFFFFF 5″ and “6″.

Also, Mr. Chief Justice, with respect to Metrobank Check No. 0001332 dated August 21, 1999 and payable to William Gatchalian in the amount of P46,350,000.00, said check was deposited to the account of William Gatchalian, Account No. 8131201377 on 20 August 1999 at Citibank Makati Branch.

Number 7. That the following documents are authentic and duly executed are on file with the bank and accurately reflect the transactions mentioned therein:

Letter A. Citibank’s copy of the deposit slip for the deposit of Metro Ayala Center Branch Check No. 0001332 dated sometime in August 1999 in the amount of P46,350,000.00 deposited in Citibank Account No. 008131201377 on August 20, 1999. This is covered by Exhibit “GGGGGGG” together with its submarkings.

Letter B. Microfilm copy of Metro Ayala Center Branch Check No. 0001332 dated 21 August 1999, in the amount of 46,350,000.00 deposited in Citibank Account No. 008131201377. This is covered by Exhibit “GGGGGGG 2″, “3″ and “4″.

Letter C. The original account opening form for Citibank Account No. 008131201377 in the name of William Gatchalian. This is Exhibit “GGGGGG 5″. And the original specimen signature cards for Citibank Account no. 08131201377, Exhibit “GGGGGGG 6″ and “7″.

The other having said that, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, may I please seek the confirmation of Atty. Fortun, with respect to the proposed stipulations as just read.

MR. FORTUN (S). We confirm subject to the exceptions earlier mentioned, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, we are setting the testimony of the witness, Mr. Lim, for the following purposes:

Number One – to corroborate the testimony of Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson that he also gave money from jueteng protection money to William Gatchalian and certain persons upon instructions of President Estrada;

Number Two – to corroborate and prove that the 8 million MetroBank check dated September 29, 1999, payable to Cash and issued by Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson which was received by President Joseph Ejercito Estrada as proofs of jueteng protection money, was deposited to the account of the First Lady Loi Ejercito with Citibank in a Greenhills Branch;

Thirdly, that this deposit — out of this deposit, the proceeds of the deposited check of 8 million were credited to the account of the First Lady Loi Ejercito, as aforesaid;

Fourthly, the testimony is also being offered as evidence of similar acts, i.e., the First Lady received funds sourced from Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson;

Fifthly, to prove that President Joseph Estrada is guilty of graft and corruption and unexplained or ill-gotten wealth;

And finally, to prove that President Joseph Estrada is guilty of the charges under Articles I and II of the Articles of Impeachment.

May I please proceed, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Defense and prosecution have entered into stipulation regarding these documents. Unless there is a showing that this witness knows something about the jueteng money or the links of jueteng collections, we believe that the testimony of the witness would be practically useless, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have not even heard from the witness yet.

MR. FLAMINIANO. But what I’m saying, if Your Honor please, that he is the vice president of the bank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You make the proper objection at the proper time. There was only an offer of what the witness is going to testify.

MR. FLAMINIANO. But, if Your Honor please, there has been no statement in the offer of testimony that the witness knows something about these jueteng links. There is nothing in the offer of testimony, Your Honor, that’s why we are now at this stage of the presentation of evidence, already interpose an objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prosecutor enumerated the purposes for which the witness’ testimony would be offered. And so I think the Court should first listen to the questions and the possible answer of the witness.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And you can make your objection at the proper time.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We submit, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

Now, Mr. Witness, you mentioned that you have been with Citibank for 16 years now. Is that correct?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have stipulated on that, Your Honor; we admit the qualification of the witness – he’s the vice president of the Citibank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, do not repeat what has been stipulated on to abbreviate the proceedings.

REP. MORENO. That was not stipulated on, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. Probably my compañero, Atty. Flaminiano, is, like me, tired, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FLAMINIANO. No, no.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would not be a reason to ask for a continuance.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. Probably, it would be best if I ask for a continuance so that we can start with this thing tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How long would be the testimony of the witness?

REP. MORENO. It depends on the objections that Atty. Flaminiano will interpose.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the supposition that there will be no objections, how long will it be?

REP. MORENO. Not more than one hour, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not more than one hour.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We are willing to hear the witness even for two hours, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Today?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. This evening. Okay. You have the commitment of the defense. Okay.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, my dear colleague.

Mr. Witness, can you tell us briefly about your more important functions at Citibank in relation to deposit accounts and documentation pertaining to these deposit accounts?

MR. LIM. Can you elaborate on the question? It’s a bit broad, Your Honor?

REP. MORENO. What essentially are your more important functions in regard to deposit accounts? Or as vice president, the Head of the Branch Banking of the Citibank in a…is this Greenhills or Makati or entire Manila Branch?

MR. LIM. I have overall administration and responsibility for all the retail bank branches of Citibank in the Philippines.

REP. MORENO. Are you aware whether a subpoena duces tecum was issued, addressed to Citibank and coming from this Honorable Impeachment Court?

MR. LIM. Yes, we were given a subpoena duces tecum on this one, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Did you comply with this subpoena?

MR. LIM. We complied with the subpoena, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I’m showing to you, Mr. Witness, documents marked as Exhibits “FFFFFFF” to “FFFFFFF 6″ with their respective submarkings and “GGGGGGG” to “GGGGGGG 7″. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what relation, if any, do these documents have with the documents you brought in compliance with the subpoena?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, precisely, we have already stipulated on all those documents, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That have been stipulated upon, Prosecutor Moreno.

MR. FLAMINIANO. And we admit that they are the subject of a subpoena duces tecum.

REP. MORENO. That was a preliminary question, Mr. Chief Justice, because I would be asking questions with regard to these documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just go direct to the point because the other party had admitted these documents already.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you, Mr. Witness, Exhibit “FFFFFFF”. This is deposit slip of Citibank and this consists of two parts, Exhibit “FFFFFFF” and “FFFFFFF 1″. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what Exhibit “FFFFFFF” is all about?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have already stipulated on this document. We have to object to the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Moreno, what is your purpose? The defense had already admitted the documents…

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … and whatever it is, the best evidence would be the document itself.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, that was just a preliminary to my next questions pertaining to some validation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then go direct to the point which were not covered by the stipulations.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, so that we will not waste time, I believe that it is understood that what has been stipulated upon were not only the authenticity of the documents but the contents of the documents. So the prosecutor need not ask questions on the contents of these documents anymore.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be correct, but the prosecution may have …may require some kind of an explanation not covered by the stipulation.

REP. MORENO. Indeed, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is so extraneous, it is beyond the document itself, the objection may be proper.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, if I can go straight to the point.

Mr. Witness, towards the top, there are validations I would imagine these are machine validations would you like to read the first line starting from the word, “off us”?

MR. LIM. It’s an off us check deposit to the cash account, no, to the checking account. It simply means that we received another bank check.

REP. MORENO. And then what about the second line to the right?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object to this line of questions, Your Honor. We have stipulated on all these matters.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is giving an explanation, so it could not have been covered by the stipulation.

The objection is overruled. The witness may answer.

MR. LIM. Okay. The second line refers to the date of deposit and the time it was processed.

REP. MORENO. And so the date and the time are…?

MR. LIM. The date is October 4; the time is 16:40 in the afternoon.

REP. MORENO. 16:40, is that within the banking hours of Citibank?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, these are all evidenced by this document. The best evidence would be the document as to the time, Mr. Chief Justice, unless they can go to some extraneous matters not covered by the stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICE. The objection is sustained.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, the time of the deposit is relevant because banking hours end at three o’clock in the afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are assuming a particular fact which probably the Court may not take judicial notice of.

REP. MORENO. That was why …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It depends on what bank.

REP. MORENO. That’s precisely why I asked…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you are asking for the bank¬ing hours of Citibank?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If that is so, the witness may answer the question and the ruling is revoked.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, the time would be immaterial and irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We do not know yet.

MR. LIM. The banking hours is nine to four in the afternoon.

REP. MORENO. And then the deposit was placed at what time per that entry?

MR. LIM. It was already processed at 4:40 in the after¬noon, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then the next line, it’s not quite clear but would you like to read that line for the Honorable Court’s information. I understand that you have the origi¬nal of Exhibit “FFFFFFF” and may I invite Atty. Flaminiano, Mr. Chief Justice, to take a look at the original while being read by our witness.

Would you like to read for the Honorable Court the first line of this machine validation entry?

MR. LIM. It’s simply …

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to object to these questions. Precisely we have stipulated on all these matters so that we can expedite the proceedings. Now, apparently the prosecutors have been challenging or im¬peaching the credibility of these documents by stating that these deposits were made outside of regular banking hours, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is trying to elicit some details on the entries in the document itself. The stipulation had something to do with the authenticity, the existence and the entries. But the question now is on a matter regarding an explanation of an entry. There is no showing yet that it is impeaching the particular entry.

So the Chair will have to overrule the objection.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I kindly move for a reconsideration considering that these entries are self evident. They are self explanatory, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the pleasure of Senator…

SEN. DRILON. We cannot see in the xerox copies present¬ed to us these numbers being read …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All right. Meaning, the xerox copies that we have are not faithful reproduction?

REP. MORENO. They are, Mr. Chief Justice, but indeed that’s the reason why I wanted to ask that question from the witness because there is an overlap in this …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you mean by “overlap”?

REP. MORENO. Overlap in the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the machine reproduction?

REP. MORENO. In the letters, may I bring to the Presid¬ing Officer’s attention Exhibit “FFFFFFF”, Mr. Chief Jus¬tice, there’s a first line and the letters which are ma¬chine validated, machine entered, overlapped the form of the deposit slip.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may be asked to explain what this overlapping means, so the objection has to be overruled. The witness may answer.

MR. LIM. Okay. Actually, the overlapping is simply because the printed form and the printed machine overlapped so it was not clear, I guess, on the photocopy when it was photocopied here at the Senate.

REP. MORENO. So the overlapping, you mean, is in the photocopy?

MR. LIM. No. It’s because the machine print overlapped on the printed form letters.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. I’m also having little difficulty because of so many exhibits, in fact, I have all of them here. I am having difficulty identifying the exhibit particularly with that they are discussing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you better identify the exhibit number everytime that Prosecutor Moreno ask a ques¬tion, you better identify specifically the exhibit number for the guidance of the Members of the Court.

SEN. ROCO. Would it be convenient, Mr. Chief Justice, it’s 7:56, to continue tomorrow? I think there is one more incident that …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, yeah. You are asking now for a continuance until tomorrow?

SEN. ROCO. If, if that is feasible.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection from the prosecution and from the defense although the defense was willing to go ahead until, until probably 9 o’clock?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, considering that sometimes the rules on continuance should also be liberally construed, we have no objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Especially if solicited by a member of the court, the defense and the prosecution, the Chair has no other choice. May we hear from the Majority Leader?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before we …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before we hear from the Majority Leader, there is an incident that I’d like to bring to the attention of the Court that happened at roughly 4:30 this afternoon, when a driver of the Senate shuttle bus was mauled by demonstrators in front of the Senate Building, and some ruffians tried to forcibly enter the garage of the Senate. As a result of this incident, Mr. Chief Justice, the culprits will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but at the same time, we would like to instruct the Senate Secretary to investigate fully the circumstances that surrounded this unfortunate incident, and to make his report within twenty-four hours from this date, incorporating therein, such recommendations that will prevent a recurrence of the said incident and ensure that there is no undue disruption of the proceedings of the Impeachment Court.

And also, Mr. President, perhaps a warning will have to be issued to all concerned that as a result of this violent incident right in front of the Senate, the Senate may be compelled to consider placing restrictions on the right of demonstrators to make their demonstrations in front of or near the Senate Building.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In relation to that, for the past several hearings, the Presiding Officer had always been disturbed by noises outside, probably by demonstrators. So I hope that the motion of the Senate President will include precisely the control of the crowd outside. It had been distracting the proceedings here.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. I so move, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? The Chair hears none, the motion — yes, the Honorable Senator Rene Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Unless I am anticipating that the Majority Leader will move for continuance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet, not yet. There is a pending motion.

SEN. CAYETANO. No, no.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. No, no objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No objection, that’s why the Chair will make a ruling. There being no objection, the motion of the Senate President, modified with the suggestion of the Presiding Officer, is approved.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Rene Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. May I ask the indulgence of the Majority Leader before he moves for continuance.

I believe, Mr. Chief Justice, that last Friday, there was a motion for recon with respect to the banning of three spectators in the gallery. And I also recall, Mr. Chief Justice, that the Chair is supposed to make a statement today. So, if there is such, we would like to hear that, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Indeed, when the incident — immediately after the incident, the Presiding Officer stated that the matter will be taken up today, January 8. But can we not possibly have it tomorrow? Anyway, we are about to adjourn and perhaps you can take it up tomorrow.

SEN. CAYETANO. We leave it to the good discretion of the Chief Justice, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, the lawyers of — may I say something? The lawyers of the movants are here, so, they are amenable for continuance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Chair was of the impression that there could be an objection. But if there is none, that would be for the benefit of all of us really. And the witness, therefore, is advised to come back tomorrow, together with the documents that he has brought to the Court for the continuation of his testimony.

And any other witness after him for Article I and Article II?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. But the three other witnesses which are available today, I think there is some hindrance on their testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But that would be for Article III. I am referring to Article I and Article II.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, this is the only one available for Articles I and II for tomorrow. Then tomorrow, we will still have some more.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. But be ready, be ready with witnesses for Article I and Article II because there might be some prolonged debate or discussion on the issue earlier posed in respect of the Motion to Quash and the opposition thereto taken up earlier by the Honorable Prosecutor Gonzalez.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Senate…Mr. Chief Justice, I’m sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before the Majority Leader finally takes the floor, may I just remind the two ladies, who were asked by Senator Drilon to explain certain matters connected with the testimony or with the presentation of witness Delia Rajas, that after the adjournment, we will meet in my office at the conference room tonight so that questions can be addressed to the persons concerned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. May I just suggest, if Your Honors please, that while there is a motion to declare as hostile witnesses, the witness Yolanda Ricaforte and Anton Prieto, that their presence already be made available so that as soon as the Presiding Officer rules on these matters, their testimonies also can be received. Their testimonies, incidentally, refer to Article I which has really precedence over all these witnesses so that we may really complete the evidence on Article I.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the prosecution be able to bring back Anton Prieto? He took the witness stand earlier, didn’t he?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Could he be brought back? Or you want a subpoena?

REP. APOSTOL. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And also for Ricaforte?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. And we have also…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She came here already and she left behind the documents required to be produced by her.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. Also, we have requested for a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to the bank manager of PNB-Naga Branch for him to appear here and bring the necessary documents mentioned earlier.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But was it — I think the subpoena duces tecum et testificandum had been issued on the branch manager of the Naga Branch of the PNB, Mr. Secretary? Was there a return of the subpoena?

THE SECRETARY. I don’t recall.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer recalls very well that he did sign a subpoena duces tecum et testificandum for the bank manager.

Anyway, do we have time to issue the subpoenas testificandum et duces tecum to Ricaforte and to Prieto so the moment we — the Court will resolve that they should be considered as adverse witnesses or hostile witnesses, they can continue the testimony as such?

REP. APOSTOL. We will prepare the necessary request for subpoena and subpoena duces tecum.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then have it done immediately so it can be signed early tomorrow morning and served upon them.

REP. APOSTOL. Tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But not tonight. The Presiding Officer will have only about one hour in the Court. He has to go back to the Supreme Court.

REP. APOSTOL. May we request that we be allowed to file our request for subpoena…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Early tomorrow morning.

REP. APOSTOL. Early tomorrow morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I’m sure the Secretary will be here at 6:30 o’clock in the morning already. So…

REP. APOSTOL. Well, so, may I request, Mr. Chief Justice, that in the meantime the witness be allowed to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Kindly issue the — prepare the subpoena, the requested subpoena for these witnesses, Atty. Barbo.

THE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And I can sign it at 5:30 o’clock. in the morning, tomorrow. I will be in my office already at that time.

REP. APOSTOL. So, in the meantime, Mr. Chief Justice, may we request that the witness be allowed to leave the witness stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is excused in the meantime, but ordered to come back tomorrow with the documents.

The Majority Leader now.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we adjourn, I move for the approval of the Journal of the Impeachment Court of January 4, 2000, subject to some minor correction from Senator Judge Roco.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Were the corrections already entered into the corresponding pages? Or would you announce it, the Honorable Senator Judge Roco?

SEN. ROCO. It’s very small, Mr. Chief Justice, on the last line of Page 220, it says: “What is this written engraved in snow,” I could not have said “snow.” It must mean “in your walls.” So, instead of “snow in your walls,” “in stone.” May I ask that that minor correction be made.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection to the requested correction?

There being none, the correction is approved. And let the correction be entered into the Journal.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I now move that the Impeachment Court stand in recess until 2 o’clock…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a while, we shall now approve the Journal with the correction.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

I so move.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection? None.

The motion is approved.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. May I finally move that this Impeachment Court stand in recess until 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday, January 9, 2001.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Court the motion, there being no objection thereto is likewise approved.

Until tomorrow then at 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 8:08 P.M.

Articles of Impeachment Against Gutierrez

RESOLUTION IMPEACHING OMBUDSMAN
MA. MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ
FOR BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST

Introduced by: Representatives Niel C. Tupas, Jr., Rodolfo C. Fariñas, Reynaldo V. Umali, Romero Federico S. Quimbo, Raul A. Daza, Lorenzo R. Tañada III, Neri J. Colmenares, and Kaka J. Bag-ao

RESOLVED, that Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez, is impeached for betrayal of public trust pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines by the House of Representatives of the Republic of the Philippines in its own name and that of the Filipino people against said Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against her.

ARTICLE I
THE FERTILIZER FUND SCAM

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by inexcusably failing (1) to act promptly on the complaints filed and (2) to file the appropriate cases in court against high ranking government officials involved in the anomalous use of the Php728 Million “Ginintuang Masaganang Ani” (GMA) Program or the “Fertilizer Fund Scam”.

Notwithstanding the filing of complaints and the findings and recommendations in the Task Force Abono Reports in 2006, the Senate Committee Report No. 54 in 2006 and the Commission on Audit to file the appropriate charges against then Agriculture Secretary Luis “Cito” Lorenzo and then Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante, among others, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has inexcusably failed to act promptly on the complaints pertaining to the “Fertilizer Fund Scam” for more than five (5) years and failed to file the appropriate cases in court. This is contrary to the Ombudsman’s duty to give priority to complaints filed against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, and complaints involving grave offenses and large sums of money and/or properties.

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute tothe Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office.

Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.

ARTICLE II
EURO GENERALS SCANDAL

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by inexcusably failing to file the appropriate cases in court against Philippine National Police (PNP) Comptroller P/Dir. Eliseo De la Paz of the “Euro Generals Scandal,” despite the latter’s public admission under oath of a criminal offense and the findings of criminal liability by various government bodies.

On 15 November 2008, P/Dir. De la Paz, testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and Committee on Foreign Relations, and openly admitted therein that he brought an amount equivalent to more than US$10,000.00 outside the Philippines without declaration thereof to the Philippine Bureau of Customs.

Despite the lapse of more than two (2) years from the admission made by P/Dir. De la Paz and the submission to Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez of the findings of the PNP that P/Dir. De la Paz violated laws, as well as regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has failed to file the appropriate cases in court against P/Dir. De la Paz.

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute tothe Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office.

Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.

ARTICLE III
THE MEGA-PACIFIC DEAL

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by absolving from any criminal liability the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) officials and private individuals involved in the anomalous billion-peso contracts for the automation of the 2004 elections known as the “Mega Pacific Deal”.

Notwithstanding the findings of the Senate and the Supreme Court in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines, et. al. vs. Commission on Elections et. al. (GR No. 159139, January 13, 2004), that “COMELEC and its officials concerned must bear full responsibility for the failed bidding and award, and held accountable for the electoral mess,” Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has absolved from any criminal liability the COMELEC officials and private individuals involved in the “Mega Pacific Deal”.

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute tothe Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office.

Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.

ARTICLE IV
NBN-ZTE DEAL

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by using the powers of her high office, personally and through her subordinates and agents, to wrongfully exclude President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from investigation and absolve her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, a former classmate of the Ombudsman, from criminal prosecution stemming from the scandalous NBN-ZTE broadband contract (the “NBN-ZTE Deal”).

Notwithstanding the evidence presented before the Office of the Ombudsman implicating former COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Romulo Neri and Jose Miguel Arroyo, the Office of the Ombudsman indicted Benjamin Abalos and Romulo Neri but absolved Jose Miguel Arroyo in the NBN-ZTE Deal, and displayed gross incompetence by inexcusably failing and refusing to investigate President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office.

Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.

ARTICLE V
ENSIGN PHILIP PESTAÑO CASE

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust, personally and through her subordinates and agents, by failing to act promptly and by wrongfully absolving the Philippine Navy officers and personnel implicated in the death of Navy Ensign Philip Andrew Pestaño, notwithstanding the findings and recommendations of the Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights and on National Defense and Security, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The eventual dismissal of the Pestaño case, coupled with the delay in resolving the same, which led to the issuance by the United Nations Human Rights Committee of its Views declaring that the Philippine Government violated its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), manifests that Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has abandoned the Ombudsman’s statutory and constitutional duties, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, has acted in a manner contrary to her oath, the Constitution, law and justice, and has betrayed the public trust, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people, rendering her unfit to continue in office.

Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.

ARTICLE VI
LOW CONVICTION RECORD

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by her dismal performance, as shown among others, by the Office of the Ombudsman’s low conviction record, manifesting a level of incompetence and inefficiency amounting to a dereliction of duty.

Upon assumption by Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez as head of the Office of the Ombudsman in December 2005, the conviction record for Ombudsman-conducted prosecutions has declined, highlighted by her performance in 2008 up to the filing of the impeachment complaints, and even includes a high number of plea bargaining agreements entered into by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute tothe Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office.

Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.

Adopted,

NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.
Chairman
Committee on Justice

RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS
ROMERO FEDERICO S. QUIMBO
REYNALDO V. UMALI
RAUL A. DAZA
LORENZO R. TAÑADA III
NERI J. COLMENARES
KAKA J. BAG-AO

Estrada Impeachment Dec. 20, 2000 (AM) Transcripts

DECEMBER 20, 2000
(RE: RESOLUTION NO. 909 – INVESTIGATION INTO REPORTED ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF SURVEILLANCE AND WIRETAPPING ALLEGEDLY BY THE PAOCTF)

AT 10:55 A.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS (MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ). Please all rise for the arrival of the Presiding Officer, Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice, and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE). The impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now called to order.

The Sergeant-at-Arms shall make the proclamation. Please be seated.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

THE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO BARBO). In the Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001-2000 for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, may we move for a few minutes suspension to allow the members of this Impeachment Court an opportunity to formally greet the Honorable Presiding Officer a very, very happy birthday. (Applause)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is suspended for the purpose although it is self-serving.

Thank you very much.

THE SESSION WAS SUSPENDED AT 10:57 A.M.

THE SESSION WAS RESUMED AT 10:58 A.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we are ready now to resume the testimony of the witnesses. When we suspended yesterday, Ms. Cristine Herrera and Carlito Pablo were on the witness stand. The Court required Ms. Herrera to deliver some documents today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Ms. Herrera?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. We may call them back for that purpose if there are no further questions from the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about — Mr. Pablo also? Both are present.

For the record, I should like — the Presiding Officer would like to extend his heartfelt thanks for the spontaneous greetings on his becoming 65 years old. You will always be in my prayers too. (Pause)

The session is now resumed and the Majority Leader…

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. President, they may continue to testify under the same oath.

I understand, Senator Judge Teresa Aquino Oreta would like to propose some questions before we dispose of the witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Oreta is recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. First, Senator Judge Drilon is proposing that they first produce the documents they had agreed to deliver to the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is directed to produce the documents and to keep them ready.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Would there be a need to mark…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are these with Atty. Palabrica?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Yes. Perhaps the Secretary can receive the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, the Secretary please receive the documents from Atty. Palabrica for and in behalf of witness Herrera who was directed earlier to produce the documents.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Would there be a need to mark these documents in evidence?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are these documents the original copies, Atty. Palabrica?

MR. PALABRICA. Your Honor, these were the copies that we got from the source.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see. These are the copies obtained from the source.

MR. PALABRICA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Atty. Palabrica.

The documents are now in the possession of the Secretary of the Senate.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I ask that Senator Teresa Aquino Oreta be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Oreta is recognized.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I’d like to direct my questions to Mrs. Herrera and Mr. Carlito Pablo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Well, from the transcript from yesterday, it was told that some time before you wrote the story some time December 16, you met with Representative Joker Arroyo just so to maybe to ask his side on what he thought about the report that you had. Is this correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Were you alone? Or was Mr. Pablo with you when you met with Representative Joker Arroyo?

MS. HERRERA. Carlito was with me.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So both you and Carlito Pablo were with Representative Joker Arroyo on December 16 just so you can get a story from him or just so to help you about the story, am I correct?

MR. PABLO. Yes, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay. And on December 18 the story about the surveillance was published?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Mrs. Herrera.

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. That’s correct. I see.

Mrs. Herrera, you are married to the nephew of Congressman Ernesto Herrera of Bohol?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. May I know, may we know what does he do for a living? No, no, your husband, Lito Herrera. Is his name Lito?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, that’s correct.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. What is his job?

MS. HERRERA. He is a writer.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, he is a writer. He does PR work also?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, he does. I see. Does he have any client here in the Senate? (Long pause)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the answer of the witness?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, yes. I see. And if I remember yesterday, Mr. Manny Pangilinan was here. He is the President of the PLDT. I’d like to find out. Is Mr. Manny Pangilinan a godfather also in your wedding?

MS. HERRERA. That’s true.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. He is. I see.

And Mr. Pablo, sometime ago there was a story about, I think well, correct me if I’m wrong, if it was written by yourself about Secretary Gemma Cruz’ involvement in some MILF thing. You know, sometime ago, there was a story about Secretary Gemma Cruz on her involvement with the MILF, ASG group, you know, at the height of the Mindanao crisis?

MR. PABLO. Madam Senator, yes, there was a story. It was written by Mrs. Herrera.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, it was written by you, Christine? I see, I’m sorry. So, that story

I was just wondering, is that that story I know you have to respect your sources. But, is the source of that story the same as your source now in the surveillance story?

MS. HERRERA. I regret I cannot reveal the source of my stories, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. No, I was just asking if the source is the same. I’m not asking you to reveal your source. I was just asking if your source for that story is the same source for this surveillance story.

MS. HERRERA. I regret I cannot answer that.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, you cannot. Okay, I’ll

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What would be the ground for your refusal to answer?

MS. HERRERA. It may identify my source, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, you would not want to identify the source.

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay, I’ll respect that. I was just wondering also if your source is a member of PMA Class 1978, the same class that adopted Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo?

MS. HERRERA. I regret I cannot answer that.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay, I’ll respect that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the same reason too?

MS. HERRERA. The same reason, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Mr. Pablo, is the name of your wife Mila? What’s the name of your wife?

MR. PABLO. Myra.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Myra. Is she working?

MR. PABLO. Yes, she is, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. May I know where she’s working at?

MR. PABLO. She writes for Congressman Golez, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, she’s working for Congressman Roilo Golez.

MR. PABLO. Yes, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. I see. So, the names of Roilo Golez, Joker Arroyo I mean to say, these names have come up also yesterday.

MR. PABLO. Yes, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay.

Mrs. Herrera, as a journalist, I’m sure you covered rallies pro Erap, anti Erap rallies. And I’m sure, as a journalist, you’re familiar with prominent political and business figures at rallies.

MS. HERRERA. That’s true.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Yes. So, have you seen the PLDT Chief Executive Officer Manny Pangilinan in any of these rallies?

MS. HERRERA. No, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. You have never seen

MS. HERRERA. I was not assigned to that rally, to cover that rally when

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So, you never covered any rally?

MS. HERRERA. I did, several times, but not

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Are they pro Erap rally or are they anti Erap rally?

MS. HERRERA. Both anti and pro Erap.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Both?

MS. HERRERA. I was but I’m officially assigned to cover the anti Erap rallies.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So, anti Erap rallies. I see. So, in the pro Erap rallies, you don’t know, you’re not very familiar with pro Erap rallies and prominent personalities in the pro Erap rallies or in the anti Erap rallies? You covered the anti Erap rallies, you said.

MS. HERRERA. Yes.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So, would you know the prominent personalities there, whether politicians or businessmen in these anti Erap rallies?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Yes. Did you ever see your godfather, Manny Pangilinan there?

MS. HERRERA. I said, no.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, you did not.

MS. HERRERA. No, I did not.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay. Thank you.

So, Mr. Chief Justice

THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. AQUINO ORETA. I think that would be all. I just wanted to establish about a follow up of yesterday’s observation that most of the story on the surveillance was written again with the help more of opposition lawmakers.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any further question from the honorable members of the Impeachment Court?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I ask that Senator Cayetano be recognized.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. I wish to ask some clarificatory questions to either Ms. Herrera or Mr. Pablo, whoever chooses to answer this question.

Well, first of all, Mr. Chief Justice, myself and my son, Congressman Allan Peter Cayetano, belong to this most selected group whose telephone numbers have been included in the printout as written by Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo.

Now, let me just get some kind of idea, Ms. Herrera. Did this particular printout come to you or did you seek them?

MS. HERRERA. It was given to us by the source, Mr. Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. It was given to you. You never sought it out, is that correct? Hindi n’yo hinanap ito. Basta may nagbigay lang sa inyo?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.

SEN. CAYETANO. And without identifying sources which I know are privileged in character, is this I know that you have written so many articles which have landed in the first, in the front page of Inquirer as well as that of Mr. Pablo.

In a report like this, what is the sort of SOP, standard operating procedure, where an information is given to you or to Mr. Pablo, as in this case? What do you do after you have received this particular printout, telephone printout, containing these names?

MS. HERRERA. The information has to be checked, and counterchecked and verified and corroborated with other sources.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, let’s take this step by step. An X individual, as you said, sought you out and Mr. Pablo and gave you this printout, am I correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO. What step did you take after that? Anong ginawa n’yo “to check”, sabi mo, “countercheck.”

MS. HERRERA. We’ve gone through the documents…

SEN. CAYETANO. Hmmm.

MS. HERRERA. … discussed what all those about and then we tried to discuss also how to check and verify the authenticity of those documents.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. When you said “we”, you are referring to Mr. Pablo?

MS. HERRERA. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. Were these printouts given at the time to both of you I mean, you were with Mr. Pablo or Mr. Pablo was with you when this was given?

MS. HERRERA. We were together, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. When it was given, okay. So, you examined the documents, both of you?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. In your office, in Inquirer or someplace else?

MS. HERRERA. We went to my place and …

SEN. CAYETANO. Your home?

MS. HERRERA. … my home and then we discussed it there…

SEN. CAYETANO. You discussed it, okay.

MS. HERRERA. …over coffee.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, after having discussed it, what particular importance did you give as far as this telephone printout is concerned?

MS. HERRERA. Yeah, we realized that most of the names there were those of the Senator Judges, the Prosecutors, and some of the journalists.

SEN. CAYETANO. I see. I note also in your story that it included some telephone numbers of the presidential security guards. Yeah, I think that is in Page 2. It says here…

MS. HERRERA. That document, Your Honor, came later.

SEN. CAYETANO. Oh, came later!

MS. HERRERA. Yeah.

SEN. CAYETANO. What do you mean? There were two deliveries, so to speak?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Oh, okay. The first delivery of this information … Whose names were contained in these deliveries?

MS. HERRERA. The Senator Judges, Prosecutors and Congressmen.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. So, you examined them, between you and Mr. Pablo, examined them at your home. And did you give any importance to this, I mean, to these documents containing, as you said, as you did, no, names of the Senators, Congressmen, Prosecutors and other, you know, members of the legislative body? What importance did you give to this information?

MS. HERRERA. We noted that those calls that were… appeared to be monitored, became full blown during the impeachment trial.

SEN. CAYETANO. I see. And after having evaluated yourself, no, you and Mr. Pablo, this information, did you attempt to go back to your source and inquire from him or from her what he or she thought about this information that he gave you, that he or she gave you? Bumalik ba kayo doon sa informant n’yo o iyong mga nag deliver sa inyo?

MS. HERRERA. We did through phones.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, okay, you did, ha?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And what did you tell this informant or source?

MS. HERRERA. Yeah, we asked him if he has other names or other documents, and he said that he has those of the AFP, PSG, and Department of Foreign Affairs, SEC, NBI, PNP Intelligence, COMEL and others, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Well, you yourself, Ms. Herrera, mentioned “He”, I was trying to be neutral but now that you mentioned your source is a “He”. Now, what was the time gap between the first, you know, delivery to you and the evaluation, and when you called back the informant? Was it two days, an hour, several hours?

MS. HERRERA. A few days, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. A few days. And you inquired if there were other documents or were you inquiring about the first document delivered to you?

MS. HERRERA. I was inquiring about the first documents when he offered that he still has other documents and that he wanted to deliver those.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.

Now, let’s go to the first document. Are you at liberty to tell us what is it that you inquired from your informant or source, vis a vis the first batch of documents, ‘no, containing, as you said, the names of senators, prosecutors and congressmen?

MS. HERRERA. I asked him why the names of Senators Blas Ople, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Senator Tessie Oreta, Senator Jaworski and Senator Revilla were not among those documents given to us.

SEN. CAYETANO. I see. And what was the reply?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?

MS. HERRERA. He said… The source, Mr. Senator, said that the PAOCTF or the Presidential Anti Organized Crime Task Force did not need to monitor these senator judges because the President was already assured of their vote for acquittal.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Can I get the names again?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Jaworski, with the permission of Honorable Cayetano.

SEN. JAWORSKI. With the permission of Mr. Cayetano,…

SEN. CAYETANO. Gladly, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. JAWORSKI. …the honorable Senator. Well, you know, yesterday I asked this question simply because I felt that there was so much politics in this report. And the reply of the lady was simply they could not provide this information, and this subject just came about today, and I think this is unfair and malicious.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would take note of the answer of the Witness yesterday…

SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …and the Court is also invited to take note of such an answer given yesterday by the witness.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you. Now, Miss Herrera, did you inquire why your informant said that these senators’ telephone numbers were not part of the information or in the printed billing documents given to you? Did you inquire? I mean, was that his own conclusion or somebody else’s?

MS. HERRERA. The source said…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would it be Mr. Pablo who will answer?

MS. HERRERA. It was…

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source said it was his own personal conclusion.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, so it was your source’s own personal conclusion that these four mentioned senators were not included therein?

MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. How about the other prosecutors whose name did not appear in the computer printout? Did you also inquire why?

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source said he cannot get the records for the rest of the prosecutors. He was only able to get four records.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Now, so, you have — now, that was step 2, `no. You have — first one you evaluated, then you checked with your informant. Now, after having talked to your informant, you said that in addition, he gave you additional documents. I would not go to that because it may take some time. I will go again.

Now, after you have talked to your informant, what did you do next? Did you immediately report this to your editors or did you consult anybody else? Aside from those, you know, members of Congress that you mentioned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?

SEN. CAYETANO. Either one of them, Mr. Chief Justice.

MS. HERRERA. We did not immediately inform our editors about this because we were still trying to verify the information behind the claims that the source gave us. So, the next thing that we did was, we went to Congressman Golez …

SEN. CAYETANO. … Arroyo — Golez, Arroyo.

MS. HERRERA. … Congressman Golez, then we went to see the officials of the PLDT and then Congressman Arroyo and Senator Loren Legarda.

SEN. CAYETANO. Is this — when you visited these individuals, as well as the offices of the PLDT, is that again an SOP on your part? Is this part of the verification process of the authenticity of this information?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And — well, I heard about the explanation of my colleague, Senator Legarda but I haven’t heard from Mr. Golez nor from Mr. Arroyo. But when you went to the PLDT, I also looking — watching it on television yesterday because I have to have my eye checked, I note that you said you went to Mr. Pangilinan directly?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And Mr. Pangilinan was — What was the reaction of Mr. Pangilinan when you showed — Did you show the documents to Mr. Pangilinan?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor, including the calls, his own calls.

SEN. CAYETANO. And what was his reaction?

MS. HERRERA. He appeared distressed.

SEN. CAYETANO. Distressed. Is that all, distressed?

MS. HERRERA. Outraged. He was outraged.

SEN. CAYETANO. In Tagalog, ano ba iyon? Nagulat ba siya, nasindak o papaano? In Pilipino.

MS. HERRERA. Nagalit po siya.

SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit, okay. Bakit naman siya nagalit?

MS. HERRERA. Because he said, those — it’s not justified for anyone to monitor the calls of anybody because that document was confidential.

SEN. CAYETANO. Was confidential. Now, after having said that, did he make an effort to call anyone in his office?

MS. HERRERA. He was — He was actually with his — with Atty. Rey Espinosa.

SEN. CAYETANO. Alone? I mean, Espinosa alone or with somebody else?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, with Mr. Espinosa.

SEN. CAYETANO. I see. By the way, when you went to the office of Mr. Pangilinan, did you give him a call that you were going to visit him?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And did you already tell him that you have these certain documents or did you merely discuss that when you were already in the office?

MS. HERRERA. I told him we have some documents to show him that he would … I think he would find interesting. And we also wanted his comments on those documents because it appeared that those documents came from the PLDT, but the source claimed it did not come from the PLDT.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, after having shown this document to Mr. Pangilinan, he showed outrage, galit, di ba?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have the word again? Is it outrage or…

SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Angry.

SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit.

MS. HERRERA. Outraged, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. CAYETANO. Outraged, that’s my word.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have several adjectives already. Distressed, outraged, angry.

SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nagalit, okay.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, after having — By the way, how long did it take you to confer with Mr. Pangilinan? Give and take, how many minutes, an hour, two hours or so?

MS. HERRERA. Maybe more than an hour, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And then, what did Mr. Pangilinan tell you after, you know, having shown distress, outrage, galit?

MS. HERRERA. He said he would order an internal investigation.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, now, after having talked to Mr. Pangilinan, am I correct in saying that Mr. Pangilinan was the last person you saw?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. In order, after having talked to your source, ‘no, back, who did you see first?

MS. HERRERA. We went to see Congressman Golez…

SEN. CAYETANO. Golez, and then.

MS. HERRERA….and then Mr. Pangilinan…

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Pangilinan.

MS. HERRERA….and then we went back again to Mr. Golez…

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Golez.

MS. HERRERA….and then Congressman Arroyo…

SEN. CAYETANO. Congressman Arroyo.

MS. HERRERA….and Senator Legarda. In that order, sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. And… Ah, in that order.

Okay, so, Mr. Arroyo Congressman Arroyo was the last that you saw?

MS. HERRERA. Senator Legarda, sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. Was the last?

MS. HERRERA. (Nodding.)

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. And that was the time… And after having seen and talked you talked to Senator Legarda, did you not?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yeah. And after that, you went to the you talked to your editor, am I correct?

MS. HERRERA. Even while we were doing this, we gave we told our editor that we are doing something; we are doing a story and we would show you if we have already veri we would show you the evidence if we have already verified those documents.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, while you were in the process of talking to these individuals, am I correct I just want to find out, Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo, you know the process how your newspaper evaluate it and eventually decided to print this thing, ‘no.

So, while you were conferring individually with these persons that you mentioned, you have given these copies to your editors?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. No?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. When did you give it?

MS. HERRERA. We showed those documents on the day that to them, on the day that we came out, we wrote our stories.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, okay. So, after having talked to those individuals?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Then, you and Mr. Pablo came out with your story?

MS. HERRERA. We went to the office, showed the docu…

SEN. CAYETANO. Inquirer.

MS. HERRERA….to the Inquirer, showed the documents to the editors and wrote the story.

SEN. CAYETANO. And wrote the story. Okay. Now, after… Let me see, so, you showed your story to your editors, am I correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Together with all the documents?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.

SEN. CAYETANO. And the editors gave you the go signal?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. To write your story.

MS. HERRERA. Yes, but to get first the side of the PNP, and we did that.

SEN. CAYETANO. And you did that?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Which one which member of the PNP?

MS. HERRERA. We tried to reach Gen. Lacson, but we failed to reach him. So, we tried to reach his spokesman, Col. Bartolome, and Gen. Zubia. Finally, we were able to talk I was able to talk to Gen. Zubia and Mr. Pablo to Col. Bartolome.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, you gave them an opportunity to comment on the story you were about I mean, Inquirer was about to print out, is that correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Well, that’s all for now, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

SEN. CAYETANO. I want to thank Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And after that, Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. BIAZON. Miss Herrera, have you written other stories for the Inquirer on wiretapping in the past?

MS. HERRERA. I don’t think so, Your Honor. Or I’m not sure.

SEN. BIAZON. Is this the first time for you to write about wiretapping for PDI?

MS. HERRERA. I’m not sure, actually, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Would you like to take one minute to try to recall?

MS. HERRERA. I don’t think I had written any about that.

SEN. BIAZON. This is the first time…

MS. HERRERA. This is the first time, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. …for you to write stories on wiretapping?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor. What I did before maybe was reaction from the PNP about the wiretapping when there was this …

SEN. BIAZON. Of course we can check this, ‘no.

MS. HERRERA. Okay.

SEN. BIAZON. All right. Now, when the source gave you these documents, was it on your request or was it voluntary on his part?

MS. HERRERA. It was voluntary on his part, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. What was the reason he offered in volunteering to offer the documents to you?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?

SEN. BIAZON. Ms. Herrera?

MS. HERRERA. Yeah. May I refer you to Mr. Pablo, sir?

SEN. BIAZON. Yes, Mr. Pablo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo.

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source said he wants this activity exposed.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

MR. PABLO. He believed it was part of his patriotic duty to do so.

SEN. BIAZON. Right, okay.

Now, did he tell you how he got possession of these documents?

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, he simply said, “These documents are PAOCTF documents.” As to how he was able to secure these documents, we don’t know.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Did he tell you that he got it from the offices or any offices of the PAOCTF?

MR. PABLO. We left that subject as a gray area, Mr. Senator. What was important is that he has the documents and we can be able to check the authenticity of the same documents.

SEN. BIAZON. We need to clarify this because the issue at bar is whether or not some officials from agencies might be held in contempt for putting some personalities under surveillance or probably even, probably even subjecting them to wiretapping. So, it is important for us to know whether these documents came from PAOCTF or not.

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source claimed it was PAOCTF.

SEN. BIAZON. It came from PAOCTF?

MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.

SEN. BIAZON. All right. Did he tell you whether he was authorized to handle these documents or did he illegally secure the possession of these documents?

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, can you ask the question again?

SEN. BIAZON. Yeah, okay, fine. Did he tell you whether he came into possession of this document in an authorized manner or illegal manner? Ninakaw ba niya iyan doon sa PAOCTF o ano?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is your answer, Mr. Pablo?

MR. PABLO. He simply said na “it came from PAOCTF.” He got the same from PAOCTF. As to how he got them, we don’t know.

SEN. BIAZON. All right. Now, question, does he have authority or authorized access to the documents?

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, I regret I cannot answer that question.

SEN. BIAZON. What grounds?

MR. PABLO. It may lead to the identification of our sources, Mr. Senator.

SEN. BIAZON. I will end my questioning at this point. But may I just ask you, through your counsel, if the counsel or you yourselves are aware of Republic Act No. 53?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is addressed to the counsel?

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. To the counsel or to the two witnesses?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will begin first with the two witnesses. Any of the two can answer the question?

MS. HERRERA. I don’t know, Mr. Chief Justice. But may we refer you to our counsel, sir?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He is just asking for an information whether you know about that republic act.

SEN. BIAZON. Republic Act No. 53?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about you, Mr. Pablo, can you answer that question?

MR. PABLO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. No. How about your counsel?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The counsel is not under oath, Senator Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Not under oath, okay. Now, may I just, if I may be allowed, Mr. Chief Justice, to read the very short Republic Act No. 53, specifically one of the sections: “An Act to exempt publisher/editor or reporter of any publication from revealing the source of published news or information obtained in confidence.”

Section 1 reads and I quote:

“The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence or which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the Court or a House or Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.”

Now, may I ask the two witnesses. In your testimony, you had reference to a second batch of document coming from the same source which reveals telephone numbers of the Presidential Security Group, the National Intelligence Coordinating Authority, Intelligence Officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, telephone numbers in DND (Department of National Defense), this has serious national security implication. And we need to know the name of the source because this definitely has something to do with the interest of the State.

MS. HERRERA. Mr. Senator, I have been advised that that law has been amended already.

SEN. BIAZON. Right. By what? Because this is still in the books.

MS. HERRERA. But that’s…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you know the Republic Act amending…

SEN. BIAZON. …which effectively amended this?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …RA 53?

MS. HERRERA. It’s RA 1477, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. And…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. 1477.

MS. HERRERA. Natural interest, Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MS. HERRERA. “Natural interest” has been changed to “security” of the State.

SEN. BIAZON. Right. That is why I am raising the issue — I don’t think there are more compelling urgency much higher than when we talk about national security.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you ready to answer that question, Ms. Herrera or Mr. Pablo?

SEN. BIAZON. Anyway, Mr. Chief Justice,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. …I will end this question at this point in time. And I just would like this to be considered by the witness and the counsel, the point that I have raised.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And also probably by the Court itself…

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …to determine what relevance would it have or how would it affect national interest or national security.

SEN. BIAZON. We need to do this… That’s why we need to have the identity of the source because only the source can tell us the implication to national security of all of these documents considering the importance of the personalities in the Defense Department and in the security agencies that had been mentioned.

I will end at this point in time, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair had earlier recognized the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco; and after him, the Honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.

SEN. ROCO. I was going to yield, Mr. Chief Justice.

Just very briefly, I guess the issue is whether it’s a true and fair report because the questions were really bordering on whether it is true and fair.

So, may I ask the witnesses?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed now.

SEN. ROCO. Either of them can answer. The first paragraph of the article says, “Three lawmakers and the head of the Philippine Long Distance Company expressed outrage upon learning that the Estrada administration is allegedly systematically monitoring telephone calls, etcetera.” Well, is that a fact that there were three lawmakers who expressed outrage?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. So, there were three, in fact. So this is true, ‘no? And is it also a fact that the head of PLDT also expressed outrage ?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. And when you said ” allegedly,” you’re really saying you were told but you do not know whether what you were told is true?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. And that is why you used the word “allegedly?”

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Yeah, so, and it says so, in black and white, it is allegedly. There was an alleged monitoring, now. Then the second paragraph says that, “the Inquirer obtained computer printouts of billing records.” Is this true that you obtained computer printouts?

MS. HERRERA. From the source, Your Honor, yes.

SEN. ROCO. Yeah, it doesn’t say here. It doesn’t say here, “the Inquirer has obtained computer printouts of billing records.” But you did obtain, you are qualifying now that you did obtain from the source, is this correct?

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, we were furnished copies of those printouts.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, but I am just concerned with the story as written. And then, apparently, and this is now as reported, the Senior Police Intelligence officer who furnished the newspaper with a document, okay, it’s on the third paragraph. Then he says and you quote him, “This type of surveillance was aimed at complementing the wiretapping, etcetera of both perceived enemies and the potential political allies of President Estrada.” Did he really say this?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. But you don’t know whether he is telling the truth or not, correct?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.

SEN. ROCO. And I think that’s the tenor of the report. I mean, you’re reporting that you were told. We don’t know whether you believe him or not. We don’t know whether he is telling the truth or not but insofar as your story is concerned, you were told that this is supposed to be his opinion, correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. So, we can really ignore this opinion because it may or may not be true. It is just part of your narration in the news article. Correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. So, I guess that is how it should be taken. Then he also gives another opinion about the full blown surveillance, but you are not attesting to the truth of the so called full blown surveillance, correct? You’re just saying that you were told that there is supposed to be a full blown surveillance?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. I guess the same observation goes for the rest of the article. Every quotation here is true. That is a quotation told to you. But you’re not attesting that what is told to you is true or not, correct?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Did Mr. Pangilinan really say, “we are outraged, we are distressed?”

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. I guess we can, but I guess this one you actually heard. Can we believe that he was actually distressed?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Ah, so you’re reporting this as true because you heard it, you heard expression of distress?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Now, the reactions of I guess I’ll end there and I’ll not go through this. But Mr. Chief Justice, since I did ask for the for the record, I was the first one who requested a copy the records. Can I have a copy?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The one, the records just turned over…

SEN. ROCO. Yes, I’ll just examine them at leisure, while others are asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too. The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Before I ask this my questions, Mr. Chief Justice, I fully support the position of the distinguished senator from Pasay and Ilocos Sur, Senator Rodolfo Biazon. In fact, perhaps, we should examine whether this particular matter comes under the ambit of our Espionage Law because evidently, the purpose of all of these eavesdropping and analysis of document would be to spy on certain sensitive offices of the government. And if I recall correctly, I’m trying to get a copy of the Espionage Law. There are serious provisions that might be involved in this particular case but I leave that for some other time.

I just would like to address some more questions to these two witnesses because yesterday, in answer to my question, I asked for a period during which this computer printout of records of billings covered and they said that it started in October of this year. But as I went over this story it would seem to me that in the case of Governor Singson, it says here, “The records of Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, the prosecution’s chief witness in the President’s Impeachment Trial are half an inch thick and cover calls that – and cover calls that he made from March to October”, is this correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. So the period that is reflected in the records, in the so-called computer printouts of billing records, would span a period from March of this year to what date?

MS. HERRERA. November, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Of this year?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.

SEN. ENRILE. All right. Is there any written analysis by the PAOCTF or by the Senior Police Intelligence Officer with respect to this so-called “computer records of a printout” – what do you call it?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Printouts.

SEN. ENRILE. Computer printouts of billing records that came into your possession?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor. None.

SEN. ENRILE. There was no analysis at all attached to this document by anyone?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor. No.

SEN. ENRILE. It was purely the document known as “computer printouts of billing records” that was handed to you with some editorial comments from this so-called “Senior Police Intelligence Officer?”

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. In your story, you said the documents show that phone units being monitored include those of the Senate offices, private offices and residences of Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel, and fellow Senators Franklin Drilon, Teofisto Guingona, Raul Roco, Rodolfo Biazon, Loren Legarda, Renato Cayetano, Juan Flavier, Robert Barbers and Sergio Osmeña III. In the case of Senator Franklin Drilon, do you know when the surveillance from his phones started?

MS. HERRERA. I’m not sure, Your Honor. I have to refer to the records.

SEN. ENRILE. It would appear in the record?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Will you please go over those records and tell us please, with the permission of the Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, do you have copies of the records, Madam Witness?

MS. HERRERA. We only have one copy, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And from that one copy, would you be able to answer the question?

MS. HERRERA. We’ll have to review it, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. ENRILE. Will you go over the name of Senator Franklin Drilon and tell us from when did the so called monitorings start?

MS. HERRERA. We already turned over the records, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. May we ask permission from the Chair to allow the witness to go over the record?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Secretary is now directed to probably retrieve the records in the meantime from the Honorable Senator Roco because the witness would need the records in the meantime.

So, with the permission of Honorable Roco…

SEN. ROCO. Yes, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …the Senate Secretary will have to get back the records to be shown to the witness.

Give them to the witness.

You can use the table for that purpose, Madam Witness, so it will be easy for you to locate the corresponding pages.

Do not try to segregate the page, it might distort the arrangements already made when the documents were submitted, just fold it.

MS. HERRERA. It appears, Your Honor, that the call details or the calls made were not attached, only the cover paper was.

SEN. ENRILE. What do you mean by that?

MS. HERRERA. No details given, Your Honor, only the cover.

SEN. ENRILE. No. I just want the starting point when they started monitoring Senator Drilon’s telephone calls. Was it…

MS. HERRERA. It’s not indicated in the document, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Do you recall if it started after he made a call for resignation or even before that?

MS. HERRERA. I can’t say that, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. How about the Senate President, when was his telephone numbers started to be monitored? Was it after he was elected Senate President or before?

MS. HERRERA. What was the question again, Mr. Senator?

SEN. ENRILE. I’m interested about the monitoring of the Senate President. When did that monitoring start?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, the Honorable Senate President Aquilino Pimentel, Jr?

SEN. ENRILE. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

MS. HERRERA. It appears that the record here, sir, says that the calls were made October 31 up to November 15.

SEN. ENRILE. October 31 up to November 15. In the case of Senator Drilon, you cannot determine?

MS. HERRERA. There was no record, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. How about Senator Juan Ponce Enrile?

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the telephone line indicated here is apparently located at the Bureau of Customs Building, Allied Port Services Incorporated. There are two calls reflected here. One is August 8, the other is September 4.

SEN. ENRILE. August 8. So that is my Marsman Building office. Is that the only number they are monitoring? Not my residence?

MR. PABLO. This is the only record we have, Mr. Senator.

SEN. ENRILE. That’s the only record. And how many telephone numbers did that customs building telephone number office of Senator Enrile called?

MR. PABLO. The telephone number called from this office?

SEN. ENRILE. Yeah. How many? How many? I am just asking the number of calls made from that office, as reflected?

MR. PABLO. Based on the paper I have there are only two calls.

SEN. ENRILE. Two calls. They do not say what type of calls were those and who were called and what was the conversation?

MR. PABLO. No, Mr. Senator.

SEN. ENRILE. So there was no tapping, just the telephone number of the caller and the telephone number of the person called, is that it?

MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you mean by “Yes?”

MR. PABLO. Yes…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was or there was none?

MR. PABLO. There was no tapping.

SEN. ENRILE. Was the name of the Vice President included in that report?

MR. PABLO. We have no records, Mr. Senator.

SEN. ENRILE. The records do not show the name of the Vice President.

MR. PABLO. No, Mr. Senator.

SEN. ENRILE. That will be all, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

Any further questions? The Honorable Senator Judge Leviste, then after that the Honorable Senator Judge Osmeña.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Just to recap your very lengthy testimony, I would just like to clarify the meat of your story, Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo, is the alleged illegal sourcing of documents which are purportedly private and confidential from PLDT? Is that correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And you had interviewed three lawmakers, including myself, two of whom are in the Lower House, who are allied with the opposition, is that correct?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And you merely sought the comments of the three lawmakers which is customary in journalism practice, to be able to get their comments, but even if you had not, the meat of your story stays, is that not correct?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. If you had, in your judgment, interviewed administration lawmakers whether from the Senate or the Lower House and they would have given you their comments, would your story still be the same? The meat of your story.

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes, because the meat of your story is the alleged illegal sourcing of supposedly technical, private and confidential records of the PLDT.

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. You have also interviewed Mr. Manny Pangilinan who verified or confirmed the authenticity of the documents which was in your custody?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And had you not also observed the maxim in the journalism profession of fairness and balance by trying to secure the side of the PAOCTF or the PNP, is that not correct?

MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes. Thank you. That’s all, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor. Now is the turn of the Honorable Senator Judge Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Just to clarify something before I proceed with the other questions which is really the reason why I stood up. The witness testified in response to the question of Senator Judge Leviste that the meat of the story was the surveillance operation. So, I would like to know from the witness, how would you reconcile the headline of your newspaper which is: SOLONS OUTRAGED BY SURVEILLANCE. The headline has to do with the outrage of the three opposition solons that she consulted. So, where is the meat of the story? Is it the outrage or the surveillance?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Mrs. Herrera.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Herrera.

MS. HERRERA. We merely wrote the story, Your Honor. We didn’t do the headline.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). But your editors apparently thought that the more important aspect was the outrage and not the story. That’s what the headline shows.

MS. HERRERA. I do not know that.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). You do not do that. Very well. Thank you.

Now, to my particular concerns. If a politician, a congressman, a senator, or any, municipal, local government official were to hand you money in consideration for your writing a story showing that particular person’s interest, would you accept the money?

MS. HERRERA. We don’t accept bribes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Very good. Is it not a fact that it is the policy of your publication, the Inquirer, a commendable policy that you are prohibited from accepting direct bribery, is that not correct?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). How about indirect bribery?

MS. HERRERA. Both direct and indirect, sir, are prohibited.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Does your paper know that your husband works for Senator Leviste and the wife of Carlito Pablo works for Congressman Golez?

MS. HERRERA. In the case of my husband, sir, yes.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). In the case of the wife of Carlito?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo, would you answer the question?

MR. PABLO. Some people in the office know about the employment of my wife.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Does your office, therefore, not consider that the situation wherein your spouses work for politicians, collect regular salaries constitutes indirect bribery?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The first to answer will be Madam Herrera.

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then Mr. Pablo.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). They do not consider it or they do not know?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is your answer, Madam Herrera?

MS. HERRERA. Both, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Ah, so, they do not consider it indirect bribery?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). But they know?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). And they acquiesce to this practice?

MS. HERRERA. I can not speak for the Inquirer management, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). All right. Now, would you, as a professional journalist not…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, I understand the question was also directed to Mr. Pablo?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. PABLO. Same answer, Mr. Senator.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Would you, as a professional journalist, Mrs. Herrera, not think that your work would be biased because your husband is employed by a senator?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you too. The Honorable Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I had wanted to pass on to the next witness but just because some points were raised by Senator Judge Osmeña on the story itself, perhaps we need to clarify just a couple of points.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we’d like to know from the two witnesses whether the story bearing their joint byline appears in this issue of the Inquirer, December 18, as written by the two reporters.

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. You wrote the lead of the story.

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor, we talked about the lead.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. The lead. The story… This is the first time the story broke. This is not a follow up story.

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. So, the…

MS. HERRERA. Are you referring to the December 18 issue?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Yes. So, the story here is the alleged systematic monitoring of telephone calls of Senator Judges. This is the story?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. But the lead has to do with the so called outrage of senators who know nothing about the truth or falsity of your report.

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, it was journalistic style.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. So this is the spin? Is the spin?

MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. It’s meant to catch attention, it is not meant to tell the truth?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the answer, Mr. Pablo or Madam Herrera?

MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the story can speak for itself.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. It does. Indeed, it does a lot and it leaves a lot to be desired as far as regular journalistic canon is concerned. Anyway, that’s the last question, Mr. Chief Justice. Perhaps, we can…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I would just like to know if we will be provided with the copies of the documents?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, copies of the documents will be provided each of the members of the Impeachment Court.

SEN. SOTTO. Okay, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To include, of course, the Presiding Officer, too and the Senate President.

The Honorable Senator Judge Oreta.

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Mr. Chief Justice, this may not be relevant or this may not be within the confines of the investigation this morning, but I would just like to inform the Impeachment Court that right now they are picketing my office at Ermita Building. So, it’s the same case as Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who are picketing your office?

SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. I just got a call now, Mr. Chief Justice, that there are some people. Well, I don’t have the details yet but they are there going around and picketing my office. They are there in front of my office at Ermita Building here at Roxas Boulevard, Mr. Chief Justice. I would just like to inform the Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. One question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from the Senate President on that matter.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me. Just one question addressed to Miss Herrera, please, if you will.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, as a matter of personal privilege.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yeah, okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, with the permission of the rest, the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Also, yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice and Mr. Senate President, I was the object of picket. I had taken photographs of all the picketers. They are members of Akbayan, an organization known as Akbayan and I have the photographs of these people and I would like to state that one of the placards says, “Senador o Bentador,” meaning it was actually a slur to my person that I am selling my impartiality, my loyalty, my personal individual independent decision in this particular case. I am not one who is easily shaken or taken by all of these. I just want to put that into the record because I think the Senate, as a body, being the Court in this particular impeachment trial should take note of these things not only for the sake of those like us who are being pilloried but for the sake of those who will come after us so that we will know how to handle things like this. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly to peaceably petition the authorities for redress of grievances, I think, this right is not unlimited or unrestricted. It must be cannalized in order to prevent it from overflowing, Mr. Chief Justice. And I do hope that the Impeachment Court will exercise its wisdom and prerogatives to protect the interest of the individual members of the Court. Otherwise, we are going to be the subject of march. I think all of these activities are intended for nothing else but to pressure us to decide the case according to their will, according to their viewpoint, according to their desires, according to what they want to happen in this particular proceeding. And as far as I am concerned, I’m not going to be pressured. I will decide this case according to my own, individual choice, regardless of anything, including removal of my life from this earth.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer is proposing to call a caucus of the Impeachment Court to thresh out this issue. But the Presiding Officer, however, recommends that the Senate itself, as a legislative body, should also consider this issue because the Honorable Members of the Impeachment Court hold, each holds, two official capacities as Impeachment Court judges and as legislators in the Senate. And the acts complained of would affect the senators in both official capacities. So, the two bodies must act separately to confront this specific issue.

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, the Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. So, Mr. Chief Justice. But I think that it’s fine that we really are performing under two identities: legislator and as a Court. But here, the immediate effect on us are as members of the Court. And we notice that both sides of this controversy are trying to mount mass actions to acquire the effect that had just been described by Senator Enrile, the gentleman from Cagayan. And I think that it is the Court as the Impeachment Court that can cause immediate action from the government to take measures to ensure the individual and collective integrity of the Impeachment Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Is the Court not, under the principles of law, empowered to issue orders to appropriate agencies to do just this, to ensure the safety, the well being, and more importantly, the integrity, individual and collective integrity of the Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a matter of fact, Your Honor, that was precisely the message the Presiding Officer wanted to convey when it suggested its intention to call a caucus of the Impeachment Court.

So, the Senate President is recommending that we shall have that caucus for that issue tomorrow at 12:00 o’clock.

The Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, from the beginning of our discussions on the impeachment process, it was very important to be conscious that it is a public, judicial, and political process.

The reason I call attention to this, again, Mr. President and Mr. Chief Justice, is because even when it was put in the American Constitution, there was a consciousness that impeachment per se tends to divide and it will generate passions. Because one who is elected with 10 million votes, as was pointed out, will be removed by 16 or 15 so that the equivalent when you put it on a per capita basis is one vote here is equivalent to, maybe, 700,000 or maybe 500,000, whatever it is.

So, passions and the reactions of our people is part and parcel of the impeachment process.

The reason we are reacting, Mr. President and Mr. Chief Justice, is because it is the first time it has happened. We are not used to being subjected to the scrutiny but this is the cleansing process that will possibly give some positive effect to this impeachment procedure, Mr. President Mr. Chief Justice.

And I’m only concerned I don’t want to give the impression that when we hold a caucus therefore then we start talking about secret manueverings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, Your Honor, the idea of a caucus is precisely for the Impeachment Court to determine what are the parameters or the effects of the activities being complained of. We are not trying to prevent anyone from exercising his or her right under the Constitution. But I think it is very important that we should meet in caucus so we can approach it in a better way.

SEN. ROCO. We are not objecting, Mr. Chief Justice. All I’m saying is that all of us are subject to pressure and all of us must put some effort to understand the milieu and the passions of our own people.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we can take that up tomorrow during the caucus.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Just one question to Ms. Herrera.

I saw in one of the newspapers I don’t know if it was in the Inquirer today you had a picture showing Police Director General Lacson with you. Did you see that?

MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Were you being threatened by Mr. Lacson in any manner?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. What were you talking about?

MS. HERRERA. It was confidential, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. What do you mean confidential? Please. I mean, we respect your right as a journalist not to reveal sources, but conversations, how can that be confidential, Ms. Herrera. Please, you have to come clean before this Court, Ms. Herrera.

MS. HERRERA. He was asking for my source, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right, okay. So, that’s better. So, there was no threat at all against your person?

MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader. It’s 12:17 in the afternoon.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move that we now dispense with these witnesses and…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Witness Herrera and Mr. Witness Pablo, you are now excused and thank you for your cooperation and also to counsel, Attorney Palabrica.

MS. HERRERA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. PABLO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. PALABRICA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. We have other witnesses, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Are they ready?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Either Mr. Pangilinan or Director General Lacson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Whom would you want to call? Would you have the time for the termination of the testimony of this witness?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. We can only begin the testimony. I don’t believe if we are to break at one o’clock, we have less than one hour.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. The other judges would like to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. … call Director General Panfilo Lacson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call General Lacson as the next witness.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Before we hear Director General Panfilo Lacson, may we inquire into the commitments of our birthday celebrant today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the commitment is, we shall have the resumption of the trial at 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. But is not the Presiding Officer needed before one o’clock somewhere else?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, public duty should come first.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I’m sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have now the witness. The Secretary of the Senate should administer the oath now.

THE SECRETARY. Please raise your right hand. Do you, Director General Panfilo Lacson, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, and particularly in reference to phone bugging, wiretapping, and electronics surveillance, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

MR. LACSON. I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now sit down, Mr. Witness. Would you please state your name.

MR. LACSON. Your Honor, I am Police Director General Panfilo Moreno Lacson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your age.

MR. LACSON. Fifty-two (52) years old.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your status.

MR. LACSON. Married.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your residence.

MR. LACSON. Care of Camp Crame, Quezon City, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your profession or occupation.

MR. LACSON. I am a police officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we have again your present position in the government?

MR. LACSON. I am the Chief of the National Police, concurrently Chief of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The purpose why you were subpoenaed here was mentioned to you by the Senate Secretary. So, any member of the Court who would wish to ask questions?

We will have first the Honorable Senator Guingona, and then after that, the Honorable Senator Biazon, and the Honorable Senator Roco.

The Honorable Guingona may now proceed.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Director General Lacson, is it true that there are two types of surveillance and monitoring?

MR. LACSON. That is correct, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. I am referring to the frequency bugging of landline phones, one, and the other is the scanning.

MR. LACSON. I thought you are referring to surveillance in general, Your Honor. There are two kinds. It’s the physical surveillance and technical surveillance, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. What does the – what do they involve, the two?

MR. LACSON. Physical surveillance is the actual physical tailing of subjects or suspects while technical surveillance may involve photographic surveillance and other surveillance with the use of technical equipment, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. How is frequency bugging of landline phones conducted?

MR. LACSON. I don’t have a personal idea or knowledge on that, Your Honor. I have my own staff in charge of such thing. But may I add, Your Honor, that we resort to technical surveillance, particularly wiretapping, when we are given the court order to do so…

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes.

MR. LACSON. … under the provisions of Republic Act 4200.

SEN. GUINGONA. Do you have two army officers by the names of Lt. Col. Diosdado Reyes?

MR. LACSON. Dioscoro, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Dioscoro Reyes?

MR. LACSON. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And Capt. Ariel Morada assigned with the PAOCTF?

MR. LACSON. I am not familiar with Capt. Morada but the head of the Technical Division is Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Can you please explain – was this Dioscoro Reyes the subject of controversy because he did not pass through the AFP chain of commands in this promotion?

MR. LACSON. I am not aware of that, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. May we know his exact duties?

MR. LACSON. He is the chief of the Technical Investigation Division of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Does it include inter … monitoring and surveillance?

MR. LACSON. Technical surveillance, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. May we request, Mr. Chief Justice, that this officer, Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes, be issued a subpoena to appear.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To appear on what particular day?

SEN. GUINGONA. At any date that’s convenient. Tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Tomorrow?

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary, rather, the Legal Officer of the Senate is requested to prepare the subpoena ad testificandum only?

SEN. GUINGONA. Duces tecum, if he can bring with him the screen prints and the detailed records of all surveillances from…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What kind of surveillances. Because the witness had described the different kinds of surveillance. Because the subpoena ad testificandum, duces tecum, if the latter would be included would have to define exactly and enumerate correctly the documents sought to be presented and produced.

SEN. GUINGONA. May I go to that later.

MR. LACSON. May I make a statement, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Mr. Witness.

MR. LACSON. I think there is an assumption that the printouts of call detail records indeed emanated from the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force. I think that’s a wrong assumption. I am here to categorically deny the involvement of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force in any or all of these activities as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. As a matter of fact, I offered to put my job on the line if there is proof to show that we indeed participated in any or all of these activities.

By the way, Your Honor. May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you may proceed.

MR. LACSON. We conducted our own investigation on the matter of the acquisition of this call detail record and we have our own positive preliminary findings on the matter. We were able to identify the PLDT employee responsible for giving out these printouts and we are now on the tail of the PNP officer, the so-called “source,” and we are slowly closing in on him and we will divulge the identity in due time. But in the meantime, I’m prepared to identify the PLDT employee and I suggest that she be summoned by this Court to enlighten the senator-judges on the real score on this particular issue as written by the Inquirer. She is Flodina S. Pasamba. She’s an employee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How do you spell the name?

MR. LACSON. F-L-O-D-I-N-A S. Pasamba. She’s an employee of the CO of Ortigas in Greenhills, Your Honor. Central Office.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Central Office of…?

MR. LACSON. Of PLDT, Your Honor. She committed a mistake of not omitting the portion wherein the user ID was indicated in one of the printouts. Because when the news broke out, I borrowed from Miss Herrera the original copies of the documents and she obliged. We were able to secure the copies of the originals and we noticed in one of the documents, particularly the telephone number of Congressman Ace Barbers and I’d like to show or point out to the Court this particular document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Congressman who?

MR. LACSON. There is really no perfect crime, Your Honor.

Robert Ace Barbers. There is a number here and we sought the help of PLDT in identifying who was responsible in generating this printout from the computer, and she was identified. And we will point out to you later on circumstantially, that is, who the contact is in the PNP. As to the motive, we will have to determine the motive.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. May I continue?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a request on the part of the witness for the issuance of a subpoena to Miss Flodina F. Pasamba. What is the pleasure of the Impeachment Court?

SEN. ROCO. May we move, Mr. President, that it be granted to support whatever the story of the witness may be.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That we issue the subpoena?

SEN. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, if the body will so support.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Presiding Officer would direct the issuance of a subpoena.

MR. LACSON. May I…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. LACSON. May I proceed further, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. Not yet. On the issuance yet. The Legal Officer is directed to prepare the subpoena ad testificandum to Flotina F. Pasamba of the central office of the PLDT requiring her to appear before the Impeachment Court and to testify at 2:00 o’clock tomorrow aft… ay, no, morning. It should be morning.

SEN. GUINGONA. Morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the continuation of this incident, 10:30 o’clock in the morning of 21 December.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. With the indulgence of our distinguished Minority Leader and everyone in the Court, it is not everyday that the Chief Justice turns 65 years old. And today, I understand the Supreme Court has prepared a lunch in his honor, so I will beg the understanding of everyone here that we suspend our proceedings as of now to allow the Presiding Officer to fulfill his commitments and move that we resume this incident…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I would like to get the conformity of the honorable Minority Leader for that and the entire Body because insofar as the Presiding Officer is concerned, he can work with you until one o’clock as we have agreed upon.

THE MINORITY LEADER. With full conformity, Your Honor please, with full conformity. But I would just like to request, reiterate our request for the subpoena also of Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Will you kindly, Your Honor, give the names of these people to be subpoenaed for their appearance also tomorrow at 10:30 in the morning…

THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … to Atty. Yap of the Legal Office.

THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And if there are any documents to be produced by him, just specify the documents.

THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes, Your Honor. So, may we just continue with the witness tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, in the meantime, General Lacson is excused but advised to come back tomorrow for the continuation of the testimony at 10:30 o’clock in the morning.

MR. LACSON. Thank you, Your Honor. Happy birthday, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, thank you.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. May we add to that, Mr. Chief Justice, the other witnesses as well.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the other witnesses too. The Secretary of the Senate is directed to notify Mr. Pangilinan, General Fortuno and General Calimlim, also to be ready tomorrow because they were issued subpoenas.

Yes, the Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. The proposal from Senator-Judge Roco is to call Mr. Pangilinan tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Tomorrow.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. And the others may be temporarily excused because we may not have the material…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. So, is that the… Yes.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I am sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, I am getting my signals from…

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what is the signal?

SEN. ROCO. There is no way I think that we will finish with this witness tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I doubt.

SEN. ROCO. So, all other witnesses can come back when we request them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later? What about the persons to be subpoenaed upon request by the Minority Leader?

SEN. ROCO. Ah, let them be called because it will support his story. But since there is no way, I think even if we spend two hours, that we will finish with…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the honorable Senator Guingona, would you be willing to have the two other witnesses to be subpoenaed upon your request to come not tomorrow but the day after?

SEN. ROCO. Yeah, let’s finish with him.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And, therefore, to focus our hearing tomorrow only on the witness, General Lacson.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes, Your Honor, except for one, maybe, one more.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Police Director General.

THE MINORITY LEADER. Just one more.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE MINORITY LEADER. Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, only for that witness then, Atty. Yap, and probably, we could have the two tomorrow. Thank you.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. So, we move then to suspend this particular incident till 10:30 tomorrow. But the Impeachment Court resumes at 2:30 this afternoon for the trial proper.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The incident heard this morning is suspended until tomorrow at 10:30 o’clock in the morning and the trial proper will be at 2:30 o’clock this afternoon as agreed upon yesterday.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, suspended until 2:30 o’clock for purposes of the trial. Thank you.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 12:35 P.M.

Impeachable Crimes (Prof. Dwight)

TRIAL BY IMPEACHMENT

by
Prof. Theodore W. Dwight

Source: The American Law Register (1852-1891), Vol. 15, No. 5, New Series Volume 6 (Mar., 1867), pp. 257-283.

II. The crimes for which an impeachment may be had.-Upon this topic it is important to make two inquiries: first, what were the subjects under the English law which could be tried by impeachment; second, what cases under our system can be tried in this manner.

In examining the first question, it must be conceded that the judgments of the courts are not absolutely uniform. This could hardly be expected, both because there is no system of appeal by means of which authoritative precedents could be established, and because the House of Lords has been at times impelled by faction or overborne by importunity or overawed by fear. The weight of authority is therefore to be followed. So said the great Selden, in a speech which he made as one of the committee of the House in the impeachment of Ratcliffe. ” It were better to examine this matter according to the rules and foundations of this House than to rest upon scattered instances:” 4 How. S. T. 47. The decided weight of authority is, that no impeachment will lie except for a true crime, or, in other words, for a breach of the common or statute law, which, if committed within any county of England, would be the subject of indictment or information. This proposition is plainly inferred from the doctrine already established, that impeachment is simply a method of procedure. It presupposes the existence of the crime for the redress of which a trial is instituted. What would have been the check upon the most arbitrary action of the House of Lords, if it might decide the existence of a common-law crime without reference to already settled rules ? This tribunal was only rarely called to act-during the reign of the Tudor family its functions were entirely suspended. The rules of the common-law courts were in daily discussion and exercise. The fundamental distinction between felonies and misdemeanors was fully recognised by the House of Lords in cases of impeachment. It is asserted, without fear of successful contradiction, both upon authority and principle, notwithstanding a few isolated instances apparently to the contrary, that no impeachment can be had where the King’s Bench would not have held that a crime had been committed, had the case been properly before it. There are no doubt extreme cases favoring an opposite view. Thus, the Duke of Richmond was impeached in 1641, among other frivolous charges, on the ground that he had proposed an adjournment while a member of the House of Lords. The Commons were so offended with him for attempting to check, the enactment of a bill which they had much at heart, that they accompanied the impeachment with a petition to the king to remove the duke from all offices of public trust, in which petition the Lords refused to join: 4 How. S. T. 120. This is but the excess of the lower House, resolved that no obstacle shall stand in the way of its shortest path to its destined goal. In early times a quarrel between great noblemen excited the interest of the public to such an extent, that the matter was brought up for disposition in Parliament. In such a feud between the Bishop of Winchester and the Duke of Gloucester (A. D. 1451), there was a formal award of acquittal of the party accused, and the Lords ” enjoined them to be firm friends for the future, and by such inducements wrought upon them that they shook hands, and parted with all outward signs of love and agreement * * which gave a mighty satisfaction to all people:” 1 How. S. T. 152. Perhaps no more ingenious plan has been devised to settle the strifes of embittered politicians, since, while it soothes the spirit, it secures notoriety.

A strong instance of the exercise of a broad power of impeachment is found in the last charge of a series made by the Commons against one of the worthless judges of Charles II.’s reign, Ch. J. SCROGGS. Its words are: “Whereas, said W. Scroggs being advanced to be chief justice of the Court of King’s Bench, ought by a sober, grave, and virtuous conversation, to have given a good example to the King’s liege people, and to demean himself answerable to the dignity of so eminent a station; yet he, the said Sir W. Scroggs, on the contrary, by his frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries, and his profane and atheistical discourses, doth daily affront Almighty God, dishonor his Majesty, give countenance and encouragement to all manner of vice and wickedness, and bring the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom.” This was an article in an impeachment for high treason ! The articles were never tried, so that they only serve to show how far the doctrine of ” constructive treason” may be pushed by ingenious committees: 13 Lords Journals 737.

The danger of a loose construction of the judicial power of a legislative body was most strikingly shown when the House of Commons during the revolution, in consequence of the abolition of the House of Lords, had centered within it both the power of impeachment and the power of trial. At the trial of James Nay-lor, an insane ranter, who would now be sent to a lunatic asylum, there was a large minority voting to put him to death for blasphemy. The majority prevailed by deciding to whip him, set him in the pillory, bore his tongue through with a hot iron, and to confine him in Bridewell at hard labor.

Undoubtedly some cases which at the present time appear inexplicable on any sound theory, depended on a construction of statutes now forgotten, or upon a violation of official oaths, or a perverted application of legal rules to instances not properly governed by them. Thus, a prominent citizen of London was impeached for presenting a petition to Parliament, which now seems quite harmless ; but it was asserted to be a seditious libel, and consequently criminal.: 4 How. S. T. 152.

While the irregular cases upon this subject are few, the rule that a true crime must have been committed is settled beyond dispute. This is clearly shown by the way in which the House of Commons when flushed with power or chafed with indignation rebel against it. Over and over again they assert that the great statute of 25 Edw. III., defining treason, is not applicable to trial by impeachment. They plausibly maintained that the statute was only for the courts of ordinary criminal justice ; and that the statute itself applied a different rule to trial by impeachment. But the law was settled after the most extended and prolonged discussion in favor of the doctrine that the court of impeachment must administer the same law as the criminal court: 12 How. S. T. 1213; 6 Id. 346. Thus the Earl of Orrery was not tried in A. D. 1669, as the offence charged was thought not sufficient to Constitute treason, and the case was directed to be heard in a court of law: 6 How. S. T. 91T.

The stringency of these rules often led the Houses, when under excitement, to pass Bills of Attainder. They could enact that an obnoxious person was guilty, if they could not prove his offence. This course was resorted to in the well-known case of the Earl of Strafford. So, too, when the Earl of Clarendon in Charles II.’s time could not be successfully impeached, the king intended to bring him before the Court of the Lord High Steward, which could be organized so as to secure a conviction: 3 Campbell’s Lord Chancellors 243-4, Lond. ed. 1848.

The later and most authoritative decisions are clear to this effect. In the impeachment of the Earl of Macclesfield, who was a great lawyer and at one time Lord Chancellor, the case was put exclusively on such criminality as is the subject of an indictment. It was argued that he had violated the statute of 6 Ed. VI., c. 16,concerning the administration of justice, while he rested his defence on the fact, that it was not criminal for a judge to receive presents either by common or statute law. The decision of this case against Macclesfield is criticised by Lord Mahon and others, but is defended by Campbell, on the ground that the statute of Ed. VI. was violated: 16 How. S. T. 823; 4 Camp. Lord Chan. 536. This is one of the best-considered cases on the subject, and preceded the formation of our Constitution by only a few years.

The last case of impeachment in England, that of Lord Melville in 1806 for malversation in office, is very instructive. The question was put to the judges whether the acts with which he was charged were unlawful so as to be the subject of information or indictment. It having been decided that they were not, Lord Melville was acquitted: 29 How. S. T. 1470. These last two decisions, made when there was an entire absence of party feeling and the court acted throughout with judicial impartiality, deservedly outweigh scores of instances, if they could be produced, which have occurred in the heat and frenzy of a revolution.

The court in general relies with close dependence upon the opinion of the common-law judges on the law of crime and criminal evidence, often exacting their continuous attendance to the detriment of other public business.

The text-writers and leading jurists are of the same opinion. Says Wooddeson : ” The trial differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior courts. The same rules of evidence, the same, legal notions of crimes and punishments, prevail. For impeachments are not framed to alter the law, but to carry it into more effectual execution where it might be obstructed by the influence of too powerful delinquents or not easily discerned in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction by reason of the peculiar quality of the alleged crimes. The judgment thereof is to be such as is warranted by legal principles or precedents:” Lectures, vol. 2, p. 611. So Cushing, in his ” Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies,” says: ” The proceedings are conducted substantially as they are upon common judicial trials as to the admission or rejection of testimony, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and the legal doctrines as to crimes and misdemeanors§ 2569. Lord Chancellor COWPER, in an impeachment case not long before our revolution (A. D. 1715), said: ” Though one of your Lordships supposes this impeachment to be out of the ordinary and common course of law and justice, it is yet as much a course of proceeding according to the common law as any other whatever. If you had been indicted, the indictment must have been removed and brought before the House of Lords, Parliament sitting. In that case, it is true, you had been accused by the grand jury of one county; in the present, the whole body of the commons of Great Britain by their representatives are your accusers:” 4 Hatsell 295.

The framers of the New York Constitution of A. D. 1777 held this view, for they couple together in the same sentence, impeachments and indictments, as though they were only modes of trial. ” In every trial on impeachment or indictment for crimes or misdemeanors, the party impeached or indicted shall be allowed counsel as in civil actions:” Art. 34.

I have dwelt the longer on this point because many seem to think that a public officer can be impeached for a mere act of indecorum. On the contrary, he must have committed a true crime, not against the law of England but against the law of the United States. As impeachment is nothing but a mode of trial, the Constitution only adopts it as a mode of procedure, leaving the crimes to which it is to be applied to be settled by the general rules of criminal law.

A basis for a very important conclusion has now been laid. It is this: as there are under the laws of the United States no common-law crimes, but only those which are contrary to some positive statutory rule, there can be no impeachment except for a violation of a law of Congress or for the commission of a crime named in the constitution. English precedents concerning impeachable crimes are consequently not applicable.

There was for a long time a fluctuation of opinion on the point whether the common law crimes did not exist under the general government. Justice Story lent the great weight of his influence to the opinion in favor of their existence. His discussion of the subject of impeachment rests upon this view. Mr. Rawle is of the same opinion. Both of these eminent writers admit that if there are no common-law crimes for which indictments can be brought, there are none for which impeachments can be instituted. Mr. Rawle is especially clear upon this point. ” The doctrine that there is no law of crimes except that founded in statutes renders impeachment a nullity in all cases except the two expressly mentioned in the constitution, treason and bribery, until Congress shall pass laws declaring what shall constitute the other high crimes and misdemeanors:” Rawle on the Constitution, p. 273, ed. 1829 ; Story on the Constitution, title ” Impeachment.”

That there are no crimes against the United States which are not statutory, is fully proved by a great number of cases collected by Mr. Wharton in his work on Criminal Law. Though he dissents from this view, he acknowledges that it is settled by the decisions: §§ 163-174. The decisions of the Senate, as a court of impeachment, should not be regarded as adverse to this view. In the three cases already tried, of Pickering, Chase, and Blount, only one, Pickering, was condemned. His case was heard ex parte, as he did not appear, and was decided by a strict party vote : 2 Hildreth’s History 518. As far as precedent is concerned, the question in that court is still open and should be decided in accordance with principle.1

The result is, that unless the crime is specifically named in the constitution, impeachments like indictments can only be instituted for crimes committed against the statutory law of the United States.

Estrada Impeachment January 9, 2001 Transcripts

RESUMPTION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 09, 2001

At 2:02 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE RESUMPTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS [MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ]. Please all rise for the entrance of the Senator-Judges.

Please remain standing for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., and the Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER [CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE]. The trial of the impeachment of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now called to order.

We will be led in prayer by the honorable Senator-Judge Sergio R. Osmeña III.

PRAYER

SEN. OSMEÑA (S).

Dear Lord, for over a month now, the members of this Chamber have held court as a tribunal sitting in judgment over the President of our country.

Each one of us has been subjected to tremendous pressure from forces within and without–to render a verdict that may not be in keeping with the dictates of our conscience.

At this time, the evidence is not all in and it is impossible to arrive at a fair and impartial judgment.

I don’t know how my colleagues may vote. But whatever my individual judgment may be, it will not be influenced by the protesters in the streets; nor the heavy amounts of mail received; nor the importunings of relatives and friends however well-meaning they might be.

My vote will be influenced by my concern over the future of my children and all Filipino children; whether they will have an opportunity to live in a decent society; whether I shall be imparting to them the right set of values; and whether I shall have displayed a mode of behavior in public and in private which they can proudly emulate.

May Your loving hand, O Lord, gently but surely, guide the heart and mind of every member of this Tribunal so that each may be able to discern the truth according to Your light and will be infected by the courage You displayed on Calvary. Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated.

The Sergeant at Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary is directed to call the case.

THE SECRETARY [MR. BARBO]. Impeachment Case No. 001-2000 entitled, In the Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader is recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER [SEN. TATAD]. Mr. Chief Justice, may I invite the parties to the Impeachment Trial to enter anew their appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are hereby directed to enter their appearance.

REP. APOSTOL. Same appearances for the Prosecution. We are ready, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. DAZA. For the Defense, same appearances. Ready.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before proceeding to the trial proper, the Court will consider the following pleadings: To note the concurring opinion of the honorable Senator-Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste on the Extended Order issued by the Presiding Officer on 2 January 2001; Note the Compliance from Mr. Victor Q. Lim, branch banking head, Citibank NA, Philippine Branch and authorized representative of Ms. Catherine Weir, the country corporate officer, Citibank, stating that Citibank has submitted to the Secretary of the Senate documents subject of subpoena duces tecum issued to Ms. Weir on 4 January 2001; Note the letter dated 5 January 2001 from the Presiding Officer, addressed to the Honorable Harriet O. Demetriou, Chairperson of the Commission on Elections, referring to the latter the undated letter of the Honorable Feliciano S. Belmonte, Head, Prosecution Panel, requesting exemption from the gun ban in favor of the security personnel of the Prosecution panel.

In relation thereto, the Chair would like to inform the members of the Prosecution panel that the Comelec had sent to the Office of the Chief Justice application forms for exemption from the gun ban.

The Presiding Officer will consider together Item 4 of F and Item II of roman numeral…on page 3 of the Supplemental Agenda. These are respectively: the Urgent Motion to Quash, Re: Urgent Request for the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum to Ruben Almadro; Urgent Request for the Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum to Jose Luis Yulo; and Urgent Request for the Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum to Mary Ann Corpuz, filed by the Defense panel before the Office of the Senate Legal Counsel, 12:20 p.m. on 8 January 2001, and the Opposition thereto by the Prosecution which was filed late this morning.

The other one is the Motion To Quash, Re: The Prosecution’s Urgent Ex-Parte Request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 3 January 2001, concerning certain Bureau of Internal Revenue officers and documents. The Prosecution filed on 5 January 2001 an Opposition to the Motion to Quash.

These two incidents shall be taken up together as agreed upon yesterday in oral argument, with the parties given 10 minutes each.

Before we go into the oral argument, there are some other pending incidents here and the Chair would like to act on all of them first. The Chair would also, No. 1. Note the letter dated 5 January 2001 from

Mr. Victor Jose Tan Uy through the Camares, Fortuna, Pedaren, Ugang, Villariza Law Firm.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. In this connection, may I also make a verbal report that Mr. Victor Jose Tan Uy from Cebu City saw me yesterday at my office, after our meeting with the Prosecution and Defense counsel on that morning, to inform me that he is not the Eleuterio Tan who supposedly opened the account with the Land Bank and that his picture was used without his authorization. So, I am making this report to the Impeachment Court for whatever use the Prosecution or Defense might want to make of it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Second, to call again on 12 January an Urgent Motion re: Use of Audio and/or Video Cassette Player filed by the Defense panel on 5 January. Was a copy of this pleading furnished the Prosecution, Atty. Daza?

MR. DAZA. Yes, I am so informed that our staff furnished them a copy of it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the Prosecution, if it be so minded, may file a comment or opposition thereto within two days.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. This is with reference to the use of video.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. GONZALEZ. What about, Mr. Chief Justice, our request for power point…?

MR. DAZA. We have no objection to that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not found here yet in the Agenda.

REP. GONZALEZ. That has been filed earlier also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, but the problem with the Presiding Officer is he has nothing to do with the preparation of the Agenda. So, I think you should call the attention of the Secretariat.

REP. GONZALEZ. But since there is no objection on that,

Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We don’t know yet. Why don’t we call these together on January 12?

REP. GONZALEZ. I heard the Defense counsel that they have no objection.

MR. DAZA. Well, in fairness to the Prosecution, perhaps the Prosecution did not hear it. This was one of the motions noted last Friday and we did not file any objection to it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, then.

REP. GONZALEZ. Because that would be needed by us,

Mr. Chief Justice, in the presentation of Mr. Almadro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, we will consider the…the Chair would also consider the following: To note (a) Letter dated 6 January 2001 of Dorothy Maglasang, Secretariat, sending a copy of Resolution condemning the expulsion of three spectators of the Impeach-ment Court; (b) the Resolution covered by that letter; (c) a letter dated 8 January 2001, of Randolf Limjuco, President, Parish Pastoral Council of Santuario de San Antonio Parish, and Jose Concepcion, Chairperson, Public Affairs Ministry, transmitting statement of support on behalf of parishioners Rosanna Tuazon Fores and Bettina Aboitiz who, together with Dante Jimenez, were banned from the Senate Court proceedings in violation of due process; (d) the statement of support for community members Rosanna Tuazon Fores and Bettina Aboitiz, signed by community members parishioners, and so on; (e) the letter dated 8 January 2001 of Representative Ernesto Herrera addressed to the Chief Justice requesting reconsideration of the decision which prohibited

Mr. Dante Jimenez and Ms. Bettina Araneta Aboitiz and Ms. Rosanna Tuazon Fores from ever attending the impeachment trial, with prayer that due process be accorded these individuals by giving them opportunity to present their side with regard to Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago’s allegation that they went out of their way to stand up from their seats just to look at her in a provocative way; (f) Affidavit dated 8 January 2001 of the honorable Roilo Golez, Representative, lone district Parañaque, categorically stating among others, that Dante Jimenez, Rosanna Tuazon Fores and Bettina Araneta Aboitiz, whom Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago accused of standing up and looking at her in a provocative manner, did not do what the Senator-Judge alleged; and,

(g) Manifestation of Dante Jimenez, one of those banned from the Senate Court proceedings.

Finally, on the matter of the Urgent Request for Verification of Medical Condition, Re: Mr. Raul de Guzman, the Defense having manifested in open Court on 5 January 2001 that it will not file a comment thereto, the Court grants the motion and directs the Senate physician to make the verification and then to submit a report thereon within five days from today.

The Secretary is directed to immediately inform the Senate physician.

We shall now proceed on the oral argument.

The honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I apologize to our colleagues. I know that we must get along with our Impeachment Trial, but the communications to the Court that have just been read off for the record by the Chief Justice mentioned me by name and I am compelled to rise as a reaction.

Mr. Chief Justice, my honorable colleagues in the Impeachment Court, I hereby respectfully withdraw my own motion for reconsideration and would like, most respectfully and humbly, to insist that a status quo should be observed–that the previous decision of the Impeachment Court must be underlined and affirmed forever excluding from these premises those three persons.

I have three reasons for withdrawing my motion for reconsideration. The first reason is this: The Rules of Court, Rule 71 on CONTEMPT, provides:

SECTION 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. —

A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others,

repeat,

offensive personalities toward others, …may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court….

Section 1 is very clear. Direct contempt, as distinguished from indirect contempt, can be punished summarily. There is no requirement for notice and hearing, unlike in direct contempt. Furthermore, Rule 71, Section 2 goes on to say:

SECTION 2. Remedy therefrom. – The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition.

In other words, strictly speaking, a motion for reconsideration is not allowed from a judgment of direct contempt. The remedy of the parties is to file a petition for certiorari or prohibition in the proper court. That is the first reason.

My second reason is this: I filed that verbal motion for reconsideration in a spirit of reconciliation having been subject to the principle for five years when I was RTC judge in Quezon City. That the contempt power should not be exercised on the vindictive but on the preservative principle. I was not intent on avenging myself. Myself is nothing, a zilch in this proceedings, but on preserving the dignity of a court of justice as an institution in our rule of law. You may not like it; you may not approve the way this Court is running, but it is an institution in our democracy. And those who seek to destroy an institution must be ready to answer before society and posterity should a distraction ensue to our democratic fabric in society.

That is what I was trying to do. I was trying to preserve the dignity of the Court. That is why not I personally but the Senate as an Impeachment Court ruled that those three persons should be excluded.

I offered myself, I offered to file a motion for reconsideration because

I know as a lawyer that the remedy is not a motion for reconsideration which is not allowed by the Rules of Court. But I had hoped that in the spirit of reconciliation, if the motion of reconsideration had come from me as the offended party, maybe I could persuade the Impeachment Court, in the spirit of liberality, to extend a liberal interpretation to the Rules and allow a motion for reconsideration. But this spirit of reconciliation was not reciprocated by the parties involved. In fact, the following weekend, the entire opposition media went on a feeding frenzy against me personally, notwithstanding that that decision was not my decision but the decision of the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

In fact, of those three people who were evicted–two females and one male–I understand from the Senate Press Corp, the male went on television and said, “I do not owe any apology to the Impeachment Court. On the contrary, I think Senator Defensor Santiago owes me an apology.”

The height of the arrogance of such a statement can be matched only by the profundity of the ignorance of the legal system which it belies. Therefore, having dispensed with this second ground, let me go to the third ground.

They now say that I am not correct or accurate in my factual representation of what had happened. In effect, they are calling me a liar. It is anomalous. It is unheard of that a person who is not even a party to a case can go so far as to accuse a judge in that same case of lying.

When they say that they are not guilty, what they are saying is, in effect, that I misled my colleagues by my factual narration. I would not have minded if they had said, as many lawyers almost daily say to a judge who has cited them for contempt in all the RTCs and MTCs of our country, when the lawyer says, “I did not mean it that way, Your Honor. You may have misinterpreted me. But all the same, I apologize that I may have interrupted or disturbed the orderly proceedings in that Court.” And on that ground, the judge will normally grant a motion for reconsideration. I regret very bitterly that this attitude of reconciliation that came spontaneously from me was not met with the same attitude.

Therefore, Mr. Chief Justice, and my distinguished colleagues in this Impeachment Court, I summarize:

No. 1. I withdraw my own motion for reconsideration on three grounds. The first ground is: The Rules of Court does not allow, strictly speaking, a motion for reconsideration from a judgment of direct contempt. The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari in a superior court.

No. 2. That motion for reconsideration was offered by me on my own volition in a spirit of reconciliation, and it was met in a spirit of animosity and adversarial attitude.

No. 3. To say that my factual record or account of the proceedings is inaccurate is, in effect, to accuse me of lying. I resent that accusation, and I wonder if there is any civilized legal system in the world that would allow a mere spectator to cast aspersions on the character of a judge in that manner.

One final point, since I know this is not my forum but I have been sufficiently provoked to take it.

I understand that two congressmen have filed pleadings with this Court in connection with this incident. Allow me to read our Constitution. The Constitution, Article VI on the Legislative Department, Section 14, provides:

No Senator or Member of the House of Represent-atives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies.

I respectfully submit that when a senator or a member files a pleading in a proceeding before a court of justice or any agency analogous to a court of justice, then that is the practice of law and that practice is specifically and explicitly proscribed by the Constitution.

I humbly and respectfully submit that any senator and member who has filed what in effect is a motion for reconsideration has, in effect, attempted to enter an appearance in a case where he has no personality and where the Constitution expressly proscribes him from making an appearance.

For this reason, I respectfully summarize: I respectfully withdraw my own motion for reconsideration. I will resist any attempt to obtain a reconsideration of the ruling of the Senate as an Impeachment Court, and I shall reserve my right to study whether I shall file proper charges in the Ombudsman against those two congressmen who filed those pleadings.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor. The motion is withdrawn by the movant. So, we can now proceed to the oral argument proper.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, before the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Daza.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, I just want to inform the Court that although there was an incident that had already been considered submitted by the Impeachment Court last week, and this was our Motion to Quash the subpoena duces tecum of certain loan records in the Philippine National Bank, today, Mr. Chief Justice, we received today only a copy of a Rejoinder to the Reply. Now, this rejoinder is filed much out of time. We filed our reply two weeks ago. And may we inform the Court therefore that this particular pleading be not considered. But that if the Court would like to consider it and would like to reopen the issue, perhaps that would be the…of the court. But the rejoinder…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. From the agenda just read by

the Presiding Officer on the incidents, the PNB matter is not included. The oral argument would only be limited to the two that had been mentioned earlier.

MR. DAZA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I understand…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just with the permission of the two gentlemen. What is the pleasure of Judge Cayetano?

SEN. CAYETANO. I beg pardon and apology for interrupting.

Mr. Chief Justice, I just want to get some clarification from the Chair.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. About?

SEN. CAYETANO. That now that our esteemed colleague has withdrawn her motion for recon, may I know if there is a pending motion for recon with the Chair?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair just read all the pleadings and noted them.

SEN. CAYETANO. So there is no pending motion for recon?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending motion for reconsideration. There is a manifestation by Dante Jimenez.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Daza.

MR. DAZA. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I understand that I have

ten minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have.

MR. DAZA. And I would like to be accorded the privilege since we are the moving party to open the argument and to close it, and I would like to divide my time, eight minutes to open the argument and two minutes to close it. We are the moving party. Normally, the moving party opens and closes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The moving party will always have the opening, that is understood.

MR. DAZA. Yes. And we would like to serve the closing within the time period.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed. We do not know how you are going to divide your time, you have full ten minutes.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, these are two motions to quash certain subpoena and subpoena duces tecum that have been applied for by the Prosecution.

In the first motion, there is a subpoena duces tecum addressed to three high officials of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, including the Commissioner, by which the Prosecution would like to have certain records produced for purposes of premarking and eventually to be used as exhibits. And the stated purpose of this subpoena is to prove, among other things, the taxes due on the transactions involving the Best World shares when they were traded. And also as stated there, to show

that there has been nonpayment of taxes on these transactions by

Mr. Dante Tan.

Now, the second motion addresses subpoena and subpoena

duces tecum to certain present and former officers of the Philippine

Stock Exchange or PSE, the head of the Compliance Group,

Atty. Ruben Almadro, Mr. Jose Yulo and Ms. Mary Ann Corpuz. And today, we just got a copy of a request for subpoena on Mr. Ramon

Garcia also of the PSE.

Now, the purposes of the second set of subpoena on the PSE are spelled out in the request for subpoena. They want, according to them, and let me quote: “(1) To present the unusual movements in the price and trading volume of BW shares in 1999; (2) to show that the unusual price and trade movements of the shares were due to the manipulations and inside trading by Dante Tan and his associates; and (3) to testify on communications that transpired between the persons abovenamed, meaning, Ruben Almadro, Jose Yulo and the President prior to the release of an investigation report showing breach of the public trust.”

Mr. Chief Justice, we go back in time to December 7 last year when in a preliminary conference, it was agreed between the Prosecution and the Defense that in regard to Article 3, the only issue is whether the acts alleged therein, meaning, the impeachment complaint, if proven, constitute betrayal of trust. Well, this just conforms to the Rules of Court, Mr. Chief Justice. Under Rule 128, Section 3, it says that evidence must be relevant to the issue. Section 4 says that to be relevant, evidence must relate to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. In short, the fact in issue is spelled out in the pleading and here it is the impeachment complaint. Now, what does the impeachment complaint say in regard to this particular charge?

It says, and I quote:

President Joseph Estrada betrayed public trust and violated his oath of office when he unduly intervened in the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of a presidential crony.

Barely two months after assuming office in 1998, the President referred to the Philippine Gaming and Amusement Board (Pagcor) the application for an On-Line Bingo of Best World Gaming and Entertainment Corporation. Despite absence of any bidding or notice to the public, Pagcor acted expeditiously and granted said corporation an exclusive franchise to operate online bingo nationwide on December 3, 1998. Thereafter, in lieu of the alleged stock manipulation on BW shares, the Securities and Exchange Commission started an investigation.

Now, the core of the charge–and I am still quoting:

On or about November 1999, President Estrada

called Chairman Yasay of the Securities and Exchange Commission to intercede for BW claiming that its principal and majority stockholder Dante Tan was not a manipulator but a victim of transactions which resulted in the rise and fall of BW shares as shown by the affidavit of former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Perfecto Yasay Jr., attached as Annex “E”.

The President called Chairman Yasay not once but five times. The act of the President violated his solemn oath of office to execute the law. He obstructed justice because he intervened with the duties of a public servant who was investigating transactions as a quasi-judicial officer pursuant to the mandate of the law.

There’s nothing in the impeachment complaint which spells out the fact in issue regarding the alleged income tax evasion of Mr. Dante Tan. There’s nothing in all the 220 words, when we counted it, of this impeachment complaint on this particular charge which speaks that

the President had anything to do with the alleged stock manipulation

of BW shares.

In fact, Mr. Chief Justice, the Department of Justice, upon the complaint of the Securities and Exchange Commission, over several months, conducted a very thorough investigation of this alleged manipulation of stocks and this was in I.S. No. 2000-732. After several months, on December 18, the Department of Justice came out with a 70-page detailed resolution which resulted in the filing of three informations at least against Mr. Tan now pending in the RTC of Pasig City. What the Prosecution wants to do here, Mr. Chief Justice, is to go beyond the scope and language of the impeachment complaint, violating not only the Rules of Court but what was agreed on in the conference of December 7 which says that the only issue is whether the acts alleged in the impeachment complaint, if proven, constitute betrayal of trust.

I read the subpoena for Mr. Yulo and the subpoena for Mr. Almadro. They would even want to bring into this case alleged communications between the President and the PSE. What is in issue here is just, I think, one and it is clear. The charge for betrayal of trust is whether or not the President made calls to the Chairman of the SEC in order to intervene for Mr. Dante Tan. All of these stated purposes in the subpoena that we are attacking in our two motions are not only peripheral but completely extraneous to the fact in issue in this case. And that is the reason why we have moved, Mr. Chief Justice, that all the subpoenas subject of the motions, be quashed.

Mr. Chief Justice, I think that they want a rerun of all these investigations. If there is any citizen who would want to file income tax evasion against Mr. Dante Tan, the Impeachment Court is not the forum. It is the Bureau of Internal Revenue. And if they are looking to the forum of investigating the stock manipulation, the Department of Justice has done that and that is the function of the Department of Justice under the law. They have, in fact, conducted the investigation, as I said, and informations have been filed.

Now, I would also want to mention the fact, Mr. Chief Justice, that yesterday, we had a conference whereby in our effort to complete expeditiously this Impeachment Trial, certain dates were set. But if extraneous and alien issues, more political than legal, are brought into this Court, it would endanger the timetable of the Court.

So, Mr. Chief Justice, we therefore extraneously argue that the

two motions that we have filed to quash the subpoena that I have discussed be granted by this Court.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I reserve my time to respond because I think I have only used…. I still have some more minutes left for me.

If I can still have some more minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have only 44 seconds.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Prosecutor Raul Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, I am reminded of a song in that classical movie Casablanca. It is the same old story that has been raised by the Defense, raising the same issue of materiality and relevancy which this honorable Court has many times over overruled, Mr. Chief Justice.

At any rate, Your Honors, I am surprised that the Defense would want to quash the subpoena. As a matter of fact, I can withdraw the subpoena and present these witnesses without the need of a subpoena, Your Honors, except that as I said yesterday, the witnesses are asking that they be subpoenaed and because it is needed to explain the purpose. That is the reason why we have to express in the form the purpose for issuing the subpoena, Your Honor.

If you follow Section 16 of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, it is, as a matter of fact, the subject of the subpoena and duces tecum. Who should object? Not the lawyer of the President. It is Mr. Almadro who should ask that the subpoena be quashed and Mr. Yulo or Ms. Corpuz.

What does Section 16 say? “….upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined…” et cetera. So, I could have withheld filing subpoena duces tecum. I could just have announced that my witness is Mr. Almadro and I don’t think that his presence before the Court can be prevented by anyone. Maybe they can object to the nature of the testimony later on but not from being a witness before this honorable Court.

That is one point that I would like to state. And, Your Honor please, when we speak of relevancy, there are authorities which say that when we speak of relevancy, it means it is germane, synonymous, because the law contemplates examination not merely for use as evidence but also to discover information. That is Francisco, Rules of Court, Volume II, page 106; Moran, Remedial Law, Volume II. And it adds:

It is not limited to the rules on admissibility of evidence because the relevancy of evidence sought at the taking of deposition should be determined at the trial and not with motions to terminate or limit the examination.

So, I believe, Your Honors please, that insofar as subpoena duces tecum is concerned, if you speak of PNB, which, of course, Your Honor said is not included in the agenda, we believe that these are relevant to the issue. We believe that technicalities must give way to the realities of the situation here, Your Honor. I believe that the investigation of the stock exchange is relevant. The investigation by Mr. Almadro is relevant, because if there is no stock manipulation, there would have been no chance for the…no reason for the President to intervene in the Securities and Exchange Commission. If there was no scam in the stock exchange which impelled the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct an investigation as well as the Stock Exchange to conduct an investigation, there would have been no reason for the President as he is accused of intervening and pressuring Mr. Yasay several times to clear BW and

Mr. Dante Tan. As a matter of fact, if you speak now of the investigation, Mr. Dante Tan is indicted in court based on the result of the investigation of the Department of Justice which is alluded to by my distinguished colleague. The minor players, I think, were exonerated or dropped from the Information, but Mr. Dante Tan is being charged, and Mr. Dante Tan is the very crony mentioned here in the complaint, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

So, we believe, Your Honors, that this is relevant. If I may, it says: “The test of relevancy. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw

light on the issue is relevant. Evidence is relevant from which the fact

on issue is logically inferrable.” I believe, Your Honor please, that the investigation by the Stock Exchange, the investigation by the SEC are all intertwined together here and there is inference that these two investigations go together.

Any circumstance is relevant which tends to make the proposition at issue more or less probable or which is calculated to explain or establish facts pertinent to the inquiry. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of pertinent hypothesis. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense charged.” I cite Anderhill’s Criminal Evidence, 8th edition, Vol. I, page 1A.

Your Honors please, the records which we seek from the BIR on,– of course, they refer to matters of the unpaid capital gains tax but these will show the extent, Your Honors please, of the profits caused by the stock manipulation, and this is very relevant here. Because this will show the extent of the stock manipulation involving BW Resource and Mr. Dante Tan, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

And we believe that if we withhold this evidence, we will not be able to come up with a complete picture of what has happened in the stock market which the Securities and Exchange Commission, as the regulatory agency, attempted to investigate in order to protect public interest here, Your Honors. But as will be shown by testimonies later on, it is because of the pressure and the extent of that pressure by the President on Mr. Yasay, and even Mr. Yulo, Mr. Almadro, that the investigation was to a large extent thwarted, Mr. Chief Justice, which caused actually these charges before this honorable Court.

So, we believe, Your Honors please, that the matters covered in our subpoena and subpoena duces tecum are within the ambit of the charges mentioned in the Articles.

As a matter of fact, if you will read, you know, Your Honor, anything that has something to do with the violation of the oath of office is betrayal of public trust, except for the fact that we have tried to divide these charges. All these charges from Article 1 to Article 4 are all violations of public trust, Your Honors please. Because they are all violations of the oath of office, Mr. President-graft and corruption, bribery, culpable violation of the Constitution. These are all violations of the oath of office, and therefore, betrayal of public trust.

So, we should not be canalized here, Your Honors please, to just tell us that we can only investigate BW. BW is intertwined with the investigation of the Philippine Stock Exchange–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 30 seconds more to go.

MR. GONZALEZ. –which, as a matter of fact, Your Honors, please there was a report prepared by Mr. Almadro in which, before the Board of Governors were furnished a copy, the President already wanted a copy of that report, and that will be shown by the evidence, by the testimonies of Mr. Almadro and Mr. Yasay, Your Honors please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your ten minutes ….

MR. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor please. So, we pray that Mr. Almadro be allowed to testify, Mr. Yulo be allowed to testify.

As I mentioned, Your Honors please, I can withdraw the subpoena and I can present them to testify.

And also, Your Honors please, we pray that….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you withdrawing the subpoenas now?

MR. GONZALEZ. No, Your Honors please. But if the Court will say that the subpoena is to be quashed, I can always present these witnesses later on, Your Honors please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. GONZALEZ. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You had …

MR. DAZA. Forty-four seconds, I understand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only 40 seconds.

MR. DAZA. Forty seconds.

Mr. Chief Justice, the distinguished Prosecutor alluded to the

song in Casablanca. I saw that movie. Humphrey Bogart was a favorite actor of mine. In that movie, at least, Mr. Chief Justice, he was relevant and material.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

Submitted.

MR. DAZA. Submitted, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. GONZALEZ. We submit, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. First, the Chair would like to state that insofar as betrayal of public trust is concerned, that had been defined by the Prosecution exclusively for Article 3 of the Articles of Impeach-ment. And therefore, it would not be correct for the Prosecution to state that all the Articles would involve betrayal of public trust because that is exclusively Article 3 only. So we should not go beyond the pleading.

The urgent motion here to quash the request for issuance of subpoenas ad testificandum et duces tecum to Ruben Almadro, Luis Yulo and Mary Ann Corpuz are principally based on the ground that the

papers or the documents sought to be produced by them are immaterial and irrelevant to Article 3 of the Articles of Impeachment, Betrayal of Public Trust.

In the Preliminary Conference, the parties agreed that this is the issue in Article 3, “whether the acts alleged therein be proven would constitute betrayal of public trust.”

Some of the acts alleged therein are written as follows:

President Joseph E. Estrada betrayed public trust and violated his own oath of office when he unduly intervened in the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of a presidential crony.

Barely two months after assuming office in 1998, the President referred to the Philippine Gaming and Amusement Board (Pagcor) the application for an On-Line Bingo of Best World Gaming and Entertainment Corporation. Despite absence of any bidding or notice to the public, Pagcor acted expeditiously and granted said corporation an exclusive franchise to operate On Line Bingo nationwide on December 3, 1998, Annex D hereof. Thereafter, in view of an alleged stock manipulation on BW shares, the Securities and Exchange Commission started an investigation.

On or about November 1999, President Estrada called Chairman Yasay of the Securities and Exchange Commission to intercede for BW claiming that its principal and majority stockholder, Dante Tan, was not a manipulator but a victim of transactions which resulted in the rise and fall of BW shares as shown by the affidavit of former Securities and Exchange Commission Perfecto Yasay Jr., which is hereto attached as Annex E.

The President called Chairman Yasay not once but five times. The act of the President violated his solemn oath of office to execute the law. He obstructed justice because he intervened with the duties of a public servant who was investigating transactions as a quasi-judicial officer pursuant to the mandate of the law.

From these allegations, it is clear that the factum probandum or the ultimate facts to be proved are the following: I say, factum probandum.

1.There was stock manipulation on BW shares;

2.The principal stockholder therein is Dante Tan, an alleged presidential crony;

3.The Securities and Exchange Commission conducted an investigation thereon;

4.President Estrada intervened in that investigation for and in behalf of Dante Tan.

To establish this factum probandum or the ultimate fact, factum probans or evidentiary facts have to be adduced by the Prosecution.

What are the evidentiary facts? These are facts which, by the Rules on Evidence, are relevant. Section 4 of Rule 128, which is quoted in the Motion to Quash of the Rules of Court, provides:

Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce a belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in

any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue, the factum probandum.

While mention has been made about what relevant evidence is, the Presiding Officer will quote, for the record, the following authorities on relevant evidence. The Presiding Officer has to make a little study on these points so everybody will be able to clearly understand what is in the mind of the Court.

Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which

has rational probative value to establish the issues in controversy. [Regalado, Flores. Remedial Law Course Compedium, Vol. II, 2000 Ed., p. 562]

Evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. [Francisco. The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines. Evidence. Vol. VII, Part II, 1997 Ed., p. 5]

Evidence is relevant if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. Relevancy and materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in the case. [Benipayo, Alfredo. Evidence. Basic Principles and Selected Problems. p. 3]

Now, the subpoenas duces tecum in question specified the purposes and I think, it would be best to read the purposes, for the record. We quote this from the Urgent Motion to Quash under the heading Antecedents:

Insofar as Ruben Almadro is concerned, the purposes for the production of the document are the following: (a) to present the unusual movements in the price and trading volume of BW Resources Corporation, now Fairmont Holdings, Inc. as shares in 1999; (b) to show that the unusual price and trade movements resulted from the price manipulation, and inside trading by Dante Tan and his associates, as stated in the aforesaid Philippine Stock Exchange Investigation Report on BW Resources Corporation dated 11 February 2000; (c) to testify on the communications that transpired between the person named above and President Joseph Estrada prior to the release of the aforesaid investigation report showing breach of public trust.

Insofar as Jose Luis Yulo is concerned, the purposes of the documents sought to be produced are the following–and of course his testimony to present the unusual movements in the price and trading volume of BW Resources Corporation now Fairmont Holdings, Inc. shares in 1999-

to show that the unusual price and trade movements resulted from the price manipulation, and insider trading by Dante Tan and his associates, to testify on the communications made by President Joseph Estrada by the person named above has shown a breach of public trust.

And as to Mary Ann Corpuz, the purpose was for her to testify for the purpose, among others, of corroborating the testimony of Chairman of the Philippine Stock Exchange, Mr. Jose Luis Yulo, that the President had called upon the latter concerning the involvement of Mr. Dante Tan in the insider trading and price manipulation of BW Resources Corporation is breach of trust.

The Presiding Officer believes that there can be no question that the documents sought to be produced by the witnesses mentioned are relevant to the facts in issue, to the factum probans in respect of the stock manipulation, the investigation thereon as well. And so for this reason, the Court would have to deny the Motion to Quash. And the same reason would apply to the Motion to Quash the subpoena duces tecum in respect of the BIR officials because these are indeed relevant to the issues, because these are material evidence if proven to be true will establish the ultimate fact or the factum probandum.

So ordered.

Any motion to reconsider?

Would His Honor be asking for a reconsideration?

SEN. ROCO. No, no, no. Absolutely not. If that is true,

Mr. Chief Justice, I have another matter somewhat related. I think

the Court is almost totally unanimous. I think totally unanimous, in fact.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What would be the pleasure of the honorable Senator Roco?

SEN. ROCO. I was discussing briefly with my colleague. Yesterday, I did receive a letter from Defense counsel as regards the records of the Committee on Banks on the investigation conducted by the Senate then, and I didn’t catch my tukayo, Raul Daza, but I did catch Roderick Salazar, Counsel Salazar and Raul Gonzalez, and I said I have given instructions, if it is okay with them, to the Secretary to, in fact, release all the transcripts and all the records of the committee to the two parties. And I wanted to manifest and so move that the Secretary, in fact, be directed to do so because as a judge, I guess, I should not be…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection to the motion? The honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. I would like to raise a question and an inquiry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, yes.

SEN. ENRILE. Is it the right of any chairman of a committee, without consulting the committee itself, to release the records of the committee of which he is a chairman?

SEN. ROCO. No. In fact, that is why I brought it to the attention of the Court because it is addressed to me.

SEN. ENRILE. But the matter ought to be discussed in the committee itself because the records of the committee is not the responsibility of this Court; it is the responsibility of the committee.

SEN. ROCO. That is why I presented a motion.

SEN. ENRILE. I submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would rather request the movant to withdraw the motion and to take that up in the committee.

SEN. ROCO. I have a slight difficulty that is why I consulted Senator Santiago. As a judge now, I did not feel I should act on this without the permission of the Court. And with the parties’ consent,

I thought it was the simplest thing because they are official records.

In fact, the judicial notice could have been asked for it. But that is why I raised it on motion and if my good friend has submitted on that basis,

I will present the motion just to release it and tell the Secretary to do

so release it.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I think the proper remedy would be for the interested party to seek a compulsory process from this Court to subpoena those records. But I don’t think a committee of the Senate as a House of Congress can just deliver its records to anybody without a compulsory process.

SEN. ROCO. That is why I am asking permission of the Impeachment Court.

SEN. ENRILE. Yes, but this is not the proper forum because unless somebody will now request for a compulsory process, that will be addressed to the committee of this House acting as a Senate to comply with, if they receive that compulsory process.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would propose a possible compromise. Since that matter would be really within the primary jurisdiction of the Senate sitting as a Senate, perhaps the gentleman can take that up tomorrow during the regular session of

the Senate.

SEN. ROCO. We submit, we submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you very much.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Daza.

MR. DAZA. May the Defense respond to the query of the Presiding Officer as to whether a motion for reconsideration would be filed? In order not to delay the proceedings so that we can meet the timetable we agreed on yesterday, we are not filing a motion for reconsideration but would rather just reserve a right to object–

THE PRESIDING OFICER. Yes.

MR. DAZA. –on the grounds invoked as the witnesses are presented and as the questions are asked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. At the most appropriate time, the objections can be properly done.

MR. DAZA. Yes, Mr. Chief justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Everytime that there is a question…Anytime a question is asked, and you believe that it would elicit an answer that should be irrelevant or immaterial, then you can tender the objection.

MR. DAZA. We shall do so.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And in addition thereto, probably, you can even have a continuing objection.

MR. DAZA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

So let us now proceed to the witness yesterday. We’ll finish the testimony.

The honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, just another housekeeping matter.

I have just been informed …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. Just to finish the matter, Pañero.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought the distinguished gentleman is already finished with his motion.

SEN. ROCO. No, my good friend.

SEN. CAYETANO. I will yield to both.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will yield to whom?

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have three gentlemen now. So the two are yielding to the honorable Senator Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. After the explanation of my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Camarines Sur, that we will release it to both sides, then I will yield to his request that these documents be made available to both sides of this litigation so that they can use it for whatever purpose they may wish to use those documents.

SEN. ROCO. That is correct.

SEN. ENRILE. So that we can abbreviate the proceedings.

SEN. ROCO. Well, we want to thank-you see these are requests of Defense.

We cleared it with all parties and we are saying “thank you” to Senator Enrile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So that is now the modified motion?

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would consider therefore the manifestation of the honorable Senator-Judge Enrile as seconding the motion as modified.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection to the motion as modified? [Silence] There being none, the motion is approved.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you, Mr . Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. As I said, this is just a matter of housekeeping.

I do recall yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice, that the Chair said that the Chair will be ready to rule on the Motion for Recon with respect to the three individuals banned by the Senate….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the kind permission of… yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, yes, I’m just making a preliminary, with your permission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, you may proceed.

SEN. CAYETANO. And the Chair said that it will be taken up today. And the Chair correctly said that it is not in the agenda. I just want to inform the Chair, Mr. Chief Justice, that apparently, a motion for recon has been filed with this office yesterday at 2:40 p.m. on behalf of Ms. Rosanna Tuazon Fores and Beatriz Cristina Araneta Aboitiz dated, as I said, yesterday and received by the Senate Office, by the Office of the Legal Counsel, at 2:40 p.m. yesterday, and also another one in the form of a manifestation but apparently also a motion for recon also received on the same date and time.

I was just wondering, Mr. Chief Justice, if the Chair may ask the Secretary why this was not brought to the Chair today?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have several letters here under seven-item seven of the agenda under motions and other pleadings. I do not know if these are among the pleadings included. But perhaps, if it is not now found here, that can be included tomorrow in the agenda.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, I just want to point that out.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary should take note

of that.

Yes, the honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, please allow me to reiterate what I said a few minutes earlier. I will oppose vehemently any Motion for Reconsideration of the action, not of me individually as a Senator-Judge, but of the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

No. l. Generally, if there is now fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, a Motion for Reconsideration is routinely denied in a new Trial Court; and,

No. 2. I will oppose that motion on the ground, as I have said before, that the Rules of Court does not allow it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will consider that, Your Honor.

So, we had a witness yesterday, Mr. Victor Lim.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, for the trial proper, the Prosecution will continue presentation of evidence. Witness Victor Lim will continue his testimony on direct examination.

The Principal and Assisting Counsel are Prosecutor Oscar Moreno

and Atty. Joey Tenefrancia, respectively. And the Principal and Assisting Cross-Examining Counsel are Atty. Sigfrid Fortun and Atty. Jose Flaminiano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, before we proceed, may

I just manifest.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. GONZALEZ. In connection with the marking, the premarking of our exhibits and the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Had it been completed already?

REP. GONZALEZ. No, precisely, Your Honor. We started premarking last night and resumed this morning, but the Defense objected to machine copying of the documents until one o’clock this afternoon, Your Honors.

That’s why if we present our witness now, we will need about

one hour.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. We have not asked for the presentation of your witness; we still have another.

REP. GONZALEZ. Well, we are just manifesting this, Your Honor please, because this witness may not take long. We will be presenting Mr. Almadro already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. There were witnesses announced yesterday by Prosecutor Apostol for Article 1.

REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Would it not be possible that while we are, you know, finishing one witness or two witnesses from the stable of witnesses of Prosecutor Moreno, that the marking can continue?

REP. GONZALEZ. We are doing that now. The marking and the machine copying, because these are about 400 documents, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. I’m sure it can be done if more efforts will be exerted.

The witness now, Mr. Victor Lim. You may take your seat. And you are reminded that you’ll be testifying under the same oath.

Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, good afternoon to everyone.

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, my Assisting Counsel is Atty. Augusto San Pedro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you changing…?

REP. MORENO. No, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean, there is a mistake in the anouncement of the Majority Leader?

REP. MORENO. I suppose, Mr. Chief Justice, that it was my senior colleague, Congressman Apostol, who announced the name

Joey Tenefrancia. I suppose that he has gotten used to Atty. Tenefrancia assisting me in my earlier examinations and he thought that Atty. Tenefrancia would also be my Assisting Counsel today, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make the proper correction then of the Assisting Counsel.

REP. MORENO. Augusto San Pedro, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Junior or Senior?

REP. MORENO. Junior, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

Now, Mr. Lim, in your testimony yesterday, you mentioned

that you are the Branch Banking Head of Citibank, NA. Now, what branches–which branches in the Philippines, if any, do you supervise?

MR. LIM. I cover all the branches of Citibank Philippines.

REP. MORENO. And these are to be…?

MR. LIM. Makati Branch, Greenhills, the Alabang Branch, Binondo Branch, Cebu Branch and the Libis Branch.

REP. MORENO. And yesterday, we were on Exhibit “FFFFFFF” and “FFFFFFF-1”. Now, Mr. Witness, you were reading before the…. Before your testimony was stopped yesterday, suspended yesterday,

you were reading the machine printout. Appearing on “FFFFFFF”, can you please read the first line, the machine print starting with the

No. 166, for the record, please.

MR. LIM. “Of as check deposit to Casa Metro Check.”

REP. MORENO. And then the second line.

MR. LIM. “Monday, October 4, 1640, 1999.”

REP. MORENO. The third line, Mr. Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cannot the Counsel read the lines? There had been stipulation on the contents.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Your Honor please, we have hesitated to make objections. But….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not hesitate if you find somebody….

MR. FLAMINIANO. We feel, Your Honor, that these matters that are being asked have already been the subject of stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a matter of fact, the question as to what branches has the witness jurisdiction over was testified to yesterday already.

MR. FLAMINIANO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not forget what had been taken up yesterday so as to avoid repetition of questions.

REP. MORENO. Yesterday, I was not able to ask the specific branches of Citibank under the supervision of the witness.

MR. FLAMINIANO. And, Mr. Chief Justice, may we also raise the point that up to now there is no basis towards these questions of the witness considering that there is as yet no evidence that he participated in the preparation of all these exhibits. That is our point, Mr. Chief Justice. There has been no basis laid.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The direct testimony is still incomplete.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Witness, there is a – there are machine prints after the word, the name “Ejercito, Luisa P.”, which is not clear in all the copies, all the photocopies of the original and only you have possession of the original. Would you like to read, for the record, what these machine prints are?

MR. LIM. Okay. It’s with “SHIGH Customer list.” It stands for with “Standing Hold Instruction, Greenhills Customer List.”

REP. MORENO. SHI means?

MR. LIM. Standing Hold Instruction, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What do you mean by “Standing Hold Instruction”?

MR. LIM. This is our own internal computer tagging system wherein an important client is tagged, so that wherever he or she transacts in any branch would be given, you know, the proper recognition accommodation.

REP. MORENO. And the next line is, if I may read, “PHP 8,400,000.” The next line reads, “Book equal 11,895,132.17”, the word “avail is equals to 3,495,138.17”, is that correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor. I also want to qualify that this is internal copy of the deposit slip. The customer copy does not contain the book or the available.

REP. MORENO. What do you mean by “book” and “available”?

MR. LIM. The book balance is the one that is reflected wherein after a check deposit is made, the customer cannot withdraw the money yet because the check is not cleared. The available balance is the one that the customer can withdraw at any point in time.

REP. MORENO. So, does it mean then that at the time the two Metro Bank checks were deposited, the account had an available balance of P3,495,138.17?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, the account number in this Exhibit “FFFFFFF” is 166820, is that correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then in the box, the name is, the account name is Luisa P. Ejercito, is this correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who filled up this information, Mr. Witness?

MR. LIM. As far as we know, it is the authorizied representative of the First Lady.

REP. MORENO. And then, in the box at the bottom right side of the deposit slip, Exhibit “FFFFFFF”, it reads “For internal use only” and there are markings here. Would you like to read these markings for the information of this honorable Court?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object to this question, Your Honor, if the only purpose is to read the entries there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained. There had been stipulation on the existence of the documents and the entries thereon. What had been allowed by the Chair insofar as some of the questions are concerned would only be some kind of explanation.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. Let me reform then.

Mr. Witness, these handwritten words seem to read like “With preclearance from”…the words-the name is no longer legible. Would you like to explain to this honorable Court?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have the same objections, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It asked for an explanation. Witnesss may answer.

MR. LIM. Okay. I will read first what’s written. There is a signature of the branch manager with a note “with preclearance” from

our compliance officer, Ian Fenton, and there was a time indicated

that around almost five o’clock – 4:50.

REP. MORENO. Who wrote this?

MR. LIM. The branch manager, Your Honor.

MR. MORENO. And then, his or her name is what?

MR. LIM. Geraldine Nakpil.

REP. MORENO. So this is the handwriting of Geraldine Nakpil.

MR. LIM. This is her handwriting, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Now, who is Ian Fenton?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial, Mr. Chief Justice. These are the subject of stipulations.

REP. MORENO. No, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He is only asking for who is the person?

Answer.

MR. LIM. Ian Fenton was the compliance officer at the time of the deposit, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And by compliance officer, you’re referring to an officer of the bank that makes sure that the laws applicable and pertaining to that bank are followed?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Leading, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. What do you mean by a compliance officer?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

MR. FLAMINIANO. They have no materiality, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. MORENO. Could you tell this Court what the duties are of Ian Fenton as compliance officer?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The same objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer.

MR. LIM. Ian Fenton was acting as the compliance officer.

The compliance officer makes sure that all the guidelines are followed-all control processes are followed and the transaction itself was done with the right procedures.

REP. MORENO. And when you mentioned about guidelines, you refer to guidelines including those that apply with respect to accounts of substantial amount and/or accounts maintained by politicians or public officials and their spouses?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Leading, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. What are these guidelines, Mr. Witness?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We believe these questions are immaterial, Mr. Chief Justice, to the purpose of the offer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s see what would be the materiality later.

MR. LIM. The guidelines, Your Honor, you see, in the bank we establish thresholds for each customer. Depending on the customer, certain threshold amount that they deposit, creates a trigger that we have to probe the nature of the deposit and the underlined transaction. Like for example, an ordinary individual, we may set a trigger of, let’s say, 500 thousand or one million who is probably a businessman, who is a big-time businessman; we may even set limits of higher 10 million or up. So it depends on each individual, we set triggers for monitoring.

REP. MORENO. Do you have thresholds for public officials?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. What thresholds, if any, do you have with respect to deposits maintained by public officials?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The same objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained, for lack of basis.

REP. MORENO. Now, Mr. Witness, you said SHI refers to Special Hold Instruction, is that correct? When you say that an account is tagged as SHI and then the letters after that are GH list, does this mean Greenhills list?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. When an account is tagged, does that mean that an account officer or an officer of the bank takes care, focuses on that particular account?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Leading, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. What does that mean when an account is

tagged as SHI?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The question is immaterial, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. Witness may answer.

MR. LIM. SHI means there could be special instructions. There could be hold instructions. So it could be any series of instructions that we put on the customer memo so that when a customer comes to any branch, it will be followed.

REP. MORENO. In this particular case, the deposit of Mrs. Luisa P. Ejercito, the First Lady, who is that officer that handles this account –

MR. FLAMINIANO. I don’t think that would be material.

REP. MORENO. — of Citibank?

MR. FLAMINIANO. I don’t think that would be material,

Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since it is not an unqualified objection, it is overruled.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object, Your Honor, on the ground that the question is immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled.

MR. LIM. The account officer is Marivic Pantaleon.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Is Marivic Pantaleon still the account officer, if she is….

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. MORENO. I withdraw that question, Mr. Chief Justice. Anyway, we will find that out in due time.

Let me bring you now to Exhibit….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Avoid immaterial…avoid some objections based on immateriality so you can go and move faster.

REP. MORENO. I want to….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I know you can do that.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, but it seems to me that my esteemed colleague in the profession, Atty. Flaminiano, is so sensitive to these instruments.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. It is not sensitivity,–

MR. FLAMINIANO. If Your Honor please….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. — I guess, we try to save time.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go direct to the point.

REP. MORENO. Exhibit “FFFFFFF-4” and Exhibit — I’m sorry, and the submarked items marked Exhibit “FFFFFFF-2” and “FFFFFFF-3”, this is a microfilm copy of the check drawn by…. issued by Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, dated August — September 29, 1999 for P8 million, payable to cash and signed by him. Now, on Exhibit “FFFFFFF-3”, at the right side of this check, numbers appear 166820. Can you please explain to this honorable Court what this number means?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, these are the subject of our stipulations.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not covered by the stipulation. The witness may answer. It is trying to explain an entry there.

MR. LIM. Okay. It is bank practice that we always ensure that the account number is written at the back of the check to make sure that it is, you know, if there is audit trail, that shows that — where the check is being credited to. Just in case there are returns or there are problems with the check, we know where the account, where the check belongs to, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And whose account is this, 166820?

MR. FLAMINIANO. That has been admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Admitted already in the stipulation.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Stipulations, yes.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, the next question then is, since the check was deposited to this account, were the proceeds of this check credited to this account?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The answer is very obvious.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the objection?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the basis?

MR. FLAMINIANO. For being immaterial and for lack of basis.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled because of the grounds invoked.

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In the amount of how much?

MR. LIM. Just to qualify, there were two checks that they … But this one was an P8-million check, Your Honor. It was credited, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And so since the deposit slip covered a total deposit of P8.4 million, the amount deposited or the amount credited, total amount credited to the account of the First Lady, CASA Account No. 166820, was how much?

MR. LIM. It was …

MR. FLAMINIANO. The best evidence would be the documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection sustained. It’s there in your document..

REP. MORENO. What proof do you have…. I’m Sorry, Mr. Chief Justice. What proof do you have aside from this deposit slip and this microfilm copy of this check that the amount of P8 million was credited to the account of the First Lady?

MR. FLAMINIANO. That has been admitted. We don’t even question that, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was it not covered by the stipulation of facts?

MR. FLAMINIANO. It was covered by the stipulation.

REP. MORENO. That was not covered, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

MR. FLAMINIANO. The check was actually negotiated, Mr. Chief Justice. There is no dispute as to that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have that admission now even if it was not covered in the stipulation.

REP. MORENO. Okay.

MR. FLAMINIANO. There is no dispute as to that, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. MORENO. So for the record, Mr. Chief Justice, I just want to confirm the agreement of Atty. Flaminiano that the amount of

P8 million, which is the amount of this check, Check No. 0001388, issued by Governor Singson, payable to cash, drawn on Metrobank, which was deposited to Account No. 166820, with Citibank Greenhills Branch, was actually credited to the account of 166820, owned by the First Lady, Luisa P. Ejercito.

MR. FLAMINIANO. That has been the subject of our stipulation, precisely, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer and,

I think, even the members of the Court, –

MR. FLAMINIANO. They understood it that way, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. MORENO. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. — they knew that that was part of the agreement yesterday, the stipulation of facts, –

REP. MORENO. Anyway, Mr. Chief Justice, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. — as to the movement of the check.

REP. MORENO. Let me bring you now, Mr. Witness, to Exhibit “FFFFFFF-5”. There are entries here and this is the account opening form — individual. On the column “introduced, identified by,” there is an entry here. Would you like to read it for this Honorable Court?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, these are covered by our stipulations.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Also covered by the stipulation, Mr. Prosecutor.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to beg for the indulgence because it appears that the handwriting is different from the handwriting of the other entries.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you agree with that observation, Atty. Flaminiano?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Well, assuming that to be so, it’s not unusual that there would be different handwriting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean you agree that there is a difference?

MR. FLAMINIANO. I would just like to consult Mr. Fortun.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You better do that because that would be a basis for my ruling.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Will you kindly repeat your suggested stipulation, Mr. Prosecutor?

REP. MORENO. Okay. That the account opening form– individual, Exhibit “FFFFFFF-5”, the entries from “surname, last name, account… .” I’m sorry… all the way to the specimen signatures and the entries, the signatures at the bottom of Exhibit “FFFFFFF-6” were all entered in the handwriting of the First Lady, Luisa P. Ejercito, except the entry “wife of Mayor J. Estrada” in the column “introduced, identified by.”

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have no way of really saying that the signatures are that of the First Lady.

REP. MORENO. That was the reason, Mr. Chief Justice, why

I had to ask this.

MR. FLAMINIANO. But is the witness competent to identify the signature of the First Lady, in the first place?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you making that as a ground for the objection too?

MR. FLAMINIANO. That is my objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained on that ground.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Lay the basis for his ability to know the signature.

REP. MORENO. There are entries, Mr. Witness, to this account opening form–individual. Would you like to tell this honorable Court who made these entries, if you know?

MR. LIM. The account opening form is already almost 15 years old. But under bank practice at that time, whoever processed the account opening would be the one to write it.

REP. MORENO. And who processed the account opening of this account?

MR. FLAMINIANO. It calls for an incompetent testimony, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the ground again?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The witness may not be competent to make the testimony considering that, according to the witness, this may have been done several years ago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection has to be sustained. Lay the basis that he was then available 15 years ago.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, although the witness may know, may tell this Court who made these entries based on the account opening form-individual, Exhibit “FFFFFF-5”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just make another question.

The honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. An inquiry, Mr. Chief Justice.

In view of the stipulations, as I understand it and I need clearance, all these are admitted and apparently accepted the way it is recorded. So that, as I take it when it says, “wife of Mayor Estrada”–presumed that is admitted. Is this correct?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not part of the question of the counsel.

SEN. ROCO. No, no, no, no, I know, I know.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that is the reason why there was such a stipulation and the parties had agreed on the documents and the entries on the documents. But the Chair cannot understand why questions are still propounded by the Prosecution on areas already covered by the stipulation.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, there is one item that I would like to ask the witness and this is in respect of the words “Reference Waived” appearing at the bottom of Exhibit “FFFFFF-5”. The words “Reference Waived” have a special meaning in banks, Mr. Chief Justice. And may I ask the witness what these words mean.

MR. FLAMINIANO. That would be immaterial, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness may answer. Objection is overruled.

MR. LIM. Since this is a checking account, normally we would ask for at least two IDs and also that references would be asked. However, since the First Lady was positively identified and a recognized personality already at that time, they did not require of that IDs anymore at that point of account opening.

REP. MORENO. And who signed–there’s an initial on top of the word “Waived”. Can you please tell this honorable Court whose initial this is?

MR. LIM. I do not recognize the initial anymore, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, Mr. Witness, with respect to this account, you have sent to the First Lady, your depositor, monthly statements, have you not?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Are your statements aside from…on a regular monthly basis?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object on the ground of the immateriality, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Were these not covered by the stipulation regarding the monthly statements?

REP. MORENO. No, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the subpoena duces tecum that was issued to the witness, were these statements allowed?

MR. FLAMINIANO. There are no statements, Your Honor please.

REP. MORENO. These were deleted in the request, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly, because for the objection raised, and so when the subpoena duces tecum was issued and conformably with the agreement between the parties, that only specified documents should be made, that particular all-embracing clause was deleted.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, the clause pertaining to the monthly statement was a specific clause, although, of course, the Defense had objected to it. And in the interest of coming up or having the subpoena issued as fast as it could, Mr. Chief Justice, we just said that we will, in the meantime, accept the other items in the subpoena without prejudice to our asking….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer knows very well that there was no qualification. The parties agreed that there should be no all-embracing statements in the subpoena. It should be specified.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may at the risk of being repetitive, Your Honors,….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not only repetitive, but parties should stick to their agreement. We should be candid to one another.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, the all-embracing clause of other documents, et cetera, do not include the monthly statement of account. There is a specific item in our request for subpoena….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But in the subpoena duces tecum, were these included?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have a copy of the subpoena duces tecum?

REP. MORENO. In our request for subpoena duces tecum…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is asking you about the subpoena duces tecum.

REP. MORENO. In the issued subpoena duces tecum, Mr. Chief Justice, the matter regarding the statement of account was not included. However,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And copies of the subpoena duces tecum were furnished the Prosecution and the Defense. There was no motion to reconsider. And so the Chair cannot allow you to ask questions about these monthly statements.

REP. MORENO. We will at the proper time, Mr. Chief Justice, ask for the reconsideration for the noninclusion of the monthly statements which we have sought…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When did you receive a copy of the subpoena duces tecum?

REP. MORENO. This was sometime last week. But let me just state for the record, Mr. Chief Justice, that in our original request for the issuance of a subpoena…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was clear enough. And the Chair had already mentioned to you that there was an agreement among the parties. And that was the reason why some of the items indicated in the request were not included in the subpoena duces tecum. You cannot ask for a reconsideration now much less would you be allowed to ask questions relating thereto which is contrary to the agreement earlier made, and when no reconsideration was filed by the party to a subpoena issued a week ago. You can go to other points.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Now, Mr. Witness, aside from this account, what other accounts, if any, does the First Lady, Luisa P. Ejercito, have with Citibank?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Objection, Mr. Chief Justice. Considering that what is involved here is that particular check of Governor Chavit Singson, that P8-million check, that was the only document that was the subject of the subpoena duces tecum, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the subpoena duces tecum mention any other account?

MR. FLAMINIANO. No other other accounts, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, in our offer…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not in the offer, but in the subpoena duces tecum, because the witness came here by virtue thereof. So the point of the Presiding Officer is, do not try to insert anything which is not covered by the subpoena duces tecum so the Court cannot be misled.

REP. MORENO. When we made our offer, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, one of the purposes that we have stated, which the Defense counsel did not object to, is as follows: to prove that President Joseph Estrada is guilty of graft and corruption and unexplained wealth or ill- gotten wealth; to prove that President Joseph Estrada is guilty of the charges under Articles 1 and 2 of the Articles of Impeachment.

Now, Mr. Chief Justice, under Republic Act 6713, public officials, including the President, are mandated by law to file their Statement of Assets and Liabilities. And in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities filed as of 1999 December 31 by President Estrada, the cash…the statement indicated a cash in hand or in banks of only P6.5 million, Mr. Chief Justice. Now, this is one of the items covered in the Articles of Impeachment. And the questions that I have asked and would like to pursue will prove that President Joseph Estrada is guilty of graft and corruption and unexplained or ill-gotten wealth, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Counsel, the witness was precisely called to testify on certain documents specified in the subpoena duces tecum, copies of which had been furnished both counsel. There was no request for a reconsideration for the inclusion of other documents. If Your Honor would believe that there is such a necessity for the production of the documents, the Chair will not allow its production now because it is in violation of the subpoena duces tecum that had been issued, which was arrived at after the parties had agreed on specifications to be contained in a subpoena duces tecum.

REP. MORENO. And, Mr. Chief Justice, a subpoena ad testificandum was also issued to Citibank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did it include the matters that you would like to raise now and to elicit from the witness?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What? About the…

REP. MORENO. The other accounts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The other account.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, we are now in the other account. That is mentioned. Yes, the honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to address these questions to the distinguished counsel.

Mr. Counsel, do you know whether the President and his First Lady filed a joint or a separate Income Tax Return? That is one. Second, do they have an absolute community of property or absolute separation of property or conjugal partnership of gains?

REP. MORENO. To the first question…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, excuse me. Probably, we should have a break at this point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A break?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes. It is out of the ordinary for me to raise that issue but I have reasons for doing so, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, then. The Majority Leader is recognized.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. It is now 3:46 and a break might be helpful to all the parties. I move for a 20-minute break.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes. So, we shall resume at 4:05.

It was 3:46 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:13 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., and the Honorable Presiding Officer, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is resumed.

We will wait for a little while for the Defense.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice, perhaps we can proceed.

I am prepared anyway to handle the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can continue without

Atty. Flaminiano and the others?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor. I am designated as Counsel-in-Charge anyway.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. You are the Assisting Cross-Examining Counsel.

MR. FORTUN (S). Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Moreno, you may now proceed.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, during the break, the Prosecution panel had a discussion on the matter at hand, and we had decided so as to expedite the process, and since, anyway, there would still be appropriate processes that would still be available, we are proposing, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, some stipulations to the Defense panel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make the proposal.

REP. MORENO. That the First Lady, Luisa P. Ejercito, has other accounts with Citibank, Manila, and in the…with Citibank. And these accounts include not only savings and current accounts but also purchases of long-term and short-term commercial papers; and investments in Treasury bills, government bonds and other instruments.

Secondly….

MR. FORTUN (S). We decline to stipulate on the first item,

Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s that again?

MR. FORTUN (S). We decline to stipulate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not accepted.

MR. FORTUN (S). Not accepted.

REP. MORENO. The second proposed stipulation, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is that, President Joseph Estrada has accounts with Citibank, and these accounts include savings as well as current accounts, time deposits, and long-term commercial paper and short-term commercial paper investments, as well as investments in Treasury bills, government bonds and other investment instruments.

MR. FORTUN (S). We cannot stipulate on these because they are precisely too general and unspecific in character. Perhaps these could be the appropriate subject matter of a subpoena duces tecum.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not admitted?

REP. MORENO. The third, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is that President Joseph Estrada and/or First Lady Luisa P. Ejercito, jointly or singly, has foreign currency deposit accounts maintained with

Citibank NA.

MR. FORTUN (S). Not admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not admitted.

REP. MORENO. The next proposed stipulation is that, Ms. Guia Gomez has accounts with Citibank NA, and these accounts include savings, current deposits as well as time deposits, and investments in long-term and short-term commercial papers as well as investments in Treasury bills, government bonds and other investment instruments.

MR. FORTUN (S). Not admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not admitted by the Defense.

REP. MORENO. The next proposed stipulation, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is that Ms. Laarni Enriquez has accounts with CitiBank NA. These accounts include savings, current and time deposits, as well as investments in long-term and short-term commercial papers and investments in Treasury bills, government bonds and other investment instruments, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). Not admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not admitted by the Defense.

MR. MORENO. The next stipulation proposed is that Ms. Joyce Melendrez has accounts with Citibank NA, and these accounts include savings, current and time deposits, as well as investments in long-term and short-term commercial papers, and investments in Treasury bills, government bonds and other investment instruments, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

MR. FORTUN (S). Not admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not admitted by the Defense.

REP. MORENO. The next is that–the next proposal, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is that, Mr. Jose Velarde, alone or in conjunction with others…..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, Prosecutor Moreno. Has this something to do with the testimony of the witness now on the stand?

REP. MORENO. We would have wanted to ask him that, Mr. Chief Justice, but in the interest of….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All of those items that you wanted to?

REP. MORENO. Two more, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed with the two more.

REP. MORENO. That Mr. Jose Velarde, alone or in conjunction with others, has deposit accounts with Citibank, whether savings, current and time deposits, and also has investments through Citibank in long-term and short-term commercial papers, and investments in Treasury bills, government bonds and other investment instruments, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). Not admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not admitted by the Defense.

REP. MORENO. And the final proposed stipulation is that, Mr. Kevin Garcia, alone or in conjunction with others, has accounts with Citibank including savings, current and time deposits, as well as long-term and short-term commercial paper investments and investments in Treasury bills, government bonds and other investment instruments, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). Not admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not admitted by the Defense.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. We reserve the Prosecution’s proffer. We would like to proffer, Mr. Chief Justice, because many of the questions that I have wanted to ask and which I had wanted answered on the part of the witness were disallowed. And accordingly, Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to make the following proffer.

If the witness, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is asked whether ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The proffer of what?

REP. MORENO. Proffer of evidence, Mr. Chief Justice. The testimony of the witness, Mr. Vic Lim.

If the witness is asked whether President Estrada or Mrs. Luisa P. Ejercito or Ms. Laarni Enriquez or Ms. Joyce Melendrez or Ms. Guia Gomez or Mr. Jose Velarde or Mr. Kevin Garcia has other accounts with Citibank, these accounts are either in savings, current or time deposit accounts, or investments in long-term and short-term commercial papers, or in Treasury bills and government bonds and other investment instruments, the witness would answer “yes”.

MR. FORTUN (S). I move to strike, Your Honor. This has never been the subject of any matter covering the testimony of the witness nor has it been….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What Counsel did was only to make a sort of proffer of evidence–

MR. FORTUN (S). Very well, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –which should really be only in the nature of offer of proof.

MR. FORTUN (S). I withdraw my motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not evidence. What we announced is not evidence.

REP. MORENO. If I may proceed to the other items, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, on the deposit, the other check also issued by Governor Singson which was deposited to the other account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Covered by stipulation?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. I just would like to ask some questions from the witness, and this may not take long, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. These are covered by the stipulation. What else would you want from the witness?

REP. MORENO. For instance, Mr. Chief Justice, whether the amount of P46,350,000.00 covered by this check exhibit, copy is Exhibit “GGGGGGG-2” and the dorsal portion is “GGGGGGG-3”. The amount of P46,350,000.00, which is the amount of this check which was deposited to the account of Mr. William Gatchalian, Account No. 8131201377 in Citibank, was actually credited to the account after the clearing of the check, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Credited to whose account?

REP. MORENO. Related to the account of Mr. William Gatchalian, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). We so stipulate. That was part of our stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is part of the stipulation, I guess.

REP. MORENO. If I recall correctly, they just stipulated on the existence but not on the truth. And this one is with respect to the crediting, the actual crediting.

MR. FORTUN (S). We are now making the stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it not shown at the dorsal portion of the check to where it was, in whose account it was deposited?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, that evidences the act of the deposit of the check. The dorsal portion is just a copy of the microfilm which Citibank made before sending this check to clearing. As to whether or not this check was honored by the drawee bank is exactly the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Covered by the stipulation, what do you say? Because if it was, in fact, covered by the stipulation, the Counsel may proceed along that line.

MR. FORTUN (S). We now make such a stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, there is such a stipulation now.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. That’s all for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination, who will cross-examine?

MR. FORTUN (S). I will cross-examine the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Lim, good afternoon, Sir.

MR. LIM. Good afternoon also, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Can I ask you a few questions on cross-examination?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). I just have a few, Sir, so that I do not waste your time.

MR. LIM. Okay.

MR. FORTUN (S). Will you tell us, Sir, whether you have any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the checks which you had identified this afternoon?

MR. LIM. Can you elaborate on that question, Your Honor?

MR. FORTUN (S). Would you know how or why these checks were issued?

MR. LIM. No, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And this is obvious from the fact that you had absolutely no participation in respect of the issuance of these checks, correct, Sir?

MR. LIM. Definitely, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Neither in respect of their having been deposited in the accounts mentioned?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say “Yes”, yes, you do not or….?

MR. LIM. I do not know anything about the nature of the transaction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We should always clarify answers in the affirmative when actually a witness intends to say in the negative.

MR. FORTUN (S). Very well, Your Honor.

MR. LIM. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Lim, will you tell us whether you have any knowledge of the fact that these checks, whether that allegedly issued and deposited in the account of Mrs. Loi Estrada and that in Mr. William Gatchalian’s account emanated from jueteng?

MR. LIM. I have no idea that it came from jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And you know this for a fact because you have absolutely no idea from whence these checks were funded, correct, Sir?

MR. LIM. Yes, I have no idea where the funding of these checks came from.

MR. FORTUN (S). I have nothing further, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. We have no re-direct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable members of the Court, any question? The honorable Senator-Judge Drilon, and then the honorable Senator-Judge Leviste.

SEN. DRILON. Just a very simple question. Mr. Witness, you earlier mentioned that you have threshold deposits for depositors in the Citibank. Did I get you correct there, Mr. Witness?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And you also mentioned that you’ve threshold for private individuals, is that correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And you would have also a higher threshold for those in business, is that correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. How about for senators?

MR. LIM. It depends on their capacity also, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And for public officials, in general, would you have a threshold?

MR. LIM. It’s all dependent on their capacity, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. For example, for a senator, how much would the threshold be?

MR. LIM. I cannot generalize, Your Honor, because we look at it on a case to case, depending on the pattern that they have established and the amount of, let’s say, income they declare.

SEN. DRILON. What would be the threshold for the President of the Republic?

MR. LIM. Well, based at the time of the deposits, let’s say, in 1999, the threshold would be around P2 million, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Can you elaborate a little bit? What do you mean by “the threshold would be P2 million”? Pesos, not dollars?

MR. LIM. That’s P2 million, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. What do you exactly mean by “a threshold of P2 million for the President of the Republic of the Philippines”?

MR. LIM. We also look at the pattern of behavior, you know, like let’s say, an account normally transacts only once a month or the deposit levels of that account is, let’s say, at P2 million a month regularly for the past year. So we put that threshold at that level. So, anything that exceeds a single big deposit of that threshold triggers a report and alarm sets that we have to try to contact the customer just to verify, you know, the nature of the transaction deposit.

SEN. DRILON. In the case of Exhibit “FFFFFFF-3”, which is P8 million to Loi Estrada, was this over the threshold that you mentioned?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor. It triggered us to ask.

SEN. DRILON. Triggered you to ask what and whom?

MR. LIM. It is our internal policy that once the threshold is, you know, exceeded, part of our practice is that we try to contact the customer and ask what is the nature of the deposit and what is the underlying transaction.

SEN. DRILON. In this particular case, did you ask the depositor?

MR. LIM. The account officer made an attempt to ask, but the account holder was not available at that time.

SEN. DRILON. So what did you do with the account officer?

MR. LIM. The account officer also talked to the authorized representative but no comment was….saying that it was just left for deposit.

SEN. DRILON. Who is the authorized representative?

MR. LIM. Lucena “Baby” Hortaleza, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Again?

MR. LIM. Lucena “Baby” Hortaleza, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Lucena…Lucena “Baby” Hortalez.

MR. LIM. Baby Hortaleza.

SEN. DRILON. Baby–a middle name or what?

MR. LIM. It’s the nickname they use when they call each other.

SEN. DRILON. All right. So, you made a query but there was no reply?

MR. LIM. There was no reply, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. So, what did you do?

MR. LIM. Based….At that time the branch officers consulted with the compliance officer and given that it was a business transaction that there was, you know, no reason for us to doubt and given the standing of the First Lady in the community, we accepted the deposit.

SEN. DRILON. What do you mean by “business transaction that you have no reason to doubt”?

MR. LIM. We were saying that, you know, it probably happened as a regular course of, you know, of a deposit–of a depositor, maybe if she had a business transaction we didn’t know.

SEN. DRILON. So, but it did trigger a query wherein you got no satisfactory reply?

MR. LIM. No reply, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The honorable Senator-Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. With the permission of the honorable Chief Justice, just a few clarificatory questions to Mr. Victor Lim.

I understand, Mr. Lim, that Citibank has a banking approach called “relationship banking”. Is that correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. And you would be in a position then… would you be knowledgeable of this so-called relationship account of the First Lady and the whole range of the financial services that her portfolio would carry?

MR. LIM. You know, for my protection and that of the bank, in light of bank secrecy laws, it would be prudent for the bank to get a court order before answering that question, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Well, I would leave that to the Prosecution then.

I would just want to know. Would you be in a position, at this point in time, to be…to roughly give us an estimate–the estimated amount of the total portfolio today of the account?

MR. LIM. I’m sorry, Your Honor. Much as I want to cooperate, I’m invoking my right as a witness. I do not want to incriminate myself in these proceedings. So…

SEN. LEVISTE. I understand.

MR. LIM. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Could you kindly give us the information, if you may, if you can, what type of an account does the First Lady have at Citibank? What do you call this account, is it a Gold Account? Is it a Citibank private account? I understand that there are different accounts depending on the amount. What would you call it?

MR. LIM. Your Honor, I’m really very sorry. But again the reasons, as I cited earlier of bank secrecy laws, I’m constrained not to give an answer.

SEN. LEVISTE. Do Citibank Gold clients have a minimum account of $100,000.00?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And Citibank Private Banking clients, what is the minimum for the Citibank Private Banking clients?

MR. LIM. $2 million, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. $2 million. Would the account of the First Lady fall within any of these?

MR. LIM. Again, Your Honor, I am very sorry I could not answer that question.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you anyway.

MR. LIM. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anybody else? The honorable Senator-Judge Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you, Your Honor.

Just for my education. Let us say there is an individual who comes with P100 million. Then, he deposits it in your bank. What are the questions that you ask?

MR. LIM. We would ask like, you know, what is the underlying reason you are making such a big deposit.

SEN. JAWORSKI. And if you have doubts, what do you do?

MR. LIM. We would turn down the deposit.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Just like that?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Are you sure?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. JAWORSKI. You don’t figure out the earnings for the bank?

MR. LIM. Sometimes prudence is more important than earnings, Your Honor.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Then we have hope in the banking system?

MR. LIM. I think there is, Your Honor, especially now that there are new Circulars like 251 which was signed last July 7. And I think there are many anti-money laundering bills being passed, you know.

SEN. JAWORSKI. And lastly, what is the atmosphere in the banking system with what is going on in this impeachment process?

MR. LIM. I think everybody is just watching. We also want to know both sides, I think.

SEN. JAWORSKI. So, there is no anxiety?

MR. LIM. I guess, in any proceedings there is always anxiety, Your Honor.

SEN. JAWORSKI. So, you are not just watching.

MR. LIM. We are watching always.

SEN. JAWORSKI. And very excited and anxious?

MR. LIM. Anxious, excitement. I guess, everyone in this room is I think…

SEN. JAWORSKI. Also outside?

MR. LIM. I think so, Your Honor.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The honorable Senator Cayetano. Then, after that, the honorable Senator Biazon.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Very briefly.

Mr. Lim, you talked about “threshold”. When a “threshold” amount has been reached say, by a public official, you said it triggers some kind of an investigation. Am I correct?

MR. LIM. Not really an investigation but more of a friendly query, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, a friendly query.

And what is the intent of that friendly query? What do you seek to discover?

MR. LIM. We just want to be sure that the bank is, you know… It is a way to detect and deter money laundering.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Now that you mentioned the word that I have in mind, the reason for that is because Citibank is subject to the RICO Law of the United States. Am I correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Which RICO Law strictly requires the bank to disclose what might be suspicious accounts. Am I correct?

MR. LIM. Your Honor, we are, as a US bank, there are US laws and there are Philippine laws. And Philippine laws have bank secrecy laws. And Philippine laws takes precedence over US laws.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. But what I am saying is that as far as I know, aside from the bank secrecy law in the Philippines, there is no BSP rules on threshold amount. I mean, that a bank may cause to trigger, as you said, a friendly inquiry. Correct?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, this friendly inquiry as a result of this having breached a threshold amount by a public official is purely a Citibank regulation or a RICO Law rule?

MR. LIM. No. This is a local guideline that we follow just to make sure that we don’t become participants in money laundering.

SEN. CAYETANO. Have you ever discovered money laundering throughout your years of being in the Citibank?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor. We’ve asked certain accounts to be closed.

SEN. CAYETANO. You asked the accounts to be closed.

MR. LIM. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. And after that, do you report it to the BSP?

MR. LIM. The reporting requirement only happened when the BSP 251 was passed on July 7, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Of year 2000?

MR. LIM. Year 2000.

SEN. CAYETANO. But your discovery of this money laundering activity–

MR. LIM. Were prior to that.

SEN. CAYETANO. –was prior to that. Can you describe the nature, without describing the depositor, of this money laundering that you discovered?

MR. LIM. No mention of names as an example, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, yes.

MR. LIM. For example, this client walks in and introduces that he has a business. Then, suddenly you realize that over a period of, let us say, three or four months, a lot of cash deposits, then a lot of wire transfers right away to various spots, you know, like British Virgin Islands. So, those things we ask them, “You know, we don’t want to transact business with you.”

SEN. CAYETANO. So, that’s just one example. How about without inclusion of any banking institutions from abroad, purely on domestic banking?

MR. LIM. That was the–most of the situations are just like that, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you. Thank you, very much.

MR. LIM. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you too.

The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

When the threshold in relation to the deposit of the P8 million was found out, this triggered some kind of a report as you have stated?

MR. LIM. It made the branch officers start to ask the account- holder.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. If a friendly cursory examination or investigation of the account was done, what would have been the questions raised?

MR. LIM. Like we would ask them, “Why did you have suddenly this P8-million deposit?”

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

MR. LIM. That’s the kind of question we ask, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Was this question asked of the representative?

MR. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. What was the answer?

MR. LIM. “It was just left to me for deposit”, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Would you know if this P8 million was proceeds in the sale, for example, of real estate?

MR. LIM. We have no idea, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. You would not.

MR. LIM. No.

SEN. BIAZON. Would you know if this is, for example, profits from some specific business transactions?

MR. LIM. We wouldn’t have any idea, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. You would not.

MR. LIM. Because as I mentioned, there was no response from the account-holder.

SEN. BIAZON. Will you know if this P8 million is part of proceeds of jueteng money?

MR. LIM. Definitely, Your Honor, I don’t know about jueteng at all even at that time, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. You would not know that this P8 million could be part of the proceeds of jueteng money?

MR. LIM. We wouldn’t know, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. You would not know?

MR. LIM. We wouldn’t know, Your Honor, at that time.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other reservations from the other members of the….

The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Can you tell us, Mr. Lim, if you have a depositor by the name of Kevin Garcia in your bank?

MR. LIM. Well, I haven’t checked, Your Honor, no, but definitely in Citibank , we do not open fictitious accounts.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Who told you that Kevin Garcia is a fictitious account?

MR. LIM. I don’t know. I’m just saying because that’s the rumor in the banking community, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. So, there is a rumor that a certain Kevin Garcia maintains an account in banks but this name is fictitious. Is that what you are saying?

MR. LIM. That’s the rumor. It’s only a rumor, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right, rumor or not, do you have a Kevin Garcia depositor in your bank?

MR. LIM. We didn’t check, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. What do you mean, you didn’t…

MR. LIM. We haven’t checked if, you know, if such…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Can you check it for us then?

MR. LIM. We can, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right. I will leave it to the Prosecutors to follow that up. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No further questions, the witness is now excused.

MR. LIM. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Mr. Lim.

Next witness for the prosecution?

Prosecutor Apostol?

REP. APOSTOL. May we request, Mr. Chief Justice, because of the questioning of the Senator-Judges, especially the Senate President that in due time, we will be allowed to recall the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness who?

REP. APOSTOL. Victor Lim.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For what purpose?

REP. APOSTOL. Under, of course, a new subpoena.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For what purpose?

REP. APOSTOL. Well, first, to follow up the questioning of the Senate President on Kevin Garcia, and another Senator-Judge also on these deposits.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there no manifestation of a waiver of redirect?

REP. APOSTOL. We did but he was always…we had a reservation earlier under Article 2 on this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be a new policy, that…a very unconventional scenario again when after the members of the Court shall have asked questions, anyone of the parties may ask leave to ask questions.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. But two Senator-Judges said we leave it up to the Prosecution to follow up their questioning, and then we subpoena this witness under Article 1, and we will see if we can request for a subpoena under Article 2.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, if you want to present the witness on another article, there is nothing that can prevent you from doing that.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But for you now to ask questions after the members of the Court had asked questions, that, we cannot allow.

REP. APOSTOL. We are not asking any question. We are saying only, we are praying that we be allowed to recall this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then you can take the proper move afterwards–

REP. APOSTOL. We will do that, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –without necessarily asking permission of the Court right now.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

Our next witness is Atty. Ruben Almadro.

Our examining counsel is private prosecutor…may I request now that Prosecutor Raul Gonzalez be allowed to say something.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, we manifested that we will be presenting evidence in Article 3 in the meantime, Your Honor, as we manifested yesterday morning. And we have Mr. Ruben Almadro who is ready to tesify. However, Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to state that we are still machine-copying the documents because as I said earlier, the Defense did not want the photocopying to be done this morning. It was only at one o’ clock.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We heard that already. But yesterday, we got the assurance of Prosecutor Apostol that there would be more witnesses also for Article 1. He requested for the issuance of subpoenas to Ricaforte, although there is a pending incident on the

matter regarding the request to have her declared as an adverse witness. But there was that request for the issuance of the subpoena not only

for her; there was also a request for the issuance of a subpoena for

Mr. Anton Prieto.

REP. GONZALEZ. That was coupled with a subpoena duces tecum for the PNB Naga City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the request was for January 12. Yesterday, it was made to appear that it was the fault of the Court that it cannot be issued immediately. It turned out that the request was for January 12.

REP. GONZALEZ. At any rate, Your Honor, we have a witness, Mr. Almadro, who is available to testify on Article 3.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you say, Atty. Daza?

MR. DAZA. We are ready for whoever witness they want to present today or any time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, where is he now?

REP. GONZALEZ. He is coming, Mr. Chief Justice, but I would like to mention that because of what happened this morning in the copying of the documents,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we have heard several times on that already. Do not repeat the grounds, repeating as if…

REP. GONZALEZ. No, I am not repeating, Your Honor. I am just saying that I present this witness without the documents…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, the documents can follow. So, you can probably start with the witness on matters which will not yet require the identification of documents.

REP. GONZALEZ. But basically, Your Honor, this witness will…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about the other two witnesses that you have mentioned? Yasay, for instance, you mentioned, Yulo, then, Mary Ann Cruz…Corpuz, I am sorry.

MR. DAZA. Ramon Garcia.

REP. GONZALEZ. Your Honor, we explained to Your Honor yesterday that Mr. Yasay will testify after Almadro and Yulo could have testified.

Mr. Almadro is here, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Administer the oath,

Mr. Secretary.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, the examining counsel will be Private Prosecutor Hernando Perez; assisting counsel will be Atty. Chona Dimayuga, under my direct control and supervision.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Swear in the witness.

MR. DAZA. For the Defense, Your Honor. The cross-examining counsel will be myself and assisting counsel will be Atty. Jose Flaminiano.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left hand on the Holy Bible and answer me.

You, RUBEN ALMADRO, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat, Mr. Witness. Atty. Perez.

MR. PEREZ. With the permission of the honorable Chief Justice and the honorable Senator-Judges. Will you please state your name, age, and other personal circumstances?

MR. ALMADRO. I am Atty. Ruben L. Almadro, 44 years old, married, and residing at 70 Maria Elena Street, Carmel I, Quezon City. Ako po ay isang inhenyero at isang abogado. Ako ay dating vice-president ng Philippine Stock Exchange at pinuno ng Compliance and Surveillance…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer would request you to testify in English since you are a lawyer.

MR. ALMADRO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. PEREZ. Mr. Chief Justice and the honorable Senator-Judges, we are offering the testimony of this witness to prove that:

1.In 1999, there were unusual movements in the price and trading volume of BW Resources Corporation, which is now known as Fairmont Holdings Incorporated, one of the listed companies in the Philippine Stock Exchange, and that while BW Resources was incurring losses in its operation, its stocks went up;

2.The Compliance and Surveillance Group of the Philippine Stock Exchange investigated these unusual price and volume movements;

3.That the CSG or the Compliance and Surveillance Group found that the unusual price and volume movements of BW was the result of price manipulation and insider trading by Dante Tan and his associates;

4.The witness will explain specific acts of manipulation done by Dante Tan and show examples thereof;

5.The results of the CSG investigation are contained in an investigation report on BW Resources Corporation prepared by the witness principally;

6.A copy of the report was given to President Joseph Ejercito Estrada in Malacañang by Mr. Jose Luis “Nonoy” Yulo, Jr., then President of the Philippine Stock Exchange and the witness himself;

7.The President defended Dante Tan;

8.The President pressured then SEC Chairman Yasay and then Philippine Stock Exchange President Jose Luis “Nonoy” Jr. to clear Dante Tan;

9.In connection with the investigation of BW Resources, President Estrada intimated to Mr. Yulo and the witness during their audience with the President that Dante Tan paid then Chairman Yasay to have Dante Tan cleared in the BW scandal; and

10The witness resigned as vice-president and head of the CSG of the Philippine Stock Exchange because he felt that the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee of the Philippine Stock Exchange was about to whitewash the results of the CSG investigation, particularly the participation of the brokers in the manipulative schemes of Mr. Dante Tan.

Mr. Witness, you stated that you were former vice-president and head of the Compliance and Surveillance Group of the Philippine Stock Exchange. When did you occupy these positions?

MR. ALMADRO. Since June 1997 until March 7, 2000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And as head of the CSG or the Compliance and Surveillance Group, what were your principal duties and responsibilities?

MR. ALMADRO. The Compliance and Surveillance Group of the PSE serves as, in a way, the policeman of the Exchange. We make sure that trading in the stock market is fair, efficient and transparent. That is my principal duty. And in these duties, I was assisted by three departments under my supervision, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What were these three departments that you mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. The Compliance Audit Department, which audits the books and records of all the brokers to make sure that clients are protected; the Special Investigation Department, which handles investor complaints and conducts investigations when warranted; and the Market Surveillance Department, which looks at the market, monitors the market on a day-to-day basis to make sure that there are no price manipulation or insider trading activities and other trading-related anomalies going on, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Are you familiar with BW Resources Corporation?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Why are you familiar with that corporation?

MR. ALMADRO. Because BW Resources Corporation is one of the listed companies of the Philippine Stock Exchange. Moreover, in 1999, when I was still head of the Compliance and Surveillance Group, we conducted an investigation of transactions involving BW Resources Corporation.

MR. PEREZ. And why did you conduct such an investigation?

MR. ALMADRO. In 1999, BW was one of the most popular, if not the most popular, issues in the stock exchange. Its trading pattern was quite unusual. There was unusual price and volume movements. In fact, it rose meteorically in October 1999 and plunged shortly thereafter. We conducted the investigation to determine if these unusual price and volume movements was simply the result of free market forces or whether it was due to insider trading activities or price manipulation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What power or authority did you have to conduct such investigation?

MR. ALMADRO. The Philippine Stock Exchange is a self-regulatory organization, which means to say that it has the power to police its own ranks, and this power was vested by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the exercise of this power, it is the CSG that handles investigations whenever there are anomalies in the market. Aside from that, Your Honor, we received specific orders and instructions from the SEC to conduct an investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. From what time to what time did you conduct this investigation?

MR. ALMADRO. We started the investigation in late May 1999. We completed the investigation in February 2000.

MR. PEREZ. At this point, Your Honor, I will be needing the exhibits but, apparently, the exhibits…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They are not yet ready?

MR. PEREZ. Not yet ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can probably suspend. How much time would be needed? Try to find out.

MR. PEREZ. About 15 minutes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. About 15 minutes. So you are requesting for a suspension?

MR. PEREZ. Yes, Your Honor. We are due for a recess.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes, Atty. Flaminiano?

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have no objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There being none, the trial is suspended for 15 minutes. We will resume at 5:15.

It was 4:58 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 5:23 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. and the Honorable Presiding Officer Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

Atty. Perez.

MR. PEREZ. With the permission of the honorable Chief Justice and the honorable Senator-Judges.

We have caused to be distributed, Your Honors, copies of our exhibits, with the exception of Exhibit “7777777″ which is currently being copied. That exhibit, Your Honor, will be presented later and it is estimated that by the time I reach to “7777777″, we would have…ah, “M” rather, we would have finished with the other exhibits.

May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

MR. PEREZ. And for purposes, Your Honor, of…

MR. DAZA. For the meantime, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. What is the pleasure of Atty. Daza?

MR. DAZA. In the meantime, can we be furnished with copies of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean you were not given copies of the exhibits?

MR. DAZA. No, not yet.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Defense should have been given first.

MR. DAZA. We’ve just received a copy. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, may we be allowed to set up the overhead projector so that we will be able to show transparencies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No objection? [Silence] There being none, the request is granted.

MR. PEREZ. Mr. Witness, you stated that you started the investigation of BW Resources in May 1999. What were the circumstances that led to the investigation of the said BW Resources?

MR. ALMADRO. In May 1999, the price of BW jumped from a price of P3.95 at the start of the month to P11.00 by the end of May 1999, Your Honor. This was quite unusual, and this was coupled by the fact that the value turnover, the volume and the value turnover of BW for that month, was almost twice the volume during the previous four months, starting from January, February, March up to April, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have a table showing the price and volume movement of BW Resources from January to June of 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you this document which for purposes of identification had previously been marked as Exhibit “7777777”. What is the relation of….“L” rather. What is the relation of Exhibit “LLLLLLL” with the document that you mentioned?

May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

MR. ALMADRO. This is the table which I prepared, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. May I ask that the transparency of Exhibit “LLLLLLL” be shown in the overhead projector.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Provide a seat to the young lady so we can also see from this distance.

MR. PEREZ. Will you please explain to us the movement of the price and also volume of BW stocks as shown in “LLLLLLL”?

MR. ALMADRO. As I have mentioned earlier, Your Honor, in May 1999, the price of BW which started at P3.95 at the beginning of the month rose to P11.00 per share at the end of the month. And this is shown in the table marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL”. As you can also

see from the table, the volume turnover for that month was P403,402,265.00 which, if compared with the volume turnover for

the previous four months, is more or less double the volume for the previous months, Your Honor.

Considering that there were no corporate disclosures during that month of any developments in the company that would create investor interest, Your Honor, the Market Surveillance Department of the CSG thought that this price movement and volume movement in May 1999 was unusual and indicative of possible price manipulation or insider trading, Your Honor. And that is why we started conducting an investigation and reviewing transactions of BW and closely monitoring its price, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Considering that there were no disclosures made regarding the possible change in the prices of BW shares, what was the effect of the changes in the price on the volume value and market capitalization of BW Resources?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object, unless the proper qualification of the witness to answer this particular question is first laid. May we inquire whether the witness is being presented as an expert witness on stock trading on stocks, or is he being presented merely as an ordinary witness? Otherwise, we will have to object to all these questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness was qualified earlier as to his position in the Philippine Stock Exchange and the functions of his office. Were you not satisfied with the definition of his functions?

MR. FLAMINIANO. I am not really quite satisfied with his qualification.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you can subject that on cross-examination later.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

In case the witness has forgotten the question, let me rephrase the question. Because of the volume of the transaction in BW shares, what was the effect of that volume in the market capitalization of BW?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, the market capitalization of BW, because of that increase in the volume and value turnover, also increased, Your Honor. And this is shown in another table which I prepared, Your Honor, and which has been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-1″, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. In Exhibit “LLLLLLL-1″, under the column “Volume”, there are figures indicated opposite the words January, February, March, April, May and June. Will you explain to us the meaning of those figures?

MR. ALMADRO. The figures appearing in that column, Your Honor, is the volume of the transactions or the shares transacted during that month, Your Honor. In millions, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And opposite the month and under the column “Value (Billions)”, there are figures indicated. Could you explain to us the meaning of that?

MR. ALMADRO. That is the value of the transactions on BW during that month, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And below the column “Rank”, there are figures appearing after each month from January to June. Could you explain to us the meaning of that?

MR. ALMADRO. The rank that appears here is the rank of BW among the top 20 listed companies in terms of trading value, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. With that as an explanation, could you tell us

the rank of BW Resources as of January, as reflected in Exhibit “LLLLLLL-1″?

MR. ALMADRO. As shown in the exhibit, Your Honor, in January 1999, it was ranked 16th, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. How about in the month of June 1999, what was the ranking of BW Resources?

MR. ALMADRO. In June, it suddenly became Rank No. 1, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Did you examine if there was a reason for this unusual movement of shares?

MR. ALMADRO. That was precisely, Your Honor, the subject of our investigation. We wanted to find out if this unusual movement in the volume and price of BW was the result of simply free market forces or whether it was due to possible insider trading or price manipulation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. In the course of your investigation, did you come across the financial statements of BW Resources Corporation for the first quarter of 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you Exhibit “LLLLLLL-2″ which is consisting of eight pages. Will you please tell us what is the relation of this document with the one that you have examined?

MR. ALMADRO. This document marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-2” is the quarterly report of BW Resources Corporation as of the period ended March 31, 1999, which we got from the records of the Philippine Stock Exchange in the course of our investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Did you come across the financial statements of the said corporation for the quarter ending June 30, 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you Exhibit “LLLLLLL-10” up to Exhibit “LLLLLLL-16”. What is the relation of this document with the financial statements that you have examined?

MR. ALMADRO. This document which has been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-10” is the Second Quarterly Report of BW Resources Corporation for the month ended June 30, 1999, Your Honor, which we got from the records of the Philippine Stock Exchange when we conducted our investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. So that we may be able to understand the impact of the Profit and Loss Statement contained in the financial statements for the first quarter of 1999 of BW Resources, did you prepare the corresponding table showing the Profit and Loss Statements of BW Resources?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor. We prepared the table showing the Profit and Loss Statement of BW for the first quarter which we obtained from the exhibit marked as Exhibit “LLLLL-2”.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you this document which has been previously marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-17”. What is the relation of this document with the Profit and Loss Statement of BW for the first quarter of 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. That is the Profit and Loss Statement of BW which we obtained from the first quarter of the report, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Who prepared this Exhibit “LLLLLLL-17”?

MR. ALMADRO. I prepared that exhibit but it is based, as

I said, on the quarterly report submitted by BW Resources Corporation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Opposite the statement found in Exhibit “LLLLLLL-17”, net loss, and then the figure P335,566 for the period ending March 31, 1999, what is the meaning of that pursuant to your analysis?

MR. ALMADRO. That means, Your Honor, that BW was operating at a loss for that quarter and it was operating at a loss of P335,566, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And the amount reflected under the column “March 31, 1999” amounting to P40,189,300 would be what figure?

MR. ALMADRO. Deficit at the end of period which is P40,189,300. This is the deficit of BW as of the end of that quarter, Your Honor. It means to say that at the end of the first quarter, the equity of BW was being eaten by its deficit.

In other words, the book value of the security was less than par and yet, which was quite unusual, the price of the share in the market was going up.

MR. PEREZ. Did you make a table showing the Profit and Loss Statement of BW Resources for the second quarter of 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you this document that has been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-18.” What is the relation of this Profit and Loss Statement of BW with the one you stated that you prepared?

MR. ALMADRO. This is the Profit and Loss Statement which I prepared, Your Honor, the figures and data of which I obtained from Exhibit “LLLLLLL-10” for the second quarter report of BW Resources Corporation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. There appears to be a figure opposite the words “Net Loss” and under the column June 30, 1999. Could you tell us the significance of that?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, at the end of the second quarter, the net loss of BW was even higher than its net loss during the first quarter, Your Honor, because the net loss now was more than P4 million whereas in the first quarter, the net loss was only P335,566, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And there is a statement or figure reading “43,954,610” opposite the words “deficit at end of period.” Could you explain to us the meaning of that?

MR. ALMADRO. That means to say, Your Honor, that at the end of the second quarter, the deficit of BW was even higher than the first quarter, Your Honor, and yet–and this was quite unusual– the price, as I said, increased even further in June 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. After June of 1999, what happened to the price and trading volume of BW Resources?

MR. ALMADRO. During the months of July and August, the…. In June, Your Honor, the price of BW increased from P13.25 at the start of the month to around P27.50 at the end of the month, Your Honor. This was a very, very big jump, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have any table to show the movement of the price and volume of BW Resources from the month of June 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you this document which has been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-19”, could you tell us the relation of this document with the document that you mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. This document, Exhibit “LLLLLLL-19”, is the table on the price and volume movement of BW from June up to November 1999 which I prepared, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you explain to us the significance of the table that you have prepared?

MR. ALMADRO. Well, this table shows the price and volume of BW during the months of June, July, August, September, October up to November, Your Honor. It also shows the change in price from the start of the month up to the end of the month and from the end of the month compared to the beginning of the year, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What happened in the month of September 1999? Will you explain the trading and the volume as well as the price of the movement of shares of BW Resources?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, as can be seen from the table marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-19”, in September, the price of BW reached a record high of P53 per share, Your Honor, at the end of the month. It started at P24.75. Its volume turnover was also very, very high, Your Honor. It reached P505,197,748, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. As a result of this tremendous movement of shares, do you have any table to show the volume and value of the market capitalization of BW Resources from the month of June up to the month of November 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you the document that has been marked previously as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-20”. What is the relation of this document with the one that you have previously mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. This is the document which I previously mentioned, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. There are figures below the column “Volume (Millions)” and opposite the month from June to November. Could you explain to us the significance of those entries?

MR. ALMADRO. These entries show the number of shares of BW in millions transacted during that month, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And below the column “Value (Billions)” and opposite the month June to November, there were figures indicated. Could you tell us the significance of these figures?

MR. ALMADRO. These figures, Your Honor, is the value of the transaction in BW for those particular months, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Therefore, could you tell us how much was transacted in pesos for the month of June?

MR. ALMADRO. For the month of June, the value of the transactions in billions of pesos was P7,750,000,000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. For July?

MR. ALMADRO. P5,940,000,000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. For August?

MR. ALMADRO. P5,094,000,000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. For September?

MR. ALMADRO. For September, it was P15,780,000,000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. For October?

MR. ALMADRO. P21,619,000,000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And for November?

MR. ALMADRO. P16,330,000,000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. There are numbers indicated below the column “Rank” opposite the months of June to November. Could you tell us the meaning of those figures?

MR. ALMADRO. These figures show the rank of BW among the top 20 listed issues in the stock exchange, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you please tell us, just for the record, the ranking of BW Resources from June to November among the top 20 most-traded corporations in the stock market?

MR. ALMADRO. In June, Your Honor, BW suddenly became Rank No. 1 from Rank 16 in January, Your Honor. It maintained this rank in September, October and November. It was No. 2 in July and August, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. There is a figure here for the month of October that shows under the column “Value” that the value has reached P21.619 billion. Could you explain to us really what happened in the month of October?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, in the month of October, the price of BW as can be seen from Exhibit “LLLLLLL-19” reached very high levels, Your Honor, and the trading volume was very, very tremendous. That is why the value of the transactions is a record high, P21,619,000,000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have any table or document to show the movement of shares for the first 20 days of October in 1999 of BW resources?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you Exhibit “LLLLLLL-21”, which is page 1 of the said exhibit, and Exhibit “LLLLLLL-22” which is page 2 of the said exhibit, will you tell us the relation of these two exhibits with the table you said that you have?

MR. ALMADRO. This exhibit, Your Honor, Exhibit “LLLLLLL-21” and Exhibit “LLLLLLL-22” is the table of the price and volume movement of BW for the period October 1 to October 20, 1999 which I prepared, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you please show Exhibit “LLLLLLL-22” in the overhead projector? Could you explain to us this movement of shares using Exhibits “LLLLLLL-21” to “LLLLLLL-22”?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, as is self-evident from the exhibits, Your Honor, on October 1, the price of BW closed at P54.00. In October 4, which was a Monday, it was also P54.00. The following day, a Tuesday, it reached P60.00. The third day, it became P70.00. On the fourth day, it reached P80.50. On the fifth day, it reached P93.00 and on the Monday after that, it reached a high of P107.00 before closing at P97.00, Your Honor.

This increase in the price of BW during that period, Your Honor, was quite meteoric and very, very unusual, Your Honor. And after that, from October 11, October 12, October 13, October 14, the price of BW suddenly plunged, Your Honor. And in October 18, October 19, it reached a low of P22.00, Your Honor.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may we now request counsel to propound questions because the witness is testifying in a narrative form.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The witness has been answering questions. The Presiding Officer did not notice that the witness was testifying in a narrative form.

MR. PEREZ. Did you prepare the price chart of BW Resources for the year 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you Exhibit “LLLLLLL-23”. What is the relation of this price chart of BW Resources for the year 1999 with the one you said you prepared?

MR. ALMADRO. This Exhibit “LLLLLLL-23” is the price chart of BW for 1999 which I prepared, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. There is a statement on this exhibit and I quote: “PSE composite index”. Could you explain to us the meaning of that?

MR. ALMADRO. That is the movement of the Phisix, Your Honor, which shows the overall performance of the stock market, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Of all the shares?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. How about the words “BW prices” indicated in the said exhibit?

MR. ALMADRO. This shows the movement of the specific issue, BW, Your Honor, for that year.

MR. PEREZ. There is a sudden upward movement of the figures concerned, or rather, the table concerning BW prices. Could you tell us the meaning of that?

MR. ALMADRO. That sudden upward movement, Your Honor, that is shown in the price chart is precisely what happened in October which I explained earlier, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. You stated that you conducted an investigation

to find out whether there was something wrong in the unusual price

and volume movements of BW Resources. What did your investigation reveal?

MR. ALMADRO. Our investigation showed, Your Honor, that the unusual price and volume movement of BW was the result of price manipulation and insider trading, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And based on your investigations, who were responsible for this manipulation?

MR. ALMADRO. Our investigation showed that there was prima facie evidence that the persons responsible were Dante Tan and his associates, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. You made mention of “associates of Mr. Tan.” Could you identify them, if you know?

MR. ALMADRO. The associates I am referring to, Your Honor, are individuals who knowingly participated in the manipulative schemes of Mr. Dante Tan and without whose indispensable participation the manipulation would not have happened, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And how did Mr. Tan and his associates perform these manipulations?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, Mr. Dante Tan and his associates engaged in several manipulative schemes and devices, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the result of their manipulation insofar as …..I withdraw that question, Your Honor. Do you know the meaning of “insider trading”?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What is the meaning of “insider trading”?

MR. ALMADRO. Well, “insider trading” is trading on the basis of a non-public information, Your Honor, by persons who are insiders of the company. And by “insider”, we mean those who are officers of the corporation, those who are owners or those who control the corporation, people who have confidential relations with the corporation, like lawyers and accountants, Your Honor. These are the insiders. If they trade on the basis of information which they know and which is not available to the investing public, we call that “insider trading”, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Was Dante Tan engaged in insider trading?

MR. ALMADRO. Like I previously mentioned, Your Honor, we found out that Dante Tan and his associates engaged in insider trading, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. How about “short swing”? Could you explain to us the meaning of “short swing”?

MR. ALMADRO. “Short-swing profit”, Your Honor, is found in Section 36-B of the Revised Securities Act, the previous Revised Securities Act. It means to say that when there is an insider and he trades on the basis of inside information and within a period of less than six months he unloads or sells the shares which he previously bought or sold, there is a presumption that he engaged in insider trading. We call this “short-swing profit”, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And was Dante Tan engaged in such kind of device?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. From the investigation that you have conducted, from insider trading alone, would you be able to tell us the profit that was obtained by Dante Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Based on the data we gathered, Your Honor, we were able to come up with an estimate that Dante Tan, as early as June, Your Honor, because of insider trading, earned a profit of around P820 million, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Is the estimate that you have mentioned reduced in writing?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you this document which, for purposes of identification, had already been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-24” and “LLLLLLL-25”. Could you please examine the same and tell us the relation of these two documents with the estimate that you mentioned you prepared?

MR. ALMADRO. This Exhibit, Your Honor, marked as “LLLLLLL-24” and “LLLLLLL-25 is the computation of the profit which we estimate was reaped by Dante Tan in June 1999 as a result of insider trading, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. There is a statement in Exhibit “LLLLLLL-25” opposite the words “estimated profit by Mr. Tan”, amounting to P820,225,693.43. What is the significance of this figure?

MR. ALMADRO. That is the profit which we estimated was obtained by Mr. Dante Tan in June 1999 as a result of insider trading.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the basis of the computation that you have made?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, in June 1999, Dante Tan sold a total of 51,873,700 shares at an average price of P18.64. The gross proceeds of this sale was around P967 million, Your Honor.

These shares which were sold for the month of June were bought by him in the previous months and even prior to 1999 at an average cost of only P283, Your Honor. So, if you deduct the cost of the sales of these shares which he sold in June, which is around P146,802,000, the net profit that results is around P820 million, Your Honor. That is how we derived it, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. From 1997 to 1998, what was Dante Tan doing to be able to build up his stock position in BW Resources?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, we found out that even prior to 1999, Dante Tan was already accumulating BW shares. In fact, as of December 1998, he already accumulated as much as 84 million shares which was around 18.67% of the outstanding shares of BW, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Was that revealed by Mr. Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Dante Tan did not reveal that, as of December 1998, he was already a majority stockholder of BW because he controlled more than 10% of the stocks of BW, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Was that a violation of the law?

MR. ALMADRO. This is in violation both of the Revised Securities Act and the Rules of the Stock Exchange, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you know if Mr. Dante Tan opened various accounts with various brokers?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, we found that aside from accumulating shares even prior to 1999, Mr. Dante Tan, as one of his preparatory activities for the manipulative schemes, opened around 21 accounts in 14 brokers, Your Honor, and used 11 coded names for these accounts.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have any table or document to show what are these accounts opened by Mr. Dante Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you these documents which have already been marked as Exhibits “LLLLLLL-26”, “LLLLLLL-27” and “LLLLLLL-28.” Could you tell us the relation of these exhibits with the one that you said you prepared?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, these exhibits marked as “LLLLLLL-26”, “LLLLLLL-27” and “LLLLLLL-28” is the list of the accounts of Dante Tan with various brokers which I prepared,

Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the basis of these documents?

MR. ALMADRO. The data we gathered when we conducted the investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you know a way of transacting business in the stock market known as “wash sales”?

MR. ALMADRO. “Wash sales”, Your Honor, is a form of price manipulation. It is defined as effecting a transaction in the stock exchange on any security which involves no change in beneficial ownership done for the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in the stock market, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. On the other hand, have you ever heard of the term “match order”?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What is “match order”?

MR. ALMADRO. “Match order” refers to effecting an entry, a buy or sell order, knowing fully well that there is a corresponding contra buy or sell order being done by another party for substantially the same shares at the same price and at the same time, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. So that we will be able to understand fully the meaning of “wash sale”, could you tell us first if Dante Tan engaged in wash-sale transaction?

MR. ALMADRO. This is one of the manipulative schemes which was engaged in by Dante Tan, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Just so we will be able to understand the meaning of wash sales, did you prepare a table showing an actual example of wash-sale transaction of Dante Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you this document which has been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-29”. What is the relation of this document with the one you said you prepared?

MR. ALMADRO. This document marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-29” is an illustration of an actual wash-sale transaction which we gathered during the investigation that happened on March 29, 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you explain to us the flow of the transaction of this example of actual wash-sale transaction entered into by Dante Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, on March 29, 1999, Dante Tan sold 750,000 shares of BW at the price of P260 and he did this through Securities 2001 of his brokers.

At the same time, Dante Tan bought the same number of shares through PNB Securities, Your Honor. In other words, what Dante Tan sold he also bought, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And for what purpose was it done?

MR. ALMADRO. Wash sale, Your Honor, is usually done to create the illusion that there is a demand for a share, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And were they successful in creating such illusion?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor, because this wash-sale transaction which is shown in the exhibit, Your Honor, is only one of hundreds of wash-sale transactions which we discovered during the investigation.

MR. PEREZ. How about a done-through transaction? Do you know the meaning of a “done-through” transaction?

MR. ALMADRO. A “done-through” transaction, Your Honor, is a transaction where instead of putting the name of the client as the person who is buying or selling the share, it is his broker that does the transaction through another broker or through other brokers. That is why it is called a “done-through” transaction, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Can a “wash sale” be done by using the “done-through” transaction?

MR. ALMADRO. In this particular case, Your Honor, we found out that to effect these hundreds of wash sales, in many instances, Your Honor, Dante Tan and his associates did these through “done-through” transactions, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. So that we will be able to follow and understand the meaning of a “wash sale”, a “done-through” transaction, did you prepare a table for us of actual transaction done by Dante Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you this document which has been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-30.” Could you tell us the relation of this document with the “wash sale”, using “done-through” transaction that you mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. This exhibit marked as “LLLLLLL-30” is an illustration of a wash sale of Dante Tan’s BW shares using “done-through” transactions which were done on March 18, 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you explain to us the significance and meaning of the “done-through” transaction using “wash sales” and tell us how it was done using Exhibit “LLLLLLL-30”?

MR. ALMADRO. As shown in the exhibit, Your Honor, on March 18, 1999, Dante Tan sold or instructed his broker, A.T. de Castro, to sell 1,200,000 shares. What A.T. de Castro did was to sell these shares through four other brokers, Your Honor–Mount Peak Securities; Regina Capital; Asia-Pacific; and PJB Securities, Your Honor.

In other words, Your Honor, the seller on record that appears is A. T. de Castro, not Dante Tan. And the sale was done through these four brokers. On the same day, Your Honor, A. T. de Castro bought also for Dante Tan the same amount of shares. So what happened was that Dante Tan sold his shares involving four brokers but actually bought the very same shares which he sold, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And for what purpose was this resorted to?

MR. ALMADRO. To create an illusion of active trading, Your Honor. It would appear that there were several brokers and several clients involved in the transaction when, in truth and in fact, it was only Dante Tan himself who sold and bought his very own shares, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have another example for us of a wash sale using done-through transaction?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you this document which has been previously marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-31”, could you tell us the relation of this document with the one you mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. This exhibit marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-31” is another illustration of a wash sale of Dante Tan’s BW shares using done-through transaction which was done on April 21, 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And could you tell us or explain to us how it was implemented?

MR. ALMADRO. In this particular case, Your Honor, again, Dante Tan instructed his broker A.T. de Castro to sell 16,000 shares at P275 and 200,000 shares at P270, Your Honor. A. T. de Castro did not sell directly in the name of Dante Tan. Instead, it caused the sale to be done through Lopez Locsin, Your Honor. But A. T. de Castro also bought the same shares for account DT888 which was the account of Dante Tan, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And for what purpose was this done?

MR. ALMADRO. Again, this was to create the illusion that there was trading in BW shares when, in truth and in fact, it was only Dante Tan who bought and sold his own shares, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you know the meaning of “over-the-counter” transaction?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you explain to us the meaning of “over-the-counter” transaction?

MR. ALMADRO. Well, “over-the-counter” transactions refer to transactions which are not done through the trading floor of the Exchange, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what do you call the transaction if it is done through the trading floor of the Stock Exchange?

MR. ALMADRO. That is the normal transaction in the Stock Exchange, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. From the point of view of taxation, what is the difference between the over-the-counter transaction and the normal transaction coursed through the Stock Exchange?

MR. ALMADRO. The normal transaction coursed through the Stock Exchange is subject to a stock transaction tax of one-half of one percent, Your Honor. Whereas, transactions done over the counter are subject to capital gains tax, Your Honor, which is 5% for the first P100,000 in net gain and 10% for a net gain in excess of P100,000,

Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. In other words, the tax for the over-the-counter transaction is much bigger than the one done through the Stock Exchange?

MR. ALMADOR. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. In this particular case, do you recall having discovered over-the-counter transactions done by Mr. Dante Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. There were several over-the-counter transactions done by Dante Tan and his associates, Your Honor. The Stock Exchange has what we call “EQ Trade Facility” which is actually a facility for the transfer of shares done electronically. This facility is available for settlement purposes because trading in the Stock Exchange is now basically scriptless. So, to transfer shares from one broker to another, you do this electronically.

Now, if you transfer shares from one broker to another without a transaction on the trading floor, the transfer from one broker to another must be from the same person in Broker A to the same person in Broker B.

In other words, Your Honor, the transfer must not result in a change of beneficial ownership.

MR. PEREZ. Did you discover any over-the-counter transaction of Mr. Tan that resulted to a change in ownership?

MR. ALMADRO. There were several, Your Honor. In this case, there was an abuse of the EQ Trade facility, Your Honor. Dante Tan and his associates transferred over the counter millions of shares, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I am showing to you Exhibit “LLLLLLL-32”. Could you tell us if you have encountered this document before?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor. I prepared this document, Your Honor, marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-32”.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the basis of the document that you prepared?

MR. ALMADRO. This is based on the data we gathered from our investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you please explain to us the meaning of Exhibit “LLLLLLL-32”?

MR. ALMADRO. On September 3, 1999, Your Honor, Dante Tan instructed A.T. de Castro, one of his brokers, to transfer 15 million BW shares to Quality Investment, another broker, Your Honor. The transfer of the shares resulted in a change of beneficial ownership because when the shares were transferred to Quality, it was credited to the account of Lucio Go, Your Honor.

In other words, there was an apparent sale of the shares but this did not go through the trading floor of the Exchange, Your Honor. So, this is clearly an over-the-counter transaction, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President, with the permission of the gentlemen.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes. We have been treated to a long journey over the trails of stock trading. When are we going to see any connection at all with the charges in the impeachment complaint?

MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, about three more exhibits to go before we go to the connection. We are showing first the manipulation done in the stock market and then will come the attempted cover-up.

May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have any document to show a done-through transaction using an over-the-counter facility?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you Exhibit “LLLLLLL-33”. Could you tell us the relation of this document with the one that you have mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. This is the document which I have mentioned, Your Honor, marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-33”.

MR. PEREZ. Could you tell us if there were massive transfers of shares on August 11, 1999 of BW shareholdings?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have any document to show us showing the massive transfer?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor. I prepared a document which has been marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-34”, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the basis of the document marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-34”?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, this is based on the data we gathered in our investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you know the meaning of “kiting”?

MR ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you explain to us the meaning of “kiting”?

MR. ALMADRO. “Kiting”, Your Honor, refers to a repeated series of transactions which is done to create temporary funds, Your Honor. This involves wash sales and over-the-counter transactions, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you have any document to illustrate to us the “kiting” as a transaction?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you a document marked as “LLLLLLL-35”. Will you please examine this said document and tell us the relation of that document with the one that you have mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. This is a document which I mentioned, Your Honor, marked as Exhibit “LLLLLLL-35”.

MR. PEREZ. You illustrated earlier that there was a sudden upsurge in the price of BW Resources during the month of September. What was the reason for such an increase in the price of BW Resources pursuant to your investigation?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, prior to September 1999, we discovered that Dante Tan and his associates were engaged in price manipulation that caused the increase in the price of BW, Your Honor. In September-towards the end of September, there was news that Stanley Ho would invest in BW.

MR. PEREZ. And who is Stanley Ho?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, Stanley Ho, as known to the public, is an investor from Macao who is also engaged in several businesses, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the effect when it was announced that Stanley Ho would enter BW resources?

MR. ALMADRO. This was the time, Your Honor, when the price of BW had a sudden upsurge, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Until when did the increase of shares of BW occur?

MR. ALMADRO. As already illustrated earlier, Your Honor, the price of BW started to rise meteorically at the end of September and reached its peak on October 11,1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What happened on October 11, 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. On October 11, it reached a peak of P107 before closing at P97, Your Honor. It was…

MR. PEREZ. In other words, there was a collapse in the market shares?

MR. ALMADRO. After October 11, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. After that month, what did you do in connection with the investigation of BW resources?

MR. ALMADRO. Even after the price of BW already collapsed, Your Honor, we continued conducting an investigation on BW transactions, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Was the result of your investigation reduced into writing?

MR. ALMADRO. The results of our investigation was reduced into a report which we prepared, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, we have marked as Exhibit “M” the investigation report but it has not been copied yet. But the annexes marked as Exhibit “MMMMMMM-8” and “MMMMMMM-11” have been copied and distributed. Right now, we have already the report and we seek permission to distribute the same, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have this been distributed to the members of the Court, the Senate President and the Defense? Give the Defense copy of the report. Then to each of the members of the Court.

MR. PEREZ. You mentioned that you reduced the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Hold on, hold on for a minute.

MR. PEREZ. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We don’t have copies yet of the report. Why are these color-coded?

MR. PEREZ. Apparently, there is no reason, Your Honor.

With the permission of the Chief Justice and the honorable Senator-Judges, may I proceed now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you Exhibit “MMMMMMM”. Could you please tell us the relation of this Exhibit with the report you said you made?

MR. ALMADRO. This Exhibit marked as “MMMMMMM” is the Investigation Report on BW Resources Corporation which we prepared, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Were there Annexes and Exhibits to the said report?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor. This report comes in three parts: The main report which is Exhibit “MMMMMMM” and a separate bound report for the Exhibits as well as a separate bound volume for the Annexes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. I’m showing to you Exhibit “MMMMMMM-8” and Exhibit “MMMMMMM-11”. Could you please tell us the relation of these documents with the folder of Exhibits and Annexes you mentioned?

MR. ALMADRO. Exhibit “MMMMMMM-8” is the Volume of Exhibits which we prepared, Your Honor, while Exhibit “MMMMMMM-11” is the separate volume of the Annexes which we also prepared, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. On Page l of Exhibit “MMMMMMM”, there appears a signature opposite the name Atty. Ruben L. Almadro. Whose signature is that?

MR. ALMADRO. That is my signature, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. For the record, Your Honor, it is marked as Exhibit “MMMMMMM-6”. There is a handwritten entry opposite the words “Mr. Jose Luis U. Yulo, Jr., President/CEO”. Could you tell us who made these entries?

MR. ALMADRO. The entry which reads “Endorsed to BCEC” was handwritten by then President Jose Luis U. Yulo, Jr., Your Honor, and this is his signature, Your Honor, as well as the date which is 2-14-2000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Why do you know the signature of Mr. Yulo?

MR. ALMADRO. I am familiar because we have several memos which we sent to each other almost daily, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. For the record, Your Honor, the said portion has been marked as Exhibit “MMMMMMM-5”.

After this report has been completed, what did you do with this report?

MR. ALMADRO. When we completed the report on February 11, that was a Friday, we told Mr. Yulo that we have completed the final draft of the report and we gave him a copy, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And after giving a copy to Mr. Yulo, what happened?

MR. ALMADRO. That weekend, the entire Compliance and Surveillance Group photocopied the report and bound this in three parts, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Did you ever meet Chairman Trinidad Y. Kalaw of the Philippine Stock Exchange in connection with this report?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor. The following Monday, February 14, we formally submitted this report to the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee which was then chaired by Mrs. Trinidad Kalaw, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Did you ever get to see President Joseph Ejercito Estrada in connection with this report?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Where was that?

MR. ALMADRO. Also on February 14, 2000, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you tell us the circumstances why you submitted the report to Mr. President Joseph Estrada?

MR. ALMADRO. On February 14, Your Honor, after we gave a copy of this report to the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee, President Yulo told me that we had to go to Malacañang to give a copy of this report to President Estrada and to explain the results of our investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Is that the normal practice of the Philippine Stock Exchange?

MR. ALMADRO. No, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Why not?

MR. ALMADRO. Investigations conducted by the CSG are supposed to be given only to the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee which is the only body in the PSE that can act on the report. Thereafter, the BCEC gives copies of the report to the Security and Exchange Commission, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. You said that you went to see the President, where did you go?

MR. ALMADRO. To Malacañang, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And did you get to see the President?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you please tell us what transpired when you met the President?

MR. ALMADRO. We arrived in Malacañang around 2:15 in the afternoon, Your Honor, and we went to the Guest House. We were met by a staff of the President and told to wait for a while at the lounge. And shortly thereafter, we were led to the Office of the President, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what happened when you were led to the President?

MR. ALMADRO. When we entered the office of President Estrada, Your Honor, Mr. Yulo introduced me to him, and we shook hands. And I can still recall that the very first words he uttered were: “Pupunta na sana ako sa barbero ko, eh.” I think he said that because we were late for the appointment, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And then what happened after that?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yulo told the President that we visited him to show him a copy of the report and to explain personally the findings of the investigation of the Stock Exchange, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what did the President say, if any?

MR. ALMADRO. After Mr. Yulo explained the purpose, he gave a copy of the report– and I am referring to the main report we were holding on to the annexes and the exhibits–and Mr. Yulo told me to explain the findings to President Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. You are referring to Exhibit “MMMMMMM” and the annexes in the exhibits?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. After the report or copies thereof has been submitted to the President, what transpired?

MR. ALMADRO. I then tried to explain the results of the investigation, Your Honor. I explained this in Filipino, Your Honor. Sinabi ko sa kaniya, “Pangulo, lumalabas dito sa aming imbestigasyon na ang may kagagawan talaga ng manipulation sa stock market ay si Dante Tan. Marami kaming nakitang mga transaksyon na kung saan gumamit sila ng iba-ibang paraan ng pandaraya at panlilinlang, pagmamanipula sa stock market, at ito ay nangyari hindi lamang isa, dalawa, tatlo, apat, limang beses. Daan-daan po itong mga transaksyon na ito, kaya hindi natin pupuwedeng baliwalain.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the reply or reaction by the President, if any?

MR. ALMADRO. The President did not immediately reply so I thought that I had to explain further. So, what I did was, I tried to give more examples and tried to explain the details of the results of the investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Did the President say anything?

MR. ALMADRO. The President was, as I was explaining for the second time, the President was leafing through this report, Your Honor. And after a while, when I had stopped giving the explanation, he looked at me and said, “Alam mo, attorney, hindi ko naiintindihan ito, eh.”

MR. PEREZ. And what transpired after that?

MR. ALMADRO. When he said. “Alam mo, attorney, hindi ko naiintindihan ito,” Mr. Yulo started explaining the results to the President, and he began by saying, “President , tingnan ninyo na lamang iyong summary at conclusions noong report which can be found in Page 56.” And Mr. Yulo pointed to that specific portion of the report, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. For the record, Your Honor, we would like it to be shown that Page 56 of Exhibit “MMMMMMM” has been marked as “MMMMMMM-7”.

And what was the reaction, if any, of the President?

MR. ALMADRO. So as President Yulo explained, again using his own words on the results of the investigation, I recall that specifically Mr. Yulo said, “Alam mo, Mr. Presidente, garapal ho ang ginawa nila rito, kaya hindi dapat talaga palampasin.” And the President said, “Pero sabi sa akin ni Dante Tan, siya raw ang biktima rito, hindi siya nagmanipula. Ang totoo, malaki ang nalugi sa kanyang pera.”

MR. PEREZ. And what happened after that statement of the President?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yulo again explained and insisted, reiterated, that it was Dante Tan who was the party responsible for price manipulation and insider trading. And at one point, Mr. Yulo explained that as early as June 1999, Dante Tan already reaped a profit of P800 million, more or less.

MR. PEREZ. And what was the reaction or reply of the President?

MR. ALMADRO. The President did not react to this declaration of President Yulo that Dante Tan profited around P800 million in June 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What happened after that?

MR. ALMADRO. The President and Mr. Yulo had an exchange of discussion, with Mr. Yulo insisting that it was Dante Tan who was responsible for the manipulation and the President insisting that Dante Tan was the victim rather than the manipulator, Your Honor. This lasted for about five to ten minutes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Do you recall if the President mentioned anything about that?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Well, the witness had already answered.

MR. PEREZ. What was the reply, if any, of Mr. Yulo?

MR. ALMADRO. Well, Mr. Yulo insisted that it was Dante Tan who was at fault. And after a while, the President seemed resigned and said, “Ito talagang si Dante, hindi lahat sinasabi sa akin. Mayroon pala siyang problema diyan sa BW.”

REP. PEREZ. Then what happened after that?

MR. ALMADRO. And Mr. Yulo said, “Oho nga, Mr. President. Kaya kami nandirito para ipaliwanag sa inyo iyong resulta ng imbestigasyon at nang hindi kayo mabigla dahil ang involved po rito ay talagang si Dante Tan”.

MR. PEREZ. What transpired after that?

MR. ALMADRO. After that, there was a change of topic.

Mr. Yulo and President Estrada discussed at that time the forthcoming trip of the President to the United States, and Mr. Yulo even offerred that he would arrange a meeting between President Estrada and the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange as well as other businessmen in the United States.

MR. PEREZ. And what transpired after that?

MR. ALMADRO. They discussed this matter of the impending visit of the President for about another five to ten minutes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And then after that, was there any other further exchange?

MR. ALMADRO. Well, shortly after this exchange between President Estrada and Mr. Yulo on the forthcoming trip of the President to the United States, President Estrada suddenly slumped on his chair, and out of the blue said, “Alam mo, iyang si Yasay, napakawalang-hiya niyan, hindi lalaking kausap. Nagpunta iyan dito at sa harap ko at ni Executive Secretary Zamora ay sinabi niya na magre-resign siya sa December; pagdating ng December, ang ginawa ay pumunta ng States; pagbalik rito, kasama na si Salonga at si Ordonez at sinabing hindi na siya magre-resign.

MR. PEREZ. And what was your reaction or that of Mr. Yulo’s?

MR. ALMADRO. We did not reply to that statement made by the President, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what transpired after that?

MR. ALMADRO. After that, I was taken aback by what the President did, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What was that?

MR. ALMADRO. He suddenly sat up straight and said, “At saka sabi sa akin ni Dante, ‘yan si Yasay, inayos na niya ‘yan, inayos na niya ‘yan.”

MR. PEREZ. (Witness forming a circle with his thumb and forefinger and then waved the same towards his right.)

And what was your reaction to the words and gesture that you heard?

MR. ALMADRO. I was shocked. Here I was, facing the President of the Republic, the chief executor, the chief enforcer of the laws, he was telling me that his friend had bribed the public official and yet he did nothing to take action either against the bribe-giver or the bribe-taker.

MR. PEREZ. Do you know Mr. Perfecto Yasay, Jr.?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Why do you know him?

MR. ALMADRO. Because he used to be the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. In connection with your investigation of transactions involving BW, were there occasions when you saw Mr. Yasay?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. When was this?

MR. ALMADRO. I can recall at least three occasions, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Could you tell us when the first occasion occurred?

MR. ALMADRO. I can recall that we met sometime on November 3, 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what transpired in your first meeting with Mr. Yasay?

MR. ALMADRO. This meeting was requested by Chairman Yasay because he wanted us to give a status on our investigation of BW, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what was your reply?

MR. ALMADRO. He wanted us to give him a report. At that time, we told him that it was impossible for us to give a report because we were still in the thick of the investigation, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. How about the second meeting? When was this?

MR. ALMADRO. The second meeting took place on November 9, 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what transpired in the second meeting?

MR. ALMADRO. The second meeting, we were the ones who requested this because at that time, we were about to submit the preliminary report of our investigation and we wanted to confirm what he told us that after we submit the preliminary report, we would cease our investigation and the SEC would take over, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And the third meeting, when did it occur?

MR. ALMADRO. The third meeting took place on November 26, 1999, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. Where was it held?

MR. ALMADRO. At the Ciudad Fernandina, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And who were with you?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yulo, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. What transpired in that meeting with Mr. Yasay?

MR. ALMADRO. During that meeting, I explained to Mr. Yasay, to Chairman Yasay the difficulties we were facing in our investigation. And Mr. Yasay, after a while, said: “Alam mo, Ruben, we have no choice in this investigation. I am being pressured to clear Dante Tan and the pressure is coming all the way up from Malacañang.”

MR. PEREZ. And what was your reaction to this?

MR. ALMADRO. I told Chairman Yasay, “Chairman Yasay, this is not a matter of choice, this is a matter of us telling the true results of the investigation. The investigation was being done by the entire staff of the CSG. I had no intention of changing any result or any finding of any of my staff. What was at stake was the integrity of the stock exchange and the future of the capital market.”

MR. PEREZ. And was the reaction of Mr. Yulo?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yulo said, “Chairman, it is not correct to say that we have no choice. We have a choice and our choice is to tell the truth.”

MR. PEREZ. And what was the reaction of Mr. Yasay?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yasay, upon hearing what we told him, felt-I saw that he felt relieved and then, he said, and he gestured, “Kung ganoon, magsama tayo.”

MR. PEREZ. (Witness joining the left forefinger and the right forefinger above his head.)

What happened after that-during that meeting?

MR. ALMADRO. Five minutes before, around five minutes before nine o’clock, Chairman Yasay told us that he also had a meeting with Dante Tan. And since he did not want to be late for the meeting, he told Dante Tan just to come to Ciudad Fernandina.

MR. PEREZ. And what was your reaction to that statement?

MR. ALMADRO. Shortly after he made the statement, there was a knock on the door of the function room we were occupying. And when the door was opened, there was Dante Tan.

MR. PEREZ. And how did you feel at that time?

MR. ALMADRO. I was surprised because I was not expecting Dante Tan.

MR. PEREZ. And what transpired after that?

MR. ALMADRO. Dante Tan sat down and suddenly started explaining to us that he was not a manipulator; he was a victim. He had plans for the company, and he wanted us to help him, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what was your reply?

MR. ALMADRO. I did not say anything, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. And what happened after that?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yulo told Dante Tan that, “ Mr. Tan, I think what you should do is improve the fundamentals of your company and work on your projects.”

MR. PEREZ. You stated at the beginning of your testimony that you were vice president and head of the CSG of the Philippine Stock Exchange until March 7, 2000. What happened on March 7, 2000?

MR. ALMADRO. I resigned from the Philippine Stock Exchange.

MR. PEREZ. Why did you resign?

MR. ALMADRO. On March 7, Your Honor, this was about a month after we submitted the results of our…the report to the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee, the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee, in one of its closed-door deliberations, decided in principle to clear the brokers involved in the manipulation, Your Honor. I felt this was unfair, and I thought I could no longer work in the Stock Exchange because it was being made to appear that what we did was not being supported by the members of the Board of Governors of the Stock Exchange, Your Honor.

MR. PEREZ. That will be all of the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination.

MR. DAZA. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, we shall cross-examine this evening but once we get to the exhibits, we probably would prefer that we be allowed to cross-examine in the exhibits tomorrow, because the exhibits consist of the main report, which is 69 pages. Exhibits, 192; annexes, 214–a total of 475 pages. But we can commence the cross-examination now, asking questions that would not require reference to these exhibits so that we could maximize utilization of the time left to the Court, if that is all right with the Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the pleasure of the Majority Leader?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, it is time for the second break. I move for a 15-minute suspension.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. As usual.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will resume at 7:00 o’clock.

Suspended until 7:00 o’clock.

It was 6:43 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 7:07 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. and the Honorable Presiding Officer Chief Justice Hilario D. Davide Jr.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is now resumed. Atty. Daza, for the cross-examination?

MR. DAZA. If it pleases the Court. I heard you say that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a while, excuse me. The honorable Senator-Judge Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, just a simple question. I want to find out if Mr. Yulo has been issued a subpoena to come here as a witness.

MR. PEREZ. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. I also would like to find out if Mr.Yulo is in the room right now?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is Mr. Yulo inside the room?

SEN. COSETENG. Because I spotted him earlier. I just wanted to find out because he was sitting here the whole time that Mr. Almadro was testifying. And if he were supposed to be a witness, then shouldn’t he be in the witness room? I am just asking.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. If Mr. Yulo is around, he should step out.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Yulo, Mr. Chief Justice, was here on the first day. But he has not been here anymore.

SEN. COSETENG. No. Today he was here.

REP. GONZALEZ. He was here after the testimony was done during the recess.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Whose testimony?

REP. GONZALEZ. After Almadro’s testimony, when we were on recess, after the 15-minute break. When the break was called, Mr. Yulo just came here near the entrance of the hall, Mr. Chief Justice. But he was not here during the hearing itself.

SEN. COSETENG. I think that is not exactly true. In fact, Senator-Judge Legarda says he has been here the whole time. We were informed about it before the break, and maybe, some of the TV cameras would have picked up his image somehow. There is no way for me to check. I was just raising this as an issue, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Make of record the observation and the manifestation of the honorable Senator Coseteng.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I did not see Mr. Yulo in the room but during the break, I saw him beside the pillar out there.

REP. GONZALEZ. That is what I was saying, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. But if he is a witness, he ought to be in the holding room.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You had the admission on the part of Prosecutor Gonzalez that he was duly subpoenaed and he is a witness.

REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor, he is a witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And yet, instead of staying at the holding room, he was seen there near the door.

REP. GONZALEZ. Your Honor, I think that during the first part of this trial, Atty. Flaminiano was precisely asking that possible witnesses should be excluded from the courtroom. And I think the honorable Court no less, and the honorable Chief Justice did mention that the trial is covered by all kinds of media, and people are watching television.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But not probably the holding room where witnesses should be there while they are excluded, when other witnesses are excluded from here.

Anyway, the observations are noted and the Prosecution is advised to strictly enforce the exclusion of witnesses.

The honorable Senator Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. Mr. Chief Justice, we just want to make things rather very clear.

One of the TV cameras caught Mr. Yulo when he was sitting near, whether beside or underneath another TV camera. So, I cannot identify which TV camera caught his image.

SEN. OSMENA (J). GMA news.

SEN. COSETENG. Sorry. Oh, there is a phone call over here from Judge… Because I don’t want to be called a liar. I don’t stand up very often. But when I say something, I would like, you know, to have the Court, as well as the entire country, know that I am telling the truth. And when somebody comes and tells me it is not true, I try to really look for a way to vindicate myself. And so, maybe Senator Osmeña has something to say.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator John Osmena.

SEN. OSMENA (J). Mr. Chief Justice, for whatever it is worth because it is true that we are being viewed on television, I got a call just now from somebody who has been watching the proceedings on GMA and says that he saw the subject, Mr. Yulo, through the television program of GMA news, in the coverage of GMA news. And that perhaps, if it is important to the Court, we could ask GMA to preserve the tapes of the hearing tonight.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The issue is very important because of the rule on the exclusion of witnesses who are not yet testifying. And if it had been violated, then some sanctions should be imposed by the Court. We will try to find out the truth on this. You have the statement of no less than Senator Coseteng on the matter.

REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, there is no allusion that we are stating that the Senator was telling a lie. We were just stating a fact that we know that Mr. Yulo approached that area which was confirmed by the distinguished Majority Floor Leader. And that is what we know, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. COSETENG. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Still, the honorable Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. You know, there are many ways by which lawyers can argue this whole case out. My statement is very simple. While Mr. Almadro was testifying, Mr. Yulo was in this Hall. Whether he was still in this Hall after Mr. Almadro testified, that is a separate matter. But my statement is very simple. That while the witness was testifying, another future witness or named witness was in this Hall. And if the Prosecution insists that he wasn’t, then I want that open and I want the Court to take this issue up.

One camera operator right here is saying that he either has the tape or he knows of the fact that Mr. Yulo was in this Hall while Mr. Almadro was testifying. So are we going to get it from this camera operator? Are we going to get the tapes? Because then if it’s going to be like this, we might as well not have any rules.

And also, for the record, Mr. Chief Justice, if I may continue just a little bit, I wrote you a note and the Senate President while Mr. Almadro was testifying. So I couldn’t have seen Mr. Yulo only after the witness was done and at the same time write you a note while he was testifying. I mean, the sequence of events would show clearly that while this gentleman was testifying, I had already written you a note telling you that Mr. Yulo was in the room and I have the note right here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President recognizes this, confirms the passing of the note.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, may I now know what happens in this situation, because I think the Prosecution is not recognizing this fact that it is a violation of the rules. It’s very hard, as I said, for me to argue as a nonlawyer but I know that it’s not just right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Of course, the Court should take the word of no less than a member of the Court as against an observation merely of a prosecutor. But if it is to be further sustained by physical evidence, the honorable Senator Coseteng pointed to a cameraman who was able to take the picture and at the same time probably the tape.

The honorable Sen. Sergio Osmeña III and after that, the honorable Sen. Loren Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I just wanted to seek clarification on the policies in this Impeachment Court, Mr. Chief Justice, as a Senator-Judge. I wanted to find out whether all witnesses who will testify after the present witness should be in a holding room. Is that how I understand it?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Witnesses who are called to testify–

SEN. LEVISTE. Must be in the holding room?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –or summoned to appear on a particular day but would not yet be called to testify must be kept at the holding room. This is just to enforce the rule on exclusion of witnesses.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, we appreciate that and we recognize that fact. However, everybody knows, of course, that this is televised and it is not only televised live. But even if the witnesses are in a holding room and they do not make it today and will be direct-examined tomorrow, perhaps, they could very well watch the replays in all television channels tonight. So I would want to present that. What purpose would that serve then if they could listen and watch the replays on television until the wee hours of the morning?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the holding room, I don’t think there is a television there.

SEN. LEVISTE. No, Mr. Chief Justice. What I meant was that, if there was a witness who was here–and this usually happens–we are not able to finish all the witnesses and there is a continuance on the next day, then that witness would be able to preview the replay of the trial which is shown in various channels until the wee hours of the morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the matter should be taken on a case-to-case basis. In that particular case, he has the whole night to watch the proceedings here by way of a replay. But here is a situation where the witness is right here and was supposed to be excluded and yet was found to be inside the courtroom.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to clarify.

REP. GONZALEZ. Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Gonzales.

REP. GONZALEZ. Our word here may not be as strong as the word of a Judge-Senator. But what happened actually here is, towards the close of the testimony of Mr. Almadro, the prosecutor who will be presenting him, Congressman Rodriguez, called for him to be prepared already here, Your Honor. That was what I understand. I did not even notice that myself. I only noticed him when I stepped out during the break already when I met him near the door. But we were not very much concerned with that in view of the earlier motion of the Defense before for the exclusion of witnesses which, however, was ruled that actually the trial is covered by television and so forth, Your Honor. And I did not notice that any Defense lawyer asked….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer doesn’t recall having said so that the exclusion of witnesses should become useless simply because the entire proceedings would be covered by television, radio and so on. Precisely, we have a holding room for that purpose.

Yes, Senator-Judge Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes. I think it’s rather unfair for Congressman-Prosecutor Gonzalez to just simply consider that–of course, the word of a Senator-Judge is far stronger than the Prosecution lawyer. I mean, I think that if they are going to lie about it or they’re gonna deny it or try to wiggle and wangle their way out of it, then they cannot do it with me. Your witness was in this room and I am not gonna take any other comment that is trying to explain–because you are a lawyer–that I am not telling the truth.

REP. GONZALEZ. I am not saying, if Your Honor please, that you are not telling the truth. I was just saying…

SEN. COSETENG. So your witness was here. Why don’t you just admit that your witness was in this Hall?

REP. GONZALEZ. I did not see that witness here, except at the time….

SEN. COSETENG. You don’t have to see him. You don’t have to see a witness in this Hall for him to be in this Hall. Just because you don’t see him in this Hall, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist and I am not going to take that from anyone, not even if you are a lawyer or a congressman. I mean, he was caught by the television cameras-

REP. GONZALEZ. I am sorry, Your Honor, that….

SEN. COSETENG. I am still talking. Excuse me. He was caught by the TV cameras of Channel 2 and by Channel 7, and just because you didn’t see it, millions of people out there did. Mr. Chief Justice?

REP. GONZALEZ. We submit, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the matter was well-recorded. Probably….

The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, I think the net effect of the presence of a witness in a courtroom in spite of a general exclusion rule, No. 1, would be the–affect his credibility; and probably, the manner of his testimony would be taken with less weight than if he were totally excluded; and probably, a warning to the Prosecution would suffice that next time around, this Court will not tolerate such a situation again.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you for the suggestion.

Atty. Daza now.

MR. DAZA. With the permission of the Court.

May I call you Engineer Almadro, or Attorney Almadro, or Mr. Almadro would be acceptable to you?

MR. ALMADRO. Any name would be fine with me, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Almadro, were you an engineer first before you became a lawyer or a lawyer first before you became an engineer?

MR. ALMADRO. I was an engineer first before I became a lawyer, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. My questions would jump from one part to the other of your testimony because I would like to avoid having to go to the exhibits and terminate the cross-examination so that we can be able to maximize whatever time is left until we adjourn this evening and I hope you understand that.

MR. ALMADRO. I understand, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. As a lawyer you will understand that.

MR. ALMADRO. I understand, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Would you agree that the Philippine Stock Exchange has been called the PSE, your Compliance and Surveillance Group the CSG, and the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee the BCEC? Would that be an accurate acronym or acronyms for the stock exchange, and this, your group, and the Business Conduct and Ethics Committee group?

MR. ALMADRO. That is an accurate ac…. (Witness was interrupted.)

MR. DAZA. So as I cross-examine, I would just refer to the acronyms and we shall understand each other on that basis.

MR. ALMADRO. I understand, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Of course, the Securities and Exchange Commission is also called, for short, “SEC”.

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. And we will understand each other when I say “SEC”.

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. The PSE is not a government entity; it’s a private organization. Isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say “yes”, would you clarify the answer?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, it is not a government entity, it is a private organization, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. It is composed of member-brokers?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Member-brokers are engaged in the business of being brokers or agents in the sale and purchase of shares of stocks,

isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Your investigation was conducted for purposes of making report to the BCEC, is it not?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. In other words, it was an in-house investigation.

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. I understood, if I understood correctly from newspaper accounts that I happen to review during the period of time that you were investigating, that you conducted your investigation in a very discreet manner, in the sense that you did not want to conduct an open investigation that would adversely affect the operations of the PSE and of the member-brokers. Is that a fair statement?

MR. ALMADRO. That is a fair statement, Your Honor, because our investigations are supposed to be confidential, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Therefore, you did not conduct an investigation in the way of how investigations are conducted by an investigative agency of the government. You did not, in other words, subpoena witnesses; you did not call in witnesses to testify under oath; you did not have witnesses come in, assisted by counsel, with the usual cross-examination of witnesses. You did not have anything like that?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Your investigation therefore was based mainly on data and figures that your group, the CSG, gathered and culled from available records, data and statistics of the PSE.

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor. But, in addition, we also requested the brokers who were involved in the investigation to explain their side on certain issues, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Still within the PSE and its structure?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Not outside?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Let me clarify something important, and perhaps if I am wrong, you would correct me.

Is it not a fact that your group, the CSG, in investigating possible wrongdoings, were actually reviewing the conduct of member-brokers and not of any individual investor, is it not correct?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Jumping to the report that you prepared, your report shows that you submitted the report from the CSG to the BCEC on February 14, 2000.

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. It was because it is the BCEC that has the authority within the PSE to recommend to the Board of Governors sanctions or disciplinary actions against possibly erring member-brokers, is it not?

MR. ALMADRO. That is not accurate, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Please tell me what is accurate.

MR. ALMADRO. The accurate setup is that, after the CSG conducts an investigation, we submit our report to the BCEC and the BCEC acts on our report. They do not have to seek the imprimatur of the Board of Governors. Their decision is what is transmitted to the SEC. They merely inform the Board, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Let us say that that is how it is. In other words, you’re saying that the BCEC by itself, even if it’s only a committee, can go directly to the SEC without going to the Board of Governors of the PSE. Is that what you’re saying?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor, because the BCEC is duly authorized under the amended bylaws to take action on the report of the CSG and they do not have anymore to get the approval of the Board of Governors, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Yet in this particular case, you said you resigned because the BCEC did not implement the recommendations and findings of the CSG. That was why you resigned, isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. That is not an accurate statement, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Please correct me then as to what is accurate.

MR. ALMADRO. After we submitted our report to the BCEC, the BCEC started conducting deliberations on our report without going to the Board of Governors of the PSE, is that what you’re saying?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor, because the BCEC is duly authorized under the amended bylaws to take action on the report of the CSG, and they do not have anymore to get the approval of the Board of Governors, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Yet in this particular case, you said you resigned because the BCEC did not implement the recommendations and findings of the CSG. That was why you resigned, isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. That is not an accurate statement, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Please correct me then as to what is accurate.

MR. ALMADRO. After we submitted our report to the BCEC, the BCEC started conducting deliberations on our report. And on these deliberations, being the head of the CSG, I acted, as what you might call, the prosecutor in presenting this case before the BCEC.

Normally, Your Honor, when we present the case to the BCEC, the BCEC would act on that case, with us present, while they take action on the case, Your Honor. In this particular case, Your Honor, the BCEC, after hearing our presentation of the case against the brokers, decided to call a closed-door deliberation and they acted among themselves, Your Honor. And I learned from the lawyer who was taking the minutes of that closed-door deliberation that there was an agreement in principle to clear the brokers subject of the investigation, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. In other words, the BCEC cleared the member-brokers against whom you recommended sanctions for certain violations according to the results of your investigation or your findings?

MR. ALMADRO. That is not accurate, Your Honor, because there is no written resolution from the BCEC clearing the brokers. They merely agreed in principle to clear. But before they could take official action, they were overtaken by events. Because when I resigned, subsequently, the PSE was stripped off its SRO status and was directed to submit this investigation to the SEC, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. In other words, the BCEC, even if only without formal minutes, according to you, had already had a consensus to clear the member-brokers who were the subject of your investigations. Is that a fair statement?

MR.ALMADRO. That is a fair statement, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Now, I remember that in your direct testimony, you mentioned the Board of Governors. And I took you to mean that you resigned partly because the Board of Governors of the PSE did not back you up.

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. That was February 11, and you said, it was a Friday.

MR. ALMADRO. We finished the final draft of our report on February 11. It was a Friday, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. And you submitted the report to the BCEC on February 14, 2000, which was a Monday.

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. It was also Valentine’s Day.

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At what time did you submit the report to the BCEC?

MR. ALMADRO. The report was submitted in the morning of February 14, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Early in the morning?

MR. ALMADRO. Around… between 9:00 and 10:00 in the morning, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Of February 14, 2000?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. The visit that you and Mr. Yulo had with the President was also on February 14, on the same day?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. What time was it?

MR. ALMADRO. We reached Malacañang around 2:15 in the afternoon.

MR. DAZA. At the time that you visited Malacañang with Mr. Yulo, you had already submitted the report to the BCEC.

MR. ALMADRO. We submitted the report to the BCEC through President Yulo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. But that was before you visited President Estrada.

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Let me take you back in time to the third meeting that you had with then Chairman Yasay of the SEC. And my notes may be accurate, inaccurate, please correct me, but I have it down here as November 26, 2000 at Ciudad Fernandina.

MR. ALMADRO. That was November 26, 1999, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Oh, November 26, 1999. Thank you for the correction. Ciudad Fernandina is a restaurant in Greenhills, isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. A convenient place for you, for Mr. Yasay, because the PSE and the SEC have their offices in what’s known as the Ortigas area?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. How long have you been meeting with Mr. Yasay, yourself, and Mr. Yulo before Mr. Dante Tan appeared?

MR. ALMADRO. About an hour, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. It was during that meeting when Mr. Yasay informed you that he had a meeting with Mr. Dante Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yasay informed us that he had a meeting with Mr. Dante Tan around five minutes before nine o’ clock. And just after he told us, there was a knock on the door and Mr. Dante Tan entered the room, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. He was there, all right. Did it occur to your mind that the arrival of Mr. Tan was the result of a previous arrangement between Mr. Yasay and Mr. Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Mr. Yasay actually told us, like I stated in my direct testimony, that he had a meeting with Mr. Dante Tan. But in order for him not to be late for that meeting, he just asked Dante Tan to be also at Ciudad Fernandina.

MR. DAZA. Did it not strike you as rather unusual or odd that the Chairman of the SEC would meet with him and in your presence, you, who are investigating Mr. Tan’s business activities in the same place here in Ciudad Fernandina, on November 26?

MR. ALMADRO. I was surprised, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Because it was something that you thought was probably irregular, isn’t it? Please be frank about this.

MR. ALMADRO. “Irregular” would not be an accurate term, Your Honor. What I felt then was that it was improper for me to be meeting with Mr. Dante Tan while we were still conducting our investigation, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. And did it occur to your mind that it was improper for Mr. Yasay to have Mr. Tan come to where you were, the three of you, at a time when Mr. Yasay knew you were investigating? Did that occur to your mind at that time?

MR. ALMADRO. I was surprised, but the thought of being improper on the part of Mr. Yasay did not occur to my mind at that time, Your Honor. I was thinking more of its effect on my investigation.

MR. DAZA. When Mr. Yasay told you and Mr. Yulo that to save time or for whatever reason, he had arranged for Mr. Tan to come and join you there, your group, did you object?

MR. ALMADRO. Your Honor, my understanding about what Mr. Yasay actually said was that he called for the meeting with Mr. Dante Tan at Ciudad Fernandina after our meeting. What I understood from his statement was that he told Mr. Dante Tan to just go to Ciudad Fernandina because we were meeting there and he would meet with Mr. Dante Tan after our meeting.

MR. DAZA. The situation to you was rather, the whole thing after the arrival of Mr. Tan was unusual, of course.

MR. ALMADRO. I was surprised like I said, Your Honor. And in fact, our meeting was supposed to be only from 8:00 to 9:00 and it was already almost 9:00 and we were about to leave when he told us that he had another meeting with Mr. Dante Tan. And instead of going to another place, he just asked Dante Tan to come to Ciudad Fernandina, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. How long a time did you and Mr. Yulo, Mr. Yasay, and Mr. Tan stay at Ciudad Fernandina after he arrived?

MR. ALMADRO. Perhaps, for another fifteen minutes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Fifteen minutes. Now, let’s go then to the time when you said you were with the President on February 14 with Mr. Yulo, and you said you were taken aback, more or less, you were taken aback when the President said something to the effect, with proper gesture of the fore-finger and a thumb circled to indicate perhaps the shape of money which is a coin. Were you understood that the President said that Mr. Tan had stated or mentioned that Mr. Yasay was bribed? That was the impression you got from the words spoken by the President and the gesture that

he made.

MR. ALMADRO. That was the impression I got, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At that time, did your memory go back to that incident on November 26 when, by some kind of prearrangement, while you and Mr. Yulo were at Ciudad Fernandina, Mr. Tan appeared while Mr. Yasay was there. Did that not relate to you at that time?

MR. ALMADRO. No, it did not, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Does it not relate to you now that you are in the witness stand, meaning, some kind of a relation or connection between what the President said and that incident of November 26 at Ciudad Fernandina?

MR. ALMADRO. No, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Let’s now go back to the PSE and its operation. Is it not a fact that, as you said, trading of shares of stock in the PSE has been done electronically?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At least, the transactions subject of your investigation were done electronically?

MR. ALMADRO. That is the current system at the stock exchange, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. All right. This system has been in effect or has been functional since when?

MR. ALMADRO. I am not too sure of the date, Your Honor, but ever since I joined the Stock Exchange in 1997, they were already trading through the MacTrade System, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Is it not a fact that these electronic transfers, which appear on the computers of the PSE and now I presume your offices, show only names of brokers?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. No individual or beneficial owner appears on that electronic transfer, isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. I see from some of the exhibits–I cannot now mention the exhibit numbers because I had not had the chance to go over these 475 pieces of documents that you have tables and analysis made of volumes and values of transfers. Were these not culled from data or printouts made by your group from the electronic transfers as shown or reflected in the computers?

MR. ALMADRO. These were culled from records of the Stock Exchange, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Meaning, the records that had been compiled from the data that appeared in the electronic transfer–in the electronic device?

MR. ALMADRO. In the computer system, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. In the computer system?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Now, you also had tables and analysis made of comparative profit and loss of BW Corporations. Did you cull this from the financial statements of BW Corporations?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. You did not, of course, have any hand in preparing these financial statements?

MR. ALMADRO. That was prepared by the company, Your Honor, BW Resources Corporation, and they submit regular quarterly reports, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Of course, the CSG does not audit financial reports?

MR. ALMADRO. The CSG audit…looks into the books and records of the brokers, Your Honor, not the listed companies.

MR. DAZA. Of the brokers?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. But not of any companies that invest in stocks?

MR. ALMADRO. No, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. All right. Do you know of your own knowledge whether a copy of your report went to the SEC, or do I remember you correctly saying that you went directly to the SEC and submitted your report bypassing the Board of Governors?

MR. ALMADRO. On February 14, Your Honor, the BCEC called a meeting precisely to take action on the report which we submitted that day. And another important reason for that meeting was because there was a pending request by Chairman Yasay and Senator Roco, the chairman of the Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies, to get a copy of the report. So, we thought that whether or not we should give a copy should be decided by the BCEC.

The BCEC decided, on condition of confidentiality, to give copies of the report both to Chairman Yasay and to Sen. Raul Roco, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Was that understanding of confidentiality observed?

MR. ALMADRO. We prepared a letter addressed to Senator Roco and to Chairman Yasay telling them that we were giving copies of this report on condition of confidentiality. What we meant was that until and unless the BCEC acts on the report and comes up with a PSE report–because essentially this was just a CSG report–then we wanted Chairman Yasay and Senator Roco to keep this report confidential.

MR. DAZA. Did they keep the report confidential as you desired or requested?

MR. ALMADRO. Subsequently, Your Honor, Senator Roco distributed or gave copies of this report to the media and made it public, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Have you been informed that the Department of Justice conducted an investigation in relation to BW and Mr. Tan?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. You knew, of course, that the complainant in the case was SEC?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. You have had chance to read this report because as a lawyer and as someone who had an interest at sometime in the subject matter of investigation, did you have a chance to read this report?

MR. ALMADRO. Whose report, Your Honor?

MR. DAZA. The DOJ resolution.

MR. ALMADRO. No, I have not had a chance to read the DOJ resolution, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Attorney Almadro, as a lawyer, and sitting there in the witness stand, do you know that Mr. Tan and BW Corporation has not been convicted of any crime under the law as of today? Do you know that?

MR. ALMADRO. I don’t think I am in a position to know that, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. But, of course, as a lawyer you know that persons who are charged with wrongdoing, be they natural persons like you and me, or artificial corporations like partnerships and corporations, are entitled to a presumption of innocence under the law and under the Constitution?

MR. ALMADRO. Under the criminal justice system, Your Honor, an accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

MR. DAZA. When you were testifying there, Atty. Almadro, I heard you say something like prima facie evidence? Of course, when you said prima facie evidence, you were referring more to the members/brokers who were the target of your investigation.

MR. ALMADRO. I was referring both to the member/brokers and to Mr. Dante Tan, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. So, in other words, you considered yourself as something of a prosecutor, something like a fiscal. In fact, I believe you used that word when you said that in meetings of the BCEC, you sit as a fiscal or a prosecutor.

MR. ALMADRO. In the case of disciplinary actions on member/brokers of the Exchange, our role when we present a case to the BCEC is akin to the role of a prosecutor when he presents a case before the court, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Did you agree with that kind of a role?

MR. ALMADRO. That is the role given to the CSG, Your Honor. And as the head of the CSG, I am the person in charge of presenting cases before the BCEC as a result of our investigations,

Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Precisely because you believe that that is your role and you consider that as your role, when the BCEC met in session to consider your report without your presence, you felt offended, isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. I thought it was unfair, Your Honor, and I felt offended. And I felt that after spending so many days and sleepless nights working on a report and the entire staff working on an investigation, and then suddenly we found ourselves isolated and we felt that there was nobody backing up our report even only to say that what we did was only part of our job, Your Honor, and it was…I really felt that this was so unfair. I was even given a gag order by the Stock Exchange not to speak before the media to defend my person. At that time, I was vehemently attacked; they were questioning my professional integrity, my competence and my person, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Would you still want to say something about your feelings at that time? You’re free to do so.

MR. ALMADRO. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Would you like to speak out some more about how offended you were at that time?

MR. ALMADRO. No more, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. You mentioned that Mr. Dante Tan had opened some 21 accounts with 14 brokers?

MR. ALMADRO. That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Well, somehow because of your functions, you probably would be in a position to render some opinion, if you wish to advance an opinion. If you don’t wish to do so, please say so.

Is it not a fact that when a person would want to gain or if he has already gained, would want to continue to hold majority control of a corporation, that he would go all out to buy as many shares of stock as he can from the market?

MR. ALMADRO. Could you repeat the question, Your Honor?

I did not quite get the sense of the question, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Yeah. Is it not a fact that it is normal for a person who wants to gain control of a corporation or if you already has control to continue to hold control to buy as many shares as he can in the market?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. So, it would be compatible to say that if Mr. Tan wanted to have majority control of the corporation or already has one to continue to hold it, that he would do whatever he can to buy as many shares in the market as he has the means to do so. Would you agree

with that?

MR. ALMADRO. That’s correct, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. All right. And in that kind of a situation, Mr. Tan or you and I would get the services of as many brokers as possible to be able to acquire as many shares as possible in the market. Isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. What he did was quite unusual and not normal, Your Honor. Because even if he wanted to buy many shares in the market, you can do that with one or two brokers. What he did was to open accounts in 14 brokers using 21 accounts and even using coded account names, Your Honor. This was quite unusual and out of the ordinary, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Well, isn’t wanting to gain control of a corporation as big as BW, isn’t it something that is unusual in the sense that not you nor I nor hundreds of thousands of people who buy in the stock market would want to do because they probably would not have the means to do so?

MR. ALMADRO. What is the question, Your Honor?

MR. DAZA. What you are saying is, it’s unusual and I’m asking you whether it is usual for you or me or any other person to want to buy control of a corporation? Do you understand my question?

MR. ALMADRO. I do not quite get the sense of the question, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Well, the sense of my question is this: If anyone would want to gain majority control of a corporation, he would buy as many shares as he can and employ as many brokers as he can. And it is unusual because that is not something that is done by ordinary people like you and me and millions of Filipinos.

MR. ALMADRO. In the case of Mr. Dante Tan, it was unusual not only because he opened several trading accounts with several brokers but because his continued buying was coupled with manipulative devices, Your Honor. He was buying and selling his own stocks, Your Honor, and using various schemes to make it appear that there was active trading when, in fact, he was the only one trading these shares, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. I wouldn’t want to argue with you, Atty. Almadro, but as it is, these are your findings which findings have not been…. were not even sustained within the PSE.

But my question to you is simple. From your experience, having worked with the PSE and being the head of the Surveillance Group, would you say that one percent of the Filipinos who invest or buy shares of stock in the market try to gain control of as big a corporation as BW?

MR. ALMADRO. I cannot give an opinion on that, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Did you look into the transactions entered into by Mr. Dante Tan in BW before May of 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. We looked at all transactions of BW starting January 1999, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Did you look into such transactions before January 1999?

MR. ALMADRO. We did not conduct a complete examination of transactions before January 1999 because the period of our investigation was only from January up to December 1999.

MR. DAZA. In other words, your investigation, not having gone back as far as 1998 in regard to transactions involving BW shares, would not enable you to say anything about prices, volumes, involving the trading of BW shares? That’s plain, isn’t it?

MR. ALMADRO. Before 1999?

MR. DAZA. Yes, before January 1999.

MR. ALMADRO. We were able to look into certain transactions that had a material bearing on some of the transactions which occurred already in 1999. For example, we looked at the shares bought by Mr. Dante Tan during the period June to December 1998 when the price of BW was only selling at around 71 to 80 centavos per share. We looked at these transactions because we subsequently found out that in January 1999, he had accumulated some 84 million shares with Belson Securities. And we traced this back and found out that as early as 1998, he was already buying shares and this was being bought at around 71 to 80 centavos per share, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. In other words, you found that even before 1999, Mr. Tan had been buying sizeable quantity of shares?

MR. ALMADRO. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, I have many more questions to ask but, as I said, this will have to involve referring to certain documents and I’ve not had the chance to look at these documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean the exhibits?

MR. DAZA. The exhibits, the annexes and the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is your pleasure?

MR. DAZA. Well, it’s now 7:58 p. m., and I believe that the Majority Leader–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

MR. DAZA.
might have something to say and I would not want to usurp his function .

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we suspend, may I move for the approval of the Journal of the Impeachment Court of Thursday, January 5, 2001, as distributed earlier to the Members.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection. There being none, the motion is approved.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. As I am going to move for a suspension, perhaps…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the suspension is made, the Presiding Officer would like to call the attention of the Court that at 7:35 o’clock this morning, his Office received a handwritten letter from retired Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma who was subpoenaed to appear on the 11th of January at 2 p.m.

The letter reads as follows:

January 8, 2001

Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

Chief Justice

Supreme Court

Presiding Officer

Impeachment Trial

Dear Chief Justice:

Greetings.

May I respectfully request that I be excused from appearing in person on Janaury 11, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to a subpoena. Last January 4, I became sick with fever and severe cough plus asthma and it was only yesterday that my fever was cured.

I am still physically weak and will be unable to bear the rigor of testifying before the Impeachment Court. As stated in the subpoena, I am sending my duly authorized representative, former PCSO Board Member, Atty. Ulpiano Sarmiento III, who is very conversant with the matters treated in the subpoena.

Thank you and may God keep you in His love and protection.

Respectfully,

(Sgd.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA

Accompanying the letter is the medical certificate issued by Lourdes Cardemas-Soller, and it reads:

January 8, 2001

To whom it may concern:

This is to certify that Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma is presently under my medical care for cough and fever. She is diagnosed to have pneumonia, community-acquired and bronchial asthma and acute exacerbation. She is advised bed rest while undergoing treatment.

LOURDES CARDEMAS SOLLER

So, she will be represented on the 11th by Atty. Ulpiano Sarmiento.

The other letter addressed to the Chief Justice and the Presiding Officer of the Presidential Impeachment Court is dated January 8, 2000 from Amelia Tansinsin, Board Secretary of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, and the body reads as follows:

Sir:

This refers to the subpoena ad testificandum with duces tecum which PCSO received last January 5 addressed to the Board Secretary and/or the Records Custodian of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, PCSO. Undersigned is the incumbent PCSO Board Secretary and she is willing to submit the original copy or certified true copies of the documents that are in the possession of the PCSO, subject matter of the aforementioned subpoena.

But PCSO records will show that she is not privy to the said documents and, thus, she is not in a position to testify thereon. The said documents were issued, adopted and/or signed by the previous PCSO Board of Directors composed of Chairman Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Sister Christine Tan, and S. Maria Feria, Atty. Ulpiano Sarmiento, and Mr. Ricardo Gulpayo and duly attested by then Board Secretary Atty. Prudente Soller, Jr.

The competent person to testify thereon is Atty. Soller, Jr. with offices at De Mesa, Ochoa Law Office, Ground Floor, Mission Garden Condominium, No. 59 Scout Ybardolaza St., Quezon City.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) AMELIA S. TANSINSIN

Board Secretary

So, accordingly, the Prosecution is duly informed of this position taken by Amelia Tansinsin.

That is all for the moment.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, before the –

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. –Majority Leader moves for suspension, allow me to announce two things.

First, on our brief report regarding the investigation we conducted last night after the session on the involvement of two ladies, namely, Maria Asuncion Caballero de Vero and Ms. Belen T. Amonte who had accompanied Delia Rajas into the Session Hall yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice. And at our summary investigation, in the presence of Sen. Franklin Drilon and the lawyer of the two ladies, Mr. Villamor, it was found out that it was Mr. Villamor who is the counsel of Mr. Charlie “Atong” Ang who had caused the presence of Mrs. Delia Rajas in the Session Hall yesterday. And the matter is now under advisement with the reservation of Senator Drilon to file the necessary motions on the basis of what we had discovered, Mr. Chief Justice.

The second point that I’d like to mention is that tomorrow at ten o’clock, the Senate will convene in session on the third day of the Special Session that was called by the President. I would like to ask all Senators to be present tomorrow at ten because we will be passing a very important legislation and without your presence, we will not be able to accomplish much.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I think we can excuse the witness temporarily with the instructions from the Chair.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is, in the meantime, excused but is instructed to come back tomorrow for the continuation of the cross-examination and also for further examination by the members of the Impeachment Court.

Atty. Perez.

MR. PEREZ. Mr. Chief Justice, we just want to make it of record that we are leaving all the exhibits marked with the Secretary.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Senate Secretary acknowledge the documents.

So now, finally, the Majority Leader.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move that the Impeachment Court stand in recess until two o’clock tomorrow afternoon, Wednesday, 10th of January 2001.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion is approved. Until tomorrow at two o’clock in the afternoon.

It was 8:07 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 8:07 P.M.

Estrada Impeachment December 7, 2000 Transcript

December 7, 2000

OPENING OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

At 1:57 p.m., the Honorable Chief Justice, Hilario G. Davide Jr., Presiding Officer, called the impeachment trial to order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Chief Justice Davide). The impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Republic of the Philippines, is now called to order.

May we request Senator/Judge Francisco S. Tatad to lead us in prayer.

PRAYER

SENATOR TATAD. May I invite all to bow their heads in prayer.

Almighty and eternal God, supreme Judge, Lawgiver and Ruler of the universe;

Who has the final word on everything we do upon this earth;

Look kindly upon this Senate as it performs its task of doing impartial justice in this trial of the President;

Fill the men and women of this Chamber with Your Wisdom;

So that they will forget all partisan and personal interests and act solely as one in upholding the truth and in celebrating justice;

Bless the Chief Justice with the fullness of dignity, good health and good humor so that he will not tire so quickly as the work piles up in the days ahead;

Bless counsel on both sides with utmost sobriety and rectitude so that they may use their knowledge of the law to discover the truth and make it shine in all its brightness rather than to hide it;

Bless the witnesses who will come forward so that their lips will speak only the truth which no falsehood can quell in their heart of hearts

Bless the respondent with humility so that he may accept the judgment of this court without gloating, if favorable, and without recrimination, if adverse;

And bless all our people within and outside this Hall with a special measure of generosity and goodness;

So that they may look at this case and all those who have been called to take part in it without any prejudices or prejudgment;

Remembering that God alone knows the entire truth about His creatures and their deeds;

And that not even the holiest among us may judge that which is known only to God;

At the end of this painful process, heal our wounds and our brokenness with Your spirit so that we may be one again, loving one another as You have always loved us;

But this time infinitely stronger in our faith and our hopes for having been touched to the depths of our soul, by the love and mercy of God;

All these we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, Your only Son, our Lord, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever,

Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary will now call the roll of the distinguished Senators-Judges.

THE SECRETARY. (Reading)

Senator Teresa Aquino-Oreta Present

Senator Robert Z. Barbers Absent

Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon Present

Senator Renato L. Compañero Cayetano Present

Senator Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng Present

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago Present

Senator Franklin M. Drilon Present

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile Present

Senator Juan M. Flavier Present

Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. Present

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan Present

Senator Robert S. Jaworski Present

Senator Loren B. Legarda-Leviste Present

Senator Ramon B. Magsaysay Jr. Present

Senator Blas F. Ople Present

Senator John Henry R. Osmeña Present

Senator Sergio R. Osmeña.III Present

Senator Ramon B. Revilla Present*

Senator Raul S. Roco Present

Senator Vicente C. Sotto III Present

Senator Francisco S. Tatad Present

The Senate President Present

__________

*Arrived after the roll call

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With 20 Senators-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask the Sergeant at Arms to make the proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will now make a proclamation.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE JOURNAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journals of the Impeachment Court dated November 28 and December 4, 2000 and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion is approved and granted. It is so ordered.

The Secretary will now call the case before this Impeachment Court.

THE SECRETARY. In the matter of Impeachment against His Excellency, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001-2000 for bribery, graft and corrupt practices, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request that the parties to this Impeachment Trial be now directed to enter their appearances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are so directed to enter their appearance.

REP. BELMONTE. Your Honor, same appearances for the Prosecution.

MR. DAZA. For the Defense, Your Honor, Andres Narvasa, Estelito Mendoza, Raul Daza, Jose Flaminiano and Cleofe Bersola.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The appearances are noted.

The Prosecution filed yesterday a reply to the plea answer of the President filed by his lawyers. The Reply is hereby noted.

Yesterday, on a previous agreement, a preliminary conference was had between and among the lawyers of both parties together with some Members of the Senate.

The Presiding Officer will now make a declaration of the results of the preliminary conference.

Present at the preliminary conference were the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer; the Senate President; the Majority Leader, Sen. Francisco S. Tatad; the Minority Leader, Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona Jr.; the Honorable Senators Anna Dominique M. L. Coseteng, Franklin M. Drilon; Juan Ponce Enrile, Juan M. Flavier, Gregorio B. Honasan, Robert S. Jaworski, Loren B. Legarda-Leviste, Ramon B. Revilla, and Raul S. Roco; and House of Representatives prosecutors Feliciano Belmonte Jr., Joker Arroyo, Sergio Apostol, Oscar Moreno, Clavel Asas-Martinez, Wigberto Tañada, and Oscar Rodriguez; and counsel for the defense, namely, former Chief Justice Narvasa, Atty. Estelito Mendoza, and

Atty. Raul Daza.

At the start of the preliminary conference, the Presiding Officer distributed to the senators, the prosecutors, and the defense counsels for the respondent the working draft for the matters to be taken up at the preliminary conference. He then brought to their attention as guide to their discussion thereon the fact that if the trial of the case on its merits would start on 07 December 2000, there would only be 16 days for the month of December 2000 with Saturdays, Sundays and Christmas Day excluded. And for the month of January 2001, excluding the first day, Saturdays and Sundays, there would only be 22 trial days.

After a very spirited discussion on the matters presented, the parties agreed on the following issues:

Article 1. The bribery alleged in the Article refers to bribery as a felony. This agreement does not include the issue concerning the quantum of evidence required therefor.

Article 2. Whether on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the President could be guilty of graft and corruption.

Article 3. Whether the acts alleged therein, if proven, would constitute betrayal of public trust.

Article 4. Whether the acts alleged therein, if proven, would constitute culpable violation of the Constitution.

As to the number of witnesses to be presented in open court and probable duration of their testimony on direct examination only, the parties agreed:

Under Article 1, for the prosecution, 10 witnesses, with one to testify for three days and the rest for 30 minutes each. Probable number of trial days, one week;

Under Article 2, 25 witnesses. Probable number of trial days, 12;

Under Article 3, 7 witnesses. Probable number of trial days, 5 to 7; and

Under Article 4, 6 to 20 witnesses.

This number of witnesses may be reduced when depositions and oral examination are taken or when the prosecutors, upon further evaluation, would dispense with the presentation of witnesses whose testimonies would be corroborative in nature. And for reasons explained during the conference, the prosecutors may not disclose the names of their witnesses.

However, to give time for the defense to prepare for the cross- examination, the cross-examination of a witness may be deferred for, at most, two days after the completion of the direct testimony of that witness. Nonetheless, should the prosecutors disclose to the defense the names of the witnesses to be presented at least three days before their scheduled testimony, the defense shall immediately cross-examine the witness after the completion of the direct testimony.

The Defense:

The number of witnesses to be presented would depend on the evaluation of evidence adduced by the prosecutors and the duration of the testimonies of the defense’ witnesses may be about one-half of that estimated by the prosecutors for their witnesses.

Witnesses whose testimonies may be by deposition:

For the prosecution, under Article 1, Three (3).

Article 2. Ten (10).

Article 3. At most, Five (5).

Article 4. Fifteen (15).

These witnesses could be among those mentioned to testify in open court.

The Senate President assured the parties that the Senate, at its subsequent sessions immediately following the preliminary conference, would approve the recommendation of the Presiding Officer that the latter be authorized to issue applications for issuance of subpoena testificandum and subpoena duces tecum, subject to the observation of the honorable Senator Roco, that if the application would be for a subpoena for the President of the Philippines, the matter should be taken up by the members of the Impeachment Court.

For the defense, none to be taken by deposition.

Other Matters

1. The parties also agreed that to further shorten the duration of the trial, they could submit stipulation or admission of facts or documents.

2. The Senate President informed the parties that for the purposes

of the opening statement at the hearing this afternoon, the Senate is prepared to allow the prosecutors and the defense five presentors at

most on each side.

Time limit for each side is a maximum of two hours.

Senator Roco reiterated his view, however, that while in this specific instance he would have no objection on this matter, the Rules on Impeachment Proceedings approved by the Senate should be strictly followed.

3. Immediately after the conclusion of the opening statement, the prosecutors will start the presentation of the first witness; and

4. The parties also considered the need to complete the trial on the merits in the middle of January 2001. For this purpose, a trial calendar would eventually be prepared after the parties shall have determined a more accurate number of witnesses.

Those were what transpired yesterday at the preliminary conference reducing effectively the time which may be consumed for the trial on the merits of this case.

We will now proceed to the trial proper.

The Majority Leader.

SEN. TATAD. Mr. Chief Justice, pursuant to the initial under-standing reached in yesterday’s preliminary conference, the Senate sub-sequently gave unanimous consent to allow multi-presentors for a total of two hours each for the prosecution as well as for the defense. The pro-secutors will now deliver their opening statements in the following order:

First, Congressman Belmonte, to be followed by Congressman Apostol, to be followed by Cong. Joker Arroyo; to be followed by Cong. Raul Gonzales and to be followed by Cong. Wigberto Tañada.

I ask that they be recognized in that order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They are so recognized in that order, and now Prosecutor Belmonte is given the Floor.

REP. BELMONTE. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, I am Feliciano Belmonte Jr. of the 4th District of Quezon City.

This afternoon, we, the House Prosecutors, are tasked to fulfill a duty. It is a duty that none of us relish. It is painful. Painful because we will prove to the judges in this proceedings that the faith and the trust that we have bestowed on our President had been abused. It is a grave duty. Grave because we are asking the judges that Joseph Ejercito Estrada, whom we elected as President, be removed from the presidency at once for the sake of the country, for the sake of the people. It is a burden that the Constitution has placed on the shoulders of the prosecutors and it is a duty that we will faithfully fulfill.

When I make reference to the judges in this impeachment proceedings, Your Honors, I am not addressing the senators here assembled alone because it is not only Joseph Ejercito Estrada who has been put on trial here. We, the prosecutors and the House of Congress that we represent, this Chamber, sitting in judgment, the judiciary here personified by the Chief Justice, the moral values that we hold dear, indeed, the entire structure of government and our society all are as much on trial in these proceedings. The judges are the people, who even now watch our every move and listen intently to our every word. It is they, Your Honors, whom we, the prosecutors, also address because it is to them that we all are accountable for what we will do here.

Hindi po lamang si Pangulong Estrada ang nililitis dito. Tayo rin po ay papasyahan. Kami na kumakatawan sa Malaking Kapulungan, kayong mga maginoong Senador, ang ating mga hukuman na kinakatauhan ng ating Punong Mahistrado, at maging ang mga prinsipyo ng moralidad na ating dinadambana ay nililitis ngayon dito. At ang magpapasya ay ang taong-bayan na walang puknat na nagmamasid sa

bawat kilos na nagaganap at nakikinig sa bawat salita na binibigkas natin ngayon dito.

They say that all trials have innocent beginnings. At ang panimula ng paglilitis na ito ay noong ika-30 ng Hunyo, 1998 nang itaas ni Joseph Ejercito Estrada ang kaniyang kanang kamay at sumumpa sa Bibliya ng ganito:

Ako, si Joseph Ejercito Estrada, ay sumusumpa na tapat kong gagampanan ang aking mga tungkulin bilang Pangulo ng Pilipinas; na aking pangangalagaan at ipagtatanggol ang Saligang-Batas; na ipatutupad ang mga batas; magdudulot ng katarungan sa bawat mamamayan, at iaalay ang aking sarili sa paglilingkod sa bayan.

Central to the oath taken by Joseph Ejercito Estrada before

then Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, who is now here with us, are

the phrases “to execute its laws” and “concentrate myself to the

service of the nation.”

Sa kaniyang pagsumpa na ipatutupad niya ang mga batas at ipasasailalim niya ang kaniyang kapakanan sa kapakanan ng bayan, nangako si Joseph Ejercito Estrada sa harap ng Diyos na pananaigin

niya ang batas at walang sinuman ang mangingibabaw sa batas

maging siya man.

At ang mga sakdal na hinaharap ngayon ni Joseph Ejercito Estrada ay nakaugat sa kaniyang matunog na pangako noon. Na sa kaniyang pamamahala, walang kama-kamag-anak, walang kumpa-kumpare, at walang kai-kaibigan. The prosecution will show that not only Joseph Ejercito Estrada not execute the laws, he was the first to violate them.

Prosecutors will show that during his brief incumbency of barely over two years, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has violated his oath of office. Had violated the law not once, not twice, but regularly like clockwork. Patutunayan ng mga prosecutors na sa kaniyang maikli pang panunungkulan, karamihan na ng kaniyang kamag-anak, karamihan na ng kaniyang mga kumpare, karamihan na ng kaniyang matatalik na kaibigan ang nakinabang.

Ang isinampang sakdal laban kay Pangulong Estrada ay apat. Unang Artikulo–ang pagtanggap ng suhol na patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen Apostol, Baterina, at Libarios.

Pangalawang Artikulo–pagnanakaw sa gobyerno at katiwalian, or graft and corruption, na patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen Arroyo, Moreno at Belmonte.

Pangatlong Artikulo–pagtataksil sa tiwala ng bayan o betrayal of the public trust, na patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen Gonzales at Rodriguez.

At ang Pang-apat na Artikulo–sadyang paglabag sa Saligang-Batas o culpable violation of the Constitution, na patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen Tañada, Nachura, at Martinez.

Behind all these legalese, what do these charges mean? Simply that Joseph Ejercito Estrada has failed the Filipino people, specially the poor, betrayed their hopes and broke their dreams.

Sa kabuuan, ang apat na sakdal sa Pangulong Estrada ay nagpapatunay ng isang malawakang pagkakanulo sa sambayanang Pilipino. And there is nothing mysterious or arcane about this process. It is not about lawyers, it is not about technicalities. Common sense in the light of a person’s common experience is enough to appreciate the evidence and to reach a knowledgeable, fair and patriotic conclusion.

I thank you, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Apostol is recognized for Article I.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, Chief Justice of the Philippines, Your Honor, Senate President of the Philippines, Your Honors, Members of the Senate, esteemed colleagues of the defense, friends, ladies and gentlemen.

Members of the Senate, our team of Prosecutors will show that during his brief incumbency, at barely over two years, Joseph Ejercito

Estrada had violated the oath previously mentioned by Congressman Belmonte, had violated the law not once, not twice, but regularly like clockwork. The Prosecutors will again expose the existence of a

criminal syndicate directed from the highest office of the land. This is

the “gangland mob” that threatens to rule us. This, not the parliaments

of the street, is the mob rule–the mob rule that will salvage our Constitution and the very fabric of our society. Unless we destroy it now before it destroys us.

I stated that we will expose the existence of the criminal syndicate again. I used the word “again” because, fortunately for our panel, much of the shocking and sordid details of this story have been unfolded before this very Chamber, before Your Honors. And our task will be to simply present, in proper form, the evidence and testimony which the Filipino people already know and have already evaluated for themselves, and to link up some loose ends.

In our presentation, we will therefore focus only on the salient points. Gov. Chavit Singson will reaffirm before Your Honors the following facts and events.

Sometime in August 1998, the newly elected President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, summoned Bong Pineda, Charlie “Atong” Ang, and Gov. Chavit Singson to his Polk Street residence to discuss jueteng operations in the country. On that occasion, President Estrada prohibited Pineda from continuing to deliver jueteng collections to him as the latter was already identified as a jueteng lord. Instead, he appointed both Ang and Governor Singson as his national jueteng collectors and delivery men. Of course, we all remember who Atong Ang is, and his association with Joseph Ejercito Estrada.

Barely two months later, however, after a heated disagreement over the President’s refusal to give in to Atong Ang’s demand for a share in certain sugar allocations, Atong Ang was stripped by President Estrada of his jueteng collection authority. This left Governor Singson as the presidential appointee in charge of these illegal collections. The testimony of Governor Singson will reaffirm that from November 1998 to August 2000, an average of P5 million, usually in crisp P1000-bill, was hand delivered by him to President Estrada every 15 days either in his residence at Polk Street, Greenhills, or in Malacañang or in the house of one of his mistresses, Guia Gomez. And for accounting purposes, President Estrada assigned an auditor in the person of Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte, wife of Tourism Undersecretary Orestes Ricaforte, to monitor and deliver the receipt of the tong collections as well as the disbursement therefrom in a ledger.

For a period until June 1998, the excess of the jueteng collections, after the P5 million for the President has been set aside every 15 days, would be earmarked by Governor Singson, also on the orders of

President Estrada, for the construction of the Fontainebleu Casino in the former Clark Air Base. Although the true owner of the Fontainebleu

was the President, on his instruction, the stockholdings were placed in

the name of Jaime Dechavez, one of his cronies; Jesus Pineda, schoolmate of his; and Edmundo Silverio, a nominee of Butch Tenorio, the president of Pagcor.

The President eventually opted to discontinue the Fontainebleu operation in favor of Fontana Casino where his stakes have been greater and financial rewards higher. When it was decided to abort the Fontainebleu Casino operation, Mrs. Ricaforte also took over the duty of preparing the ledger and monitoring the collection and expenses of the jueteng operations, including the sensitive task of depositing the presidential share in various account. Thus, Governor Singson was instructed by the President sometime in August 1999 to transfer to Mrs. Ricaforte all the accumulated collections from jueteng including future collections. So, Mrs. Ricaforte opened several separate accounts in different branches of Equitable Bank where she deposited the collections. Governor Singson will reaffirm that this year, P200 million was withdrawn by Mrs. Ricaforte from the said deposits in Equitable Bank placed in various interim accounts to cleanse the dirty money before it was placed at the disposal of the lord of all gambling lords.

The withdrawal of the amount also coincided with the shift of illegal gambling operation from jueteng to a bigger form known as the Bingo-2 Ball where the stakes are much higher, this time using Pagcor as front of the grand design to further centralize the rewards of gambling operations. Just like in the shift from Fontainebleu Casino to Fontana Casino, the shift from jueteng to Bingo-2 Ball was motivated by the desire of greed for greater financial reward.

The testimony of Governor Singson will be corroborated by several witnesses, including the jueteng collection ledger which Mrs. Ricaforte admits having maintained. We will present the checks that Governor Singson surrendered to Mrs. Ricaforte on instructions of President Estrada. We will present the branch records of the separate bank accounts that Mrs. Ricaforte opened on orders of President Estrada and where she deposited said checks and the succeeding jueteng collections.

We will present to Your Honors the checks totaling P200 million which Mrs. Ricaforte handed over, in turn to a lawyer by the name of Atty. Edward Serapio.

We will present the testimony of Atty. Serapio at the hearing

of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee where he admitted that he,

indeed, was the presidential assistant in Malacañang at the time; that

he was the personal legal adviser of President Estrada and of his family; that the P200 million was transferred by him to the funds of a corporation that President Estrada ordered him to organize; that the officers of

this corporation, aside from himself, was Raul de Guzman, the brother-

in-law of the President; George Go, the majority stockholder of Equitable Bank and the Presidents’ banker; and two employees of

Raul de Guzman in UP.

We will also show the open forum at the meeting of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines or FOCAP, where President Estrada made admissions corroborative of the accusations of Gov. Chavit Singson against him. It is certain that the lawyers of the President will tell you that Governor Singson should not be believed because he has admitted being a co-conspirator in the commission of the crime. But the statement of a co-conspirator should still be accepted even if uncorroborated when it is shown to be sincere in itself because given unhesitantly and in the straightforward manner and is full of details which, by their nature, could not have been the result of a deliberate afterthought.

Who is saying this? This is the pronouncement of our Supreme Court in the decision where they handed down that decision only recently, last August. After you have heard him, determine on the basis whether Governor Singson deserves to be believed, especially after we shall have presented you the corroborating documentary evidences in support of his testimony, Governor Singson will swear under oath that he personally handed P5 million to the President every fifteen (15) days commencing the end of 1998 until the beginning of this year. Once made, this is an accusation that nobody except the President can deny it. It is a denial that nobody but nobody can make for him under oath.

For the past month, President Estrada has gallantly promised time and again on television, on radio, and the newspapers that when the impeachment trial begins, he will face the people and his accusers and answer all charges point by point. Will the President still do so?

Your Honors, as we have narrated, our evidence will be the testimony of the very person who handed money to the President, P15 million, P5 million every fifteen days like clockwork. It is a first-hand testimony. The rest of his story were bit corroborated in other essentials, not by other witnesses but by the very statement of the President himself. And after we are through with our evidence, we have no doubt that you, Your Honors, will render a judgment of conviction with a clear conscience.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (The Chief Justice). The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo for the second article.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, if Your Honors please, I have never given much importance to an oath but all of us have taken our oath. Our Chair, Congressman Belmonte, has read the oath, but I will read the oath again of the President because it is only now that I realized what this oath is all about.

When Joseph Ejercito Estrada took his oath, high noon of June 30, 1998, he said, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Republic of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.”

Except for his name, he violated every word of his oath. That is why the House has impeached him, that is why the Senate must convict him. And I will proceed to show why.

Your Honors please, there is a law, Republic Act No. 7171 which says in simple language, “…that out of excise tax on tobacco, 15% must go to the tobacco-producing provinces.”

So when Vice President Estrada was campaigning in 1998, he promised the province of Ilocos Sur that he would release the monies that were withheld by President Ramos. Then on July 27, 1998 when all of us listened to his State of the Nation Address, he said that the nation is bankrupt. But then here comes Gov. Singson and tells the President,

“Mr. President, could you make good the promise you gave the people of Ilocos Sur?” The President said, “Yes.” But he gave a condition. What was that? He said that 15% of all those monies that he would send to Ilocos Sur should go to him.

This was barely a month, one-and-a-half month after he took his oath and after he declared that the government was bankrupt. But he provided money for Ilocos Sur.

So sometime in August, he released through the budget P200 million for Ilocos Sur. Well and good. But then comes Atong Ang, Presidential Adviser and tells Gov. Singson, “The President wants P130 million of the P200 million.” Singson asks, “Why? You gave only P200 million why should I give P130 million?” But Atong Ang says, “That is the partial P130 million, you will get some more.”

So it is on that basis that the prosecution will detail how the highest and supposedly the most exalted official of our nation systematically diverted the peoples’ money to himself and his family. And we will show how it was; what transpired and what we would show clearly indicates that the diversion of taxes to the President’s pocket was a planned and swiftly executed maneuver. In fact, the transaction was completed in less than three days. Three individuals: Delia Rajas, Eleuterio Tan and Alma Alfaro acted as fronts and dummies. They conspired with Atong Ang who was acting on the President’s behalf to divert to Mr. Estrada P130 million originally intended to alleviate the plight of tobacco farmers of Ilocos Sur. The manner in which these individuals accomplished was truly ingenious.

Let us start the first day:

Thursday, August 27, 1998 – Check No. 096750 for the amount of P170 million for the cash advance approved by Provincial Board was released to Gov. Singson. Gov. Singson authorized members of his staff, Maricar Paz and Marina Atendido, to represent him in transactions with the Vigan branch of the Land Bank of the Philippines.

From the P170 million, P40 million went to the curing barn supplier. While the 130–legitimate P40 million–while the P130 million that Atong asked, went to the President and his family. You may ask why? How was this done? Governor Singson instructed the Land Bank Vigan to remit to Land Bank Shaw Boulevard P50 million for the account of Delia Rajas, P40 million for the account of Eleuterio Tan, P40 million for the account of Alma Alfaro.

You ask the question; “How in the world can these private individuals become, open accounts of public funds? They are private individuals. No connection with the government, no connection with the tobacco industry. But accounts were opened on their behalf. Now, with undue haste, Alma Alfaro tried to withdraw the P40 million in cash on the same day or on August 27, 1998. But since the bank did not have the cash, she was advised to go back the following day, 28 August. Alfaro returned on that day and withdrew the P40 million in cash at around 10:00 a.m. Remember the P40 million, that is already cash.

August 28, a Friday, with extreme haste, Eleuterio Tan withdrew the P40 million. With indecent haste, Delia Rajas also withdrew the P50 million. Then with the P90 milllion–P40 plus P50–three cashiers checks were purchased from Landbank Shaw Boulevard payable to Eleuterio Tan. Strange as it may seem, on the same date, August 28, 1999, another person using the same name, Eleuterio Tan, opened a savings account, this time with another bank, Westmont Bank Mandaluyong branch, under Savings Account No. 201100772-7.

What must be emphasized, if Your Honors please, is that these two Eleuterio Tans had two different faces, two different dates of birth, two different addresses, and two different specimen signatures. Yet Eleuterio Tan No. 2 had in his possession the same three cashier’s checks purchased by Eleuterio Tan No. 1 and Delia Rajas. So here is the money trail of what was originally public funds already messed up into private funds.

The next day, Saturday and Sunday, so no transactions. The third working day, August 31, Monday, Eleuterio Tan No. 2 deposited in his Westmont Bank Mandaluyong branch savings account the three cashier’s checks totalling P90 million which came from Eleuterio Tan No. 1. The deposit was made at 9:52 a.m.

For those who are around, they could see the money trail, it is all there.

On the same day in an unprecedented banking transaction, the

three cashier’s checks were encashed and the money was withdrawn

from the Westmont Bank, Mandaluyong Branch. These withdrawals were as follows: P20 million at 12:32 p.m.; P40 million at 1:55 p.m.; and P30 million at 2:48 p.m.–all in cold cash, all in two hours. As to each withdrawal, the money, in thick bundles of crisp bills, was brought to the nearby house of Atong Ang’s mother in Mandaluyong City where Governor Singson was waiting. Atong Ang had even to involve his mother in this kind of transaction.

The brazen manner in which the President finally took custody of these public funds shows the depths of shame and disgrace to which that Office has fallen. The prosecution will prove that from the house of Atong Ang’s mother, Governor Singson, together with the President’s intermediary, Atong Ang, brought the crispy bills, totaling P130 million, the P90 million withdrawn from Westmont Bank, the P40 million earlier withdrawn by Alma Alfaro from Landbank Shaw Boulevard, directly to the President’s home in 1 Polk St., North Greenhills.

At this juncture, Your Honors please, this P130 million is different from what Congressman Apostol said. That is jueteng money. This one is tobacco money and these are public funds. That is why the seriousness of how public funds got into the pocket of the President is something we would request you to ponder very carefully. After all, both Governor Singson and Mr. Ang were close friends of the President and could be trusted to be complicit partners in this transaction.

Governor Singson will reveal in detail what happened at the President’s house. He will narrate how Mr. Estrada scolded Atong Ang for giving part of the money to the First Lady and presidential son Jinggoy Estrada. Governor Singson will narrate how the President also berated Atong Ang for pocketing a portion of the funds for himself without the President’s knowledge and permission. Governor Singson will also tell us that the First Lady even expressed her profound thanks to him for the millions of pesos she received. Governor Singson will give us a first account of how public funds intended to alleviate the living conditions of our needy tobacco farmers in Ilocos Sur instead found their way into the pocket of a greedy President.

These creative and bald-faced manner of diverting cash shows how the people’s money could be easily stolen. It couldn’t be done, no way, unless it had been under the instruction and under the auspices of the Office of the President. The amount is just so big and the transaction so fast. In three days, public funds were converted into private funds; in three days, from Vigan, in three days, they were in the pocket of the President of the Philippines. By authorizing the release of public funds, with a clear and deliberate intention of ultimately appropriating these amounts for himself, the President must account to the people he has sworn to serve and protect. He is clearly unfit to lead. He must go.

Article II consists of two parts. I will now proceed to the second part.

Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides that

“a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration

under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.” All of us here

did that. All of them did it.

Republic Act 3091 and 6713 also require public officers to submit a sworn, true and detailed statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income and financial and business interests.

On April 29, 1999 and April 28, 2000, Pres. Joseph E. Estrada filed his 1998 and 1999 statement of assets and liabilities respectively, disclosing under oath only his wife’s interests and financial connections in three corporations and making it appear that he himself has no interest and financial connection in any company.

In the course of impeachment proceeding, we will prove him wrong. We will provide indisputable evidence that President Estrada lied under oath because he deviously concealed his interests and financial connections in the following corporations, among others, but not limited to: St Peter’s Holdings Company; Becks Resources Company; KB Space Holdings Company; Verdant Resources Company; FVC, now VFC Realty and Development Company; Valhalla Resources Company; JELP Real Estate & Development Company; JE Films and Video 1 Corporation; Erap Youth Muslim Foundation.

We will prove that in July 1999, President Estrada, through Presidential Counsel, Edward Serapio,–remember, if Your Honors please, remember this name because it will keep on recurring. It was mentioned by Congressman Apostol in the jueteng thing–now he is also involved here. He is the President’s personal lawyer. Serapio caused the incorporation of St. Peter’s Holdings and Becks Resources for the purpose of acquiring real property. Now, remember this, under the Articles of Incorporation, each of these corporations have identical stockholders, identical directors, identical incorporators. All were partners and associates of President Estrada’s personal lawyer, Edward Serapio. All the companies also have the same office address, the law office of Edward Serapio. In addition, they have the same authorized capital of P1 million and a mere paid-up capital of P62,500. Remember this, paid-in capital of P62,500.

We shall prove that on October 1, 1999, Jose Luis “Sel” Yulo– again remember this name–a close friend of the President, acquired all but four qualifying shares in St. Peter’s Holdings and caused the increase in the paid-up capital of the corporation to P250,000. Then, as evident in a Deed of Sale, dated October 1, 1999, which we will show in the impeachment proceeding, St. Peter’s Holdings purchased from Vicente and Gerardo Madrigal a 7,149-square meter property in New Manila, otherwise known as “Boracay”, for P86 million.

Now, pray tell me, how can a corporation with a capital of P62,500 acquired a property worth P86 million. By no stretch of imagination can Serapio ever say or even Sel Yulo say that his corporation has a paid-in capital of P62,500 and he can buy a property from the Madrigal’s for

P86 million.

Now, we shall also prove that St. Peter’s Holdings paid the P86 million with a BPI cashier’s check and more, which St. Peter’s Holdings purchased, using funds from his newly opened account in BPI. We shall show that St. Peter’s account was funded from Sel Yulo’s personal account in BPI. And that Sel Yulo’s account, personal account in BPI, was in turn funded with Check No. 0110714951 issued by a person whose signature appears on the screen.

We want you to see this signature. Study very closely. You will notice, look at the lower portion which says an arrow. Look at the signature. Examine it carefully. It purports, then look at the signature of the President in a P500 peso bill which is on top. You need not be an expert to see the similarity. The name may be different but there are unmistakable signs that the signature in that check is the signature, the handwriting of the President of the Philippines.

Imagine, the President of the Philippines maintaining a fictitious account! How far can he go or should he go? Look at it closely. We do not want to leave that matter. Because that is how low the President has gone down in bastardizing and prostituting even our banking system.

Look at the loops, look at the strokes, they are the same. So who owned? Who paid? We are talking here of P142 million. Who is Jose Valhalla who could have P142 million? We do not even know him. But the President has P142 million. Who is this mysterious person? It follows that President Estrada provided the funds. Look at the pattern. In the case of Eleuterio Tan, you see two different persons. They always come in pairs. That is the pattern of the President.

In the case of Eleuterio Tan, two different persons; one name. Then in the case of two corporations of Serapio, St. Peter’s and Becks. Different corporations, identical incorporators, identical stockholders and identical paid-in capital. Here. Two persons purportedly, but one signature.

It follows that President Estrada provided the funds as the real and beneficial owner of St. Peter’s Holdings to buy Boracay. It follows that President Estrada has interests and financial connections in St. Peter’s Holdings that he deliberately concealed in his 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Such concealment is a clear violation of the law.

Moreoever, we will show that President Estrada cannot explain how he was able to purchase the New Manila property which is worth at least P86 million when his net worth, according to his 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities, was only P35 million. No mortgage appears on the title covering the property. Therefore, no loans were obtained to buy it. Where did his money come from? To date, there is no legitimate explanation.

In fact, we will prove that after St. Peter’s Holdings purchased the property in New Manila, massive and expansive renovations were undertaken of the house and property. A unique swimming pool with white sand–please look at it–and artificial waves was even constructed. Fit for a President. While Harvard Construction appears to be the contractor, the actual contractor that financed the renovations was San Jose Builders. The same contractor that was awarded the juicy government housing project in Erap City, the improvement of the government-owned Lung Center, and other government projects.

We shall also prove that President Estrada has interests in and financial connections with Becks Resources that he did not disclose in

his 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities. This company–as I have said earlier, has a paid-up capital of only P62,500.00–was initially intended to buy a 3,000-square meter property at exclusive Forbes Park for P120 million as a gift for presidential daughter Jackie. At the last minute, however, plans were changed. Instead months later, Becks Resources purchased a 2,327-square meter lot in Wack Wack for P69 million.

We shall prove that the President has interests in and financial connections with KB Space Holdings, which is the ostensible owner of another mansion in Wack Wack. While President Estrada has been quoted as saying that his friends find it an honor to host a short stay in their houses, this P150 million mansion was constructed especially for a President with huge reception areas, several dining rooms, an industrial kitchen fit for a hotel, a card room, massage room, beauty parlor, mini theater, bar, room for memorabilia, a master’s bedroom whose more than 200-square meter area could very well be the dwelling house of 10 to 20 poor families. The master’s bedroom is 200 square meters.

More significantly, the plans for the rooms on the second floor indicate the names of his children by Laarni Enriquez, namely: Jacob–you will see there–Jake, Jerica. Yet, he disclaims. He says that is not his. But while the house was being constructed, Jacob, Jake and Jerica have their footprints. They have their names there. During the trial, we will show the architectural plans where their names are all there. So while he says it is not his, why are his children’s names there? President Estrada did not disclose his interest in Space Holdings in his 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities contrary to law.

Now, there are other mansions that the President has, but for time constraints, we will not proceed. But just take a look at those mansions one after the other. While you are looking at it, let me say that 20 years of the Marcos years, he never had this kind of a mansion. Two years of Estrada, you have all these mansions in just two years. I wonder who is the bigger crook. All of that could be the envy of any president.

There are other corporations in which President Estrada has interest and financial connections which he concealed and which, for lack of time this afternoon, we shall reveal later in the proceedings.

Finally, Republic Act 6713, otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers,” requires public officers including the President to divest in order to avoid conflict of interest. Thus, where a public official is a substantial stockholder of a private corporation, has a substantial interest in a business and the interest of such corporation or business may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of his official duty, he must divest by transferring the title or disposing of interest in favor of a person other than his spouse. Such divestment must be made within 60 days from assumption of office. That is the law.

Now, here is the catch. The SEC records would show that President Estrada is the majority stockholder of JELP Real Estate Development Company, a family corporation engaged in real estate development. In the pursuance of its business, JELP develops land and constructs apartments or houses for sale to the public. By express provision of

law, it must secure permits and may be regulated by the Housing

and Land Use Regulatory Board and the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources, among others. All these offices are directly

under the President.

The law required President Estrada to divest himself of his interest and holdings in JELP within 60 days from assumption of office on June 30, 1998. Now, what did President Estrada do? He did not comply with Republic Act 6713. He did not divest himself of his stockholdings in JELP worth P8 million within 60 days from assumption of office. Worst, when he tried to comply with the law, when he belatedly transferred his shares in November 1998 well beyond the 60-day limit, he assigned his stockholdings not to anyone in JELP worth P6 million but to his wife, spouse Luisa P. Ejercito. This is prohibited by Republic Act 6713 and the Civil Code.

Since the transfer to his wife is not allowed and deemed void, President Estrada up to now continues to be a substantial stockholder of JELP in violation of the law he is borne to enforce. In fact, in constructing 36 townhouses in Antipolo without the necessary clearances which he gets away with and permits from the HLURB without the necessary environmental clearance from the DENR, without any authorization from the water supply office and without the appropriate mayor’s permit, without permit from any agency, JELP, with President Estrada as substantial and dominant stockholder, has flaunted the law the President is sworn to observe.

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, because Joseph Ejercito Estrada is guilty of graft and corruption, culpable violation of the constitutional laws and betrayal of public trust and he is committing a continuing crime, we submit that President Joseph Estrada should be removed from office the moment we conclude these proceedings because we cannot have a country run by a thief like him.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable prosecutor, Raul Gonzales, for Article III.

REP. GONZALES. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors:

Twenty nine (29) months ago, Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada right hand raised, left hand on the Bible, took an oath, the sacred vow before God and country: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, and consecrate myself to the service of the nation. So help me God.”

Your Honors, Joseph Ejercito Estrada wilfully, consciously and maliciously violated that sacred oath by his acts of committing bribery, graft and corruption in all its forms, betrayed public trust and culpably violated the Constitution.

I have been assigned, together with Cong. Oscar Rodriguez, to prove that respondent Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada betrayed public trust.

Today, Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished Judges of this Impeach-ment Tribunal, we write history.

Last November 28 when this august Body made a resounding denial of the Defense’s Motion to Quash, its significant page in history was written. Expectations and hopes for our people were raised to the skies, but it is in this trial where we will write whether or not in a thousand years the Senate will have its finest hour.

During these historic and eventful days, the Senate will have the singular privilege never tested in our nation’s history which, hopefully, future generations of Filipinos will read with pride that during the Eleventh Congress, the Senate, in fulfillment of constitutional duty, rose to the occasion, and guided only by duty and conscience and the truth, left partisan loyalties behind and decided against the President.

Your Honors, permit me to say that none of us in this hallowed Hall relish the task before us. But we did not choose to be involved in such reckless and unbridled misconduct as Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada is accused. It is thus a duty, though a painful one, that I speak to Your Honors to find judgment against the President.

Indeed, the impact to the Constitution must be felt that if the President commits any or all of these cited charges against him, the Constitution and our people must be served.

Hence, we have, today, to do our respective duties. We, to present the case against the President and you, to rule under your best lights.

Your Honors, by voting on this Articles of Impeachment, the House of Representatives is not attempting to raise the standard of ethical conduct to perfection for our political leadership, nay for all of us. Such person does not walk the earth today even after Jesus Christ redeemed mankind from original sin. Everyone can sin, but when the Constitution provided for impeachment as a mode of removal of the President, it is our bounden duty to prove the President guilty and, Your Honors, to uphold that guilt as evidence will show.

Indeed, the impeachment, since the days of the English kings and ministers, has been called the most powerful weapon in the political armory short of civil war. It played the continuing role in the struggles between king and parliament that resulted in the formation of the unwritten English Constitution.

In this respect, impeachment was one of the tools used by the English Parliament to create more responsive and responsible government and to redress imbalances when this occur.

In our jurisdiction, we borrowed from the U.S. Constitution with some minor modifications our impeachment grounds. In the U.S., the framers sought to create a responsible though strong executive. They hope, in the words of Eldridge Gehrig(?) of Massachusetts that the maxim would never be adopted here, that the Chief Executive could never do wrong. No man is above the law and no man is below it. Nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded, thus the maxim ignorantia legis non fecit excusat.

In the case at bar, the President took a solemn oath before God and country to uphold the law and preserve and defend the Constitution. Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution states that: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

In many decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been ruled that any government office is a trust for it is created for the sole purpose of effecting the end for which government has been instituted which is for the common good and not for the profit, honor or private interest of any man, family or class of men. Jurisprudence adds that a public official or an employee therefore occupies a very delicate position which exacts from him certain standards which are not demanded from or required of ordinary citizens. He is truly the servant of the people and as such, he is enjoined to serve his office with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and at all times be accountable to the people.

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, we will prove to you by competent, credible and relevant evidence that President Joseph Ejercito Estrada is guilty of betrayal of public trust. A noted author has opined that betrayal of public trust covers any violation of oath of office involving loss of popular support even if the violation may not amount to a punishable offense. Its inclusion is more a reaction to past experience than an exercise in logic. It was the consensus in the Constitutional Commission that culpable violation of the Constitution, the main ground for impeachment, would hardly prosper in Congress even against an unpopular President. This new ground, betrayal of public trust, serves to stress the desirableness of having a President who truly regards public office as a public trust. How has President Joseph Ejercito Estrada spent the fund of public trust? Who benefited and who was deprived?

Your Honors, we ask you to decide this case on the basis of law and evidence. We ask you not to be swayed by the pomp and the power of the office or the political interests involved but to look at the evidence that will be presented and the magnitude of the betrayal of the public trust. The violation is very clear, the evidence overwhelming, in fact, consistent, corroborated and more than substantial.

The defense constantly harps on the fact that the defendant is an elected public official on vox populi vox Dei. But, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, so did all the dictators of the world.

The voice of the people is the voice of God. Yes. But that voice is also spoken through the Constitution. The Constitution is the expression of the people’s sovereign will. That Constitution lays down the framework of government, the powers of the President, the different branches of government and the limitations thereto, and, as important, the principles of accountability–mandate and accountability, power and public trust. What the people make and elect, they can unmake and remove through impeachment and conviction through their elected legislators and the mechanisms set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme and the people’s voice sovereign.

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, the prosecution shall show that President Joseph Ejercito Estrada has not cherished the public trust and has squandered it for his benefit and for the benefit of his cronies and kin. President Joseph Ejercito Estrada has placed private interests above the interests of the public in violation of that oath of office.

We will present overwhelming, detailed and corroborated evidence that on September 6, 1999, Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada has ordered a quasi-judicial agency, insulated by law from political pressure and influence, not to perform its function in accordance with the law of

its creation.

He issued a directive to the Securities and Exchange Commission not to allow an independent department of that body to conduct investigations without the prior clearance of the Commission en banc. For what ulterior purpose and for whose benefit this directive was issued, was made apparent by subsequent events.

Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada’s crony, businessman Dante Tan, became owner of controlling stocks of a corporation called BW Resources Corporation at the time when the shares of stock in the said company was undergoing a price surge never before seen in the history

of the Philippine stock market.

On January 1999, the price of BW shares was about P2.00 per share. By October 10, 1999, the price surged to a high P107 per share. When Dante Tan first bought BW shares in 1998, its price was only P0.80 per share. BW shares rose from the 16th most heavily traded

stock in the Philippine Stock Exchange in January 1999 to the No. 1 among the top 20 companies by June with a total value turnover of P7,139,972,175. Later, the Philippine Stock Exchange would report

that Dante Tan earned a profit of some P820 million during the period from January to May 1999 alone. The total value turnover of BW shares in October was P21, 619, 175,725 record that will never likely be surpassed decades into the future.

After October 10, 1999, the prices of BW shares underwent an abrupt and ignominious fall. Last one week from October 10, BW shares have plunged to as low as P22 per share and now very much lower.

These dramatic events pertaining to trading of BW shares in the Philippine Stock Exchange alarmed responsible officials of that body as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission which oversees the former. Both bodies undertook their investigations which necessarily inquired upon whether the meteoric rise and sudden fall and the prices of the shares was a natural occurrence dictated by market forces or was the result of illegal schemes or manipulations.

While these investigations were being carried out by these agencies and in relation to the very subject of such investigation, Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada made several questionable phone calls to the heads of both agencies and made representations in favor of his crony Dante Tan. Through less than subtle suggestions, the President applied pressure on the chiefs of the PSE and the SEC to shield Mr. Dante Tan from any unfavorable findings that the said agencies may come up with. The President would constantly remind these officers that Mr. Dante Tan was my friend–is my friend. The President clearly interfered with the discharge of the duties of these officials by suggesting, nay ordering that Mr. Dante Tan be exonerated in the investigations even as the investigations have yet to be finished.

We have evidence to show, Your Honors, that the President ordered the President of the Stock Exchange that before the report of each investigation can be submitted to the Board of Governors, the same should first be submitted to him. And we have proof to show that indeed the President of the Stock Exchange and the head of the investigating agency were called to Malacanang to present the advanced report of that investigation. When the investigations were concluded, the reports had one clear conclusion-all evidence that the PSE and the SEC gathered have pointed to the culpability of Mr. Dante Tan for price manipulation and insider trading.

Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada said that Dante Tan was a victim. The evidence said Dante Tan was the culprit. The investigators found that illegal transactions involving Dante Tan were committed not once, not twice, not thrice, but hundreds and thousands of times in myriad forms and ways. It is the interest of the public to bring Dante Tan to court and make him face the rigors of trial.

The President showed interest in Dante Tan’s immediate exoneration and obstructed the course of justice. Why? As evidence seemed to suggest, more than friendship with Mr. Dante Tan but has pecuniary interest in BW shares which went beyond mere cronyism. The prosecution will show that the President’s interference did impair the course of justice despite the fact that the evidence against Dante Tan surfaced in the report.

It will be noted that both the PSE and the SEC reports were partial and incomplete in the sense that the reports did not cover all individuals and persons who may have been involved in the illegal transactions or benefited therefrom.

The President’s obstruction of justice prospered because he succeeded in cutting short the investigations. Inciting fear in SEC and PSE officials, he succeeded in confining the reports to incomplete results. He succeeded in having possible damning evidence against the President’s mistress Guia Gomez, his favorite son, J.V. Ejercito, and his friends and relatives obstructed.

The denials of officials reeling under the awesome demonstration of coercive power, made at a time when the President appeared omnipotent, hardly qualifies as evidence of lack of pressure.

Mr. Chief Justice and honorable judges, it must be remembered that many traders in the stock market are small businessmen and

ordinary people.

In a country where majority of the people live in abject poverty, while small middle class struggle to survive allowing the few to amass billions of pesos in profits through manipulative schemes, further widens the disparities the few rich and the many poor and middle class have.

The facts we will prove before Your Honors pertaining to President Joseph Estrada’s interference in the affairs of the stock market do not even come to close the gravity and extent of the issues being raised by the workers and peasants among the protesters outside these halls.

Price manipulations and insider trading fraud seems sophisticated and technical compared with joblessness, hunger and displacement from farmlands. All concrete symptoms of a deep crisis that the President exacerbates by staying in office and imposing himself upon a people who has withdrawn confidence in his administration and policies.

What is worst, Your Honors, there now appears substantive proof that respondent Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada did not only pressure the SEC and the PSE to clear his crony, Dante Tan, but violated his own memorandum to government financial institutions not to approve or release loan applications in excess of P15 million, without his prior imprimatur.

But in what appears like a manifest behest loan of P600 million, PNB, then government-controlled, granted BW Resource this huge P600 million loan on collaterals of almost, now practically, valueless BW shares in a Tagaytay property said to be valued at not for a few millions of pesos. I wonder if the President’s counsel, then Chair of the PNB Board, Chief Justice Narvasa, was part of the approval of the P600 million PNB loan to BW Resource.

Moreover, we have evidence of how the President exhorted pressure on his Secretary not to proceed against a crony’s tax case with this warning: “You will not be Secretary if I am not President, and I am not President without the support of this crony.” Another strong illustration of tyrannical abuse of power which betrayed public trust.

Your Honors, I pray to God that our labors as mandated by the Constitution will truly bear fruit which the nation will accept. Let it not be, God forbid, bring us a reminder of Phaedrus and his fables, and I quote: “A mountain was in labor sending forth dreadful groans and there was the region of highest expectations, after all it brought forth a mouse.”

Permit me then to close my piece, Your Honors, by quoting a noted authority in constitutional law, Willoughby, with these lines:

It is now, we believe, considered that impeachment is not confined alone to acts which are forbidden by the Constitution or federal statutes. The better-sustained and modern view is that the provision for impeachment in the Constitution applies not only to high crimes and misdemeanors as those words were understood at common law, but also acts which are not defined as criminal and subject to indictment, but also to those which affect the public welfare.

Thus an official may be impeached for offenses of a political character and for gross betrayal of public interest, also for betrayal of trust, for inexcusable negligence of duty, for tyrannical abuse of power or as one writer puts it, “for a breach of public duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, including conduct such as drunkenness, when habitual, or in the performance of official duties, gross indecency, profanity, obscenity or other language used in the discharge of an official function which tend to bring the office into disrepute of an abuse or reckless exercise of discretionary power as well as the breach on an official duty.

Mr. Chief Justice, Honorable Members of this Impeachment Tribunal, thank you and God bless the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from Prosecutor Tanada. The Prosecution has only 48 minutes more of the two hours.

REP. TANADA. Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat. Halos nasabi na ang lahat na dapat sabihin ng aking mga kasamahang Prosecutors. Subalit mayroon pa pong naiiwan. Marami-rami pa po. Hindi po marahil kasing sensational o dramatic, pero masasabi kong kasimbigat din pong mga kasalanan.

Mr. Chief Justice, Honorable Judges, the assignment of our panel of Prosecutors consisting of Congressman Nachura and Congressman Martinez is, perhaps, the simplest. Ang aming tungkulin ay patunayan na sadya at tandisang nilabag ni Pangulong Estrada ang Saligang-Batas at ang kaniyang panunumpa nang gawin niya ang mga sumusunod:

Una, noong utusan niya ang Commissioner of Customs na isuko ang 52 mamahalin at maluluhong sasakyan na kinumpiska nito upang ipagamit sa mga miyembro ng kaniyang Gabinete at iba pang mga opisyal ng Malakanyang. Ito ay labag sa Saligang-Batas, sa Tariff and Customs Codes, at sa Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Pangalawa, noong hirangin ni Presidente Estrada ang ilang miyembro ng kaniyang Gabinete o ang mga deputy o tauhan nito sa iba pang katungkulan. Ito ay labag sa Section 13, Article 7 ng ating Saligang-Batas at taliwas sa desisyon na rin ng ating Korte Suprema sa kasong Civil Liberties Union laban sa Executive Secretary noon.

Pangatlo, noong hirangin ni Presidente Estrada and kaniyang

mga kamag-anak sa mga puwesto sa gobyerno tulad ni Raul de Guzman, ang kaniyang brother-in-law; si Roberto de Guzman, ang kanyang pamangkin; si Capt. Rufino Pimentel, isa pang brother-in-law; at si Cecilia Ejercito de Castro, isang kamag-anak. Ito ay labag sa ating Saligang-Batas, sa ating Civil Service Laws at sa ating New Revised Administrative Code.

Pang-apat, noong aprubahan ni Presidente Estrada ang P100 milyong donasyon ng Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office sa isang private foundation na pinamumunuan ng Unang Ginang na ang tanggapan ng foundation na iyan ay nasa kanilang tahanan. Ito ay tandisang paglabag sa ating Saligang-Batas at mismo sa charter ng PCSO.

Ang mga ginawang ito ni Pangulong Estrada, at iyong iba pang nabanggit na ng aking mga kasamahang prosekyutor, ay nabulgar na noon sa mga peryodiko at tiyak na dokumentado. Kung ang may mga hawak ng mga dokumentong ito ay magpapatotoo lamang, marahil ay hindi na kailangang magharap pa ng maraming testigo at humaba pa

ang paglilitis nito.

Mr. Presiding Officer, honorable judges, tatalakayin ko po ngayon ang dalawang bagay na kailangang liwanagin upang lubos na maintindihan ng ating mga mamamayan kung ano ba talaga ang buod ng paglilitis na ito. Una, ano ba talaga ang paglilitis na naganap ngayon na kung tawagin sa wikang Ingles ay “impeachment”? Ano bang klaseng usapin ito? Ito ba ay isang paglilitis na kriminal tulad ng iginigiit ng mga abogado ni Presidente Estrada? Hindi na kailangang pagtalunan pa ito, sa tingin ko, sapagkat ang kasagutan ay makikita natin at mababasa natin sa record ng Constitutional Commission ng ating Saligang Batas. Nilalaman ng nasabing rekord ang talakayan ng mga miyembro ng nasabing Komisyon tungkol sa bagay na ito, kaya dito na tayo tumungo upang malinawan.

Pakinggan po natin ang pagpapaliwanagan ng mga miyembro ng Constitutional Commission noong July 26, 1986. Tanong ni Komisyonado Maambong, and I am quoting him now:

Ang aking tanong ay tutungo sa puntong ito upang hindi tayo mahirapan sa mga susunod na panahon.

Ang aking tinutukoy ay ang tunay na katangian ng pamamaraang impeachment na nagpahirap sa amin na mga miyembro ng Committee on Justice and Good Government na sumakop sa sakdal na iniharap laban kay dating Presidente Marcos.

Ano talaga ang opinyon ninyo ngayon tungkol sa pamamaraang impeachment? Ito ba ay isang paglilitis kriminal o hindi? At kung gayon, gagamitin ba natin ang mga tuntunin na batas kriminal?

Pakinggan po naman natin ang sagot ni Komisyonado Romulo. Sagot ni G. Romulo, and I am quoting him now:

Sa ganang amin, ang proseso ay may halintulad sa isang paglilitis na kriminal ngunit ang buod ng katangian nito ay hindi isang pag-uusig na kriminal. Ang layunin ng impeachment ay ang pagtanggal lamang ng nanunungkulan dahil sa mga kasalanang kaniyang ginawa. At saka siya ay pananagutin sa hiwalay na pag-uusig, maging kriminal o sibil, tungkol sa kaniyang mga ginawa.

Pakinggan rin natin ang pangalawang tanong ni Komisyonado Maambong at ang naging sagot ni Komisyonado Romulo. Tanong ni G. Maambong, and I am quoting him now:

Sa bagay na pagharap ng ebidensiya, halimbawa, kung ito ay pagtataksil o pagsusuhol, gagamitin ba ang mga patakaran sa paglilitis kriminal ngayon na ito ay mga pagkakasala na pinarurusahan ng ating batas kriminal?

Sagot ni G. Romulo, and I am quoting him now:

Ang aking opinyon ay maliwanag na sa hukumang kriminal gagamitin ang lahat na pinakamaliit na detalye na ebidensiya at mga patakaran at ang karapat-dapat na palakaran. Ngunit maaari tayong maging liberal sa paglilitis sa impeachment, halimbawa, sa Senado, sapagkat ang habol lamang natin ay tanggalin ang nakaupo. Ang mga hukuman ng katarungan na ang magiging bahala sa aspetong kriminal at sibil nito.

Ang pangalawang bagay na dapat liwanagin ay kung anong antas at bigat ng ebidensiya ang sapat sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas upang mapaalis sa puwesto ang isang Presidente. Tandaan po natin na ang ating itinatanong ay ebidensiya tungo sa pagtanggal ng nakaupo, hindi ebidensiya upang siya ay ipakulong, sapagkat idiniin sa talakayan sa Constitutional Commission na kababasa lamang natin na malaki ang kaibahan ng paglilitis na impeachment sa paglilitis kriminal.

Pakinggan po naman natin ang paliwanagan nina Komisyonado Davide at Komisyonado Romulo noong July 26, 1986. Tanong ni G. Davide, and I am quoting him now: “At pangwakas, upang hatulan ang isang tao sa impeachment, kailangan ba ang sinasabing ebidensiyang walang kaduda-duda?”

Ang sagot ni G. Romulo, and I am quoting him now: “Muli, sapagkat ito ay hindi isang pag-uusig na kriminal, sa ganang akin ay

hindi po.”

At sino si Komisyonado Davide na tinutukoy sa rekord ng Constitutional Commission? Siya po ay walang iba kundi ang ating Kgg. na Punong Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema, G. Hilario Davide Jr. na namamatnugot ngayon sa paglilitis na ito sa Senado.

If Your Honors please, malaki ang kabuluhan ng mga bagay na ating liniwanag sapagkat ang paglilitis natin ay hindi isang pag-uusig na kriminal, kaya’t maaari nating tanggapin ang ebidensiya na pumapalibot sa mga sakdal na kailangang sagutin ngayon ni Presidente Estrada. Hindi ang aking tinutukoy ay ang pagsusuhol kay Presidente Estrada ng limang milyung piso tuwing ikalabinlima at katapusan ng buwan, para bagang regular na sahod ng karaniwang empleyado sa gobyerno.

Iyan ay direktong ebidensiya, direct evidence, hindi palibot na pangyayari lamang sapagkat sinumpaan na iyan at susumpaan pa ulit ni Gov. Singson na ito ay personal na dala-dala niya at personal niyang ibinigay at personal ding tinanggap naman ni Pangulong Estrada. Hinggil dito, si Presidente Estrada ay tanging maaaring tumanggi sa ilalim ng panunumpa kung hindi ito tutoo. Wala nang iba. Anuman ang sabihin pa ng kanyang mga abogado, anuman ang kanilang ibibigay na dahilan, sa bagay na ito, hindi siya maaaring magtago sa likod nang pananahimik sapagkat sa batas may laya siyang magsalita tungkol dito sa Senado.

Ang ating tinutukoy ay ang ebidensiya halimbawa nang pagtanggap niya ng P200,000,000 na pinadaan sa Foundation na ngayo’y sinasabi niya na kanyang pinabuo sa kanyang Legal Adviser na si Atty. Edward Serapio para sa mga Muslim scholars. Maari nating itanong kung bakit.

Batay sa ebidensiyang ihaharap namin kailangan pang ilihim ang pagbigay ni Gov. Singson ng nasabing P200,000,000 sa nasabing Foundation kung malinis naman at tutoo ang hangarin sa pagbuo nito. Bakit kailangan pang padaanin muna kay Gng. Yolanda Ricarforte, ang asawa ng isang undersecretary ng pamahalaan? Bakit kailangan ikalat muna ni Gng. Ricaforte sa limang hiwahiwalay na bank account sa iba’t ibang branch ng Equitable Bank?

At noong ilabas na ang salapi, bakit hindi na lamang inilagay ang tseke sa ngalan ng nasabing Foundation? Bakit walang ano mang pangalan ang mga tsekeng ito sa laki ng halagang sangkot sa mga tsekeng iyan? Bakit pinadaan pa ito kay Atty. Edward Serapio, ang Legal Adviser ni Pangulong Estrada at hindi na dineretso sa Foundation? Bakit diniposito muna ang mga tseke sa isang bank account na hindi sa pangalan ng Foundation? Bakit pinaliguy-ligoy pa, pinaikot-ikot pa? Sa haba ng prosisyon naman ay sa simbahan rin pala magtatapos.

Tungkol po naman sa pagmamay-ari ng lupa at mga mansion na tinitirahan ng mga kinakasama ni Pangulong Estrada, bakit kaya nasa pangalan ng mga korporasyon na walang kakayahang bumili nito? Bakit ang lahat ng mga nasabing korporasyon ay tangan ng abogado at ng mga tsokaran ni Presidente Estrada? Kanino bang bank account nanggaling ang puhunan na nilipat sa nasabing mga korporasyon upang mabili nito ang mga lupa at mga mansion na itinayo diyan? Napakaraming katanungan. Napakalabo ang mga transaksiyon. Napakahaba ang paikot-ikot at paliguy-ligoy. Tiyak na susubukan ng mga abogado ni Presidente Estrada na paghiwa-hiwalayin ang mga pumapalibot na mga pangyayari na ang tinutukoy ay si Presidente Estrada upang maputol ang pagturo nito sa kanya. Huwag po tayo sanang malito sa paikut-ikot at paliguy-ligoy na dinaanan ng mga transaksiyon na yan. Ang mga sakdal na ihaharap sa inyo ay isang larawan na kinakailangan matanaw sa kabuuan upang maaninawan at matunghayan ang buong katotohanan.

Mga ginagalang kong mga hukom, Mr. Presiding Officer, tanungin ninyo ang sinumang estudiyante sa pagkaabugado at kaagad-agad sasabihin sa inyo na sa ilalim ng Saligang-Batas ng Pilipinas, mas malawak ang kapangyarihan ng Pangulo ng Pilipinas kaysa kapangyarihan na idinudulot ng Saligang-Batas ng Amerika sa presidente nito. Kaya totoo lamang na hindi maiiwasan na ang personalidad ng ating Pangulo ay magkakabakas sa buong pamahalaan at gayon din sa habi ng sambayanan. Ang karakter ng isang pangulo, ang mga asal

at paninindigan na kanyang pinahahalagahan, ang kanyang ugali at pananaw sa buhay at sa Diyos, ang kanyang pagkamatapat o ang

kanyang pagkukunwari–ang lahat na ito ay nagbabakas sa isip, puso’t diwa ng bayan.

Hangang ngayon nararamdaman pa natin ang malalim na sugat sa ating isip, puso’t diwa na iniwan ng rehimeng Marcos. Hanggang ngayon, ito ay hindi pa naghihilom. Kung ating mamaliitin ang mga kasalanan sa bayan ni Pangulong Estrada, ano ang magiging mensahe natin sa ating mga kabataan at sa buong sambayanan? Na wala nang kabuluhan ang panunumpa? Na ang makapangyarihan ay maaring mangibabaw sa ating Saligang-Batas? Na ang pagnanakaw, ang graft and corruption, ay hindi masama kung hindi ka pahuhuli, o may mga kakampi ka na handang tatabing sa iyo ano mang mangyari sa bayan? Na walang masama sa pagsusugal sa gitna ng matinding kahirapan bumabagabag ngayon sa ating bansa? Ito ba ang magiging pamana natin sa ating kabataan at sa susunod na salinglahi?

May nagsasabi na ang pagpapawalang bisa sa nakasalang na mga sakdal sa kapulungang ito ay pagbibigay tiwala kay Atong Ang. Huwag naman po sana. Marami na ang kasalanan ni Presidente Estrada sa bayan. Malaki na ang perhuwisyo na idinulot niya sa sambayanan kayat mabuti pa mag-resign na si Presidente Estrada para sa kabutihan ng bansa.

Marami pong salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The Majority Leader.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, with the consent of the court, I ask for a ten-minute break.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? [Silence] The request is granted. A break for ten minutes.

It was 3:51 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:15 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS (Col. Saber). Please All rise. The Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is now resumed.

The Majority Leader is recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the defense counsel will now deliver their opening statement in the following order: Former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa and Atty. Estelito Mendoza.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the order as announced, the Chair recognizes defense counsel Narvasa. The defense, as earlier announced, also have two hours. Since it is now 4:16, you will have until a maximum…. A maximum of two hours would be 6:16. You may now proceed.

MR. NARVASA. May it please the Honorable Chief Justice and the Honorable Members of the Impeachment Tribunal.

I will take only five minutes or so simply to draw attention to certain legal propositions which I take to be relevant to the controversy at bar and certain political dimensions attending the same. And I will do this by way of laying the predicate for the presentation in chief of former Solicitor General Mendoza, my esteemed colleague.

Many of us here present will doubtless recall the story of a man of ancient Rome named Julius Caesar whom the masses admired and wanted to be the leader of their nation. He was assassinated by a group of plotters who considered him unfit to rule. These plotters, by spreading rumor and gossip, had poisoned the minds of the people against him. They said Julius Caesar was ambitious, avaricious, corrupt, and they enlisted the aid of well-meaning citizens like the noble-minded Brutus who was deluded into believing the sly insinuations of the plotters and had thus come to think that Caesar was indeed unfit to rule. And so Julius Caesar was slain.

Caesar’s friend, Mark Anthony, having learned of the conspiracy and how easily the people had been made to believe the lies and innuendoes of the conspirators, was moved to cry out as he mourned Caesar’s death, “Oh judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason.”

Today, 2,000 years after that tragic event, we take part in this impeachment proceedings to pass judgment on another leader, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, a man also admired by his countrymen who had elected him by an overwhelming majority to the highest office of the land. We are here to determine whether he should continue to lead the nation as its president. But unlike in Julius Caesar’s case, we are assured that in this forum, judgment will not flee to brutish beasts and reason will not be lost but will attend every aspect and incident of this proceedings. For in the many centuries that had passed, from Julius Caesar’s time to ours, principles and tenets have developed and come to be embraced in every enlightened society, foremost among which is that the guilt or innocence of a person accused of some wrong shall be determined not by passion or prejudice, nor hearsay or rumor but by such evidence as the universal experience of mankind accepts as satisfactory proof of facts presented in accordance with procedures that best conduce to full and free ventilation of a controversy and ultimately to a fair and honest judgment. It is our good fortune that in the course of time and in the full fruition of human wisdom, definite rules and standards for conducting trials and hearings, as well as for determining all questions of evidence, including questions of its materiality, relevancy, competency have been formulated and met with general acceptance in democratic States and that these specific norms have been adopted in our country. It is our good fortune that this country of ours is governed by a Constitution and a set of laws that guarantee to every person the fundamental right to due process and other inviolable human rights and otherwise command full commitment to the rule of law.

It is in light of these familiar norms and precepts which we are certain this honorable Impeachment Tribunal will uphold and apply that the respondent, the President of the Philippines, now confidently faces

his accusers. By your leave and with many thanks for your kind attention, I now ask my colleague, Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, to outline the case for the respondent.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The leave is granted.

Atty. Mendoza is now recognized.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate who now sit as judges in this historic trial on impeachment charges against

the President of the Philippines.

Before I proceed to deal with the specific charges, I would like to express appreciation to the prosecutors for outlining their case with clarity and also with eloquence.

But what I should also like to emphasize is that what the prosecutors have said and have represented are not the truth–are not the facts. What they have represented is what they propose to prove by evidence which they seek to present before this august assembly.

Noon pong bago manapos si Congressman Tañada, dalawang bagay ang ipinahayag niya. Ang tinatanong niya, “Ano ba ang sapat na ebidensiya para magkaroon ng conviction?” And sinabi niya itong kasong ito ay hindi kriminal kaya hindi kailangan ang proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ako po ay medyo nagulat nang kaunti sapagkat hindi ko alam na pag-uusapan iyan ngayon. Ang akin lamang pong pansin diyan ay ito. Nakinig po tayo sa mga prosecutors. Sinabi nila ang malalaking kasalanan ni Presidente Estrada. Iyan ay halos publiko na iyan, eh. At sinabi nila, matitibay ang kanilang ebidensiya. Bakit ba hindi pa tayo nag-uumpisa sa pagprepresenta ng ebidensiya, para

bagang sinasabi na nila ang ebidensiya nila ay kulang. Hindi nila kayang probahan ito beyond reasonable doubt. Kaya sinasabi nila, ipag-paumanhin ninyo ang ebidensiyang kailangan dito ay kulang sa proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Kung talagang malawak ang kasalanan ni Presidente Erap, kung talagang malakas ang ebidensiya, siguro kung ako ang prosecutor sasabihin ko, “We will prove our case not only beyond reasonable doubt but with absolute certainty.” Siguro nga po kailangan iyan, eh.

Sapagkat ano po ba ang kahulugan ng “impeachment”? President Estrada, or President Erap to many, was elected by the largest number of votes ever received by a President of the Philippines, more than 10 million votes.

Iyon pong higit na sampung milyon na iyon, ang sinulat nila sa balota ay “Erap.” Pero ang kahulugan noon, ang sinabi nila, manungkulan ka ng anim na taon. Iyon po ang mandate ng mahigit na 10 milyong Pilipino. Hindi lamang malaking boto ang tinanggap niya. Higit na anim na milyon sa pangalawa, si Speaker De Venecia. At higit na pitong milyon sa pangatlo, si Senador Roco. Ganoon po ang mandate na ipinahayag ng ating sambayanang Pilipino kay Presidente Estrada.

Ano ba ang kahulugan nitong “impeachment”? The impeachment process has the objective of removing from office President Erap, of terminating that mandate to be President for six years, earlier by more than three years.

Sampung milyon, ang sabi, “Presidente Erap, mayroon kaming tiwala sa iyo. Umupo ka, mag-presidente ng anim na taon.” Ito po ngayon, pinaglilitis natin, sasabihin natin sa kaniya, “Umalis ka na riyan.” Gayong mayroon pang mahigit na tatlong taon. That is what impeachment means.

Kaya po kung gagawin natin iyan, hindi po ba kailangan na iyong ebidensiya ay maliwanag at matibay? Should not a judgment to terminate that mandate be as incontestable and as clear as the mandate which elected President Erap as President? I think that is the intent of the Constitution. I think that is what every reasonable thinking Filipino would say.

Kaya iyang amount of proof, siguro hindi na muna dapat nating pag-usapan iyan.

Pangalawa, ang napansin ko ngayon hapon, napakarami pong sinabing puprubahan ng prosecution. Napakarami nilang sinabing kasalanan ni Presidente, na wala naman sa demanda.

Iyong Articles of Impeachment na nanggaling sa House of Representatives ay inirereklamo na nga namin kung papaanong nakarating ito doon sa Senado. Wala namang ebidensiyang inihayag sa House of Representatives. Wala po. In other words, there was no determination of probable cause.

In lieu of determination of probable cause, kaya po nakarating ito rito sapagkat pumirma iyong mahigit na 100 miyembro ng House of Representatives.

Ayon sa Saligang-Batas, kung pipirma iyong one-third, puwede na ngang ipadala iyong Articles of Impeachment sa Senado. Pero mayroon pong mahalagang kinakailangang lumabas bago ipadala rito. Iyon pong mahigit na 100 na iyon o iyong one-third na sinasabi ng ating Saligang-Batas, kinakailangang sumpaan nila na iyong nilalaman ng Articles of Impeachment na ipapadala sa Senado ay totoo. Sapagkat alam nilang totoo. Hindi po ganoon ang sinumpaan nila. That is not what the verification says. Ang sabi lang ng verification na iyan, “Ayon sa aming pagbabasa, ayon sa aming pagkakaintindi, sa nakita namin na nakasulat diyan, iyan ay mayroong base sa katotohanan.”

Kaya po ito ay dumating dito. Tinutulan po namin, kaya lang medyo nabigo kami. In other words, what I seek to emphasize is that these articles are now before the Senate without any finding of probable cause. Nonetheless, we will try the case.

After the Senate gave due course to this Articles of Impeachment, it issued summons to the respondent, to the accused, whatever he may be, but to the President of the Philippines. And we were asked to respond to these charges, to know these charges. Medyo hindi nga po madaling basahin at intindihin, eh. Sapagkat hindi po pangkaraniwan na complaint, eh. Marami pong annexes. Nanggaling sa Inquirer. Kaya po pinag-aralan naman naming mabuti. Maliliit nga po iyong mga nandoon sa news items, pero pinagtiyagaan na naming basahin para maintindihan kung ano ang mga paratang kay Presidente Erap. Wala naman po kaming nakita rito tungkol doon sa mga mansiyon na sinasabi. Iyon nga po ang pinagkatingnan-tingnan namin, kasi palagi nang nasa peryodiko iyong mga bahay na sinasabi ngayon. Basahin po natin ito maski na sampung beses, wala po tayong makikita dito na iyan ay kasama sa mga paratang at akusasyon kay Presidente Erap. Kung wala po dito, hindi maaaring bistahan iyan. Kaya po kami nagtataka. Siguro, wika ko, marahil kulang na nga ang pruweba, kaya sinasabi na hindi na kailangan ang proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hindi lamang pala kulang ang pruweba, iyon palang sinasabi at iniisip nilang may pruweba, wala pala rito.

Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo, kung minsan siguro ang aking Tagalog ay hindi kasinggaling nuong kay Congressman Tañada. Sapagkat si Congressman Tañada po ay taga-Quezon, lalawigan po ni Presidente Quezon. Ako naman po ay tagalalawigan ng Pampanga, kaya paminsan-minsan ay kinakailangang tulungan ng Ingles. Sapagkat hindi ko maaaring tulungan ng kapampangan, hindi makukuha ng stenographer.

Ngayon po, sa totoo po, anuman iyang mga pinag-uusapan nating charges, at bottom the question really is: What is the truth about the facts alleged in this Articles of Impeachment? The truth, ang katotohanan–iyon po ang mahalaga dito, eh.

Sa narinig po natin, ang central figure dito, ang central witness ay si Governor Singson. Sa totoo po, itong mga ibang paratang dito, iyong nasa Inquirer hindi naman….Matagal na iyan, eh. Hindi naman iyan masyadong inabala na ng mga mamamayan, eh. Naabala lang ang mga mamamayan noong magkaroon tayo ng impeachment dahil doon sa mga reklamo at ipinahayag ni Governor Singson, hindi po ba?

Kaya po dito, tinatanggap ko. Ganoon na nga ang sinabi ni Congressman Apostol at ni Congressman Arroyo–na ang mga kasong ito ay talagang nakabatay sa sinabi at deklarasyon ni Gov. Chavit Singson. Kaya po, pareho na ito–charge 1, charge 2. Governor Singson po iyon, eh. Totoo ba iyong sinabi ni Governor Singson? Iyan po ang magiging isyu. Sino naman po ang kailangang magpatunay na totoo? Itong prosecution, eh. Iyan po ang burden of proof sa kanila.

Maliit pa po ako noon. Ang sabi ng aking nanay: “Anak, magsasabi ka ng totoo. Sapagkat kung ikaw ay mahuli kong nagsisinungaling, hindi na kita papaniwalaan kailanman.” Kaya po isang beses, ang sabi ko sa nanay ko: “Puwede bang makahingi ng diyes?” Matagal na po iyon. Mahalaga pa iyong pera noon, eh. “Eh, bakit?” ang wika. “Eh, ibibili ko po ng sorbetes,” ang sabi ko. Mabait naman ang nanay ko noong oras na iyon, kung minsan ay mahigpit sa pera ‘yan, binigyan ako ng diyes. Hindi po niya nalaman kaagad, pero nayaya ako ng aking mga kaibigan, nag-cara y cruz kami. Natalo. Hindi ako nakabili ng sorbetes. Nalaman po ng nanay ko, ang sabi niya: “ ‘O, nahuli kita. Sa susunod hindi na kita bibigyan ng pera. Ikaw ay nagsinungaling.”

Kaya po tingnan natin si Governor Singson kung makakahingi pa nga ng diyes. Ang hinihingi niya dito mas malawak pa roon. Hinihingi niya sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang pangungusap, ‘Tanggalin si Presidente Erap bilang Presidente ng Pilipinas.’

Marami po sa sinasabi ng prosekusyon, hindi naman si Presidente Erap, eh. Gawa lahat ‘yan ni Governor Singson. Kaya po noong nagpapahayag si Congressman Apostol at si Congressman Arroyo, ang parang pumasok sa akin: Sino ba ang akusado dito? Si Presidente Erap ba o si Governor Singson? Sapagkat karamihan po sa sinabi nila ay hindi naman si Presidente Erap ang gumawa. Ang gumawa ay si Governor Singson.

Dahil hindi po mahaba ang ating panahon, tingnan natin iyong….Ito po kasi ay mas maraming papel, maraming dokumento. Mahirap po iyong walang dokumento dahil sasabihin, sinabi niya ang ganito, ang sabi naman noong isa ay hindi naman ganoon. Iyon pong RA No. 7171, unang-una, ang sabi ay nag-release ng P200 million under that law sa probinsiya ng Ilocos Sur. Maaari nating sabihin, dahil Budget ang nagrelease noon, mayroon sigurong kaalaman si Presidente. Ganoon pa man, hindi naman nila sinasabing si Presidente ang nag-release ng P200 million, ano po? Ngayon po, pag-release ng P200 million para sa tobacco subsidy, ano ang nangyari doon sa P200 million? Nag-cash advance po si Governor Singson. Maliwanag po . Hindi po si Presidente Estrada ang nag-cash advance. Ang nag-cash advance ay si Governor Singson. Ang sabi niya, “To cash advance the amount of P170 million for partial payment of the equipment for the flue-curing barn and redrying plant.”

Samakatuwid, “cash advance,” sinabi ni Governor Singson, para bumili ng flue-curing barn and redrying plant. Pirmado po ni Governor Singson. Kung hindi niya ibinili ng flue-curing barn, hindi po ba nagsinungaling na siya? Kumuha siya ng P170 milyon, sino ang niloko niya? Di niloko niya ang gobyerno. Hindi po ba? “Falsification” sa pangungusap ng criminal law.

Ngayon, una po iyon, tandaan ninyo. Hindi si Presidente Erap ang gumawa niyan.

Pangalawa, pumirma po siya ng request for allotment of that money, P170 million. Pirmado rin po ni Governor Singson. Di pangalawang kasalanan na, falsification din. Kaniyang pirma ito, hindi kay Presidente.

Pangatlo, nagpagawa po siya ng tseke payable–ako nga po ay nagtataka, hindi naman ito Governor Singson-payable to Luis Chavit Singson, tseke, P170 million. Sino ang nakapirma? Si Luis Chavit Singson. Kung sabagay, kasama rin po iyong tesurero. Ito po ay mahalagang bagay. Hindi si Presidente Erap ang pumirma sa tseke, si Governor Singson, para flue-curing barn. Kung hindi pala, sino ang nagpalsipika? Sino ang nagsinungaling? Si Governor Singson. Pangatlo na po iyon.

Pagkatapos niyan, alam ninyo, marami pong sinabing mga babae, nagkaganoon-ganoon; iyong tseke kung saan-saan pumunta. Papaano po ba nangyari iyon?

Sumulat po ng isang authorization si Governor Singson. “This is to authorize Maricar Paz and Marina Atendido, both employees of this office, to officially transact business with the Land Bank.” Pirmado po ni Governor Singson iyan. Iyan ang pinagmulan ng maraming palit-palit, pagka-cash cash at saan-saan nanggaling at napunta iyong tseke. Pirmado naman ni Governor Singson iyan. Kung hindi niya pinirmahan ito, hindi niya pinabayaang mapunta ang tseke kung kani-kanino, di hindi nangyari iyon. Pang-apat po iyon.

Panglima. Pumirma po si Governor Singson ng purchase request for flue-curing barn uli. Kung hindi pala siya bibili noon, bakit siya pumirma ng purchase request? Panglima nang kasalanan, panglima nang pagsisinungaling.

Pagkatapos noon, eto po ay makikita ninyo. Purchase order pa. Para bagang mayroon talagang bibilhan, ano po, sapagkat may supplier po. “GOME”, nakalagay dito. Bakit pipirma ng purchase order kung pala iyong pera ay ibibigay kung kanino. Pero pirmado ni Gobernador Singson. Pang-anim na po iyan.

Pagkatapos noon, purchase order, alam nating hindi na binili pero pagkatapos ay mayroong lumabas na papel, “Acceptance of delivery.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin niyan? Ang ibig sabihin ay tinanggap ng probinsiya iyong binili. Pirmado rin ni Gobernador Singson. Ngayon pampito na iyon.

Pagkatapos ay may certificate of inspection siya, ininspek iyong binili. Natanggap pala in good order. Pagkatapos may Memorandum Receipt pa, binili, tinanggap, Memorandum Receipt to him na sa kanya pumunta, pirmado rin ni Gobernador Singson. Pampito na po iyon–pangwalo na; nagkakamali–naghihirap na ako sa pagbibilang, marami na po masyado ang pina-falsificate.

Pero this tops it all. Pagkatapos po niyan mayroong ginawa si Gobernador Singson–ito po iyong dokumento, Settlement of Cash Advance for the amount of P170 million, pirmado rin ni Gobernador Singson. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang ibig sabihin nito nag-cash advance siya ng P170 million mayroon daw siyang biniling ganito at pagkatapos dahil tinanggap na iyon, tinanggap na niya, di wala na siyang cash advance, sini-settle na niya ang P170 million. Mayroon pa pong official receipt na parang binayaran iyong P170 million.

Iyan po ba ang testigo ng prosecution? Sabihin nating totoo lahat itong sinabi ni Gobernador Singson dito sa mga dokumentong nandito. Di hindi pala kinuha iyong pera. E, anong binigay kay Presidente Erap? Ibinili ng flue-curing barn, e.

Ngayon, kung sabihin naman natin na pinalsifika niya ang pirma, mahigit na sampung beses, ibinulsa niya iyong pera, iyon, maliwanag– siyang kumuha, siyang tumanggap, sa bulsa niya pumunta. E, sabi, sasabihin ng prosecution “Binigay naman kay Presidente Erap.” Ano ang ebidensiya noon? Ang ebidensiya na iyon–dahil sabi ni Gobernador Singson.

But as far as the irreputable documents and papers show, he was the one who got P170 million from the province of Ilocos Sur, but as far as whether this went to President Erap, it was only–it is the word of Gobernador Singson. After he has falsified 13 documents, does he have any credibility left? Are you to impeach the President, terminate the mandate of more than 10 million people on the word of someone who has himself and cannot possibly deny that 13 times he falsified documents?

Siguro po hindi na dapat pagusapan iyan, e. E, ako, diyes lamang ang hiningi ko sa Nanay ko, hindi ko lang binili ng sorbetes, hindi na ako makahingi, uli. E, eto pa. Kaya po, ano po bang leksiyon na nakikita natin dito? Magnakaw ka, lakihan mo kung gusto mo pa, pagkatapos, para wala ka nang pagkakasala, wala ka nang pananagutan, sabihin mo ibinigay mo kay Erap. Hindi po ba ganoon ang nangyari? Hindi lang wala ka nang pagkakasala, e, marami namang sasama sa iyo, e, maniniwala kaagad sa iyo, e. Lalung-lalo na iyong mga mamamayan na mula sa mula ayaw nilang manalong presidente si Erap. Hindi po ba ngayon sa nakikita natin sa rally, lahat naman iyan na tinatanggap nilang katotohanan ang sinasabi ni Gobernador Singson, e, iyong mula sa mula ayaw nila na mahalal na presidente si Presidente Erap.

It is a settled axiom in evidence, that the testimony of a person who is himself a party to the offense has no probative weight, it has no credibility, because he is motivated by desire to exculpate himself. Sa katotohanan po malaki po ang problema ni Gobernador Singson, sapagkat mayroon po akong nakita ring papel o dokumento na lumalabas pala sa government of Ilocos Sur as of December 31, 1999. Governor Singson and persons working immediately under him have unliquidated cash advances of P162, 145, 860. 55. The last unliquidated cash advance of Governor Singson drawn in December 1999 was P100 million. Kaya po sa nangyari, siguro pinaninindigan na nga ni Governor Singson. Hindi ko alam kung ano ang sasabihin niya pagka nandidiyan na siya at nakasumpa na siya. Naging bayani na siya. Speaker na siya sa mga rally. Mga Rotary Club ay imbitado na siya. Siguro ang kanyang iniisip, libre na ito sapagkat si Erap naman ang babagsak, eh.

Ngayon po, ‘yung tobacco subsidy, medyo itabi na natin po. Pupunta naman ako sa jueteng.

Sabi po ay si Presidente Erap daw ay protector ng jueteng, ano po. Si Presidente Erap po, siguro may ilan sa mga senador, maski ang mga iba pa, maalaala nila na bago siya naging bise presidente ay naging senador po siya.

Noong pong 1987, senador po siya at nagtalumpati po siya rito, privilege speech on November 25, 1987. Tungkol po sa jueteng, eh. Kaya po mayroong kaugnayan ito sa pinag-uusapan natin. Ako po ay kukuha lamang ng four points he read. Babasahin ko po I hope I do justice to his language. Sa Tagalog po, eh.

Una, sabi niya: “Ginoong Pangulo, ang kahirapan ay laganap sa ating bansa. Kahit saang sulok ng Pilipinas ay matatagpuan natin ang maraming naghihikahos.” That is his first premise. Maraming pong kahirapan dito sa ating bansa. Hanggang ngayon naman.

Pangalawa: “Kung P170 milyon buwan-buwan ang kinikita ng Pagcor mula sa mga casino na kanilang hinahawakan at pinamamahalaan, paano po ang libu-libong ilegal na mga pasugalan na nakakalat sa buong kapuluan na ang pinakamalaganap dito ay ang jueteng.” Second premise.

Pangatlo po: “Kung ating pagsasamasamahin ang kinikita sa araw-araw ng mga ilegal na pasugalan sa buong Pilipinas, makatitipon tayo ng napakalaking halaga na sapat upang makatulong sa pagpapagaan sa kahirapan ng ating maraming malilit na kababayan.” Yan di po ang hangarin niya. Pero ipinagpatuloy po ito. Ano ang sinabi niya? “Isa pa,” sabi niya. “Kung ating magagawang legal ang mga ilegal na pasugalang ito, mababawasan o masusugpo ang pagsasamantala at pang-aabuso sa tungkulin ng mga OIC.” Noon po ay walang mayor, OIC, po.

“Sa pamahalaang-lokal, bukod pa rito ay matutulungan nating mahango sa kahirapan ang marami nating kababayan.” Finally, ang sabi po niya, “Kaya Ginoong Pangulo, bilang pagtatapos, nais kong imungkahi na bilisan ang pagsisiyasat na ginagawa ngayon ng ating Committee on Games and Amusement at isama nila sa kanilang pag-aaral kung papaano magagawang legal ang mga ilegal na pasugalang ito nang sa ganoon ay mauuwi sa ating pamahalaan ang malalaking halaga na ngayon ay pinakikinabangan lamang ng mga corrupt na OIC at ilan pang mga pulis.

Iyan pong pinaninindigan ni Presidente Erap, senador pa siya. Iyon po kasing jueteng, mayroon po akong kaunting kaalaman–hindi po ako marunong, pero sapagkat po ako ay taga-lalawigan ng Pampanga–dati-dati po bago nalahar ang aming bahay doon, tuwing Sabado ako ay nauwi. Pag-uwi ko, unang-una na pong bisita ay ang kubrador sa jueteng. Ako po ay nataya ng kaunti-kaunti. Pero sa nakita ko po sa mga mamamayan, sila pa po ang nagagalit, eh, kung hindi pupunta ang kubrador sapagkat po sa kahirapan ng buhay, lahat po ng ating kababayan ay humahanap ng pag-asa. Hope springs eternal. Kaya po maski papaano naging paraan ang jueteng para sila ay maaaring managinip at may pag-asang iyong panaginip na iyon ay maging totoo. Kaya po napakahirap pigilin iyang jueteng.

Ang aking buong paningin, si Presidente Erap, ganoon na nga po ang nakita niya, eh. Kanya lang, ang masama sa jueteng, eh, masyadong marami ang kumikita na hindi naman dapat kumita dahil po illegal, eh. Kung illegal, kailangan maglagay ka diyan, maglagay ka doon, maglagay ka diyan. Kung hindi, huhulihin.

Kaya po ng sinasabi ni Presidente noon ay gawin na nating legal para iyang lahat ng kitang iyan hindi pumunta sa bulsa ng kanino man kundi sa bulsa sa kaban ng gobiyerno. Iyan po ang paniwala ni Presidente na noon at hanggang ngayon iyan pa rin po ang kanyang pinaninindigan. Kaya nakakagulat po itong sinasabing nilalagyan siya para proteksiyunan ang jueteng.

Ngayon po, nandidiyan po sa rekord ng House of Representatives. Napakarami na pong bills. Mayroon na nga po akong listahan na ipinayl to legalize jueteng and some other forms of gambling. Pero hindi po natutuloy iyan, eh. Not any of those bills has been enacted. Bakit po? Mayroon pong reklamo sa sektor ng ating kapuluan na sugal, eh. Hindi dapat gawing legal. Pero ang akin pong suspetsa kanya hindi umiiral iyan sapagkat nga tinututulan ng mga nagpapa-jueteng. Kakayahin nilang mag-lobby sapagkat marami naman silang nanunungkulan na tinulungan pagdating ng eleksiyon. Kanya po siguro alam ni Presidente Erap iyan, eh, na walang pag-asa na magkaroon ng batas. Kanya po ang ginawa niya, hanapan ng kalaban ang jueteng na legal. In other words, introduce a game which will compete with jueteng and which will put it out of business but which is legal and whatever earnings would go to government.

Sa panahon po ng kanyang panunungkulan, marami pong sinubukan, eh. Mayroon pong “Quick Pick 2 Bingo.” Mayroon pa pong pinag-aralan na small-town lottery kagaya ng small-town lottery noong panahon ni Presidente Aquino, yata. Hanggang dumating tayo doon sa “Bingo 2 Ball.” Iyan pong “Bingo 2 Ball” parang jueteng na rin, eh, sa katotohanan. Kanya naman siguro idenisayn ng ganoon para nga mawala ang jueteng. At sa naririnig po natin, galing na rin kay Gobernador Singson, ay mukhang magtatagumpay iyan, eh. It will put out of business the jueteng operators. Kaya po noong narinig ni Governor Singson iyan, siya na rin ang nagsasabi eh, ipinakiusap niya o ipinakikiusap niya kay Presidente Erap na huwag sanang isama diyan sa Bingo 2-ball ang Ilocos Sur. At noong hindi pumayag si Presidente, nagalit pa sa kanya. E, bakit naman niya tututulan ang Bingo 2-ball kung hindi siya nakikinabang nga sa jueteng? At kung naman si Presidente nakikinabang nga sa jueteng at siya nga ang binibigyan ni Gobernador Singson, bakit naman ipapatigil ni Presidente ang jueteng at palitan ng Bingo 2-ball? Iyan po ang hindi madaling maintindihan, e.

Ngayon, marami naman po silang sinasabi. Personal nagbigay daw si Gobernador Singson kay Presidente, pero kagaya rin po noong 7171, sabi po ni Governor Singson, iyon bang sabi niya basta paniniwalaan na lang? Ngayon sabi nila, e talagang meron niyan sapagkat nadeposito iyan sa account e, sabi ni Governor Singson sa affidavit niya, sa account pa niya. Pagkatapos, wika niya, inilipat kay Yolanda Ricaforte. Pagkatapos kinuha doon nagbigay ng P200 million doon sa Erap trust fund. Samakatuwid merong pera, ano po? Pero iyon bang perang iyon dahil may pera ang ibig sabihin noon pera ni Presidente Erap iyan? Sabi ni Governor Singson, e.

Ngayon, ito naman po ang tanong natin: kanina po ang sabi ko, kung si Presidente Erap ay protektor ng jueteng, bakit naman niya papatayin ang jueteng? Kumikita, e. Mukhang katakataka iyan. Ngayon, kung naman siya tumatanggap ng pera at para sa kaniya na nga iyan, e bakit naman niya ipagkakatiwala pa kay Gobernador Singson? Bakit niya pa ipadedeposito sa pangalan ng account sa pangalan ni Gobernador Singson? O bakit naman, sa palagay mo na, si Yolanda Ricaforte, bakit pa ilalagay doon? Kung sa kaniya na nga iyan. At kahuli-hulihan, kung sa kaniya na nga iyan, e, ari na niya iyang pera e, bakit gagawa pa ng tsekeng P200 milyon ibibigay sa foundation, hindi po ba? Sa iyo na, eh. Kung sabagay sabi po noong iba, mabuti ‘ika iyan napunta na nga sa foundation kung galing man iyan sa jueteng. Kung hindi kanino-kanino lang napunta iyan, eh. Iyon po ang hindi natin maaaring tanggapin nang madalian lang eh.

Samakatuwid, sa ganitong sitwasyon, one must weigh the evidence carefully. One cannot just take the word especially of someone who has admittedly falsified no less than 10 documents as the truth.

Sa kabila naman noon na si Presidente Erap eh gusto niya ngang mawala ang illegal na jueteng, iyan naman, that decision of the President is incontrovertible. Nandiyan po sa records ng PNP kung ilang raids na ang ginawa. Ang utos ni Presidente i-raid iyan. Ipasara iyang jueteng. Marami pong magtetestigo diyan. Kaniya nga lang, kagaya na nga ng nakita ng mahabang panahon, maski gaano pa ka-determinado ang mga pulis, mukhang hindi nila talagang kayang ipasara lahat ang jueteng. Kung hindi man iyon organized, sinasabi nila, meron pang guerilla jueteng diyan, eh. Napakahirap talaga.

Iyan po iyang sa charge 1, charge 2 na sinasabi.

Ngayon po, pupunta po ako sa charge 3. Iyan po iyong Betrayal of Public Trust. Ito po ay mayroon po kaming kaunting problema, sapagkat sa pagpapahayag po ni Congressman Gonzales, parang mayroong mga sinasabing papatunayan nila na wala naman sa demanda. Sapagkat

dito po ….

I beg your indulgence. I have to go back to Charge 2. Iyon po ay tungkol sa Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Doon po sa Charge 2, marami pong sinabi rin si Congressman Arroyo na mga interes daw ni Presidente sa mga korporasyon na wala sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Marami po siyang korporasyon na sinabi: St. Peter’s Holdings, Becks Resources, KB Space, et cetera.

Pero dito po sa demanda, ganito po ang nakasulat. Sabi niya: “He filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999, stating therein that he and and his wife and children have business interests in only three (3) corporations. The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other interests in other companies outside of the three firms listed in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.” Pagkatapos po naka-bracket, (Annex “C” hereof).

Ngayon po, iyong Annex “C”, sapagkat po kami ang pagkakaintindi namin noong sinabi nilang “he has other interests in other companies” at pagkatapos naka-bracket (Annex “C”), ang ibig nilang sabihin, at iyon ang aming naintindihan, nang hindi niya idineklara sa Statement of Assets and Liabilities iyong mga interes niya sa mga korporasyong nakalista dito sa Annex “C”. Iyon po ang aming pagkakaintindi, at maliwanag naman iyan, eh. Bakit ba ngayon sinasabi nila si President daw ay committed perjury sapagkat iyong interes niya sa St. Peter’s Holdings, Becks, KB Space, Verdant, at kung anu-ano pa, mayroon pang ipinahayag doon na tseke, ay wala daw sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Ang sagot ko naman, wala sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities, wala rin sa inyong demanda. Bakit ba ninyong gustong prubahan iyong wala sa demanda? Dahil ba iyong nasa demanda hindi ninyo kayang prubahan?

Kaya po, iwanan ko naman po iyong Article II. Babalik na po ako sa pangatlo.

Ito naman pong pangatlo. Marami po ito, eh. Iyong sa PAGCOR, hindi naman sinabi. Sabi dito, “The President referred only.” Wala namang masama sa pagre-refer, eh. Siguro ang mga senador nasa pulitika eh, sanay na sanay kang mag-refer. Hindi naman sasabihin ni-refer mo, ibig sabihin aprubahan mo iyan. Hindi po ba? Kaya iyong nasa sa first paragraph ay maari na po nating itabi iyan.

Ngayon, ito naman po sa Securities and Exchange Commission, tungkol po kay Chairman Yasay. Nakalagay din po rito by reference iyong affidavit ni Chairman Yasay, Annex “E”, sabi sa complaint. Samakatwid po, sa ang aming pagkakaintindi, sapagkat itong complaint na ito ay hindi po pangkaraniwan ang pagkakagawa, ang reklamo nila, si Presidente pinakialaman iyong problema ng BW sa SEC dahil dito sa sinasabi ni Chairman Yasay sa kaniyang affidavit na Annex “E” ng complaint.

Ngayon po, ano po ba ang sinasabi dito ni Chairman Yasay sa kaniyang affidavit? “That I further testified”–dito po sa Senado yata ito–“that soon after I ordered said investigation, President Joseph E. Estrada called me several times, at first complaining about the investigation and later ordering me to immediately terminate the same with specific instructions to clear Mr. Dante Tan, the head of Best World Resources Corporation, of involvement in any anomaly.”

Let me underscore, perhaps, the critical clause in this sentence, “ordering me to immediately terminate the same with specific instructions to clear Mr. Dante Tan.” Marami po silang iba pang sinabing ipu-prove daw nila–si Dante Tan, iyong presyo ng stock market–pero hindi naman po si Dante Tan and akusado dito, e. Hindi naman kasali si Dante Tan dito. Ang totoo, mayroon pong preliminary investigation na ngayon sa Department of Justice tungkol dito, tungkol nga diyan sa mga BW shares. At iyan nangyari, napadala iyan sa Department of Justice for preliminary investigation not during the time of Chairman Yasay but during the time of Chairman Lilia Bautista.

Ngayon, ito pong bagay na ito, iyon ang aming pagkakaintindi. Kaya lamang po siguro, sa aking palagay, parang iniiwasan na ng prosecution iyan. Ganoon pa man, iyan ang nasa complaint. Sapagkat si Chairman Yasay, tatlong beses pong in-interview sa iba’t ibang radio station at program at sinabi niya, tinanggihan niya ang katotohanan noong kaniyang affidavit.

Sabi niya doon sa program ni Tina Monson-Palma:

Palma: In that telephone conversation, he did not tell you to clear Dante Tan?

Yasay: Yes, he did not specifically tell me clear Dante Tan or clear BW or he did not specifically tell me to stop my investigation. No, emphatically, no.

Palma: And that does not mean or interpreted when it becomes a formal legal case as a formal interference by the President?

Yasay: Well, some people might argue. They say it was interference but what I point is only that he did not specifically tell me to clear Dante Tan or clear BW.

Hindi ko na po babasahin. Mayroon pa rito. Pare-pareho po iyan. Samakatwid…. Ewan ko kung kailangan pa naming prubahan sapagkat mukhang hindi naman nila puprubahan na sinabi ni Presidente kay Chairman Yasay. Pero iyon po ang nasa demanda sapagkat itinanggi na nga ni Chairman Yasay na sinabi niya iyan, e.

Ngayon, mayroon pa po rito sa charge 3, na ito sa akin ay maliit

na kahulugan lang ito. Iyon daw kay Jinggoy Estrada. Nakialam daw

si Presidente sa kaunting alitan sa Cardinal Santos. Sa palagay ko

naman po, ito ay hindi na kailangang pagkaabalahan sapagkat itong

mga kuwentong ito ay hindi rin natin nalalaman kung ano talaga ang nangyari roon.

Naririto rin po iyong charge. Sabi nila, si Jude Estrada nag-iwan ng hindi bayad na bills sa hotel sa Cagayan de Oro. Ewan ko po kung impeachable offense iyon. Pero ang sabi naman ni Jude Estrada, binayaran naman daw niya iyon. Pero ano kaya ang pananagutan naman ni Presidente roon? Pero nandidiyan po sa reklamo.

Eto pong appointment naman ni Cecilia de Castro. Ang akin pong natatandaan, sinabi na po ni Presidente na siya ay nagkamali, hindi niya nalalaman na kamag-anak iyon. Sa kinarami nang pinirmahan ay hindi niya napansin. Palagay ko, hindi naman po impeachable offense iyan.

Ito pong marami pa doon sa Inquirer, hindi ko na po iisa-isahin. Meron naman po ito, e. Nandito po sa charge na ito pero sinakop po ni Congressman Tañada, iyong kay First Lady. Ang pagkakaalam ko, inimbistigahan na po dito iyon. At sinabi po, wala namang pagkakasalang masama si First Lady doon. Kaya hindi ko na rin po iisa-isahin iyan. Iyan po iyong Charge 3. Pupunta na po ako sa Charge 4.

Ito pong Charge 4 sa aking palagay ay hindi masyadong mahirap. Sometimes water is a little more variable than a reading material.

Iyon pong mga kotse. Iyan po ay totoo. Matagal na pong ginagawa iyan. Sa katotohahan po, ako rin po noong Solicitor General ay mayroon din po akong Mercedes Benz. Ang sabi po ni Presidente Marcos sa akin, “Madalas ka ika na nabiyahe sa Pampanga, pagka naman kailangan ng konting kotse iyong matatag-tatag”… Pinahiram po ako ng Customs ng Mercedes Benz, S pa. Kaya lang laspag-laspag at pinagawa ko naman. Sa akin pong palagay, wala namang masama roon. Sapagkat po noong ako ay na-EDSA, ang ibig kong sabihin, natanggal na nga dahil sa EDSA, iyong aking awto ay napunta naman sa isang Associate Justice ng Supreme Court. Siya naman ang gumamit. Hindi naman siguro masama iyon sapagkat minana pa nga ng Justice ng Supreme Court. Siguro natuwa pa at nasa kondisyon. Pero po iyang kotseng iyan, nagkaroon na po ng kaso iyan. These precise cars which were supposedly used by Cabinet members under President Erap’s time brought about a case entitled, Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora as Executive Secretary, et. al., G.R. No. 139852, before the Supreme Court.

Ito pong si Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales na petitioner dito, siya po ang abogado ng complainants, nang pumirma ng complaint dito sa impeachment na ito. Ano po ang nangyari doon sa kaso ni Ramon Gonzales na sinasabi nga niya for a writ of prohibition, for certiorari, lahat ng relief, hinihingi niya roon.

Ano po ang sabi ng Supreme Court? “The petition is dismissed for being insufficient in form and in substance.” Ni hindi naka-first base. Sa amin pong mga abogado, kung nadi-dismiss iyong petition mo ng ganyan, e medyo malungkot kang talaga, sapagkat hindi man lamang pina-comment, na-dismiss na. Papaano naman magiging impeachable offense, ang sabi ng Supreme Court, iyong petisyon na kini-question iyong transaksiyon ay nai-dismiss. Kaya po siguro iyan ay madali na ring itabi.

Ngayon, iyong pangalawang pong fourth charge, ang sabi po sa complaint, iyong pong multiple appointments of Cabinet members– multiple positions. Ayon daw sa desisyon ng Supreme Court, sa Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317, these multiple appointments are unconstitutional. Pero marahil po, kinulang ng kaunti ang research sapagkat po ang Supreme Court, in a subsequent resolution in the same case, the decision was rendered on February 22, 1991 upholding the question raised as to those multiple positions. The Supreme Court issued a resolution on August 1, 1991 in the same case, not really reversing its earlier decision, but qualifying it in the following manner. It says and I quote:

Another point of clarification raised by the Solicitor General refers to the persons affected by the constitutional prohibition. The persons cited in the constitutional prohibition are the members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants, whose terms must be given their common and general acceptation as referring to the heads of the executive department, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries.

Samakatwid po, ang interpretasyon ng Supreme Court doon sa probisyon ng Konstitusyon na sinasabi, the proscription applies only to the Cabinet members who head executive departments. Sapagkat sa ating gobyerno, mayroong Cabinet rank na parang member ng Cabinet pero wala naman siyang departamento. Ang sabi po ng Supreme Court doon sa resolution which was subsequently promulgated is that it refers to those only who head executive departments. Kaya po, siguro naman, kung si Presidente ang ginawa niya ay sabi na nga ng Supreme Court hindi masama, lalo naman sigurong hindi culpable violation ng Constitution.

Ngayon, sa katotohanan po, ito pong…. Palagay natin, gaya po ito… Isa pa po sa binabanggit nila itong kay Magdangal Elma. Inaasunto pa rin iyan. Nasa Supreme Court. Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Magdangal Elma, G.R. No. 138965. Ito ay pending pa sa Supreme Court. Samakatwid, hindi pa decided iyan. Samakatwid, at the very least, there is a problem of interpretation of the Constitution. When there is a problem of interpretation, a wrong interpretation even can hardly be considered a culpable violation of the Constitution.

Marami pa po ang oras ko, pero siguro wala namang Charge 6. Hanggang Charge 4 lang.

Perhaps, I may conclude with a few general observations. I would like to be candid and say that when we undertook to take this case, one of the problems which we had to face was whether, first, to make representations to the Blue Ribbon Committee to stop its hearings. And, subsequently, whether to seek to inhibit some of the members of the Senate sapagkat po nalalaman naman nating lahat na ang pinagumpisahan ng Blue Ribbon investigation ay isang senador ang nagtalumpati entitled, “I Accuse!” Si Senador Guingona tumitingin po sa akin. Iyong mga charges doon sa “I Accuse!”, iyon din po ang charges na bases of impeachment. Sinabi ni Senator Guingona na he was accusing the President.

Pagkatapos po, mayroon pong dalawang miyembro ng Senado, mayroon silang formal resolution na ang sabi, mag-resign na si Presidente. Pagkatapos po, mayroon namang mga ilan na senador na sumasama sa rally, sumasama sa sigaw na “Resign.” Mayroon naman pong isang senador habang nagdedeklara iyong isang testigo sa Blue Ribbon Committee at ang sabi “nagsisinungaling ka, hindi ka maaaring paniwalaan.” At iyon yata ay magiging testigo rin dito. Kaya po aming inisip, kung ang mga senador ay huwes, judges, under settled jurisprudence, they also have the cold neutrality of a judge, complete objectivity. Kaya baka naman sabi namin pagdating eh, meron na silang prejudgments. Pero matagal po naming pinag-isipan iyan. At ang aming naging desisyon sa nakita ninyo, hindi po kami nag-file ng anumang motion at hindi naman namin sinasabi ngayon na ang mga senador na iyon ay mag-inhibit.

The members of the Senate have taken an oath to do impartial justice in this case. I am actually struck by this oath because it does not only say “justice”; it says “impartial justice.” I had always believed that to be just requires one to be impartial. But the oath that the members of the Senate have taken–has taken–bind them to do impartial justice. So as we continue with this proceedings on the part of the defense, all these notwithstanding, we are confident that the senators will do impartial justice and as we are equally confident that when the time comes to render judgment, and as they do impartial justice, a judgment of acquittal will be rendered.

Sabi po ng mga prosecutors ay nalulungkot daw sila sa trabahong ito, mahirap daw. Kami rin po ay hindi naman nalulungkot, pero we consider this as a challenge because to us this impeachment case does not only involve defending the honor, the integrity, and the dignity, of President Estrada. It also involves preserving the mandate of more than 10 million Filipinos who voted for him. President Estrada is our client but in a real sense, we seek also to preserve and uphold the mandate of the 10 million Filipinos who voted him as President to hold office until the year 2004.

Sometimes all these rallies around even now they say the “walls of Jericho,” sabagay po hindi yata ako masyadong magaling sa Bibliya, hindi ko po naiintindihan iyan. But we are also strengthened, and I would like to close by narrating to you a personal experience.

Isang umaga po, umagang-umaga po, ako ay nasa isang McDonald nag-aalmusal, hotcake lang naman sapagkat ang sabi po ng aking maybahay ay bawal iyong mga hamburger, mayroon pong lumapit na isang babae sa akin, very modestly dressed. Ang sabi niya sa akin, “Kanina ko pa kayo tinitingnan, eh” ang sabi niya, “kinikilala ko kung kayo si Atty. Estelito Mendoza o kamukha lamang, eh.” Eh, ang sabi ko ay, “Hindi,” kako, “kamukha lamang, eh. Iyong totoong Atty. Mendoza mas magandang lalaki sa kin.” Pero sabi ko, “ako nga po, eh, bakit po ba?” sabi ko. “Attorney” sabi niya, “gusto kong malaman ninyo na ako po ay nagdadasal para sa inyo, sapagkat alam ko po idedepensa ninyo po si Presidente Erap. Ibinoto ko po siya. Marami pong hirap ang hinaharap ninyo sapagkat po katakut-takot po iyang mga rally, katakut-takot ang sigaw na “Resign.”

So I close to share with you a feeling of confidence that does

not only arise from the justness of the cause of President Estrada but

also comes from the prayers of many Filipinos, who, I am certain, will also be heard.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That ends the opening statement for the defense. As agreed upon yesterday and as related earlier regarding the report of the Presiding Justice on the preliminary conference, we shall now proceed to the presentation of the first witness for the prosecution.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we proceed to the calling of the first witness, may we place it on record that Your Honor, as presiding officer of this Impeachment Trial, by unanimous consent of the Senate, was given authority in yesterday’s session to issue subpoenas duces tecum and subpoenas ad testificandum, subject to the small reservation previously noted by the Chair in his preliminary conference order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so recorded.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the prosecution will now call their first witness to the stand. May we ask the Secretary to administer the oath to the first witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prosecution please, call your first witness.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. APOSTOL. We are ready, but may we ask for ten minutes recess?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Recess is granted for ten minutes.

It was 5:32 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:50 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS (Col. Saber). Please all rise. The Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is now resumed.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. May we request that the private prosecutors be allowed to sit down with us, anyway, some public prosecutors are not taking their seats here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you kindly enumerate the names of the private prosecutors. Have they officially entered their appearance by way of a written notice of appearance as private prosecutors?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. We have Atty. Marcelo, Atty. Sanidad…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Full names for the record.

REP. APOSTOL. Atty. Simeon Marcelo, Atty. Pablito Sanidad, Atty. Edcel Lagman, Atty. Prospero Nograles, and Atty. Augusto San Pedro, and the lawyer of Gen. Lastimoso, Atty. Romeo Igot, only for the appearance of Gen. Lastimoso.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But the latter will not be representing as private prosecutor?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only as counsel for a witness.

REP. APOSTOL. Only as counsel for a witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request to allow the private prosecutors to sit at the back of the public prosecutors is granted.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, there is an intimation from the defense counsel that they would like to go home. Looking at their faces, I think their age demands that they should be allowed to go home.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is that?

REP. APOSTOL. It would seem they are intimating now that if we can have a continuance today, and we will, of course, we are ready, we will just request that the witnesses who were subpoenaed be called and if they are around, then after that, we are ready to ask also for continuance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don’t we finish first with the first witness before you can ask for a continuance? The witness

is ready.

REP. APOSTOL. Well….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that was the agreement yesterday, that the first witness would be presented today after the opening statement. You may now present the witness.

REP. APOSTOL. No, no, I have, I have, Mr. Chief Justice, a great respect for the defense counsel, but they were the ones intimating

to me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they did not express….

REP. APOSTOL. Atty. Mendoza is my godfather; Atty. Narvasa is my mentor and….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, it is only an intimation but we have to follow the agreement we had yesterday.

REP. APOSTOL. All right. If the defense counsel is willing to hear our witness, we are ready.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense would have no choice because this is an agreement that the first witness would be presented today.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request if the other two witnesses which we subpoenaed–may I know if they are here?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are they?

REP. APOSTOL. Anton Prieto and Yolanda Ricaforte.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Anton Prieto?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Prieto, are you here?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The other one is Yolanda Ricaforte–and the return of the subpoena indicated that the three

were served.

REP. APOSTOL. There is a lawyer allegedly representing

Mr. Prieto, I don’t know, if Your Honor will allow him to say something.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But where is Prieto? Because if he is not inside the courtroom, we may not allow the lawyer of Prieto

to stay in the courtroom. He may be allowed only at the time that Prieto will be on the witness stand.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Mr. Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May I just inform the impeachment court that both Mr. Prieto and Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte are here. They are at the holding room in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So in the meantime that they are there, there lawyers should also be there.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. In that case then, since they are here, I will no longer ask any inquiries on them, except that if they will not be able to testify today, the documents which we requested for Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte to bring that these documents be deposited with the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is reasonable. That may be granted.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And so the Secretary will have to get these records which were the subject of the subpoena duces tecum and to keep these in his custody.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To be kept very, very securely and safely.

REP. APOSTOL. So our first witness will be Gen. Roberto Lastimoso. The one who will conduct the direct examination is Congressman Roan Libarios .

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please administer the oath on the witness. The Secretary of the Senate is thus directed.

MR. NARVASA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, defense counsel.

MR. NARVASA. May I be allowed to enter on record the appearance of another counsel for the defense panel in the person of

Mr. Siegfred Fortun.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record without prejudice to the filing of the formal notice of appearance. Yes, administer the oath now, Mr. Secretary.

MR. NARVASA. Just one more minute, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. I am told that the written entry of appearance has been made.

MR. FORTUN. If Your Honor please, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I have just received it here.

MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice, may I be recognized, Sir.?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. What is the pleasure of the gentleman?

MR. FORTUN. I should like to know from the Prosecution panel whether they have witnesses inside the courtroom whom they wish to present in the next hearing. If there are witnesses intended to be presented by the prosecution…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would prosecutor Apostol answer the query? Do you have other witnesses?

REP. APOSTOL. We have two witnesses, Your Honor. But according to the Senate President, they are in the holding room. So they are not here.

REP. FORTUN. So aside from Mrs. Ricaforte, and Mr. Anton Prieto, and Gen. Lastimoso, you have no other witnesses inside the courtroom?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. Because the other one which we subpoenaed left for abroad. So, I am sure he is not here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say yes, who are they?

REP. APOSTOL. We requested subpoena for four. One for Gen. Lastimoso, one for Anton Prieto, the other one for Yolanda Ricaforte, and the fourth one is a certain Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. But he left for abroad.

MR. FORTUN. May I kindly also inquire whether you have other witnesses to testify on the three other charges–Articles II, III,

and IV?

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I just make it very clear that we are presenting this witness in support of our allegations on Article I. If he will be mentioning and testifying on other Articles, we will make it known to the Body, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN. We move for the exclusion of other potential witnesses for the prosecution whether it will be Articles I, II, III, and IV, your honor. That is what we…

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we have no potential witnesses.

MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Either witnesses to be done by subpoena or voluntarily appearing?

REP. APOSTOL. The only potential witnesses that we have, we have not decided whether to ask them to testify or not, is Sen. John Osmena and Sen. Tessie Oreta. But we have not yet decided whether we will ask them to testify. But they are potential witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay then. You may now proceed to administer the oath.

THE SECRETARY. Please raise your right hand?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder please.

THE SECRETARY. Do you swear that the evidence you shall give in this case, now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

GEN. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir, I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Apostol, you may now qualify your witness.

REP. LIBARIOS. I am formally entering my appearance, your honor, as the prosecutor on Article I, Congressman Roan Libarios.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be the one to conduct the direct examination?

REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may may now proceed to qualify the witness.

REP. LIBARIOS. The prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Senate, is offering in evidence the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, qualify first the witness before you make an offer.

REP. LIBARIOS. Can we ask the officer of the Impeachment Court to make the appropriate qualifications?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will just do that. Would you please state your name and other personal circumstances.

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, Your Honor. I am retired police Deputy Director General Roberto T. Lastimoso, 56 years old and presently residing in Roxas City, Capiz. I am married, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, you may now proceed.

REP. LIBARIOS. With the kind permission of this Honorable Impeachment Court.

Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Senate, the prosecution is offering in evidence the testimony of the witness, the former retired police general Roberto Lastimoso to establish two vital factum probandum or proposition of facts.

1. That sometime in the latter part of 1998, a few months after he was designated as the chief or acting chief of the PNP, he was called to Malacañang and was given instruction by the President to coordinate with Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson in relation to or with regards to the jueteng operations in Luzon.

2. We are offering the testimony to establish that the President is involved and is a beneficiary of illegal gambling operations, particularly jueteng in Luzon.

Mr. Witness….Can I now proceed?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. LIBARIOS. Can you please brief us again about your educational background?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. I am a graduate of the Philippine Miltary Academy, Class ’67.

REP. LIBARIOS. How about your professional background? Can you please inform the members of the Body about your educational and professional background?

MR. LASTIMOSO. After I graduated from the PMA, I was commissioned to the defunct Philippine Constabulary and I was immediately assigned to Mindanao, starting as a Second Lieutenant in Sulu and in various places of Mindanao. I served in various capacities from Junior Officer, Company Commander, Staff Officer, Provincial Director, Battalion Commander, and Regional Director. And recently, before I retired, I was the OIC of the Philippine National Police from July up to sometime December of 1998. Later on, designated as Acting Chief of the Philippine National Police, and in April of 1999, as the permanent Chief of the Philippine National Police. I went on leave effective May of 1999 until I retired last January of 2000.

REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Witness, do you know a person by the name of Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I do.

REP. LIBARIOS. What do you know about Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I know that Chavit Singson is the Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur. At one time he was a congressman. And I also know that he is quite close to the President.

REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you say that Chavit Singson is close to the President.

MR. LASTIMOSO. I always see Governor Singson, even when I was still being considered as the Chief of the Philippine National Police, in the residence of President at Polk Street in Greenhills and I always see them together near the President or sitting beside the President and freely getting inside the receiving room or the sala of that house.

REP. LIBARIOS. When was this, if you can recall?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I was going to the house of the President in Greenhills when I was still being considered sometime between May to June of 1998.

REP. LIBARIOS. How about a certain person by the name of Jaime Dechavez. Do you know this person?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Like Governor Singson, I also see Mr. Dechavez in Polk Street. I cannot exactly recall how many times but he introduced himself to me and we became quite close because he offered to….he said since I am being considered, that he can help me. He said he is close to the President.

REP. LIBARIOS. How many times did you see Dechavez in the residence of the President?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot exactly recall, sir, how many times I have seen him there because I cannot also recall how many times I have been there but, I think, it is about two or three times.

REP. LIBARIOS. All right. Aside from meeting Governor Singson in the residence of the President in Polk Street, Greenhills, did you have any other occasion to meet the governor?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. sir.

REP. LIBARIOS. When and where was that?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I recall that when I was summoned one time by the President to Malacañang, I saw Governor Singson there.

REP. LIBARIOS. You said you were summoned by the President to Malacañang, how were you summoned? Can you please clarify?

MR. LASTIMOSO. My office received a call from one of the secretaries–I cannot recall anymore–of the President that I should immediately proceed to Malacañang and see the President.

REP. LIBARIOS. And did you proceed to Malacañang as instructed or requested?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I did.

REP. LIBARIOS. And which part of Malacañang did you proceed?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I was directed to proceed to the Guest House of Malacañang.

REP. LIBARIOS. Upon arriving or reaching the Guest House in Malacañang, what else transpired, if any?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I remember I was ushered immediately to the room of the President, the Guest House, and I went inside and greeted the President and saluted him.

REP. LIBARIOS. When you said you went inside, where, in what particular place in the Guest House?

MR. LASTIMOSO. There is a room there where the President is holding office. I think that is an extension of his office in the Palace.

REP. LIBARIOS. When you say that you greeted the President, was he alone or was there anybody inside the room?

MR. LASTIMOSO. At that time, he was with Governor Singson.

REP. LIBARIOS. And when you saw the President and after greeting the President, what happened next?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I was introduced to…ang sabi po ni Presidente sa akin e, “O, kilala mo naman si Governor Singson?” I said: “Yes, sir. I know him already.” “O, tulungan mo siya, ha. Siya ang mamamahala ngayon sa jueteng dito sa Luzon. Tulungan mo siya at mag-coordinate kayong dalawa.”

REP. LIBARIOS. And after that statement made by the President, what did you do and what else happened?

MR. LASTIMOSO. After this instruction, very brief instruction, we were told to talk to each other, go out and talk, for me and Governor Singson to talk the matter.

REP. LIBARIOS. And did you get out and talk with Governor Singson?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. I remember I did. I went out of the room and Governor Singson was with me.

REP. LIBARIOS. And what transpired after that, after you talked with Governor Singson?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I told Governor Singson, of course, he confirmed, sabi niya: “Narinig mo naman iyong sabi ng Presidente. Tulungan mo ako dito.” I said: “What you can do, Governor, since jueteng is really a local activity, hindi dapat iyan pakialaman ng chief PNP, why don’t you coordinate with the local officials, the local police commanders or even the regional director. And if there is any problem, you just call me and maybe we can solve the problem.”

REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, aside from that instruction which you received from the President, did you take up any other matter with the President in Malacañang at that time?

MR. LASTIMOSO. That particular instance, I cannot remember of any other matters that were taken up.

REP. LIBARIOS. So, after this matter was taken up inside the room, what was the next action taken by the President?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Your Honor please, we have to object. The question has no basis. It assumes that there was something done.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the witness already mentioned that the President gave him an instruction. So after the instruction, what else happened? I think it follows, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness may answer.

MR. LASTIMOSO. May I be clarified again on the question?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Rephrase the question.

REP. LIBARIOS. After the President gave you that instruction, what else did the President do, if any?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Are you referring, sir, to the same instruction?

REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, instruction, inside the room.

MR. LASTIMOSO. As I have said, I was told to talk with General Singson outside of the room, and after we talked, then I cannot remember whether we proceeded…. I don’t think we proceeded back to the room, we just separated ways.

REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, in connection with your testimony this afternoon, can you remember if you also testified concerning the same matters that you testified today in any other tribunal or body?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. I was also made to testify in the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Senate in connection with the charges of Senator Guingona.

REP. LIBARIOS. Did you execute an affidavit in connection with your testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I did.

REP. LIBARIOS. If that affidavit is shown to you, would you be able to recognize that affidavit?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I can recognize the affidavit.

REP. LIBARIOS. I am showing to you, General Lastimoso, this affidavit…. I am presenting to you, Mr. Lastimoso, an affidavit consisting of three pages. Kindly go over the affidavit and inform the Honorable Chief Justice if that is the affidavit which you mentioned?

MR. LASTIMOSO. The three pages, I can recognize my signature here. But the second page, because this is only xerox copy, the signature appearing here is not full. So I do not know whether this is mine. But the last page is my signature also.

REP. LIBARIOS. For the record, Your Honor, that is a certified true copy, certified by the officer of the Senate.

Anyway, there is a signature appearing at the last page of that affidavit, can you please examine this signature and inform this Honorable Impeachment Court if you can recognize or identify that signature?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. This is my signature.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, may I request that the affidavit or the original copy which is now being under the custody of the Senate be marked as Exhibit “A” for the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Which would you want to be marked as Exhibit “A”, the original or that one just identified by the witness?

REP. LIBARIOS. We have a certified true copy, Your Honor. But according to the witness, page 2 of that certified true copy is not very legible. So to avoid, Your Honor, any doubt on the legitimacy of page 2, we are requesting that the original copy be produced, which is now under the possession of the Senate, and be duly marked in evidence, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senate be ready to produce the original for purposes of marking? Would the defense be willing to have this conditionally marked as Exhibit “A” to be replaced later by the originals so we will not waste time?

MR. FLAMINIANO. May we take a look at the affidavit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, do that please. Because that can be conditionally marked as Exhibit “A” to be replaced later by the original.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We agree to the conditional marking of the exhibit, Your Honor.

REP. LIBARIOS. With the manifestation of the defense panel, Your Honor, we are requesting that the affidavit consisting of three pages be marked in evidence for the prosecution. The first page as….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Qualify it first.

REP. LIBARIOS. The first page as Exhibit “A”; the second page as “A-1”; the third page as “A-2”; and the signature of the witness as “A-4”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked conditionally. Exhibit “A”, page 1; Exhibit “A-1”, page 2; Exhibit “A-2”, page 3…. Is there a page 4?

REP. LIBARIOS. The signature.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The signature on page 4 as Exhibit “A-4”.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, since the marking is only conditional, may I request that the Senate shall produce the original copy tomorrow to avoid any delay in the proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Follow up the request afterwards. Since this is an impeachment court, the request should be directed to the Senate sitting as a Senate.

REP. LIBARIOS. Now, Mr. Lastimoso, aside from that affidavit which you already identified, did you execute any other affidavit?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I did.

REP. LIBARIOS. If that affidavit is shown to you, would you be able to recognize that affidavit?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I will recognize the affidavit if that is my signature.

REP. LIBARIOS. I am presenting to you, Mr. Lastimoso or General Lastimoso, a supplemental affidavit consisting of two pages. Kindly examine this affidavit and inform us if this is the same affidavit which we are referring to?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Again, this is a certified true copy, but I can recognize my signature on the first page and on the second page.

REP. LIBARIOS. In the meantime, Your Honor, we are requesting that the supplemental affidavit duly identified to by the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certified true copy.

REP. LIBARIOS. Certified true copy. First, may I request if the defense panel would allow the prosecution to dispense with the production of the original copy so that we can mark it without any conditions.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have no objection.

REP. LIBARIOS. So considering that the defense is not making any objection, Your Honor, then we are proceeding with the marking in exhibit of the said documents.

May we request, Your Honor, that the first page of the supplemental affidavit be marked as Exhibit “B” for the prosecution; the second page as Exhibit “B-1”; and the signature as Exhibit “B-3”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Request granted. Let them be so marked, respectively, as Exhibit “B”, “B-1”, “B-2”.

REP. LIBARIOS. The signature as “B-3”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only “B-2”, the signature.

You may now proceed.

REP. LIBARIOS. Now, Director Lastimoso, you said you executed that affidavit dated October 12 of year 2000. Can you explain to us why did you execute that affidavit?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, Your Honor, it was upon the advice of my lawyer.

REP. LIBARIOS. How about the second supplemental affidavit? Why did you execute that second or that supplemental affidavit?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I also executed that on the advice of my lawyer to clarify some statements I made during a press conference in Club Filipino.

REP. LIBARIOS. What particular statements did you wish to be clarified in this supplemental affidavit?

MR. LASTIMOSO. In that press conference last… I am not exactly sure of the date now. Sometime October, I was late in the press conference. I did not know what transpired there. But when I was ushered inside the room, I saw Governor Chavit Singson denouncing the President and there was a charged atmosphere there. Everybody was emotional.

When I was asked how I can corraborate the statement of Governor Singson, I mentioned that the President told me to go easy on jueteng. Then upon reflection, since that was a press conference and I was asked to testify in the Blue Ribbon Committee where I was under oath, I asked the lawyer that I should correct that statement because that statement did not exactly come from the President. It was only my interpretation that I should go easy because they told me to coordinate with Governor Singson. That was the only statement I corrected in that second affidavit.

REP. LIBARIOS. Can I have the second affidavit?

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Your Honor, just on an inquiry because I am not quite sure– Inquiry under 17–what the counsel is trying to do. Is he trying to prove that there is an affidavit? Or, is he trying to prove the contents of the affidavit? Why not just ask the witness whatever it is that you want to find out? And then, we will all know what we are talking about. Otherwise, you are just talking about two pieces of paper and it is totally….

REP. LIBARIOS. Maybe, the last question, Your Honor. Actually, the affidavit will be considered as part of the testimony of the witness. We are presenting this affidavit later on to form part of the testimony of the witness.

SEN. ROCO. Well, we leave to the counsel, Mr. President, but we are totally in the dark. We have not been furnished copies of the affidavit. We do not know what they are talking about and he wants it to be part of the narration. And I suggest that, for clarity purposes…

REP. LIBARIOS. We will be asking the witness actually, Your Honor, to affirm the contents of the affidavit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, probably, that is the strategy of the counsel.

REP. LIBARIOS. And then later on, we will be considering this to form part of the testimony of the witness, Your Honor, just to avoid any insinuations of other testimonies or affidavits being executed by the witness. Only to clarify, Your Honor, the series of events that transpired prior to the testimony of the witness in today’s investigation.

Anyway, we will only have two last questions, Your Honor, to affirm and then to explain. That is all, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, we leave to the counsel whatever he wants to do, but it certainly is not adding to the clarity for the senators. For me, certainly, it is not becoming clearer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. You may now proceed with your last two questions.

REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, under paragraph 4 of this affidavit, there is a handwritten entry which states, which I also presume as coordinating pertaining to jueteng. Can you remember who made this entry and upon whose instruction?

MR. LASTIMOSO. The lawyer who notarized that, Your Honor, upon my instructions.

REP. LIBARIOS. And can you clarify why did you make this entry in the supplemental affidavit?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Because that was not included in the paragraph and I feel that it should be corrected also.

REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you feel it should be corrected?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Because we have to tell the truth, Your Honor, and this is the truth. I am just trying to correct and tell what exactly what happened.

REP. LIBARIOS. What exactly what happened or the truth when you …

MR. LASTIMOSO. I corrected. As I have said, I was trying to correct the statement I made in the press conference because I might be misconstrued. So I corrected, I clarified that in that affidavit.

REP. LIBARIOS. Do you affirm and confirm, General Lastimoso, on the correctness and the veracity of the affidavit as well as the supplemental affidavit which you earlier identified before this honorable Body?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir, I do.

REP. LIBARIOS. That is all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination. Who will conduct the cross-examination?

MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record, would you identify yourself?

MR. FORTUN. My name is Siegfried Fortun, Your Honor. I am one of the counsels for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the cross-examination will be conducted by Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor.

Director General Lastimoso, if I may borrow the affidavit which you have just identified this evening, I would like to show you your Exhibits A and B, Sir, particularly your Exhibit B, and I ask you, Sir, if you could again confirm before this Tribunal whether you have read this affidavit and understood the contents and the implications of the statements made therein.

MR. LASTIMOSO. I do.

MR. FORTUN. You had confirmed also this evening, Sir, that the handwritten notation appearing in paragraph 4, and for the record, if I may be allowed by the Chief Justice to read this particular portion of General Lastimoso’s affidavit, I quote paragraph 4. This is of Exhibit B:

“That after retrospection, I would like to make this clarification of my above statements that the President did not categorically and specifically instructed me to go easy on jueteng but that was only my presumption when the President told me to coordinate with Governor Singson.” And here comes the handwritten intercalation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of Atty. Fortun, may we know the pleasure of Senator and Judge Drilon?

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice, I am sure my 21 other jurors would share this concern that we do not know what the witness and the counsel are talking about because we do not have a copy of the affidavit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you need time for the reproduction of the affidavit?

SEN. DRILON. We would. At least, for me, and I am sure that my other colleagues would share the same view. If we can call for a one-minute recess, reproduce these affidavits and give us copies so that we can follow the testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was exactly the point of the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

MR. FORTUN. I am returning, Your Honor, copies of the exhibits so that it can be reproduced.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation of the Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon is well-taken. We suspend the trial for five minutes for the production of Exhibits A and the submarking, and Exhibit B with the submarkings.

The session is suspended for five minutes.

It was 6:28 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:42 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is resumed.

Before Atty. Fortun proceeds with the cross-examination, the Chair would like to request, for and in behalf of the Impeachment Court, that henceforth, whenever a party here, whether the prosecution or the defense, would be presenting documentary evidence to be identified by a witness, sufficient number of copies thereof be given immediately the honorable Senator-Judges, as well as the Chair.

You may now proceed, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor. General Lastimoso, I again show you Exhibit B and I present the copy to you. I would like to read paragraph 4. It says: “That after retrospection, I would like to make this clarification of my above statements that the President did not categorically and specifically instructed me to go easy on jueteng, but that was only my presumption when the President told me to coordinate with Governor Singson.” And here, Your Honors, is the handwritten intercalation, and I quote: “which I also presumed as coordinating, pertaining to jueteng.” When you made this particular paragraph, Sir, and upon the assistance given you by your counsel and at the time that you put in the handwritten statement which appears in paragraph 4, you, Sir, understood exactly the import of this particular paragraph, didn’t you?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record, counsel is referring to Exhibit B.

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now answer.

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I do.

MR. FORTUN. Accordingly, the instruction of the President to you, in respect to coordinating with Governor Singson and the matter of coordination in respect to jueteng, was not exactly a matter directly given you by the President but you simply presumed that what he said was for you to coordinate on the matter of jueteng. Is that what you are saying, Sir?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, Sir.

MR. FORTUN. Will you tell us, General Lastimoso, when it was that you first met with the President on this matter of coordinating with Governor Singson at the Malacañang Guest House?

MR. LASTIMOSO. May I be clarified again?

MR. FORTUN. When was it that you met with the President at the Malacañang Guest House where Governor Singson was also present?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot remember the exact date. And even the time I cannot remember. But it is some time a few months after I took over.

MR. FORTUN. And you took over, Sir, as Acting Chief-PNP in April of 1998. Is that right, Sir?.

MR. LASTIMOSO. No. July of 1998 as OIC.

MR. FORTUN. And if you are saying that the meeting took place after about the time or immediately after you assumed your post as Acting Chief-PNP, it could have been in July also or August of 1998?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I am not sure now. It could be later than that.

MR. FORTUN. It could be later than that. But will you tell us, Sir, whether you recall the President having given you direct instruction to coordinate with Governor Singson on the matter of jueteng? A direct instruction from the President for you to coordinate with Governor Singson on jueteng?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. The word he said, was: “Tulungan mo at mag-coordinate kayong dalawa.”

MR. FORTUN. But there was nothing in respect of coordinating because of jueteng or for jueteng?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I presumed it was for jueteng.

MR. FORTUN. You presumed. There was nothing therefore explicit from the President asking you to coordinate with Governor Singson on the matter of jueteng. Is that what you are saying, Sir?

MR. LASTIMOSO. The word, he said, was: “Tulungan at mag-coordinate kayong dalawa.”

MR. FORTUN. I see. And that was all that he had said?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes.

MR. FORTUN. And you presumed therefore that it was a matter relating to jueteng?

MR. LASTIMOSO. It was….We were talking about jueteng.

MR. FORTUN. I see. We request Your Honor that the Exhibit B of the Prosecution be marked as our Exhibit 1 and paragraph 4 including the handwritten intercalation admittedly made by counsel for General Lastimoso be marked as our Exhibit 1-A.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you are adopting Exhibit B as your Exhibit 1?

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And paragraph 4 thereof with the additional statements in handwriting–the handwritten additional statements as Exhibit 1-A. The request is granted. Let Exhibit B be marked as Exhibit 1 for the defense and Paragraph 4 thereof as Exhibit 1-A.

MR. FORTUN. Let me get this clear for the record, General Lastimoso. Your recollection of meeting with the President at the Malacanang Guest House was after you assumed your post as Acting Chief-PNP which could have been either in July or August of 1998?

REP. LIBARIOS. Objection, Your Honor. I think the question is now becoming repetitive. It was already answered by the witness clearly, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN. May we know the answer of the witness?

REP. LIBARIOS. He said that it could be later than that.

ATTY. FORTUN. It could be later than that. Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you withdrawing the question?

MR. FORTUN. No, Your Honor. I will follow from where I left off.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. The witness may answer for clarification.

MR. LASTIMOSO. It could be later than the months mentioned.

MR. FORTUN. I see. Do you recall, Sir, having issued an order to all Regional Directors of the PNP in respect of illegal gambling, including jueteng after about July of 1998?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot recall but I must have issued an order.

MR. FORTUN. I show you, sir, a memorandum dated July 31, 1998, signed by a certain Roberto T. Lastimoso, police director, on the subject of continuing conduct of illegal gambling all over the country addressed to all regional directors, provincial regional officers for Regions I to XIII, CAR, ARMM, and NCRPO a copy of which we are currently distributing to the honorable jurors; judges, I am sorry.

I show a copy to you, sir. It begins with paragraph 1 and it reads: “References”. Item B says: “Verbal Instruction of His Excellency, President Joseph E. Estrada, on July 20, 1998.”

Paragraph 2. It reads: “This pertains to the directive of President Joseph E. Estrada in pursing relentlessly the fight against jueteng and all forms of illegal gambling throughout the country.”

Paragraph 3. “ICOW, the above-Ref: You are reminded to enforce strictly the instruction of President Joseph E. Estrada in addressing these illegal activities.”

Paragraph 4. “Explore all possible means to identify and effect the arrest of those behind the illegal activities and pursue their cases in courts. Likewise, implement drastic measures, actions, including the relief of COPs, PDs found negligent in the performance of their mandated duties to stop illegal gambling in their area of responsibility.”

Paragraph 5. “Your performance in this campaign will be closely watched and evaluated, hence, you must come up with tangible results”.

Paragraph 6. “This memo serves as an ultimatum for you and your subordinate commanders to stop/eradicate illegal gambling, especially jueteng, in your respective AOR immediately.”

Paragraph 7. “Be guided accordingly.”

Will you say, sir, that this directive came from you and that the signature appearing thereon is yours?

MR. LASTIMOSO. I can recognize my signature and I could have issued this directive.

MR. FORTUN. You could have.

MR. LASTIMOSO. I could have issued this.

MR. FORTUN. I see, sir.

We request, Your Honor, that this memorandum which the witness identified as probably emanating from him be provisionally marked as our Exhibit 2. And the clear reference to a verbal instruction of His Excellency, President Joseph E. Estrada, to relentlessly fight jueteng and all forms of illegal gambling throughout the country be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 2-A.

MR. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor’s please…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked as Exhibit 2. What is the particular portion which you are requesting to be marked as Exhibit 2-A, what paragraph?

MR. FORTUN. It is the portion, Your Honor, in paragraphs 1 and 2, particularly the heading references which thereafter continues to paragraph 2 in respect of the directive of the President to eradicate jueteng.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it also be marked as such.

MR. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor’s please, may I request the counsel for the defense to furnish us the original copy so that we can go over the original copy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is only for conditional marking. Did the Chair get it correctly?

MR. FORTUN. That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. LIBARIOS. But in order for us, Your Honor, to make an intelligent evaluation of the contents, we should be furnished the

original copy.

MR. FORTUN. We will do that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With that assurance, perhaps the attorney…

MR. FORTUN. We also request that paragraph 6 which gives an ultimatum for all commanders and subordinate commanders to eradicate illegal gambling, especially jueteng, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 2-B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked as Exhibit

2-B.

MR. FORTUN. And the signature of the witness appearing on the lower right hand corner of the document be further bracketed and sub-marked as Exhibit 2-C.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.

REP. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor please, can we ask the counsel for the defense as to why he cannot produce the original copy of this document?

MR. FORTUN. What we can do, Your Honor, is to produce a certified copy perhaps of this document. But in light of the admission made by General Lastimoso this evening that he identified….

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, there was no admission. It’s misleading, Your Honor. The witness only mentioned that it could have….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably.

REP. LIBARIOS. Probably, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably for the production of the original of the memorandum, it can be done during the redirect.

REP. LIBARIOS. That is why it would be to the best interest of the witness that he should be presented with the original copy because he is only presented with a xerox copy, and we know the technology now, Your Honor. Just to inform the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, the defense counsel was only seeking the marking.

REP. LIBARIOS. That is correct, Your Honor, provisional marking but the witness was presented with a copy. I am raising an issue, Your Honor. What if this copy happens to be–because it’s only a xerox copy, a machine copy, the signature of the witness and the witness was presented with a copy that is not certified, and asked if he is familiar with the signature. And the witness mentioned, “I think that is my signature.” This could be a misleading presentation of evidence, Your Honor, although we are not yet in the offer of evidence. But the way it is presented to the witness, where the evidence, the original is not available, it could create an impression on the part of witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us wait for the next question when it comes to the substance of the memorandum. In the meantime, I think he is only asking for the marking.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor please. We are objecting to any question on that alleged exhibit because that is just a xerox copy.

MR. FORTUN. I have no further questions on this exhibit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, the cross-examination is terminated. Would you request for a deferment of the redirect until the production of the original document?

REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor. And in the meantime, we would like to request the Secretariat to also furnish us the same equipment they furnished to the defense. They are given movable microphone.

MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, this is not supplied by the Senate.

REP. LIBARIOS. This is unfair, Your Honor, we are forced to stand here for hours while they can relax.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I just inform Congressman Libarios that that is not property of the Senate.

MR. FORTUN. This is our own microphone.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The defense provided that for themselves. So provide yourselves with the same microphone.

MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, we would like to put on record that we are returning Exhibits A and B to the gentleman from the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be recorded, and can we have the acknowledgment by counsel.

REP. LIBARIOS. I acknowledge the receipt, Your Honor. And considering, Your Honor, that the counsel for the defense has terminated the cross-examination, and considering our earlier manifestation that we want a copy, the original copy of this alleged memorandum, then we are moving for the deferment of the redirect subject to the submission of the original copy of the said memorandum.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So in effect, you are moving for a continuance until tomorrow. It’s already 6:58 anyway in the evening.

Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Just to facilitate proceedings such as the problem we now have encountered, I think it should be really appreciated that the original would be difficult to produce except by subpoena, Your Honor, because it is a PNP document. What we would endeavor to do is get a certified copy. But if we get into a situation such as this and each time we ask for the originals even if on its face it is fairly authentic and then ask for deferment until cross-examination or redirect, this would delay the proceedings. Well, earlier, there was an affidavit also, Your Honor. It was only a xerox copy; the original also was not produced and we continued the proceedings notwithstanding that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was a certified true copy. Probably you could also secure a certified true copy of what is conditionally marked as Exhibit 2.

MR. MENDOZA. But we will not be able to secure that by tomorrow. So we will redirect the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, we can defer further the redirect examination and tomorrow anyway, we will have two witnesses who had been subpoenaed even to appear today..

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the document we feel is

vital and with all due respect, Your Honor, we will not be satisfied, at least on this document, Your Honor, with a mere certified true copy. The defense is representing…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, under the rules, a certified true copy of a public document would be enough.

REP. LIBARIOS. It is regularly done, Your Honor, but this is not a document that is regularly done, Your Honor. So we can only rely on certified true copies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, your redirect has been deferred. So let us see…

REP. LIBARIOS. That is why we are requesting if the defense could present to us the original copy. At least a duplicate original copy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense should try its very best to do so. And if it cannot be produced tomorrow, we will proceed with the other two witnesses.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, before we adjourn, we have requested for a subpoena duces tecum to two witnesses for them to produce certain documents. And earlier, we requested that those documents be returned and deposited with the Secretary General. May I request now that at least Yolanda Ricaforte be summoned to this Body to produce the documents so that we will know what kind of documents she has produced.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request a page of the Senate to notify Yolanda Ricaforte and to bring them here….

REP. APOSTOL. Including the other witness, Anton Prieto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –and the other witness, Prieto, to bring them here and to turn over the documents covered by the subpoena duces tecum for each one of them for safekeeping by the

Senate Secretary.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, are we made also to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, on a procedural matter, I am trying to facilitate.

Yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice, during the preliminary conference, we had objected as a judge to all this use of affidavit that cannot be seen. And it was agreed upon by the parties that affidavit in fact should be avoided. And that they should therefore be narrated by the witnesses because affidavits can be prepared by lawyers or it can be prepared by whomsoever and affidavits do not speak. The narrations in the affidavits should be asked from the witness, and that was agreed upon in the preliminary conference, Mr. Chief Justice. And we suggest that counsels should take note of the preliminary conference agreement otherwise we will really be delayed.

So if we may, we are asking as a judge, that we adhere to the agreements of the preliminary conference. They should have been made to narrate whatever it was that you want to be narrated. Now, Mr. President, I think, just by way of manifestation, to adhere to what we agreed on yesterday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the counsel, both for the proseuction and the defense are so advised accordingly to adhere strictly to the agreement yesterday to avoid any further delay.

REP. APOSTOL. We will do that, Your Honor, but I also remembered that the draft of what have been agreed yesterday should be furnished both parties with the copies of the same. We have not seen the draft of the copies of what have been agreed yesterday.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, for the information of counsel, the copies were distributed yesterday. And if by any chance, he did not get a copy, don’t blame me but you can get your copy as soon as we are through. We have copies for all of us.

REP. APOSTOL. I appreciate the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And maybe, Mr. Chief Justice, we can excuse Mr. Lastimoso from the witness chair because I saw

Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte come in, as well as Mr. Anton Prieto, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the request is granted.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator-Judge Osmeña.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may we request that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For awhile, the Chair had recognized Senator Judge Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, the affidavit of Gen. Lastimoso refers to a ledger. May we know if we will be furnished with that ledger? Because we are now given an affidavit which refers to a ledger and certain amounts in the ledger and we still have not received the ledger. May we know if the prosecution will be furnishing us with the ledger soon?

REP. APOSTOL. We are requesting for a copy of that ledger from Yolanda Ricaforte so we can reproduce them and we will distribute… Whatever we will get today from Yolanda Ricaforte, we will reproduce them for an average of about 25 copies and we will distribute them to the Judges.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, witness Lastimoso is excused in the meantime and the Chair calls for the subpoenaed

witness, Yolanda Ricaforte.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, of course we are ready to present our next witness but it is already seven o’clock. So, we will just check on the documents as per our request.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. We will make formal the turnover of the documents. Let her first take the stand.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate Secretary should administer the oath.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. You, Yolanda Ricaforte, do swear that the evidence you shall give in this case now pending

between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the

truth, so help you God.

MS. RICAFORTE. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Qualify your witness, Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. May I know your name please?

MS. RICAFORTE. I am Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Filipino, married, I am residing at Quezon City, and I am married to Undersecretary Rex Ricaforte of the Department of Tourism.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The specific address please in Quezon City.

MS. RICAFORTE. No. 25 Freedom Avenue, Veterans Village, Barangay Pasong Tamo, Quezon City.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we requested this witness to sit down on the witness stand merely to produce the ledger. We will conduct our direct examination tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Would you just lay the predicate for the production of the documents now for the formal turnover to the Secretary?

REP. APOSTOL. If Your Honor please.

Mrs. Ricaforte, we requested for a subpoena duces tecum for you

to produce the original of the ledger which was brought before the

Senate before in the hearing on October 30, 2000. Did you, in fact,

bring this ledger?

MS. RICAFORTE. I have here the listahan from August ….

REP. APOSTOL. May we request that there be an interpreter upon the request of the witness because she would like to testify in Tagalog.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The testimony, is that in Filipino or Tagalog?

MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog po.

REP. APOSTOL. Tagalog. It is not official.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if it is in Filipino,

I understand that the Stenographers can take down the notes in

Filipino, being a national language. So, do you need an interpreter?

I understand you can speak in English. Why don’t you directly testify in English or in Filipino?

MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog na lang po. I prefer Tagalog, Sir. Yes Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then testify in Filipino or English.

REP. APOSTOL. She said, Your Honor, that she would like to testify in Tagalog and she needs an interpreter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, if you can really speak in English, why don’t you speak in English to avoid any delay. It is only the production of a document and the marking, after which the turnover thereof in the meantime to the Secretary of the Senate.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I now ask the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. Did you bring with you the ledger which we requested per subpoena duces tecum?

MS. RICAFORTE. Opo, nandito po ang original copy noong listahan.

REP. APOSTOL. May we request that this ledger be marked as Exhibit C and the succeeding pages be marked as Exhibits C-1, C-2,

and so on.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many pages?

REP. APOSTOL. We will count, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable….

SEN. ENRILE. I would like to clarify the question. The question of the distinguished prosecutor is, he was asking about a ledger but the answer of the witness is listahan. Is there any identity between the listahan and the ledger?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is query now.

MRS. RICAFORTE. Oho. Ito ho ay….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it directed to the prosecutor or to the witness?

SEN. ENRILE. I want an explanation whether the….Because the question asked for a ledger, and then the answer of the witness is she brought a listahan.

REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Your Honor….

SEN. ENRILE. Because a ledger in accounting is a very special kind of a material, of a document.

REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Your Honor, if the question of His Honor, the Senator, is directed to this representation or to the witness?

SEN. ENRILE. I want a clarification regarding the question of the prosecutor and the answer of the witness. Because, as a judge, I would like to know whether the ledger that has been subpoenaed is the same as this listahan or that listahan is the ledger.

REP. APOSTOL. Then, I will ask the question, Your Honor.

I ask you the question to produce the ledger and you produced the so-called listahan. What do you understand by ledger? Is it the same as listahan?

MRS. RICAFORTE. Sa akin po, ordinaring listahan lang po itong aking hawak. I don’t consider this as ledger.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who has been designated as interpreter?

REP. APOSTOL. Nobody. But I would like to volunteer if she is talking in Waray.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, we should get the permission from the honorable Senators-Judges if you’d be allowed also to act as interpreter. Anybody from the Senate who can act as interpreter?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice… I am sorry.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. DRILON. If the witness will testify in Tagalog or in Filipino, we do not need an interpreter because all of us here understand Tagalog or Filipino.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The problem is, can this be taken down in stenographic notes?

SEN. DRILON. I think, it can be taken down.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have the assurance that whether the testimony be in English, Tagalog or Filipino, it can be taken in stenographic notes, then probably we can allow.

SEN. DRILON. Yes, our stenographers, Mr. Chief Justice, in the Senate can take the stenographic notes in Tagalog, in Filipino, in English.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, then, you may proceed.

REP. APOSTOL. So, if Your Honor will allow, we will have the so-called listahan be the one marked as Exhibit “A”, I mean, “C”, then “C-1”, “C-2”, “C-3” and so forth.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will complete the marking of the pages because that will be left with the Secretary.

REP. APOSTOL. Just a minute, Your Honor, the problem is, well, there is another question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is another question from Honorable Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. I would like to beg the indulgence of the Chair. Mr. Chief Justice, the subpoena duces tecum that was requested and served referred to a ledger. Now, what we are being presented with is listahan. Is the prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice, satisfied that their request for a subpoena duces tecum is properly served with the presentation of this listahan?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. We will be satisfied, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be satisfied. So you will have it marked now.

REP. APOSTOL. May we request now, Your Honor, that this so-called listahan be marked as Exhibit “C” and we will count the pages….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted. Let the entire document be marked as Exhibit “C”, then the succeeding pages as Exhibit “C-1” up to the end, whatever will be the number. Please initial after the marking.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honors, may we be allowed to compare, in the meantime, the so-called listing or journal that we have in our possession which is actually a certified true copy coming from the Senate and the so-called listahan or ledger which was brought by the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we be clarified on that manifestation?

REP. APOSTOL. We are requesting, Your Honor, that we be allowed to compare with the so-called listahan or ledger that we are…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To compare?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, because …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be done later. Because the only purpose now for the production of the witness before us is for her to produce what is the subject matter of the subpoena duces tecum in order that the same be, in the meantime, deposited.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. In the meantime, since we have not compared with our copy which we got from the Senate, we will defer our request for marking of this exhibit which the witness has brought.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, because she brought it pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum and you want it to be kept in the custody of the Secretary, and we have it to be marked in order that the Secretary may not be blamed later on of whatever may happen to the exhibits. You can take the proper move later on.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. The Secretary can put his own signature or marking.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that’s it. We will proceed with the marking.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. But we request that we defer this exhibit to be marked as our own exhibit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed with the marking.

REP. APOSTOL. The Secretary, Your Honor, is marking.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will please announce later up to what number is the submarking.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, in order to prevent any wrangling later on, may I ask the prosecutors if they would put into

the record that indeed, what they requested via the subpoena duces tecum that was issued was for the presentation of a ledger, and that what

the witness has brought is not a really a ledger but a listahan consisting

of several pages.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We will put it on record that what we requested per subpoena duces tecum is a ledger.

SENATOR ENRILE. But what was presented now is a document which the witness calls a listahan.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We are willing to have that on record.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

REP. APOSTOL. Our request for subpoena is a ledger. I think she understands what is a ledger because, I understand, she is a Commerce graduate and she brought it and says this is a listahan.

SEN. ENRILE. In addition, I would like to find out if the distinguished prosecutor would want to correct his statement that he also calls the document a “journal” and I do not think that is a journal.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, I remember I have not said any “journal” but if….

SEN. ENRILE. No, the record will bear me out.

REP. APOSTOL. If I did utter that word, I am withdrawing

that word.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Withdrawn.

SEN. GUINGONA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. I hope I will not add to the confusion. But what we understood, Mr. Chief Justice, was that the prosecutor asked for time to compare whether the document that they asked for subpoena is indeed the same as the listahan and I think the honorable Presiding Officer granted that request already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The idea really of the marking now would only be for-

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, preliminary, but….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –identification of the documents once deposited.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, under that condition, Mr. Chief Justice, because that was what they requested as far as I recall.

REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. LIBARIOS. Since we have already caused the marking of the…. We will wait until the final marking.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair has been waiting for it. It is about to be finished.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, the marking is from…. Actually, it is 13 pages.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen pages. So that means “C”, “C-1” to “C-12”.

REP. APOSTOL. So may I reiterate our request that this document which the witness calls a “listahan,” which we call a “ledger” be, in the meantime, kept here for safekeeping with the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As earlier stated by the Chair, the motion will be granted and is now granted. The witness is directed to turn over the marked exhibits to the Secretary of the Senate for the latter to keep. However, the witness is advised to come back tomorrow for the continuation of her testimony.

REP. APOSTOL. So may we request now, Your Honor, that if it is possible for the Senate to have these xerox-copied, if not, we will do it, of course, if the defense is willing too.

May I know if the Senate will copy these?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, we volunteer to do that but probably, we will be ready with the copies tomorrow. Is that all right with the members of the court?

REP. APOSTOL. We would like to have a copy, Your Honor, today so we can actually study it.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, immediately after adjournment, we will provide the prosecution copies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much for that assurance.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we are ready with two witnesses but I understand that….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean tomorrow?

REP. APOSTOL. Even today but I do not want to….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is already 7:24 in the evening.

REP. APOSTOL. In that case, then we will move for the continuance.

REP. LIBARIOS. One last item, Your Honor. Since the exhibits are already marked by the prosecution, may we request, Your Honor, that the exhibits be now turned over to prosecution — the original exhibits, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What exhibits are you referring to, the exhibit produced by the witness?

REP. LIBARIOS. The listahan, Your Honor, the listahan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of the other Counsel- Prosecutor Apostol is only to have this deposited in the meantime. So it should be deposited.

REP. LIBARIOS. Under the Rules, Your Honor, once the exhibits are already marked by either party, then that party requesting the exhibits be marked should now be in the proper custody of the said documents, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you trying to overturn the request of Prosecutor Apostol? [Laughter]

REP. LIBARIOS. No, because we would like to review, extensively the original, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you can come tomorrow early morning.

REP. LIBARIOS. It belongs to the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will stick to the earlier request which was already granted by the court.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honors, aside from this witness, may we request that Anton Prieto be also directed to be present tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Mr. Prieto?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Prieto is there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Prieto is directed to come back tomorrow at two o’clock in the afternoon and to be ready to testify.

Okay then, the Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before I move to suspend, may I manifest that in connection with the resolution of this court denying the Motion to Quash, the following Senators have filed concurring opinions: Senators Cayetano, Legarda-Leviste and Ople on the December 1, 2000; Senators Enrile and Sotto on December 4, 2000; Senators Aquino-Oreta, Tatad and Honasan on December 5, 2000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The concurring opinions announced are noted.

SUSPENSION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Unless the Chair has something more to say, I move that the Impeachment Trial stand in recess until tomorrow, Friday, December 8, 2000, at two o’clock in the afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of the Chair will be suspended until tomorrow afternoon.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, the witness is still sitting on the witness stand. [Laughter] May we…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oh, I am sorry. The witness is excused, but to come back tomorrow at two o’clock. [Laughter]

Suspended.

It was 7:27 p.m.

Estrada Impeachment Dec. 20, 2000 (PM) Transcripts

DECEMBER 20, 2000

AT 2:31 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE RESUMPTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS (MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ). Please all rise for the arrival of the Senator-Judges.

The Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice, and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE). The impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now resumed.

We will be led in prayer by the Honorable Senator-Judge Juan M. Flavier.

SEN. FLAVIER.

PRAYER

Panginoon Naming Mahal, sa pagpapatuloy ng aming pagdinig sa kasong kinakaharap ng Pangulo ng bansa, bigyan Ninyo po kami ng bukas na kaisipan upang matanggap ang mga inihahayag sa amin ng walang bahid na pagkiling; mahabang pasensya upang hindi kami mabagot at nang sa gayon ay mapag-aralan ng masusi ang mga ebidensyang inihahain sa aming harapan; karunungan upang makapag-desisyon ng tama at naaayon sa katotohanan at katarungan.

Gawin Ninyo po kaming kasangkapan ng Inyong kapayapaan upang ang Inyong kalooban ang siyang manaig ngayon at magpakailanman.

Ang lahat ng ito’y hinihingi namin sa ngalan ni Hesus na Siyang Daan, Katotohanan at Buhay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Honorable Flavier.

Please be seated. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make the proclamation.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment by the Senate against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, before we proceed with the business of the Court, may I ask for a few minute-suspension to allow the prosecution and the defense to formally greet the Presiding Officer on his 65th birthday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will go down to greet them.

Suspended for that purpose. (Applause)

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 2:35 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 2:36 P.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is resumed.

Thank you for everything.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of this Impeachment Court of Friday, 15 December 2000 and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? (Silence) There being none, the motion is approved.

The Secretary will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

THE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO BARBO). In the Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001 2000 for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I now invite the parties to enter their appearances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are requested to enter their appearances.

REP. APOSTOL. The same appearance for the prosecution. We are ready.

MR. DAZA. Same appearances for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Also ready?

MR. DAZA. Ready.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before we proceed to the…

REP. APOSTOL. We are ready, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Before we proceed to the trial proper, we have some items in the agenda: One is the Motion for Reconsideration of the Extended Order of the Chief Justice which inter alia directed the opening of the sealed envelope containing the documents issued pursuant to subpoena duces tecum of 6 December 2000.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the defense filed this Motion for Reconsideration and prosecution was given 24 hours to reply. May we now proceed to the consideration of the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer received a copy of the Opposition to the Motion For Reconsideration.

Yesterday it was agreed that if the parties will so desire to have oral argument, the movant, meaning the defense, will be given 10 minutes and the prosecution will be given 10 minutes also for the opposition thereto.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the pleasure of the…

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Arroyo.

MR. MENDOZA. I have a manifestation to make, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I think the manifestation should be given priority considering that the one to manifest is actually a counsel for the movant.

Atty. Mendoza is recognized.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, Senator Judges, we have considered anew the matter under consideration particularly as regards the production of the following: The application to open account, specimen signature cards, ledger and such other documents pertaining to account number 0011025495 4, a microfilm copy of Equitable Bank Check 0110714951 issued on October 5, 1999 which are the subject matter of the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Presiding Officer dated December 6, 2000.

We have taken note of the anxiety of the public to see the papers in the sealed envelope produced by the Equitable Bank on December 15, 2000. Too many speculations, largely provoked by the publication of a xerox copy of an alleged microfilm of the check involved, have arisen. Some of the speculations may have been triggered by our opposition to the deposition and to the subpoena duces tecum and the opening of the envelope, which opposition is however based on fundamental principles of constitutional law and evidence certainly not on any intent to suppress evidence. Without prejudice to the position we have taken on the matter, particularly that all of these documents purportedly intended to prove an interest in St. Peter’s Holdings which the accused did not declare in his statement of assets and liabilities, are immaterial and irrelevant.

And in light of clarification yesterday, with agreement of counsels, regarding the need to indicate in the future, the purpose for which subpoena duces tecum shall be issued, and without the open ended and comprehensive clause as to the coverage of the subpoena duces tecum, the defense is withdrawing our Motion for Reconsideration dated December 19, 2000 of the Extended Order of the Presiding Officer dated December 18, 2000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the prerogative of counsel to withdraw any pleading before the Court shall have acted thereon.

The manifestation and the request for the withdrawal of the motion to reconsider subject to the conditions stated in the manifestation is granted.

MR. MENDOZA. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And what would be the pleasure now of the prosecution?

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, what the defense have just manifested is no surprise to us because there’s again an intervening motion by a certain Jaime Dichaves which in effect takes the place of their Motion for Reconsideration. And we cannot prevent the defense from withdrawing a motion. But what we find unusual is the sequence of events that led to their withdrawal of their motion.

In the beginning, they filed a motion opposing our motions for oral deposition. This Court have ruled that we can proceed. Then they filed a motion for reconsideration. Today, there’s an urgent motion to quash filed by Jaime Dichaves. What we see here is a grand conspiracy of preventing the opening of what he describes as “something that the public awaits.” We find it very unusual, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Court, that the only issue here, the only thing that we’re asking for is the opening, nothing more. We open and that’s it.

But since December 6 or almost two weeks, we have not succeeded. And not only that, we have here almost 16 or 17 motions, request for subpoena, request for subpoena duces tecum, all of which cannot move because of their opposition. Now, we don’t since this is a manifestation, we just want to call the attention of the Court that what next would be done. As the Chair says, we cannot prevent the movant from withdrawing a motion. But in withdrawing the motion, it has something there’s something on the table and which is, a Jaime Dichaves that would like to now oppose the opening.

Mr. Chief Justice, we are only asking for one matter, to open the check. We don’t care about Jaime Dichaves. That’s all. Open the check envelope. We don’t care about the rest. Only the check. And I said, we’ll convict the President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was already a manifestation together with the motion to withdraw the motion to reconsider. The Chair noted the manifestation, granted the motion, subject to the conditions stated in the motion to withdraw.

On record still remains the opposition thereto from the prosecution.

What would be the position of the prosecution insofar as that opposition is concerned in view of the withdrawal of the motion to reconsider?

REP. ARROYO. We want to put it on record so that it is on record that we filed an opposition. But as the Chair correctly says, we cannot prevent them from withdrawing a motion. That’s within their control.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Simply noted then.

REP. ARROYO. And for future reference.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Simply noted.

MR. MENDOZA. May I, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. May I just state that the remarks of Congressman Arroyo are most unkind. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, there is nothing more to be done.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, while we are at this. With the caucus yesterday and the idea is that, while we are waiting for the resolution of this Motion for Reconsideration, we could proceed with the opening of another set of papers from another bank and which is the Westmont Bank.

So at 7:00 o’clock in the evening last night, the Secretary was here; the Legal Counsel of the Senate was here; and they brought the papers.

What happened? We were ready to look at it, just look at it. They opposed it, the defense. All that we wanted was to look at it, take a good look. They opposed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. In connection with that, on record, is the report, the memorandum of Atty. David J.V. Yap. It would appear that nothing could be done because the third paragraph reads as follows:

“However, both parties could not agree on what to do. Each side interposed objections to what the other party proposed. Since they could not agree, I decided that the most prudent thing to do was to defer action and refer the matter to the Presiding Officer, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.”

So, I think if nothing had happened last night, it was because of the different positions of the contending lawyers.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. May I suggest a suspension and an informal conference on this matter. I think we can solve this matter.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, we want this on record. All we wanted was to look at it. Just look at it. Is that objectionable? I submit, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending request for an informal conference. Would the prosecution agree to that?

REP. ARROYO. Well, we submit to whatever the Chair proposes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request to the other party. So the Chair cannot dictate upon the parties. If the other party will agree, the Chair is just too willing to preside over the informal conference.

REP. ARROYO. I don’t think, Mr. Chief Justice, there’s any point anymore in conferences. I have to be very candid about it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing then can be done. So we will proceed.

There is a withdrawal. The Motion for Reconsideration is declared withdrawn, subject to the conditions stated and the opposition thereto is noted.

The other item is on the matter of the show cause order to Prosecutor Representative Clavel Asas Martinez. She was given enough time and I don’t think the period had lapsed. So, this should be deleted from the agenda.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?

REP. ARROYO. I don’t want to burden the Court with a minor administrative matter. But can that Westmont envelope be opened? No opinions, no nothing. We just want to look at it. Can it be done? I would like to ask now the defense. Good faith.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think Prosecutor Arroyo, that seems to be very obvious. There was already an extended order. The order specifically directed what has to be done. There is now a withdrawal on the motion to reconsider this day. That order, therefore, is now executory, final and executory, as a matter of fact. So, it is up for the prosecution now to take the proper move because that order is final and executory.

REP. ARROYO. Can we do it in open court?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the agreement?

REP. ARROYO. Equitable and Westmont, those that are not covered by the Motion for Reconsideration.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Why can’t we take the issues one at a time? I think the urgent petition of the prosecution relates to the checks of the Equitable PCI Bank. Why don’t we start with that?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. I understand, Mr. Chief Justice, there are three envelopes now in the possession of the Senate; two envelopes from Equitable PCI and one envelope from Westmont, now United Overseas Bank. Although last night, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, I was informed by the legal counsel of United Overseas Bank that they would also submit today, this morning, another batch of documents in another sealed envelope. I don’t know, Mr. Chief Justice, if this second batch from UOB has already been submitted to this Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That, the Chair would not know because he doesn’t have the record here before him.

REP. MORENO. In the meantime…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And since the parties were represented during the opening, I think the parties should be in a position to inform the Court what happened? There is at least one report of Atty. Yap and that is the only thing now on record.

REP. MORENO. Then, Mr. Chief Justice, if we may ask for the opening of the first envelope from Equitable PCI Bank…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You’re referring to the subject of the Extended Order?

REP. MORENO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You want it done now…

REP. MORENO. Yes, please, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …before you will present who will testify on this? Because there was a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum for this.

REP. MORENO. I’m sorry, Your Honor, but the subpoenas were may not have been complied with because of the pending Motion for Reconsideration, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who would you want the one to testify thereon to be present?

REP. MORENO. At least, Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice, if we can have the two envelopes from Equitable PCI to be opened…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was asking you if the witness to testify thereon is now available, because he or she was issued the subpoena for that.

REP. MORENO. Indeed, Mr. Chief Justice, the subpoena was issued but this was the subject precisely of the various motions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is now the sealed envelope?

REP. MORENO. I understand they are in the possession of the Senate, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it in the possession of the Secretary?

Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. I just want to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice. On December 15 at the session on that date, the Presiding Officer instructed that the documents which were produced by Equitable Bank but which were not delivered, would be placed in a sealed envelope.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, to be initialed by the person…

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, sir. And that sealed envelope was signed by the counsel of both parties. Counsel is now talking of two envelopes. We are only talking of one envelope and that is the subject of the Extended Order of the Presiding Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was exactly the…

MR. MENDOZA. We should not be confusing too many things at the same time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s the suggestion of the Senate President, one at a time, so we will not be confused.

MR. MENDOZA. And I understand that there was one envelope, I do not know about the second envelope.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then let it…

MR. MENDOZA. And if there is a second envelope, then we reserve our right to raise any objections or whatever in regard that our withdrawal of the Motion for Reconsideration pertain to just one envelope…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that would be the only envelope to be opened.

MR. MENDOZA. …and that is the envelope…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Produce that envelope to be opened for the execution now of the Extended Order. The envelope covered by the Extended Order of 18 December 2000, and which is the subject matter of the Motion for Reconsideration just withdrawn and nothing else, for the moment.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Barbo, will you tell the Court where is that envelope, which is the subject matter of this Extended Order?

THE SECRETARY. Your Honors, the subject envelope is now in the vault. My deputy, the legal counsel, Atty. David Yap, is getting it now to be submitted to you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before it would be unsealed or before it would be opened, the representatives of the parties who initialed the same must confirm their initial thereon for the record.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s finish first this business.

How much time would be needed, Atty. Barbo, to open the — to open the …

THE SECRETARY. Ten minutes or even less than that, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes, the suspension. But you should not step out of the courtroom.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 2:57 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 3:01 P.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Barbo, do you have now the sealed envelope?

THE SECRETARY. Not yet, Your Honor. He went down… I think in about…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have some difficulty opening the vault? (Laughter.)

THE SECRETARY. None, Your Honor. I think he must be on his way now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just give me the signal as soon as the one retrieving them arrives.

THE SECRETARY. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

(Pause.)

Mr. Chief Justice, the subject envelope has already arrived.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

You have now the sealed envelope?

THE SECRETARY. I have here now, Mr. Chief Justice, the sealed envelope.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the sealed envelope covered by the Extended Order of 18 December 2000?

THE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who were the representatives of the parties who signed thereon?

THE SECRETARY. Mr. Chief Justice, the representatives are the signatories themselves, and may I read them: “Atty. Jose B. Flaminiano, for the defense; Atty. Romeo Capulong, private prosecutor, and Amado Valdez, private prosecutor.” They all they signed, all of them signed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, but the Presiding Officer would ask each one of them if they would really confirm their signatures thereon.

Attorney Flaminiano, then Atty. Capulong, and then Atty. Valdez.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, I confirm that I was one of the signatories to this envelope. My signature appears on the pasted…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Across the seal.

MR. FLAMINIANO. …across the seal, on 12 December 2000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then Atty. Capulong. Do you confirm your signatures your signature thereon?

MR. CAPULONG. Your Honor, may I just confer with my co counsel and we have…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why, do you not cannot recognize your signature?

MR. CAPULONG. Yes, these are… No, he is here. The other one who signed this…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, yours first.

MR. CAPULONG. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. One after the other so there will be order. You can use your glasses. (Laughter.)

MR. CAPULONG. No, Your Honor, I read better without my eyeglasses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, make the confirmation now or otherwise.

MR. CAPULONG. I’d like to manifest, Your Honor, that the envelope which we signed at the time that it was brought here was already closed and that we signed across the flap of the envelope to make sure that it cannot be broken without breaking our signatures. So we confirm I confirm that the signature appearing hereon, Your Honor, is my signature.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And not broken?

MR. CAPULONG. And not broken.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Very good.

Atty. Valdez.

MR. VALDEZ. Thank you, Your Honor. We may say the same manifestation with the additional manifestation that this was delivered to us …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just on your signature.

MR. VALDEZ. Yes, Your Honor. This is my signature. But we did not see the contents of these documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is supposed to be the case.

MR. VALDEZ. Yes. Your Honor, please…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are only to affix the signature.

MR. VALDEZ. Precisely, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. VALDEZ. Just to confirm and make it on record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, the envelope will be opened by the Secretary of the Senate in the presence of the signing representatives of the parties.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. One at a time, please.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Can we request that as soon as the envelope has been unsealed and they have seen the document, can the same be passed on to the Senate Jurors as well as to the Presiding Officer, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the dispositive portion of the Extended Order of 18 December 2000, the last clause of Dispositive Order No. 2, reads as follows: “For the purpose of examining said documents and marking them as exhibits by the prosecution.”

So, it may be distributed to the parties only after the marking by the prosecution.

You may now open, Atty. Barbo.

THE SECRETARY. Mr. Chief Justice, before we do that, I’d like also to manifest that the vice president himself, Mr. Ceferino Ang signed in my presence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In your presence?

THE SECRETARY. In my presence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the opening on your table use the table of the witness so we can see here. Do it very slowly because you might destroy the documents inside.

The other counsel of the parties now may join them but not close enough to Atty. Barbo because he might not be able to move with enough space.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, before Mr. Barbo would make any other move, will you permit me, sir, to instruct Secretary Barbo to retrieve the documents one piece at a time if there are more than one and describe for the record the document that he is retrieving.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, as suggested. The Presiding Officer adopts the suggestion.

SEN. BIAZON. And may I add, Mr. Chief Justice …?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. … that for the Secretary to raise it in full view one by one for us, for the judges and probably for the public to see.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, would it be better if these documents, as they are retrieved, be put in an envelope, in a plastic, Mr. Chief Justice, so that we can…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s see what we can do later.

THE SECRETARY. May I now proceed, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please proceed to open the first document, describe that document. As a matter of fact… Can everything be read by you?

THE SECRETARY. Mr. Chief Justice, this is the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please do not disturb the Secretary.

THE SECRETARY. This is the signature card of a certain “Jose Velarde” whose specimen signature appears herein – three, three of them, three specimen signatures – “current account, 26 August 1999”; introduced by a certain “GLG.”

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. “J” what? I mean, I’m sorry.

THE SECRETARY. “G” as in “goat.” “G,” “G.”

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. “G.” All right.

THE SECRETARY. “GLG.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Put the microphone closer to you.

SEN. DRILON. May we request that… Mr. Chief Justice, can we request the other counsels to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. DRILON. We cannot see it from here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please give enough space to Atty. Barbo. Anyway, the counsel can read it later.

THE SECRETARY. “Current Account No. 254…”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Slowly, please.

THE SECRETARY. “Current Account No. 25495-4”; “processed by S/A.” “A” as in “apple.” (Laughter).

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is in capital, say this in upper case.

THE SECRETARY. Capital. “0…”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is not in capital, say lower case.

THE SECRETARY. “01…”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The public is enjoined to keep quiet please. The matter is a very serious matter.

THE SECRETARY. 0160-625…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Slowly, please.

THE SECRETARY. …01-5.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. (Off-mike; inaudible).

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. We cannot hear you, Senator Enrile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Enrile is requested to use another microphone; something is wrong with that microphone over there at the center.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, a matter of personal privilege-because of the noise, we were not able to get the facts. I would like the Secretary-General of the Senate, as custodian of the documents, to repeat a description of the document he is holding from the very beginning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As requested, the Secretary should do so again. And the Presiding Officer would request everybody to please keep quiet so everything can be recorded…

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …and the solemnity of the proceeding can be promoted and enhanced.

The Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice, may I add, a matter of suggestion, that after the reading, if it is possible for each document to be immediately marked before we go to the next one.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will do that later. That is a prerogative that was left to the prosecution. The prosecution might not even exercise that right.

Proceed now, Atty. Barbo.

THE SECRETARY. There appears here a signature which is unreadable but it has a date below such signature, and the date is “10 7 99.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What separates between 10 and 7? Is it a slash or a dash?

THE SECRETARY. Slash, Your Honor. I will repeat that: 10/7/99.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, just a minute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a while, Mr. Barbo.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, my request was for the Secretary General, who is holding a document or a piece of paper, to repeat what he said from the very start because we did not understand it because of the noise in the room so that we will not make a mistake in our notation of these facts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted. Do it again. Read everything that you can read from there and if you cannot, state for the record that it is not legible.

THE SECRETARY. It is a plastic signature card. The name of account is Jose Velarde; Current Account dated 26 August 1999, No. 25495 4. On top is the logo and the name Equitable Banking Corporation; introduced by GLG. The address is…

VOICE. The address is blank. Address, blank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, no, do not dictate. Nobody should dictate on the secretary. He is the only one directed to read it.

THE SECRETARY. Address, blank; Telephone, blank; Business/occupation, blank. Other Information, blank; Nationality, blank; Prime I.D. No., blank; Initial deposit, P with P, blank; Processed by S/A 160 62501 5.

SEN. ENRILE. Repeat, repeat.

THE SECRETARY. Zero.

SEN. ENRILE. S A.

THE SECRETARY. S/A 0160 62501 5. The last two numbers there appears to be some kind of handwriting imposed on the numbers, Mr. Chief Justice, and Your Honors.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Read those in handwriting.

THE SECRETARY. Approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Read it.

THE SECRETARY. It’s only handwritten on the number itself, Your Honor.

And approved by, signature, not legible but below that signature is the date, 10/7/99. And here is a stamp mark with the numbers, account-“dormant account” stamped at the back, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Read the entries at the dorsal portion, if there are any.

THE SECRETARY. Name, blank; number, blank; Authorized Signature, blank blank…. Documents on file, Articles of Incorporation, Articles of Co Partnership…. Articles of Incorporation, blank; Articles of Co Partnership, blank; Board Resolution, blank; Designation of Depository, Officers Authorized to Sign, Certificate of Registration, blank; Securities and Exchange Commission, Bureau of Domestic Trade, Court Authority For, blank; Others, blank; Remarks, blank; By-laws, blank; Power-Of-Attorney, blank; Election of Officers, blank.

So, this is the first document, Mr. Chief Justice. May I proceed with the next?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Now, before he proceeds, Mr. Chief Justice – Mr. Chief Justice, may I?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. You failed to read some initials on the principal page, which you did before you, were asked by Senator Enrile to reread what you had announced. You started it with an initial G something but now I do not hear you saying those initials again.

THE SECRETARY. Yeah.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Ah, you did.

THE SECRETARY. Introduced by GLG, immediately after that, authorized signatures. There are three signatures Jose Velarde.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before you proceed to get the second document, may we request, any comment from Atty. Flaminiano and from Atty. Capulong on the correctness of the reading?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, the signature card that the Secretary read appears to be contained in a plastic container.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But the Secretary read them correctly?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about Atty. Capulong? Do you confirm the correctness of the reading of the entries?

MR. CAPULONG. We have no comments to make, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You were asked by the Court to comment whether to confirm or not?

MR. CAPULONG. Well…

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Arroyo?

REP. ARROYO. My attention was called to some item there, which might be read, so may I have permission to look at it?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime, only those who signed the envelope because otherwise…

MR. CAPULONG. May I make this comment, Your Honor, that on the last bottom left column which reads: S/A 0160-6250, all typewritten, are two numbers, the two numbers, namely: 1-5, which appeared to have been superimposed and written in ink or ballpen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano, do you…

MR. CAPULONG. Let me make another comment?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. CAPULONG. If Your Honor please, sandali lang.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other observation? Not yet. Let him finish, Atty. Flaminiano?

MR. CAPULONG. Under the column, Your Honor, on the right bottom column “Approved by” the following appears: No CA sig, which appears to have been written in pencil, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing further? Then, Atty. Flaminiano?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m being asked to comment on what the Secretary read and I think he read the entries correctly. Now, as to the observation that there appears to be handwriting on the number after 6250, then there is “1” apparently written in black ink and there is a –(dash), and I don’t know whether this is an “S” or a “5.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay then.

Atty. Barbo, you may proceed now on the second document inside the envelope.

THE SECRETARY. Before that, Mr. Chief Justice, I’d like to inform this Honorable Court that there are two cards inside the plastic jacket.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You were able to read only one.

THE SECRETARY. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So move on now to the second.

Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request that those watching, especially on the prosecution side the names of those watching, especially on the prosecution side, be made of record. On the part of the defense, we have Atty. Jose Flaminiano only.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. On the part of the prosecution, I noticed…

MR. MENDOZA. There are several of them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …that it’s Atty. Capulong and Atty. Valdez and then Prosecutor Moreno, although the earlier request was only those who signed the envelope should be there, assisted if there are any anyone from the other side may be there, but do not disturb the reader.

THE SECRETARY. May I proceed now, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the second.

THE SECRETARY. On the second.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

How would you indicate later on which one was first and which one is second?

THE SECRETARY. The one which I read with the words “dormant account,” Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the first.

THE SECRETARY. That’s the first.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, go to the second.

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Honorable Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. I noticed that when the Secretary read the contents, the two cards were still inside. And so, is it correct to say that the dorsal information read is that of the second card or of the first card?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The second card has not yet been read into the record.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. But, Mr. Chief Justice, if the two cards were on top of the other, it is impossible to read the dorsal side of the first card.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s see what will happen to the second card first.

THE SECRETARY. May I continue, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.

THE SECRETARY. I’m reading now the second card. On the left side is the logo of Equitable Banking Corporation. Name of Account: Jose Velarde; Current Account 26 August 1999; No. 25495 4 25495 4. But immediately preceding the letters number, No., there is a pencil mark of 110. Address, blank; Telephone, blank; Business/Occupation, blank. Introduced by GLG; Other information, blank; Nationality, blank; Prime I.D. No., blank; Initial Deposit P, blank; Authorized Signatures: Jose Velarde three of these names, Your Honor: Jose Velarde, Jose Velarde, Jose Velarde.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s clarify that, Atty. Barbo.

There are three signatures reading “Jose Velarde.” Is that what you mean by your answer?

THE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor.

And there is no word or words “dormant account” on the second signature card. Processed by S/A 0160 62501 5. Approved by signature not legible. But immediately below such signature is the date 10/7/90 91? 10/7/91?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no. Do not ask anybody. Just read it.

THE SECRETARY. Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.

At the back, Mr. Chief Justice. Name, blank; Number, blank; Authorized Signature, blank; Documents on File-Arti¬cles of Incorporation, blank; Articles of Co Partnership, blank; Board Resolution, blank; Designation of Depository Officers Authorized to Sign, Certificate of Registration, blank; Securities and Exchange Commission, Bureau of Domestic Trade, Court Authority For, blank; Others, blank; Remarks, blank; By Laws, blank; Power of Attorney, blank; Election of Officers, blank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing else?

THE SECRETARY. Nothing else, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So to identify it to be the second would be that there is no entry reading, “Dormant Account.”

THE SECRETARY. On the second signature card, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before we leave that, can the Secretary please put on record the measurement of the card in question, so it will appear on record just what cards we are talking about, the sizes and all.

THE SECRETARY. Measurement, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Measurement.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably you can use a ruler.

It is much better. Width and length.

The Honorable Senator Judge Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

May we inquire of the Secretary. Number one, if the “Processed by” number which begins with the letters “S A”, in the first signature card the Secretary said that the Numbers 1 5 were written in ink rather than typewritten. Is the same true with the second signature card?

THE SECRETARY. On the second signature card, Your Honor, there appears no super imposition. It is purely in typewritten form.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). Typewritten. All right.

THE SECRETARY. But I forgot to inform you that there appears to be some kind of an initial immediately below the words “Processed By”.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). What initials are those?

THE SECRETARY. I can’t read this. Not legible.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). All right. Second question, Mr. Chief Justice, is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before that. Are you referring to the second or the first?

THE SECRETARY. Both, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Both. Okay.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). Are the dates on which the signature cards of the current account opened the same, October 10, 1999?

THE SECRETARY. The first card which has the words “Dormant Account”, the date is very legible, it is “10/7/99″ but the second one has a date which appears to be “10/7/91″.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). I see. The third question I have is the introduction, there seems to be a line there which says: “Introduced by:” Is that “GLG”, like in “George Love George?” Is that “GLG?”

THE SECRETARY. That’s correct, that’s correct.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). George?

THE SECRETARY. George.

SEN. OSMEÑA. (S). Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed. On the second card, let’s get the comment or observation of defense counsel, Flaminiano and then later Prosecutor Capulong.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, the Secretary read excellently the entries therein. We just like to make the observation that under the entry “Processed by S/A 01606250”, then the one in this first signature card is written in ink, 1 5. Whereas, in the second signature card that was read by the Secretary, the entries are the same, “Processed by S/A 0160 62501 5.” In other words, the numbers under the entry “Processed by” between the first signature card read and the second signature card correspond to each other, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Atty. Capulong now.

MR. CAPULONG. Thank you, Your Honor.

I’d like to make the following observations with respect to the second card. The signatures appearing under the column authorized signatures which read, “Jose Velarde” appeared to have been appeared to be fresh, Your Honor. They were written in ballpen or pen. The same observation with respect to the first card. And so, I’d like to make this belated observation, Your Honor. All of the three signatures in both cards, reading: “Jose Velarde” appeared to have been recently written because they are fresh. I’d like to make the observation also that this is true with respect to the illegible signatures, Your Honor, of the approving officer, as well as the dates appearing below the signatures of the approving officer in both cards.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observations are merely noted but not to establish the truth or falsity of the observation made.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. May, I nonetheless, request that counsel not make any observations of opinion. They are supposed only to manifest what they see on the card, but not to express any opinion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, the Presiding Officer had ruled already that that should not be taken as evidence. It is only to be noted as observation. It could be a handwriting expert who can do that probably.

Nothing else? You can now proceed to the third document.

THE SECRETARY. Before we proceed to the second…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, the measurement…

THE SECRETARY. The measurement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … which was requested.

THE SECRETARY. The length…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the measurement of the first card?

THE SECRETARY. The length, Mr. Chief Justice, is five and a half inches and the width is exactly four inches.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and a half by four inches. The second card. The second.

THE SECRETARY. The second card the same measurement, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about the plastic cover?

THE SECRETARY. The plastic cover is six, exactly six inches.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. By?

THE SECRETARY. By… That’s the length. The width is four and a half, exactly four and a half.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and a half. And there is only one plastic card for the two cards.

THE SECRETARY. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Open now the envelope again to retrieve the third document, if there is a third document. Describe the document.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Your Honor please, there is a young lady here, I do not know whether she was one of those who signed the envelopes there, she seems to be interfering also with what is happening around.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A prosecutor or a private prosecutor or a prosecutor may just stay behind but never to make any observation because only those who signed the documents would be requested by the Court to make the comment later on.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Your Honor, please, there is a lady here at the back. She was not one of those who signed this envelope. I do not know what her purpose is in watching these proceedings now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is this lady?

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. ARROYO. … the Chair already ruled the prosecutors can come. She is a member of the Romulo, Mabanta Law Offices, Your Honor. And she, in fact…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has she entered her appearance as a private prosecutor?

REP. ARROYO. I think we did in the past. I don’t remember anymore.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is her name?

REP. ARROYO. What’s your name nga?

MS. ENRIQUEZ. Your Honor, Atty. Maria Elena Enriquez.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did you enter your appearance as private prosecutor?

MS. ENRIQUEZ. We have entered our appearance, Your Honor, but for the purpose of this forum, may I enter my appearance again, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you have a written appearance as private prosecutor?

MS. ENRIQUEZ. I believe we entered a written appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s not a question of a belief. Is it a fact that you have?

MS. ENRIQUEZ. Personally, Your Honor, no.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have not?

MS. ENRIQUEZ. No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then at this time, therefore, you don’t have any personality yet?

MS. ENRIQUEZ. May I enter my appearance orally and undertake to submit a written appearance subsequently, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, you have to get the conformity of the panel of prosecutors.

MS. ENRIQUEZ. Would it be possible to secure the panel of prosecutors…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The panel of prosecutors should first meet to agree on whether to allow her.

REP. ARROYO. In fact, she has been with us here sitting on the back…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, but that maybe true but she has not entered her appearance.

REP. ARROYO. Then we I think there is no objection from any of the public prosecutors, may she be allowed?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, in the meantime, why don’t you just get somebody to assist so there will be no question anymore in the meantime. Anyway…

REP. ARROYO. Because I don’t know anything about handwriting. She is the one who knows.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be true. But you have anyway Capulong and Valdez.

The Honorable Senator Judge Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you, Your Honor.

Well, Your Honor, I think all of us will have a chance to scrutinize whatever documents are befo