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 1999â€; introduced by a certain “GLG.â€
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. “J†what? I mean, I’m sorry.
THE SECRETARY. “G†as in “goat.†“G,†“G.â€
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. “G.†All right.
THE SECRETARY. “GLG.â€
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…â€
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Slowly, please.
THE SECRETARY. “Current Account No. 25495-4â€; “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…â€
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is not in capital, say lower case.
THE SECRETARY. “01…â€
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.â€
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 01606250â€, 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 before us. So let us just proceed to identify and then scrutinize it as much as we can later. We are acting like kids in this session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation is noted.
You may now proceed, Atty. Barbo.
THE SECRETARY. Equitable Bank Statement, Jose Velarde.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many pages?
THE SECRETARY. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Stapled together?
THE SECRETARY. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You start then with the first.
THE SECRETARY. Equitable Bank Bank Statement Jose Velarde c/o EBC 0110 25495 4 Binondo Juan Luna Statement. August 1 31, 1999 Page 1 of 1. Effective immediately a P30 service fee shall be charged to request for bank statements current or savings account made through the ATM. Date 008/26. Particulars: Balance Last Statement – NB; Cash Deposit 0000000000; Debit 295.00; Credit 1.00; Balance 0.00.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You inform the Court if you have finished the first page because the Presiding Officer would seek the possibility of the parties stipulating now on the rest of the documents. Okay.
THE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor.
08/27, Debit Memo SAF S A F, 0000000000
08/30, Credit Memo, Particulars, 0000000000
On the line for Debit, none
On the line for Credit, 5,295.00
On the same line for Balance, 5,001.00. Okay.
Date, 08/31, Particulars
Credit Charge, Debit, 50.00
On the line for Credit, blank
Balance, 4,951.00
Total Debits, 34500 345.00
On the line for Credit, blank, on the line for Balance, blank.
Total Credits, on the line for Debit, blank; on the line for Credit is 5,296.00; on the line for Balance, blank.
Balance this statement, Debit, blank; Credit, blank; Balance 4,951.00
Number of checks cleared. Debit, 0; Credit, 0; Period, 00.
For Balance, blank.
Number of auto transfer: Debit, 0; Credit, 0.00
Balance, blank.
Total deposits: Debit, blank; Credit, blank; Balance, blank.
Check, none for Debit; for Credit, 0.00; Balance, blank.
Cash: For Debit, blank; for Credit, 1.00; for Balance, blank.
Grand Total: For Debit, blank; for Credit, 10 1.00; for Balance, blank.
That’s the first page, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, for purposes of security of these documents now being presented, may I suggest that each side of this controversy, on the side of the prosecutor and on the side of the defense, be designated to initial each…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Each.
SEN. ENRILE. … of the documents being identified so that we will know that those later on, that the documents before us are authentic document. And let it be recorded in the records of this proceeding the designee of each side of this controversy to do the initialing.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Arroyo.
REP. ARROYO. We have no objection to the manifestation of Senator Judge Enrile except the word “authentic”.
SEN. ENRILE. I’m talking of the authenticity of the document…
REP. ARROYO. As produced.
SEN. ENRILE. … as produced before this body. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer would like to add a suggestion. Cannot also the parties now agree to stipulate on the existence of these documents which shall be initialed by the parties after which xerox copies be made thereof so immediate distribution can be done to all the members of the Court. So, you should first initial, then later on we will have xerox copies of this. Perhaps you may not need to go anymore page by page.
REP. ARROYO. The Statement of Account is already a machine copy, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Machine copy so you can now initial. This can be initialed and then reproduced.
REP. ARROYO. We agree.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, conformably therefore with the request of the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile, supplemented by the request from the Presiding Officer, Attorney Flaminiano for the defense and Attorney Capulong for the prosecution are enjoined and directed to initial at the righthand bottom corner of each page including already the two cards. Make your initial, your respective initials clear enough to be reflected in the machine copies.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Attorney Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. The signature cards appear to be original.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just the same you have to initial.
MR. FLAMINIANO. So, probably, we have to reproduce…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have to do that in accordance with the recommendation and suggestion of the Senator Judge Enrile to avoid the possibility of substitution and possible question later on, on the authenticity of the documents as produced now.
MR. CAPULONG. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m afraid that initialing the originals may affect the authenticity and the integrity of these documents, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The initials will not because it is made in open court and it is the Court itself directing the parties to make the initials for easy identification and precisely to prevent the possibility of any act that may impair the integrity of the document.
MR. CAPULONG. We submit, Your Honor. Although I have a proposal since the other, the third document appears to be a photocopy of the original then why don’t we photocopy the first two documents and initial on these two documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. Initial first the original
and then photocopy later. So, your initials will be reflected in the machine copies.
MR. CAPULONG. Can we now make our observation on the third document, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us first agree on the marking. Initial first all the pages at the space indicated. There are only 12 pages so you can do it fast. We don’t have to have a suspension. And also the date below your respective initials.
THE SECRETARY. Mr. Chief Justice, the counsels are asking if they can initial the documents which I have not yet read.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All the documents because, as a matter of fact, the idea was to avoid reading pages 2 12 already. Anyway, these were all taken from the sealed envelope.
The Majority Leader.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, before the Majority Leader, the Honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, apropos to my proposal, I suggest that the face and back of each sheet must be initialed so that there will be no additions whatsoever on any of those sheets.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there entries at the back of each of these – of each page?
MR. FLAMINIANO. There are none, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are none, then there is no need for the initial.
SEN. ENRILE. But even then, Mr. Chief Justice…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the understanding that the reproduction of any entry or rather the appearance of any entry at the back of any of these documents which carried out the initials simply means that they had been placed afterwards.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, since the instructions are rather clear, I believe the parties can do this while the Court is suspended.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the regular suspension?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. May I ask a for 20-minute break.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted. We will have a 20-minute break while the Secretary and the counsel now beside him shall continue the marking of the exhibits.
Do not yet open – retrieve the other contents in the envelope.
THE SECRETARY. Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will do that later if there are still many.
Suspended for 20 minutes.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:58 P.M.
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:23 P.M.
THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. Please all rise.
The Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice, and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senate President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed.
Mr. Secretary and the representatives of the parties, Atty. Flaminiano, Atty. Capulong, are you through with the initialing of the pages of the twelve…
MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, what — any other document that would be produced out of the envelope?
THE SECRETARY. There is still a few, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Still a few. How many more pages probably?
THE SECRETARY. One, two, three, four.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Four.
THE SECRETARY. These are the four documents which I have not yet read.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can again proceed with the…
Yes, the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco.
SEN. ROCO. While there is a lull, I’d like to address question to the Chief Justice or the Senate President because of the procedure. Earlier, Mr. Chief Justice, there were appearances and the lady lawyer represented herself, Ma. Elena of the Romulo, Mabanta Law Office. The Romulo, that’s Dick Romulo, as lawyers know, and Ricardo Romulo who is now the chairman of the bank whose documents we are looking at. And Ricardo Romulo has replaced a certain George Lim Go whose initials happen to coincide with what has been read. I mean, the only reason I’m having the temerity to ask this, Mr. Chief Justice, is because it would seem — and I don’t know whether it’s the prosecution or the Court itself who should ask Mr. Go, Mr. Romulo, and Mr. Dichaves, since he has offered and he has claimed publicly that he owns this account. I’m just raising it because I cannot clear it in my own mind as to how the procedure…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the specific recommendation of the Honorable Roco?
SEN. ROCO. I don’t know if it is proper, Mr. Chief Justice, for the Court itself to look into this. Maybe we can take it up in caucus because I have no… It is outside the realm of my own experience.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To look into what aspect of the matter?
SEN. ROCO. The counsel represented, appearing for the… as private prosecutor…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that matter should be taken up by Equitable, the PCI Equitable Bank.
SEN. ROCO. Okay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if you will notice, Your Honor, when the lady was… when the appearance of the lady was commented on by the defense, the Chair had to ask her if she is a private prosecutor.
SEN. ROCO. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Initially she said that she is a private prosecutor, but later on when asked if her name was included in the entry of appearance of private prosecutors, I think the answer was in the negative, and immediately she wanted to enter her appearance. And the position of the Chair was she cannot do that unless authorized by the panel of prosecutors. So I don’t think it’s a matter which the Court shall thresh out.
SEN. ROCO. Okay, I’ll go on that basis, Mr. Chairman.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I just remind that the proceedings now being undertaken are technically not part of the trial because these documents were subpoenaed incident to a notice to take deposition. So that if there is to be any initiative… any initiative is to be taken regarding this, the initiative must come from the prosecutors. I am not too sure, if Your Honors please, that the procedure now being undertaken is really…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, the procedure that we are undertaking now is just the marking of the documents taken out of the sealed envelope which was ordered opened.
MR. MENDOZA. So that in effect the deposition proceedings are now being undertaken before the Senate as an Impeachment Court but this is technically not part of the trial…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Insofar as the marking of the documents inside the sealed envelope are concerned after the opening of the envelope, then that can be taken really as a part of the proceedings now of the trial because in effect it supplanted the subpoena duces tecum to be undertaken by a deposing officer. Anyway, no harm is done.
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. I am not asking that these proceedings be terminated now. They have been started, they might as well be completed. But I would like to make certain that everybody, those who are listening and the members of the Court, do not overlook that these proceedings now being undertaken are not part of the trial.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Insofar as a witness is concerned, no, this is just marking of the exhibits. Because there was a request that it should be opened in open court.
So proceed with the marking now or, rather, reading of the documents.
Cannot the parties again stipulate on the remaining documents for initialing and then later on copying, machine copying thereof?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, we have already initialed all the documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Including those…
MR. FLAMINIANO. All the documents that have been…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All the documents inside the envelope already initialed?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.
And so, what would be now the pleasure of the prosecution who sought the production of the documents, the opening of the sealed envelopes and later on the examination thereof?
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, we would just ask Private Prosecutor Capulong to make his observations, for the record.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Capulong. Without prejudice also to the observations to be made by counsel for the defense.
Is this an observation on each of the documents?
MR. CAPULONG. On the documents, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cannot you do that by way of writing?It might not take us a long time here.
MR. CAPULONG. Well, my observation will be very short, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Perhaps, what can be done would be after the production of the documents, the parties can stipulate on submitting their observations on these documents.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice? Mr. Chief Justice?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Honorable Arroyo.
REP. ARROYO. I don’t think it will take him three minutes so that it will be finished because whenever they talk, they argue. I mean, we had that experience so
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I was asking Atty. Capulong if it would be just an observation for all.
REP. ARROYO. Yes, only No, that is for our side. Then Atty. Flaminiano can make his own observation, we won’t object to whatever he says.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, it is not observation on a page to page basis.
REP. ARROYO. I don’t know.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just a general observation.
REP. ARROYO. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only three minutes then to Atty. Capulong.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, I should think that after the documents have been the envelope was opened and the documents identified and we already initialed all the documents, I think, what should be done would be to already put them back in this envelope and seal the envelope again, Mr. Chief Justice, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. What is the pleasure of the Honorable Senator Judge Drilon?
SEN. DRILON. May I request, Chief, for my own purposes and I do not know what the other senator judges, for xerox copies of the documents which were opened and initialed by the parties.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the understanding earlier, the xerox copying and then returning of the original to the envelope and resealing it.
SEN. DRILON. So that if we can have all the copies, if we can have copies, Mr. President, especially before the manifestations are made so that we can understand what they are talking about.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a matter of fact, the manifestations should be done in writing because there is no offer yet of the exhibits. As a matter of fact, so far, none of the parties had asked for the marking of the same. So, what would be the use of manifestations?
The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I just want to call attention to the fact that these documents are not yet before the Court as evidence. And therefore, to xerox them and provide the judges with copies would be improper because we are not supposed even to look at these documents at this point because these documents are to be subject of a deposition. And I think, it will be most improper for the judges to be provided informally with documents that are not presented to them as evidence unless we now consider these documents as evidence in this proceeding. I do not know whether the parties would agree to that.
SEN. DRILON. Chief?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Excuse me for a while. If you recall, the Chair had asked if this should be marked in evidence by the prosecution because before the opening of this sealed envelope, the attention of the counsel was invited to a specific portion of the dispositive portion of the Extended Order to be opened for examination and then marking as exhibits by the prosecution.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, to cut short the proceeding, I have no objection if we will be provided with copies of this document provided they have no probative value.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. My understanding would be that it would only be for our reading purposes without any probative value, no weight whatsoever until the same had been accepted or admitted in evidence which, therefore, would presuppose the marking thereof and the proper identification of the same by any witness from the prosecution.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. I hope my remarks will not again be misunderstood. But it appears to me that making all of these public at this point in time might be in violation of the rights of the account holder. There has not been any finding that he is not the account holder. Perhaps, there are suspicions. But to make public bank records of an account holder without his consent and without the legal basis for that being established would be in violation of his rights.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will go back to the original request.
Would the prosecution or even the defense mark them as exhibits? Because it is only after the marking of these as exhibits that probably copies thereof may be distributed to the members of the Court.
REP. ARROYO. As far as the prosecution is concerned, what we wanted was to take a look at it and just have a copy. We will decide later on whether to use it or not to use it. That’s all there is to it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the copy that you would want would only be a xerox copy of what had been marked as original?
REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t think that would be objected to by the defense, provided the defense would also be given a copy or copies thereof before the marking, but not yet to be distributed to the members of the Court because this would have no probative value nor weight.
MR. MENDOZA. I cannot speak for the account holder but that perhaps, at the very least, this should be the subject to the restraint that they be not published all over the place. I mean, publish in newspapers, publish in television. Then, for the study of the prosecution at the most, Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Court would only invite the attention of the parties to that particular Section 2 of Republic Act 1405. And anyone therefore revealing them before it is being marked should take it at their own responsibility.
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Honorable Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. May I manifest that during the break, the photographers requested me to take a picture of these documents and these are public documents. So pictures were taken.
MR. MENDOZA. With the permission of the …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was permission sought before the photographing was done?
SEN. DRILON. There was …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because I do not think that anyone could take the photographs of these at a time that the Secretary was merely directed to open this in the presence of the parties’ representatives who initialed the same.
SEN. DRILON. This was already opened, Mr. Chief Justice. I must admit I was requested by the photographers to hold it for their photography. I will make that admission in open court, Chief Justice. There was no prohibition. It was a public document, in my mind, at that point.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prohibition was not necessary because it is inherent.
SEN. DRILON. Then I apologize to the Court if that is …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And I hope that the photographer who has made …who was allowed to do that should be properly advised that the document is not yet to be publicly… to be published because it has not been marked in evidence. And what the Court had directed to be done was merely the opening of the sealed envelopes and the examination thereof by the representatives of the parties after the same had been read into the records by the Clerk of the Senate.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice… Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?
REP. ARROYO. Lest our silence be construed as an admission, the defense said that, well, the rights of the account holder should be protected.
I just want to put on record that insofar as the defense is concerned, they represent the President as the respondent in this proceedings. Are they now saying that the rights of the holder, the account holder, are they speaking for the President as account holder of this account? Because otherwise, then what is their personality to ask and say that the account holder should be protected?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That should be answered by the counsel for the defense.
MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please, on this matter of subpoena, we are conducting a trial; the request should be made, and we will make our response when a request is made. When these are offered in evidence, we will likewise make our response but this is premature. We do not respond to challenges such as this.
REP. ARROYO. No, if this keeps on recurring, Mr. Chief Justice, the propensity of the defense to keep on rising and then speaking for a supposed account holder. Now, if they say the President is the account holder, then we submit to them. In fact, we will agree. But if they cannot show any standing that the account holder is the President, then whereof the … Then how can they speak to protect anyone?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, the observations are noted. But it seems to us that we have strayed so far already on the basic issue at hand. We have to resolve the basic issue just on the marking, if it would be so marked and on the matter of the publication of what had been ordered opened only for the purpose of identification by the parties. Any photographing of the documents at this particular stage would really be truly improper.
SEN. OSMENA, (J). Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Osmeña.
SEN. OSMENA, (J). Before Congressman Prosecutor Arroyo rose to make a statement, I heard the Chair admonish the photographers not to release the photographs that were taken. I was in the room when this occurred at some distance, and I think all the photographers were photographers of the news publication the media, the print media.
Therefore, Mr. President, may we ask the Court, not only to admonish the photographers but the publishers as well, against using those pictures.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair cannot make that ruling now. We do not know if it will be published.
SEN. OSMENA, (J). Your Honor, it might be too late if it is made after…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will leave it to the responsibility of the media.
SEN. OSMENA, (J). Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Sotto.
SEN. SOTTO. May I know, Mr. Chief Justice, what would happen if they did publish those photographs?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will cross the bridge when we will come to it.
SEN. SOTTO. Thank you.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, just a little three minutes…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Arroyo.
REP. ARROYO. Just the three minutes for Atty. Capulong to finish his observations, just so it’s in the record and we don’t want to take…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Observation on the documents before these are being marked?
REP. ARROYO. No, no. He will just complete his observation. Anyway, the Chair already allowed him to make observations earlier…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes observation, then, with the permission of the defense.
REP. ARROYO. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But, it should be made clear that these observations are not evidence…
REP. ARROYO. We agree.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …and should not be given any weight by the Impeachment Court.
MR. CAPULONG. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, Your Honor, may I be allowed to put the following observations into the record on this case?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, you have three minutes.
MR. CAPULONG. I need only about two minutes or even shorter, Your Honor.
Your Honor, in the bank statement for the period October 1 to 31, 1991 1999, I’m sorry, there are entries here that appear to contain erasures on the column under “Balance”. That’s No. 1.
Incidentally, in this bank statement, this is where the amount of P142 million appears to have been debited against Mis no, debited against this account, and then subsequently credited on the same day, Your Honor.
Now, aside from the erasures that appear under the column “Balance”, the type “Print” is radically different, if Your Honor please, from those that were used in the other bank statements or in the other pages of this bundle of documents consisting of eleven pages, Your Honor, I’m sorry, twelve pages.
Finally, Your Honor, we have here a microfilm of the now controversial check for P142 million drawn against this account. I note, Your Honor, that the signature on this check, again, even without the opinion of a handwriting expert, from a lay person’s view, appears to be radically different from the ledger, the specimen signatures, Your Honor, that appear on this ledger card or cards.
Now finally, Your Honor, in the bank statement, the stationery of the bank appears to have been written as Equitable Bank. In the bank statement, rather in the ledger, Your Honor, containing the specimen signatures, in the two ledgers — I am sorry. In the two specimen cards containing the signatures of the account holder, the stationery is Equitable Banking Corporation. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. As far as counsel for the defense, Your Honors, it’s not our intention to be a witness in this proceedings. We will make no comments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Just an observation, Mr. Chief Justice. While Atty. Capulong was showing the card, this is photographed and being shown all over the country. And so probably in the earlier issue raised, provided the pictures shown in the newspapers cannot be — the contents of the document cannot be read, probably we may allow the publication. But right now, we do not even know if those shown by Atty. Capulong was closed up by these TV cameras.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Really, we would not know if it could be taken.
SEN. BIAZON. And so, may I move, Mr. Chief Justice, that the pictures taken be allowed to be published provided the contents are not readable in the newspapers.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair cannot make any ruling on that, except to say again that the only purpose of the incident this afternoon was the opening of the sealed envelope solely for the purpose of examination and marking by the prosecution. And since these were not even marked, the Court believes that there should be no undue publicity of these documents which have not yet been offered in evidence, not even marked for the purposes for which they were directed to be done.
Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. May I move, if Your Honor please, that the defense now be required to continue presentation of their evidence… Ah, the prosecution. I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The prosecution may now call the next witness.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, just for the record. The entry of appearance of Atty. Maria Elena R. Enriquez, duly approved by the 11-man panel and signed by our Chair, has been filed with the Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record that there is now a formal entry of appearance signed by the Honorable Feliciano — rather, for the entry of appearance of Atty. Ma. Elena R. Enriquez as private prosecutor, as among the private prosecutors assigned by the panel of prosecutors — for and in behalf of the panel of prosecutors, by the Honorable Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.
Atty. Elena Enriquez … Yes, the Honorable Senator and Judge Oreta.
SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I be recognized before the presentation of the next witness?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are recognized, Your Honor.
SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice, when Mrs. Nantes, the branch manager of Equitable PCI Bank, I think it was Timog Tobias Branch, testified that the accounts opened by Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte have an outstanding balance of P=6 million. There is no indication that from the testimony of Mrs. Annie Ngo if the other accounts of Mrs. Ricaforte of the other Equitable PCI Bank branches also have an outstanding balance. There was only one outstanding balance mentioned.
If the records of the bank would show existing balances of these accounts, I respectfully request that an order be issued by the Honorable Chief Justice to immediately place all these funds under the accounts testified by Mrs. Ngo in the court’s custody for proper dispensation. Because it may be proper for the Court to refer the matter to the Solicitor General to study if forfeiture of the funds in favor of the government at this time is the appropriate move. Or in the meantime, what is important is that the Court have legal custody of these funds identified by Miss by Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson as jueteng money.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The understanding of the Chair yesterday was these funds these funds are under garnishment? There was a… I heard of garnishment yesterday. What funds were garnished?
Anyway… Yes, Senator Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I raised that question to the witness and the witness, when asked whether the fund is under garnishment, and the answer was “yes,” except that the last withdrawal, if I am not mistaken, was to have been October 5. And after that withdrawal, there was no more attempt to withdraw any more any part of this deposit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will look into that and I think we would need the transcript of the stenographic notes for us to be clarified on the particular issue before the Court can make the appropriate action toward the goal intended by her Honor, Senator Judge Oreta.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Mr. Chief Justice, the answer of Mrs. Ngo said that it’s just the bank holding this money. But what I manifested, Mr. Chief Justice, was for the government to take hold of this money, just as in the Blue Ribbon in the Blue Ribbon, it was transferred to the Treasury of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We’ll try to look again into the record if there will be enough basis for such an action. And we will consider the appropriate action if, indeed, we will have enough basis for the purpose.
And, by the way, before the presentation of the next witness, just to complete the proceeding on the incident that we had just taken up, copies of the documents inside the sealed envelope, machine copies maybe given to the defense and to the prosecution, with the advice that nothing of these should yet be published and they should consider as their responsibility. Any disclosure of this, because these documents are not yet marked in evidence and these were taken from a sealed envelope, and there is no showing yet that it could be exempted from the operation of Section 2 of Republic Act 1405.
Then after that, the original documents shall be returned to the envelope and sealed again with the signature of the representative of the parties and to be kept at the Senate vault, to await further orders from the Impeachment Court.
The second witness… The next witness now for the prosecution.REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness, Mr. Chief Justice, is Rufo Colayco. Examining counsel is Prosecutor Congressman Roan Libarios; assisting counsel is Dean Amado D. Valdez, while Atty. Zosimo Alegre will appear as counsel for personal counsel for the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The personal counsel should be seated at the assigned seats for the private prosecutors not near the witness.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness now. And Prosecutor Libarios, be ready.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, we are now calling to the witness stand as our next witness for the prosecution, Mr. Rufo Colayco.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Colayco, are you around? At the holding room? The Secretary should send somebody to fetch the witness.
Who would be the cross examining counsel for the defense and the assisting counsel?
Atty. Mendoza, would you make the announcement?
MR. MENDOZA. May we defer naming precisely who the examining counsel, Mr. Chief Justice. Because actually although we agreed for his presentation, we are entirely unfamiliar as to the nature of his testimony and we are not able to anticipate. But meanwhile, I will take over making objections to the questions.
Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For purposes of the objections, for instance, you have to have somebody assigned already.
MR. MENDOZA. For that purpose I will undertake the responsibility with the assistance of …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your assisting counsel?
MR. MENDOZA. … Atty. Flaminiano. But as far as cross examining, another member of the defense panel will perhaps do so, Your Honor, cross examine.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you agree to that? It’s a modification of the earlier agreement, Prosecutor Libarios?
REP. LIBARIOS. We are amenable, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And you agree?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.
Administer the oath on the witness.
THE SECRETARY. Please stand up.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness, please rise.
THE SECRETARY. Raise your right hand.
You, Rufo Colayco, 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. COLAYCO. Yes.
THE SECRETARY. Please sit down.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat.
Prosecutor Libarios, your witness.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, we are offering in evidence the testimony of this witness to establish and prove the following:
Number one, that sometime in February, 1999, the witness was called by the President to Malacañang to discuss about the plan to set up a gambling casino in Clark;
Number two, that it was the President who introduced Governor Chavit Singson to Jesus Pineda for them to establish a casino in Fontana Resort known as the Fontainbleau;
Number three, that Jesus Pineda became involved with Governor Chavit Singson in the Fontainbleau gambling casino project at the instance of the President;
And number four, that the President is the beneficial owner of the Fontainbleau, a corporation organized and funded from the proceeds of the jueteng collections;
Number five, that Fontainbleau entered into a lease agreement with Fontana Resort through its owner RN Development Corporation for the use of its convention center as the site of the proposed gambling casino;
Number six, that Fontainbleau transferred its assets which were actually acquired from jueteng collections and waived its right to operate a casino in favor of Fontana through the owner, RN Development Corporation;
Number seven, that Charlie “Atong” Ang, a known presidential crony, brokered the deal between Fontainbleau and Fontana through its owner RN Development Corporation;
And number eight, that Fontana Resort, including the casino, was eventually acquired by the President through Lucio Co, a known presidential crony.
And we are further offering the testimony of this witness, Your Honor, to corroborate the previous testimony of Governor Chavit Singson and Carmencita Itchon that jueteng collections were used to fund the Fontainbleau project, Casino project; and that the assets of Fontainbleau were later on transferred to Fontana; and that Fontana was later on acquired by the President through Lucio Co.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is now yours.
Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I inquire whether this evidence is being offered in connection with Article I, first charge?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor, it is in connection with Article I, particularly the involvement of the President in the jueteng collections under Charge No. 1.
MR. MENDOZA. There are overtones in the offer that this evidence may have implications on Article II. I would like, therefore, to make it clear that this evidence is being offered solely and exclusively in connection with Article I of the charges.
REP. LIBARIOS. May I have the…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you agree to that, Prosecutor Libarios…
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please. This…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …that is, the testimony of this witness would be solely and exclusively for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment?
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please. I think it should be without prejudice to the possible adoption by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later on when you will call the witness. Just like in the case of Governor Singson then.
So, for the moment it would be exclusively and solely to prove Article I.
MR. MENDOZA. Because we have this problem, whether we could object to questions, for example, ownership of a certain asset, not necessarily in connection with jueteng; then later on, the prosecution may say, “This is one of the assets which was not declared in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities which would be a charge under Article II.â€
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, you can object to the question.
MR. MENDOZA. So, we we’ll have to object…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And I think that the counsel for the prosecution should see to it that, as promised by him, the evidence to be elicited must only be for Article I.
REP. LIBARIOS. We agree, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Mr. Witness, can you please state your name?
MR. COLAYCO. I am Rufo Colayco.
REP. LIBARIOS. How about your civil status, are you married?
MR. COLAYCO. Married.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your address?
MR. COLAYCO. 14th Floor, 6760 Ayala Avenue.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can you also state your educational attainment?
MR. COLAYCO. I have a bachelor’s degree in History and Government from Ateneo; and a Master of Business Administration from Harvard.
REP. LIBARIOS. For the record, can you also tell us your professional background?
MR. COLAYCO. I was a partner in SGV and Company for 13 years; after which, I was a partner in the Arthur Andersen regional office in Hong Kong for two years; and thereafter, for the next eight years, I was a chief executive of the Kuok Group of Companies in the Philippines which are best known as the owners and operators of the Shangri-La Hotels; and finally, in 1998, I became the president of Clark.
REP. LIBARIOS. What do you mean by “Clark�
MR. COLAYCO. The Clark Development Corporation.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can you tell us what is this Clark Development Corporation?
MR. COLAYCO. Clark Development Corporation is the entity by which the government implemented its program to convert the former United States Air Force Base into a special economic zone; and it continues to be the entity that administers that zone.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, how did you become the president of Clark Development Corporation?
MR. COLAYCO. I was appointed the president of Clark Development Corporation in 1998 shortly after President Estrada took office.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, as president of Clark Development Corporation, can you tell us what was your primary duty or responsibility?
MR. COLAYCO. As president of CDC, Clark Development Corporation, my basic task was to oversee the administration of the entire zone. I wish to note that an important aspect to that task was to deal with prospective investors to provide a way to suitability, and ultimately to enter into agreements with them so that they could operate in the zone.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Colayco, do you know Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, I do.
REP. LIBARIOS. How did you come to know Governor “Chavit” Singson?
MR. COLAYCO. In mid February 1999, I was summoned by the President to Malacañang for a meeting and when I arrived there at his office in the Presidential Residence he was with Governor Chavit Singson. He introduced me to Governor Chavit Singson.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what happened in that meeting in Malacañang?
MR. COLAYCO. The President started out by saying, “The governor had been extremely helpful during the past election,” and that he, therefore, felt it was appropriate to reciprocate.
REP. LIBARIOS. And can you recall what did you take up during that meeting in Malacañang?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, the President wanted to discuss the proposed gambling casino project that we started in Fontana resort in Clark. And it was for that purpose that he wished to provide Governor Singson with a gambling casino license.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what else did the President tell you, if any?
MR. COLAYCO. He also told me that he had introduced Governor Singson to Mr. Jesus Pineda or Susing Pineda as he’s known, to… well, who was connected with the Fontana Leisure Park. He said that it was his desire that Governor Singson and Mr. Pineda be partners in the gambling casino venture in Clark.
REP. LIBARIOS. You mentioned about Fontana, can you please describe to us what is this Fontana and where it is located.
MR. COLAYCO. Fontana, you might say, is the other major resort in Clark, more famous and larger than Mimosa. Fontana is a two hundred hectare resort which features sports and recreation facilities as well as residential villas.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, at that time can you tell us the owner or operator of the Fontana Resort?
MR. COLAYCO. At that time, the owner of the resort was Robin Tan and his family through a holding company called RN Development Corporation.
REP. LIBARIOS. You earlier said that in a meeting in Malacañang, the President mentioned to you the name of Jesus Pineda who was supposed to be the partner of Chavit Singson in the casino project. Do you know this person Jesus Pineda?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, I had known Susing Pineda for many years before that meeting and I was aware that he was a classmate of the President, a good friend of the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you know that he is a good friend, this Pineda is a good friend of the President?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, I had knowledge of that even.. and in fact I recall that about the same time that I was appointed as president of Clark, Susing Pineda was appointed as a director of the National Power Corporation. And more recently, I think in July of this year, he was also appointed as director of Clark Development Corporation and now serves as well as a member of the Executive Committee of the company.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, after that meeting in Malacanang, can you recall if you had a discussion with Susing Pineda or Jesus Pineda regarding the casino project?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, of course, we had to have meetings in order to implement the project.
MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please, it’s quite… all of these testimonies appeared to be immaterial. May I inquire whether at some point, these testimonies will be linked to jueteng collections?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think counsel has been trying to lay the basis. The objection might be premature at this stage.
REP. LIBARIOS. This is only a preliminary, Your Honor, and the testimony of this witness now will be very, very significant in the course of the proceedings, Your Honor, particularly in relation to the establishment of the Fontainbleau Casino project, which according to previous testimonies was being funded through the use of jueteng collections.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the questions lead toward that objective to avoid any objection.
REP. LIBARIOS. So you said you had a discussion with Jesus Pineda after the meeting in Malacañang….
MR. COLAYCO. Yes.
REP. LIBARIOS. …can you please recall that?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, we had certainly had more than one meeting. We met frequently in Clark. Susing Pineda was, more or less, resident in Fontana. So, in the course of those many meetings – Well, first of all, he had told me that they were forming a corporation called “Fontainbleau†which was to implement the gambling casino project. And that, in fact, the casino itself would bear the same name Fontainbleau.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what else did you discuss, if any?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, I mentioned that we had frequent conversations and – at a couple of those, he disclosed to me that he had serious misgiving and extreme discomfort about becoming the business partner of Governor Chavit Singson, to the extent that I suggested to him that he ask his friend and classmate, the President, if it indeed was a requirement that for him to have a casino — that he would be in partnership with the Governor.
MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. May I request that the witness answer only the questions directed and he does not make a narration because that would not enable us to make objections. For example, many of the – much of the testimony of the witness is hearsay and we are unable to make an objection because the witness simply made a narration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is advised to answer the question and not to make a narration of facts, because that could anyway be elicited by succeeding questions.
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. LIBARIOS. So what else happened after that?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, he went to ask the President because he came back to me and said, “Talagang kailangan kong maging partner si Chavit eh. ‘Yun ang gusto ng Presidente na mag-partner kami.â€
MR. MENDOZA. I move to strike out, the answer is hearsay.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What must be the ground of the objection?
MR. MENDOZA. Hearsay.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, with all due respect, the testimony of the witness is…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. It cannot be hearsay insofar as the witness testimony is concerned, because he was there.
MR. MENDOZA. This is in connection with what Mr. Pineda told him as to what the President stated.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To that part probably, but insofar as that portion in connection with which he was himself a participant.
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. As far as matters of his personal knowledge but not as far as to matters which he states were narrated to him by Mr. Pineda, as in regard conversations with the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. May I now proceed,Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You must. Proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, aside from that meeting in Malacañang with the President where you discussed about the casino project, did you have on any other occasion discussed also with the President the same casino project?
MR. COLAYCO. I can recall at least one other occasion.
REP. LIBARIOS. When was that?
MR. COLAYCO. When? It was in June 1999.
REP. LIBARIOS. Where?
MR. COLAYCO. In Tokyo.
REP. LIBARIOS. And why were you in Tokyo at that time?
MR. COLAYCO. I was there because the President was there. He was on a presidential visit to Tokyo and I took advantage as it were of the occasion to promote Clark to Japanese investors by scheduling meetings with them in Tokyo during the time when the President was there. I flew there separately but I was there at the same time.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what happened while you were in Tokyo in June?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, as I said, I had those meetings but what I recall is that — in connection with the casino was that, one day Mr. Jaime Dichaves, who I knew to be a close friend of the President, advised me that the President was rather upset because the casino, the gambling casino project in Clark, after some months had not progressed to the point where it was in operation.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what did you do after being informed by Jaime Dichaves that the President was upset over the delay in the casino project?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, I went to the President and I asked to talk to him.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what else happened after that?
And what did you do after being informed by Jaime Dichaves that the President was upset over the delay in the casino project?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, I went to the President and I asked to talk to him.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what else happened after that?
MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor, please. I think the preliminary questions have now taken all of 15 minutes. The President is not being charged here for helping put up a casino. There is no such charge.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prosecutor may have a different style of presenting preliminary questions, it maybe a little longer. Let’s see how far he can go on the preliminary matters.
MR. MENDOZA. Perhaps another ten minutes.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor, please, let me clarify…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us just listen first to the prosecutors.
REP. LIBARIOS. Let me just make this clarification, Your Honor, that one of the major components in the charge under Article I is that funds from jueteng were channeled through the Fontainbleau Casino, Your Honor. So the circumstances behind the ownership of the Fontainbleau Casino are very relevant, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If you have that objective, then you can pursue that. The only observation of the defense counsel is the preliminary questions have been too long.
REP. LIBARIOS. So you said you went to the President, and what was the reaction of the President?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, he asked me why it was taking so long. And it became evident to me that he thought it was Clark Development Corporation that was holding up things. So I explained to him that it was not Clark but that other problems were preventing the project from moving forward. That seemed to satisfy him.
REP. LIBARIOS. So, aside from Jaime Dichaves who was present during that visit in Tokyo, Japan, were there any other persons that were also present during that presidential visit to Japan?
MR. COLAYCO. No, the usual. I mean, the usual presidential entourage the members of the Cabinet, high government officials, as well as his friends. I mentioned Mr. Dichaves. And, certainly, I remember Susing Pineda and Chavit Singson being there as well.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Colayco, you mentioned earlier that Fontainbleau was setting up a casino in Clark. Now may we know the role of Clark Development Corporation in connection with the plan to set up a casino in Clark?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes. Well, you see, in addition to having a Pagcor gambling license, in order for a casino to operate in Clark, it would have to have contracts with Clark as well. In fact, in this case, not only with Clark, they had to have agreements in this case between Fontainbleau and Fontana because the venue of the casino was the Fontana Resort.
REP. LIBARIOS. And did you come to know if there was such an agreement between Fontainbleau and Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes. Sometime in April of 1999, Fontainbleau and Fontana signed a lease agreement whereby the existing Convention Center Building of Fontana was to be converted by Fontainbleau into a casino.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, aside from that lease agreement, what else did Fontainbleau do in connection with its casino project?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, naturally, they started their renovation work. But I should mention that long before they even reached any formal agreements, very soon after the February meeting, the renovation had started in Clark. They had started to import paraphernalia and equipment and had paid a lease of about 30 yes, of 30 million to Fontana, all before any formal agreements had been reached, because it was evident to me that this was a high priority fast track project.
REP. LIBARIOS. Aside from a license with CDC, what other license was required for Fontainbleau to operate a casino?
MR. COLAYCO. Sorry?
REP. LIBARIOS. Aside from securing a license with the Clark Development Corporation, do you know if there were other requirements for …
MR. COLAYCO. Ah, yes, yes. I have mentioned that they had started importing paraphernalia and equipment in a big rush. I must admit that Clark was generally a lot strict¬er with a normal, shall I say, locator in Clark. We would normally require strictly that they apply with proper documentation of what they were importing, but we did allow the importation of equipment for the Fontainbleau Casino to proceed even before such formalities had been accomplished because the message was very clear from Malacañang, this is a high priority project that needed to get done very quick¬ly.
REP. LIBARIOS. You earlier said that Fontainbleau had to secure a license from Pagcor. Do you know if Fontain¬bleau applied for a license with Pagcor?
MR. MENDOZA. May I reiterate my objection, Mr. Chief Justice. Whether he applied for a license for Pagcor or not has nothing to do as to the issue of whether jueteng money was used.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As explained by the counsel, it would lead to the establishment of an evidence on jueteng. So, I think, you can go direct to the point. The prelimi¬nary questions may have been quite long already.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor, please, what we are trying to establish is the circumstances behind the estab¬lishment and operation of the Fontainbleau and the circum¬stances of the ownership of this particular corporation, in light of the previous testimonies of other witnesses that this Fontainbleau was setup, organized and funded by jueteng money and collections.
The witness here will not be offering testimony on the jueteng collection, Your Honor, but only to establish the circumstances behind the establishment and the operation of the Fontainbleau and later on of the Fontana, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So he will not testify on the funding of the casino, of these corporations out of proceeds from jueteng. Is that what you mean?
REP. LIBARIOS. He will not be testifying directly on that, Your Honor, because that has been testified already by other witnesses. What witness will be testifying, Your Honor, will be on the circumstances behind the ownership of this particular corporation and the efforts to setup a gambling casino in Clark and this is very relevant, Your Honor, because of the previous testimonies of other witness¬es that the funds used in the establishment of Fontainbleau were actually coming from jueteng collections and subse¬quently, the assets of Fontainbleau were transferred to Fontana and after that Fontana was actually acquired by the President through his cronies.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, this is just part of the totality of the evidence, dovetailing that of the testimony of the previous witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If that is so, the witness may be allowed to answer the question and questions toward that may also be allowed. Anyway, you can cross examine the witness later on.
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. May I just state that in our view even assuming that the President helped in the establishment of Fontainbleau, even if there is a relation¬ship with Fontana, there would absolutely be no connection as to whether jueteng money was used in putting up these establishments…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be insofar as the defense is concerned, but you have another theory insofar as the prosecution is concerned and the latter may be allowed to build the structure of its own evidence, for as long as it is material and relevant to Article I of the Articles of Impeachment.
REP. LIBARIOS. May I now proceed, Your Honor? Mr. Chief Justice, …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the advice that probably you could shorten the preliminaries.
REP. LIBARIOS. Actually, we are now moving into the substance, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then go to the substance now.
REP. LIBARIOS. But we are not proving actually, Your Honor, the witness will not be proving that jueteng money was placed in the casino, Your Honor, but only the circumstances, Your Honor, behind the ownership.
So may I now proceed, Your Honor?
Mr. Colayco, did you know if Fontainbleau was able to apply for a licence with the Pagcor?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, they applied.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what happened to the application for a license for a gambling casino?
MR. COLAYCO. The license could not be issued by Pagcor.
REP. LIBARIOS. Why? What happened?
MR. COLAYCO. The Fontainbleau’s structure did not meet the requirements of Pagcor’s policy, which was this, that for a casino to be qualified to operate in Clark it had to have at the same time a minimum of 200 hotel rooms. The theory being that casinos in Clark are to cater largely to foreign gaming clients and, therefore, the rooms had to be there to accommodate them. In the eyes of Pagcor the lease arrangement between Fontainbleau and Fontana did not meet the requirements.
REP. LIBARIOS. And so, what happened?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, let me explain.
MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please, the witness is practically being asked to make a narration. So, “What happened?” “What happened next?” …on a story which apparently has no connection really with jueteng.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think there was an answer of the witness already to the effect that it was not allowed to operate as a casino.
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. Then he’s asked “What happened?” And then the next he’s going to his next question will be “What happened next?”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you specify, Mr. Counsel?
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may be asking for a general statement of the witness and probably it could it might really be objectionable.
REP. LIBARIOS. Okay. You said that there was a problem in the issuance of a license, can you describe this problem?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, I’ll explain that. Pagcor’s hands were really tied by their own.
REP. LIBARIOS. What do you mean by “Pagcor’s hands were tied?”
MR. COLAYCO. Well, this was the time when the Mimosa controversy was boiling over. And for Pagcor to be found applying a different standard to Fontainbleau that they had done to Mimosa would have made them vulnerable to legal challenge from Mimosa. It had the solution… Sorry.
REP. LIBARIOS. So, what was needed to resolve the problem?
MR. COLAYCO. The solution really would mean that there had to be a common ownership of the casino as of the hotels, which in the case of Fontainbleau and Fontana meant that the owners of the two entities would have to go into a joint venture, almost like a merger businesses. And that was not possible because the owners of Fontana were not prepared to do that.
REP. LIBARIOS. So, how was this problem resolved?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, they had the stalemate which was ultimately resolved when Mr. Atong Ang entered the picture. He brokered the deal between the two sides.
REP. LIBARIOS. You said between the two sides, can you describe these two sides?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, first of all, I have to explain that, while all of this was happening Atong Ang had been talking to Robin Tan of Fontana, and they together agreed that it would a good idea for Fontana to go to Pagcor and seek their own, I mean, Fontana’s own casino license as oppose to Fontainbleau’s. And Pagcor appeared receptive to this idea because under that scheme, the Fontana’s scheme, there would be common ownership of the casino and the hotel rooms. And that met their policies squarely.
REP. LIBARIOS. How did Atong Ang broker the deal between the two sides which you mentioned?
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I reiterate my objection. I do not think we are leading anywhere close to jueteng.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel should first explain.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, we are now trying to establish…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What exactly would you want to establish now?
REP. LIBARIOS. How the Fontainbleau assets were later on transferred to Fontana and how come the transaction proved to be friendly, Your Honor. Because eventually in the course of the testimony of the witness, Your Honor, the President practically acquired Fontana through his crony Lucio Co, Your Honor. And that’s why the circumstances behind the establishment of Fontainbleau and the transfer of the assets to Fontana would be very material, Your Honor, and relevant…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To?
REP. LIBARIOS. … in connection with the movement of funds from Fontainbleau to Fontana, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are these funds jueteng funds already?
REP. LIBARIOS. The previous testimony of other witnesses, Your Honor, have established like Carmencita Itchon, Governor Chavit Singson they both testified, Your Honor, that jueteng funds were used to establish the corporation known as the Fontainbleau and jueteng funds were also used in the operation of the Fontainbleau Casino, Your Honor. But eventually, it was discontinued in favor of Fontana.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would…
REP. LIBARIOS. That is why, Your Honor, we are trying now to establish…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just to cut short the argument, would the witness be able to testify regarding these funds from jueteng?
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, we have already clarified that the witness will not be testifying…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On jueteng.
REP. LIBARIOS. … on jueteng.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
REP. LIBARIOS. But he will be testifying on the Fontainbleau Casino, the operations of the Fontainbleau Casino, the ownership of the Fontainbleau Casino, and how the ownership and the assets of Fontainbleau Casino were transferred to Fontana, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the gentleman, the Chair would recognize the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, as a member of this judging body, I am interested in facts not surmises. I remember that this testimony in the record so far was that 60 or P65 million out of so called jueteng collections were channeled to renovate, establish and operate Fontainbleau. In fact, Senator Judge Legarda and Senator Judge Sergio Osmeña clarified this into the record. No, here in this yes, here. And that’s why, I would just like to point this out because I think what we are hearing now are surmises coming from the prosecution.
REP. LIBARIOS. Just for clarity, Your Honor, the funds used in the establishment and the operation of the Fontainbleau Casino were coming from jueteng. That was established by the previous testimonies of other witnesses, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was established but you will see the objection here.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, what we are trying to do here and establish, Your Honor, is the circumstances behind the operation of the Fontainbleau because that will corroborate the testimony of Chavit Singson and Menchu Itchon that the President has a hand or was actually the one dominating the Fontainbleau Casino and that jueteng funds were used in the operations of the Fontainbleau Casino and later on the funds of Fontainbleau Casino were transferred to Fontana.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. As a member of the judging body, I appeal to the record because the record will bear out the fact that according to all the witness the principal witness that appeared here only 60 million or so of jueteng money collection allegedly went to Fontainbleau.
So, I just want to put that into the record.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, with that testimony on record already, would you still want a corroborative evidence on a witness who, according to you, is not aware even of jueteng as a source?
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the assets of Fontainbleau…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair only would like to get from you facts which would connect the two. Because so far, you have not yet developed the connection.
REP. LIBARIOS. We are moving…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And I think that is exactly the reason why there is an objection.
REP. LIBARIOS. We are moving into that connection, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You move forward to that direction then.
REP. LIBARIOS. And actually, Your Honor, these are new facts not testified to by other witnesses. The circumstances leading to the establishment of Fontainbleau Casino.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Continue. Move forward.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, Mr. Witness, how did Atong Ang broker the deal between Fontainbleau and Fontana?
MR. MENDOZA. I object. How Atong Ang broked the deal is of no relevance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, may I move for…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Prosecutor was advised to move forward already to establishing the link between the corporation and the alleged jueteng money money.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, may I move for a reconsideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The reconsideration is denied. Make another question.
REP. LIBARIOS. How was the entire conflict or the impasse resolved?
MR. MENDOZA. Objection. The same objection.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the objection?
MR. MENDOZA. Irrelevant.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness may answer.
MR. COLAYCO. At the end, Fontainbleau agreed to give way to Fontana.
REP. LIBARIOS. And how did you come to know about that?
MR. MENDOZA. I object. Whether Fontainbleau gave way to Fontana or they did not give way has no relevance at all, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection overruled. He was only asking whether how he came to know about it.
MR. COLAYCO. I was in the midst of all these events and I saw them happening.
REP. LIBARIOS. You said that Fontainbleau gave way to Fontana. What happened to the assets of Fontainbleau?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, first of all, they rescinded the contract between the two of them, sir. And then, as I mentioned, Fontainbleau Fontainbleau withdrew their application to PAGCOR for a license and supported the application of Fontana. And finally, Fontainbleau simply moved their assets namely, the equipment and the paraphernalia that they had imported, all their work that they had done on the building. All of these were transferred over to Fontana.
REP. LIBARIOS. After the assets of Fontainbleau were transferred to Fontana, and after Fontana withdrew its application for casino in favor of after Fontainbleau withdrew the application for casino license in favor of Fontana, what else happened to Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, the next step was for Atong Ang and Robin Tan to pursue their negotiations by which Atong Ang was to acquire an ownership interest in Fontana. Because that was that was the heart of the whole thing. That was how they would qualify under PAGCOR.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what happened to the negotiations?
MR. COLAYCO. The negotiations initially went very well. They seemed to get along. But after awhile, they turned really bad.
REP. LIBARIOS. They turned really bad. What do you mean by that?
MR. COLAYCO. In the course of the negotiations, Atong Ang became extremely aggressive, I would say. Extremely aggressive in his manner and in what he was negotiating. He demanded that he acquire 70 percent ownership in Fontana.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what was the reaction of the other party, Robin Tan?
MR. COLAYCO. Robin couldn’t understand why he need why Atong needed to get 70 percent of Fontana and he asked, I mean, “Why do you need to have this much?” And Atong’s reply was, “Eh, kasi ‘yong kalahati niyang sitenta porsiyentong ‘yan ay para kay Presidente ‘yan.”
REP. LIBARIOS. When you said 70 percent, what do you mean by that?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, exactly that, sir, Atong was seeking to acquire 70 percent ownership in the Fontana Resort and he was saying that half of that 70 percent that he was seeking to acquire would be for the benefit of his friend, the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now,…
MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please. May I make of record that if this is intended as evidence under Article II, we object on the ground that it is not among those assets alleged in Article II.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the response of Prosecutor Moreno?
REP. LIBARIOS. We’re still under Article I, Your Honor. His objection is on Article II.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, it is exclusively for Article I.
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor.
MR. MENDOZA. But even for Article I. Anyway, I’m not moving to strike out but I do not see any rational connection between the testimony of the witness and Article I.
REP. LIBARIOS. May I now proceed, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, after Atong Ang was demanding for 70 percent ownership of Fontana, what else happened?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, you might say they had reached their own stalemate. And what I recall clearly is that they all came to a head. On September 8, Atong Ang was invited to the wedding of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver Lopez in Malacanang, and he went there. But he went back to Clark directly from Malacanang at about three the following morning to talk to me.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what did you talk about, if any?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, he wanted to tell me that he and the President had talked in the Palace, the President had congratulated him for the progress he had made in his efforts to acquire ownership in Fontana and that he said, I was expected to do the right thing.
REP. LIBARIOS. To do the right thing?
MR. MENDOZA. Excuse me. May I make of record that as far as far as statements are attributed to the President, they are hearsay, if proof of the facts stated by the President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you objecting or only manifesting?
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, I am moving to strike out.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground?
MR. MENDOZA. On the ground that if these are offered as evidence of the facts derived from the statement of the President then, they are hearsay.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, we are offering this as part of the testimony of the witness and at the same time we are offering this as an independently relevant matter, Your Honor, considering that these…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, in other words, you are not trying to use this as proof of the truth of what Mr. Ang have said.
MR. MENDOZA. As part of the narration.
REP. LIBARIOS. As part of the narration, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Or what the President have said. It’s part of the narration as an independently relevant statement.
REP. LIBARIOS. And as part of the circumstance that Atong Ang was acting and was conducting himself…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that was covered precisely by the objection.
REP. LIBARIOS. … as if he was representing the President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Court would rule that that could only be admitted as independently relevant statement.
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But not to establish the truth of what Ang had said and what the President had said.
REP. LIBARIOS. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. So, what next happened?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, like I said, he told me that I was expected to do the right thing.
REP. LIBARIOS. When you said, “to do the right thing,” what do you mean by that?
MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, may I just so as to facilitate this, may we have an understanding with the prosecutor that testimonies such as these are only part of the narration, in which case I will not object anymore.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you agree to that, Mr. Counsel?
REP. LIBARIOS. Only a partial agreement, Your Honor. All of the testimonies will be part of the declaration of the witness but at the same time, there are independently relevant statements which could be…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You know very well that independently relevant statement cannot be taken as evidence or to establish the truth.
REP. LIBARIOS. But they can be taken, Your Honor, as part of some circumstances that…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless you’ll be able to corroborate, they will remain as independently relevant statement merely as part of the narration.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With that understanding that these are only independently relevant statements and merely part of the narration of the witness, then you may proceed. And I would suppose that there will be no more objection in that regard.
MR. MENDOZA. I will sit down now, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably you are tired, Your Honor, too.
REP. LIBARIOS. You said that to do the right thing, what do you mean by that?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, Mr. Atong Ang was pretty clear about what he meant by that. He noted that Fontana had fallen in arrears of their rental obligations to Clark by that time and so he said that, “You know, why don’t you do to Fontana what you did to Mimosa, namely, cancel that lease and take over the resort?â€
REP. LIBARIOS. And what was your reaction to the proposal of Atong Ang?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, I had to point out to him that Clark would have had no legal leg to stand on in trying to do something like that. I told him it was out of the question.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, after you told Atong Ang that you cannot comply with his directive or request, what else happened?
MR. COLAYCO. That was pretty much the end of that negotiation he had with Robin. Not long afterwards, they stopped talking to each other. Atong vacated his villa in Clark and left. And I came to know later on that he had gone into business in Jai Alai with Pagcor.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, after Atong Ang left the Fontana, what happened in Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. I came to know that Lucio Co, the operator of the largest duty free shop in Clark and close friend of the President, had begun to negotiate to acquire the Fontana Resort.
REP. LIBARIOS. And were you able to verify whether Lucio Co has acquired ownership of Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, in November, he acknowledged…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection…
MR. MENDOZA. Objection.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … would you please hold on.
MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please, now we are moving to Lucio Co. This is going to be another series of narrations. Even though, technically perhaps, questions such as this may be tolerated, but I had always the impression that the time of the Court is valuable and it is the defense’ desire also to finish this proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Now we are close already to having a break. But as to this time, I don’t think there has been any testimony that has been offered which is of any substantial value.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would …
REP. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor please, let me clarify.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If you want to clarify, it should not be an explanation of facts to be proved.
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because, otherwise, you will be giving the message of what could be the answer…
REP. LIBARIOS. I understand, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … although the witness is a very intelligent witness.
REP. LIBARIOS. But let me clarify, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But if your purpose is only just to show again what happened to it, in like manner that you did demonstrate insofar as Ang is concerned, the manifestation will stand and the agreement can be had again if you will offer it merely as an independently relevant statement and only as part of the narration but not as to the truth of the testimony given by that other party, unless the same would be corroborated by an admissible evidence.
REP. LIBARIOS. We have already made that particular clarification.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the same, the same?
REP. LIBARIOS. The same, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. O, would you be satisfied, Atty. Mendoza?
MR. MENDOZA. As far as we are concerned, the defense would suffer no prejudice at all. But what I am afraid is that the one who suffers prejudice is the entire proceedings. Time is wasted and, as I said, we have practically spent a whole hour on this matter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How long would be that narration of facts to be treated only as independently relevant statement?
REP. LIBARIOS. We will be moving, Your Honor, into the testimony of the witness about Lucio Co. This will be the last part now.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If you made the offer already – the purpose, would you not be satisfied with that?
REP. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor please, let me just clarify that in the testimony of Chavit Singson, he mentioned that Fontana was eventually taken over by the President through his friends and cronies. And that part of the money or the asset of Fontainbleau went to Fontana, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. Thank you, Your Honor.
Were you able to verify whether Lucio Co acquired ownership of Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes. Lucio Co acknowledged in November of 1999 that he had acquired ownership of the Fontana Resort.
REP. LIBARIOS. When was this?
MR. COLAYCO. November of 1999.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And what happened to the license application for a gambling casino which was being processed by Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. In December…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was that not answered before?
REP. LIBARIOS. No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet?
MR. COLAYCO. In December, after Lucio Co acquired ownership of Fontana, Pagcor issued a gambling license to the Fontana Casino.
REP. LIBARIOS. Do you know this Lucio Co, Mr. Colayco?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes. As I mentioned earlier, he is the operator of the largest duty free shop in Clark and the good friend of the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you know that he is a good friend of the President?
MR. MENDOZA. Objection, Your Honor. Whether he is a good friend or not a good friend has no probative weight insofar as whether jueteng collections…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer. He is establishing the basis.
MR. MENDOZA. …for this purpose.
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, Your Honor. In July ’98, shortly after we both took office, the President visited Clark and introduced Lucio Co to me on that occasion as his good friend and he instructed me to give Lucio Co a license to operate a gasoline station in Clark.
REP. LIBARIOS. And did you issue the corresponding license to Lucio Co as directed by the President?
MR. MENDOZA. Objection, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the basis of the objection?
MR. MENDOZA. Whether Mr. Lucio Co and Mr. Lucio Co is not a party to this thing, was given a license for duty free or whatever has no relevance to the proceedings before the Impeachment Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on this issue,…
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, can I make a counter.
MR. MENDOZA. …will have to sustain the objection.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can I make a clarification, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A clarification meaning, you are asking for…
REP. LIBARIOS. A motion for reconsideration, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. What is the ground for the reconsideration?
REP. LIBARIOS. It is that the particular testimony, Your Honor, is very relevant because we are establishing now that Lucio Co is actually acting in behalf of the President. And we will be able to establish later on, Your Honor, that…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With this witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor — with other witnesses, Your Honor. We are only trying to lay the predicate for other witnesses to come into the picture and establish, Your Honor, that Fontana was actually acquired.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If this witness would lay the predicate for other witnesses and, therefore, for the dovetailing of the evidence later on, the witness may answer the question.
MR. COLAYCO. The question was, did I provide the license that the President asked me to give him? Yes, eventually. But it took us a long time because there were many other applicants before Mr. Co came around.
REP. LIBARIOS. How come there were many applicants for that gas station?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, you have to understand that a gasoline station in Clark is far more profitable than the gasoline stations elsewhere. They do not pay for the specific taxes on fuel in Clark. And that’s why there was so much interest in establishing one in Clark.
REP. LIBARIOS. And were you able to grant the license in favor of Lucio Co?
MR. COLAYCO. Many months later, in early 1999, I signed a lease agreement with a company that had been established by Mr. Lucio Co for the purpose. The name of the company was the Gold One Enterprises, Incorporated. The owner of record at that time was Susan Co, the spouse of Mr. Lucio Co.
REP. LIBARIOS. You said at that time, what do you mean by that?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, subsequently, Mrs. Co transferred ownership of the Gold One Enterprises to individuals who turned out to be employees and associates in the law firm of Serapio.
REP. LIBARIOS. Who is this Serapio which you mentioned?
MR. COLAYCO. I understand he’s a lawyer that is somehow involved in this litigation.
REP. LIBARIOS. You said, Mr. Colayco, that sometime in December a license was issued by Pagcor in favor of Fontana, what happened after the issuance of that license?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, the next step was for Lucio Co and, well, Fontana and Clark to negotiate the terms of the contract between us. And so on January 31st of this year, Mr. Lucio Co was in my office to do that.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what happened while he was in your office?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, we got stuck very quickly on the most important provision of the contract, namely…
REP. LIBARIOS. What is that provision?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, that was the percentage of the casino revenues that Clark should share. Mr. Co proposed that Clark have no share and instead should pay a minimal regular rent, fixed rent.
REP. LIBARIOS. And how did you react to the proposal of Lucio Co?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, that was, as far as I was concerned, unacceptable, because our contract with Mimosa had provided Clark with a 5 percent share in its revenues.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what was your proposal?
MR. COLAYCO. I said it had to be the same, 5 percent, and Mr. Co suggested that perhaps, at most, we might go up to 1 percent.
REP. LIBARIOS. And did you reach an agreement during that meeting?
MR. MENDOZA. May we reiterate our objection to this series of questions, Your Honor.
REP. LIBARIOS. These would be the last two questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make the last two questions.
MR. COLAYCO. No, because we are too far apart and just to get out of that office, I said to him, “I am leaving for a two-day out-of-town trip tomorrow. I think we should discuss this further when I come back.
REP. LIBARIOS. And were you able to discuss the matter after that?
MR. COLAYCO. No, no, because on the following morning, I flew to Hong Kong, and in the afternoon of that same day in Hong Kong, I received that phone call from Manila that at noon, President Estrada had signed the appointment papers of my replacement.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is all for the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Cross-examination. And who will conduct it? The Honorable Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I think it’s time for the second regular break, so I move for a 20-minute break.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. Twenty minutes, twenty minutes. Yes, the Majority Leader again.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. May I temporarily withdraw that motion to allow the defense to…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make a manifestation?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. … make a manifestation.
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Colayco will be happy to hear that the defense has no cross-examination.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No cross-examination. Any redirect?
REP. LIBARIOS. No redirect, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is now excused. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I reiterate my motion, Mr. Chief Justice, for a 20-minute suspension.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It being a regular break, approved without any objection.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 5:59 P.M..
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 6:19 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.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed.
SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I know if the witness has already gone out? Because I would like to ask some questions in accordance with our rules.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is recalled.
SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Colayco. (Pause) You are recalled to testify on questions by members of the Impeachment Court, and the Chair recognizes the Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano for the question; then after that, the Honorable Senator Judge Leviste; then the Honorable Senator Judge Biazon.
SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Mr. Colayco, ang huling huling testimony ninyo ay kayo ay dinismiss or fired by the President. Ano ho ang dahilan?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi ko po alam kasi hindi naman kami nag usap ng Presidente. Nalaman ko na lang no’ng tinawagan ako sa Hong Kong na naglagay na siya ng kapalit ko roon sa Clark. So, talagang hindi ko alam kung ano ‘yong dahilan ng pagpapalit sa akin.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ang nakausap ho ba niyo mismo si Pangulong Erap tungkol sa pagtanggal sa inyo bilang Presidente?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi. Ang nagbalita sa akin, tinawagan ako sa Hong Kong, si Chairman Rogelio Singson ng Clark na concurrently chairman ng BCDA.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ngayon ho, nagbigay kayo ng testimonya na sinasabi nga ninyo ay may kinalaman si Pangulo tungkol sa pagtatayo ng Fontainbleau at saka dito sa mga personalidad na nabanggit niyo gaya ng pagka introduce sa inyo kay Chavit Singson. Ito ba’y palagay niyo ay kaya kayo nagtestigo dito ay dahil may sama kayo ng loob kay Pangulong Erap dahil kayo ay pinasibat?
MR. COLAYCO. Maaari hong maging ganoon ang isip no’ng ibang tao. Pero, ang sa katotohanan po, alam po naman no’ng ibang naka kumbaga napanood ‘yong pag alis ko sa Clark, na no’ng ako’y pinalitan ni Presidente, ako’y gumawa lamang ng napakaikling statement. Ang sabi ko na, “It is the fundamental prerogative of every chief executive to hire and fire his people. And it is therefore not for anyone, least of all me, to even ask why. If the President has made the decision to change leadership in Clark, then it is time for me to go.” At ako’y basta umalis pagkaraan ng mga dalawang araw. Nag turn over ako sa humalili sa akin at wala namang nakarinig siguro ng kung ano man akong nasabi na minamasama ko ‘yong ginawa ni Presidente.
Ako’y laki sa private sector. Sa professional management, walang tenure, eh. Pagka hindi na nasisiyahan sa inyo ang iyong boss o maski pa dahil hindi nasisiyahan dahil mayroon lang kailangang pagbabago, understood ‘yon, papalitan ka, tatanggapin mo ‘yon.
SEN. CAYETANO. Paano ho kayo naging testigo ngayon, kayo ba’y inimbita ng prosecution o kayo’y nag kusang loob?
MR. COLAYCO. Ako’y tinawagan ng prosecution at gusto nila akong magtestigo.
SEN. CAYETANO. At kayo’y narito ngayon para magsabi ng katotohanan, totoo ho ba ‘yon?
MR. COLAYCO. Opo. Ang sabi ko nga, ako po rito’y isang testigo. I am a witness, not an accuser.
SEN. CAYETANO. At ‘yong sinabi ninyo sa amin kanina ay hindi dahilang kayo was fired by the President.
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi ho ganoon ‘yon.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ang ibig niyo hong ipadating sa amin bilang mga hurado ay nagsasabi kayo ng katotohanan.
MR. COLAYCO. Opo. At siguro po naman, malinaw na ako’y sumasagot lang sa itinatanong sa akin.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ang isa sa mga sinabi n’yo at ito ay tinanong sa inyo ng prosecution ay pinapahiwatig nila na may kinalaman daw si Pangulo sa pagtatayo ng Fontainbleau. ‘Yan ay base ho ba sa personal knowledge niyo?
MR. COLAYCO. ‘Yon hong nai testigo ko, ‘yon ang alam ko.
SEN. CAYETANO. ‘Yon ang alam niyo.
MR. COLAYCO. Opo.
SEN. CAYETANO. At wala na kayong nakalimutan pang iba?
MR. COLAYCO. Palagay ko, kumbaga, I have I think the prosecution has asked me most of the or virtually all the substantial questions.
SEN. CAYETANO. Maraming salamat sa inyo, Mr. Colayco.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Leviste.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.Ginoong Colayco, sinabi po niyo sa inyong testimonya na ang may ari ng Fontana Resort ay isang ginoong ngalang Mr. Robin Tan, hindi ba ho?
MR. COLAYCO. Noong simula ho ‘yon, hindi na po ngayon.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Noong simula, opo, no’ng 1998.
MR. COLAYCO. Noong 1998, opo.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. At sinabi rin po ninyo na may kaalaman kayo sa pagpatayo ng korporasyon na nagngangalang “Fontainbleau” na may kinalaman si Pangulong Estrada doon. Sinabi po ninyo iyon?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi ko sinabing si …Ang sinabi ko, inabisuhan ako ni Susing Pineda na sila ni Chavit ay nagtatayo ng korporasyong may ngalang Fontainbleau na magtatatag ng gambling casino na ganoon din ang pangalan.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Pero hindi po ninyo sinasabi at wala kayong tunay na kaalaman na si Pangulong Estrada ay nagpatatag ng isang korporasyon na Fontainbleau ang pangalan.
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi ko po alam iyon at hindi ko po sinabi iyon.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Hmmn. Just a clarification.
At sinabi rin n’yo kanina na ang Fontainbleau ay dapat magtayo ng casino sa Fontana at naglagay ng pera para sa improvements sa itatatag na casino under the corporation called “Fontainbleau”, is that correct?
MR. COLAYCO. That’s right.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. At sinabi rin n’yo na hindi naituloy dahil may mga requirements na hindi na fulfill sa Pagcor?
MR. COLAYCO. Opo.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. At ngayon ay mayroon na ngang casino sa Fontana pero ito’y, kung tinatawag na “in house” na dahil hindi nga natuloy iyong Fontainbleau Resort. Fontainbleau casino sa Fontana…
MR. COLAYCO. Opo. Ang kahulugan ho niyon ay kasi, itong Fontana ang may ari ng casino at ng resort, ang mga guest house, guest rooms, ay iisa lang korporasyon. Kaya, sila ay qualified, so to speak, under the Pagcor policy.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Mayroon ba kayong kaalaman kung mayroon ba at magkano ang pera na na infuse ni Mr. or Governor Chavit Singson sa Fontainbleau para sa improvement sa casino, sa Fontana Resort na dapat itayo doon?
MR. COLAYCO. Ang pagkakaalam ko noong panahon ko doon, ang halagang madalas kong marinig ay iyong P34 million.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thirty four million pesos na nanggaling kay Governor Singson na ibinigay sa Fontainbleau para sa Fontana improvements for the casino, is that correct?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, that’s correct.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Mayroon din kayong binanggit na mga assets o equipment na galing sa Fontainbleau na pinass on na lang sa Fontana because according to you, if I remember correctly, Fontainbleau waived its rights in favor of Fontana, is that correct?
MR. COLAYCO. That’s correct.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Ano pong ibig sabihin n’yo sa mga assets na ito? Are these equipment? Ano po ang mga ito?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi ko ho masasabi sa inyo ngayon kung ano iyong breakdown. Pero doon sa 34 million na iyon, ang pagkakatanda ko, kasama na roon iyong halaga nung renovation at iyon na ring halaga ng mga in import nilang kagamitan para sa casino.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Dahil iba ho ang mga may ari o mga incorporators ng Fontainbleau sa mga may ari ng casino ngayon ng Fontana, were these assets or equipment purchased? Or, were they just handed over to Fontana Resort?
MR. COLAYCO. In effect, they were handed over without… as far as I can tell, without consideration.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Walang bayad po?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi ko po masasabi sa inyo na tiyakan ngayon kung ganoon na nga iyon. Pero iyon po ang pagkakatanda ko.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Finally, mayroon ba kayong kaalaman na sinasabi ni Governor Singson na ang pera na ginamit sa pag improve ng casino sa Fontana Resort, na galing sa korporasyon na Fontainbleau na kanilang itinayo ay galing sa jueteng?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi po ako nakarinig ng ganoon kay Governor Chavit Singson.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Never in your association with him has he mentioned this to you?
MR. COLAYCO. No.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Colayco, what’s the powers and the functions of Clark Development Corporation?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, Clark Development Corporation has the power to manage the Clark Special Economic Zone. That would include the granting of contracts and licenses to entities that wish to operate in the Zone.
SEN. BIAZON. Meaning, you control the grant of contracts and licenses?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, that’s right.
SEN. BIAZON. This grant of contracts and licenses, does it require presidential approval?
MR. COLAYCO. In the normal course of things, no.
SEN. BIAZON. You don’t have to get the approval of the President?
MR. COLAYCO. No.
SEN. BIAZON. Now, in your discussion with Fontana, there was your mention about the owner of Fontana offering to enter into contract or arrangement with Clark Development Corporation, offering one percent?
MR. COLAYCO. Yes, I mentioned that after Fontana had been acquired by Mr. Lucio Co, and after Pagcor had issued a gambling license a gambling casino license to Fontana, the next step was for Mr. Lucio Co, the new owner, to negotiate with us in Clark, the terms under which, in turn, Clark would grant the Fontana Casino a contract to operate in Clark.
SEN. BIAZON. And their offer is to pay you one percent?
MR. COLAYCO. Initially, they proposed “no share” in the revenues but rather a minimal, regular fixed rental payment. I must confess I do not remember the figure that applies to the fixed payment.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, and how much was the similar company, Mimosa, paying in terms of percentage?
MR. COLAYCO. As I stated, the contract of Clark with Mimosa on virtually an identical subject provided a five percent share in revenues for Clark.
SEN. BIAZON. All right. Did anybody among your superiors instruct you specifically, to grant a contract or enter into contract with Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. No.
SEN. BIAZON. No? And this is even after the offer by Fontana of paying you one percent was made?
MR. COLAYCO. Well, in that negotiation that morning, we ended that conversation when Mr. Co said that he couldn’t go beyond the one percent, and I said that I was not prepared to accept that. And that is why, we agreed to disagree for that morning and to meet again after I would have returned from my two day trip to Hong Kong.
SEN. BIAZON. Uh huh.
MR. COLAYCO. But as I narrated, I was replaced the following day.
SEN. BIAZON. You were replaced after this non agreement…
MR. COLAYCO. Yes.
SEN. BIAZON. …with Mr. Lucio Co?
MR. COLAYCO. That’s right.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other…
The Honorable Senator Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Witness, you have been very admirably candid and forthright during your testimony, and I shall try to reciprocate this courtesy by being similarly brief in the question.
Before starting on your direct examination, the Prosecutor notified the Court that one of the purposes of calling you to the witness stand was for you to corroborate the prior allegations made by another prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Singson, that illegal jueteng money was allegedly used by President Estrada in acquiring Fontana.
My question to you is, was that your intention to corroborate a prior allegation by another witness, that illegal jueteng money was used by President Estrada to acquire ownership or possession of Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Not directly.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Is it your intention what is your intention during your testimony to corroborate it indirectly? And if so, would you please clarify to the Court, in what way?
MR. COLAYCO. If I may. My posture in coming to this Tribunal is that I come as a witness, not an accuser; as a private citizen who happens to possess knowledge of events and facts that may have relevance to the evaluation that the Senator Judges have taken as a responsibility to do. I felt it was virtually my obligation as a citizen of the nation, to provide that knowledge, no more, no less.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. And indeed you did.
Well, let me put it in another way. Do you have any personal knowledge? Did you see, hear, touch or perceive in any other way, any activity or conduct that tends to indicate or to support the proposition that illegal jueteng money was used by President Estrada, to acquire Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Your Honor, obviously, I would have formed my mind on that issue. However, …
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. But the question … Please allow me to interject. I might break your train of thought but this is important.
The Rules of Court allows a witness — and in fact your distinguished father may have informed you on some occasion or other. The Rules of Court, in fact, require a witness to testify only as to his own personal knowledge. So my question will be directed only as to your personal knowledge regardless of how intelligent your conclusions might be drawn from your personal knowledge. Still, I will just confine myself to what the Rules of Court require us to deal with — your personal knowledge.
Do you have any personal knowledge?
MR. COLAYCO. I cannot think of anything … to be honest, I am not sure I comprehend your question quite well.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Do you have any personal knowledge that illegal jueteng money was used by President Estrada to acquire Fontana, independently of your surmises or your speculation or your conjecture as admittedly intelligent person or businessman? Do you have personal knowledge? Did you actually see or hear or touch or smell anything? That’s how it is defined …
MR. COLAYCO. No.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. … that’s how personal knowledge is defined by the Rules of Court.
MR. COLAYCO. As I have stated to another query by one of the other senator-judges, I have no knowledge of how jueteng money, if any, ever got into Fontainbleau or Fontana. What I have done today is to provide information which the prosecution may or may not believe is relevant towards the conclusion that they have proposed. But that’s all I was doing, providing information.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. That is commendedly candid and forthright. Thank you.
MR. COLAYCO. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a reservation by the Honorable Senator-Judge Juan Flavier, and after that we will recognize the Honorable Honasan and then the Honorable Guingona.
SEN. FLAVIER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask one small question please?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.
SEN. FLAVIER. Mr. Rufo Colayco, in the so-called ledger or listahan, almost all the abbreviations were identified by Governor Singson except one, a Mr. R.C. Would you by any chance be that man?
MR. COLAYCO. No.
SEN. FLAVIER. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator-Judge Honasan.
SEN. HONASAN. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ginoong Colayco, alam ho natin na iyong mga pananaw ninyo ay personal pero batay ito sa sariling kaalaman. Nabanggit ninyo kanina na si Ginoong Susing Pineda ay nagpahayag na hindi siya kumportable kay Governor Chavit Singson bilang kasosyo sa negosyo. Ano ho ang palagay ninyo? Ano sa palagay ninyo ang dahilan sa obserbasyon na ito?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi po ako magbibigay ng palagay, ang sasabihin ko po sa inyo ang dahilan na siya mismo ang nagsabi sa akin.
SEN. HONASAN. Salamat po.
MR. COLAYCO. Kaya po hindi kumportable si Susing Pineda na maging partner ni Chavit Singson kasi sabi niya, eh iyong reputasyon ni Governor Singson eh kung minsan, kung baga matapang. Sabi niya, “Mahirap kung `yong business partner mo `yong matapang. Eh kung may disagreements kayo eh baka talo ka.†Iyon ang dahilan kung bakit hindi siya kumportable.
SEN. HONASAN. Iyon lang ho ang dahilan?
MR. COLAYCO. Iyon ang natatandaan ko na sinabi ni Mr. Pineda.
SEN. HONASAN. Alam ho ba ninyo na kung ang — itong obserbasyon na ito, itong pangambang ito ay naipa-abot kay Pangulong Estrada?
MR. COLAYCO. Ang pag … iyon ang conc … ito ho ay … Ang natatandaan ko, ang sinabi ko kay Ginoong Pineda, “Eh kung mayroon kang ganyang pangamba, bakit hindi mo itanong sa classmate mo? Itong binibigay mo sa aking napakagandang oportunidad na ito na magkaroon ng casino sa Clark, eh maraming salamat, pero kinakailangan bang ang maging partner ko diyan ay si Chavit Singson?†Iyon ang pinatanong ko sa kanya. At nasabi ko na rin kanina na noong nagbalik siya at nag-usap uli kami, ang nasabi niya sa akin, “Mukhang talagang kaming kinakailangan magsama at ‘yon ang gusto ni Pangulo.”
SEN. HONASAN. Salamat po.
Mr. Colayco, siguro na obserbahan naman ninyo ng personal ito, ano, pareho hong kaibigan si Gov. Chavit Singson at saka si Ginoong Susing Pineda. Sino ho sa kanila ang mas malapit at matimbang na kaibigan kay Pangulong Estrada?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi po akong wala ho akong abilidad na magbigay ng opinyon po diyan dahil hindi ko ho napapanuod ng ganoon katagal iyong kanilang pagkakaibigang dalawa tatlo eh.
SEN. HONASAN. Salamat ho, Mr. Colayco.
Mr. Chief Justice…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. HONASAN…the second portion of my question is a request from the Presiding Officer for some clarification.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.
SEN. HONASAN. Mr. Chief Justice, as a non lawyer judge, how should we evaluate narrative and independently relevant information if we weigh this against the evidence?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably we will have to take that up when the court will meet to evaluate the testimony of the witnesses.
SEN. HONASAN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ginoong Colayco, tungkulin ninyo bilang CDC President na tingnan ang mga tunay na may ari sa mga korporasyon na nag a apply sa inyo na gumawa ng negosyo sa loob ng Clark, hindi po ba?
MR. COLAYCO. Opo.
SEN. GUINGONA. At doon sa Fontainbleau mayroong Articles of Incorporation. Nasusi po ninyo kung anong holdings, particular holdings, how much belongs to particular persons, tama po ba?
MR. COLAYCO. Opo.
SEN. GUINGONA. At ang sabi po ninyo, eh sa kaalam ninyo, si Gov. Singson ay nag contribute ng P= 34 million para sa mga assets ng Fontainbleau, tama po ba?
MR. COLAYCO. Opo.
SEN. GUINGONA. At itong Fontainbleau, nilipat ‘yong shareholdings at assets doon sa Fontana, tama po ba?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi po ganoon kalinaw. Ang pagkakaalam ko, ang inilipat nila ‘yong mga assets.
SEN. GUINGONA. Opo.
MR. COLAYCO. ‘Yong shareholdings, hindi po yata ganoon ‘yon.
SEN. GUINGONA. Ah, hindi mo alam ang shareholdings ng Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Samakatuwid, hindi po naging merger eh. Basta ‘yong…
SEN. GUINGONA. ‘Yong assets.
MR. COLAYCO. …assets na lang ang inilipat.
SEN. GUINGONA. Ang inilipat. Sino po ang may ari ng naging may ari ng Fontana?
MR. COLAYCO. Sa…. Si Mr. Lucio Tan po at ang kanyang mga associates.
SEN. GUINGONA. Oo. Mayroon bang…
MR. COLAYCO. Lucio Co.
SEN. GUINGONA. Lucio Co. Eh sila Susing Pineda at ‘yong iba pa, wala na, wala nang shareholdings?
MR. COLAYCO. Sa Fontana po ngayon?
SEN. GUINGONA. Oho.
MR. COLAYCO. Sa pagkakaalam ko po, wala.
SEN. GUINGONA. Yoong vice president ng Pagcor, mayroon po ba? Tenorio.
MR. COLAYCO. Sa pagkakatanda ko po, wala.
SEN. GUINGONA. Si Gov. Singson, according to the evidence here, as testified by him, mayroon siyang initial 10 percent. Mayroon bang nakalagay doon sa shares of stockholdings?
MR. COLAYCO. Hindi ko po talaga matandaan ng ganoong kalinaw, pero parang ang tanda ko po, wala na yata.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No further cross, rather questions from the members of the Court?
There being none, the witness may now be excused.
Thank you.
Next witness for the prosecution.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, with the indulgence of the Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Daza.
MR. DAZA. I would like to bring up a matter of an urgent nature.
We are in receipt of four urgent ex parte requests for the issuance qof subpoena duces tecum. One, for the chairman of the SEC and other officials to produce and turn over certain records.
The second, for the president of the Philippine Stock Exchange and another official of the Stock Exchange to also produce and turn over certain records.
The third, for the custodian of records of the PNB to produce and turn over certain records.
And the fourth and last for Mr. Emeterio Perez, a journalist, to produce and turn over certain records.
I note, Mr. Chief Justice, that all these requests for subpoena duces tecum would have the turnover of the documents described to the members of the House prosecution panel at an office described as CEO which number 72 Jupiter Street, Makati City on certain dates.
Now, I would like to recall, Mr. Chief Justice, that we had stipulated at the conference on December 11 that when subpoena duces tecum is served and it’s here under III, Item I A, that the agreement is to meet at the office of the Senate Secretary for the inventory and premarking of the papers/documents produced.
Now, these requests for subpoena duces tecum violate this agreement in two respects. The documents are sought to be delivered not in the office of the Senate Secretary, but in a certain office in Makati City; and not to be produced before the Senate Secretary but to be delivered to the members of the prosecution panel.
Now, Mr. Chief Justice, we could probably file our opposition or move to quash. But that would lose time for the Court, and so, I would now ask, Mr. Chief Justice, that the subpoena duces tecum requested should not be granted, should not be issued. And that if they have been issued under these four requests, the prosecutors be ordered not to have the subpoena duces tecum implemented, otherwise, this would be evidence illegally obtained in violation of established rules agreed on by both parties.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer had noticed that. And from information by Atty. Luz Puno, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court who has been assisting me, she saw to it that none should be issued if it is to be produced before an office other than the Impeachment Court. In the event, however, that I had signed one in relation to that particular application, because these were prepared for my signature and some of them I signed here, as you will notice earlier, in the event that I had signed any subpoena duces tecum for the production of these documents in any office outside of the Office of the Clerk of the Impeachment Court, the same would be considered withdrawn and should not be served. The Chair would declare the signing thereof as withdrawn. Only subpoena duces tecum for the production of documents before the Impeachment Court itself or the Secretary as agreed upon would be considered valid for all intents and purposes.
MR. DAZA. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And all applicants for subpoenas duces tecum should consider the fact that the production thereof, unless it is in connection with a deposition on oral examination, cannot be brought anywhere else. Please help the Presiding Officer not to be misled.
The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we are nine minutes away from the hour of 7:00.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand there is still a witness for the prosecution.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I was getting some signal from one of the prosecutors.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was the signal clear enough to you?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Clear enough; it’s…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the signal is clear enough from the prosecution that we should suspend the trial…
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move that we suspend the trial proper of this Impeachment Court until two o’clock tomorrow afternoon without prejudice to the continuation of the hearing for the incident of contempt at 10:30 tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? There being none, the continuation of the trial would be at two o’clock tomorrow afternoon; the continuation of the hearing on the incident of contempt would be at 10:30 in the morning.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 6:53 P.M.