Estrada Impeachment January 2, 2001 Transcripts

JANUARY 2, 2001
OPENING OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

AT 1:57 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

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

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

We shall be led in the singing of the national anthem by the Supreme Court Choir, after which the choir will sing the “Our Father.”

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Everybody rose for the singing of the national anthem.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please remain standing for the invocation of Senator-Judge Robert Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Let us bow our heads to acknowledge the presence of our Lord Almighty.

PRAYER

Lord, as You have granted us another year to look forward to,

We pray for Your intercession to put an end to the disarray plaguing the very essence of Your Filipino people.

We ask You to transform those guilty of hypocrisy, envy, inequality, violence and greed;

Instead, instill in our hearts and our minds the example that Your Son Jesus has shown us in His lifetime,

That we may emulate from His ways and veer away from the wicked.

Continuously shower Your graces upon those who have been victimized by the sinful action of others;

We pray for the souls of those who played innocent casualties of violence and carnage.

May those responsible for the deaths on the December 30th 2000 bombings suffer the full strength of Your mighty wrath.

And lastly, relying on Your goodness, wisdom and love, we beg You, our dear Lord, to lead us towards unity and understanding for the greater goodness of our people and our country.

Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Please be seated.

The Secretary-General will now call the roll.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary, reading

Senator Teresa Aquino-Oreta Present*

Senator Robert Z. Barbers Absent

Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon Present

Senator Renato L. Compañero Cayetano Present

Senator Anna Dominique M. L. Coseteng Present

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago Present

Senator Franklin M. Drilon Present

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile Present

Senator Juan M. Flavier Present

Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr Present

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan Present

Senator Robert S. Jaworski Present

Senator Loren B. Legarda-Leviste Present

Senator Ramon B. Magsaysay Jr Present

Senator Blas F. Ople Present*

Senator John H. Osmeña Present

Senator Sergio R. Osmeña III Present*

Senator Ramon B. Revilla Present

Senator Raul S. Roco Present

Senator Vicente C. Sotto III Present

Senator Francisco S. Tatad Present

The President Present

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With 18 Senator-Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum.

The Sergeant at Arms shall now make the proclamation.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate is sitting for the

*Arrived after the roll call

trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE JOURNAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the Impeachment Court, Wednesday, December 20, and Thursday, December 21, 2000, and consider the same as approved.

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

The Secretary is now directed to call the case.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I invite the parties to this Impeachment Trial to enter their appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are hereby directed to enter their appearance.

REP. ARROYO. The same appearance for the Prosecution, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. The same appearances for the Defense. Ready.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before we proceed any further on the other items of the agenda, the Chair shall make a ruling on a matter of importance.

The Prosecution has filed for clarification of the ruling of the Chair, that the Prosecution has the burden of proof in the impeachment case. In respect of the fact sought to be partly established by the testimony of Ms. Clarissa Ocampo, the Prosecution has the burden of evidence to prove that the alleged P500 million is ill-gotten. The Prosecution has set the motion for hearing on 5 January 2001.

Also, in the 24 December 2000 issue of the Philippine Star, there appears at the last two columns of the front page an article, entitled “Roco: Davide Probably Dizzy.”

The first four paragraphs thereof read as follows:

Chief Justice Hilario Davide, the Presiding Officer in the impeachment trial of President Estrada, was probably dizzy, Senator Roco said yesterday. Roco was referring to Davide’s ruling the other day that the prosecution should prove that the P500 million in the Jose Velarde account was ill-gotten, and so that the testimony of surprise prosecution witness Clarissa Ocampo would not be stricken off the record.

In his radio program over DZBB, Roco said Davide’s ruling is still subject to a lot of debates. He said Senator Franklin Drilon even read during the trial Section 2 of the Anti-Graft Practices Act (and that should be sic) which states that the assets of a public official that are grossly disproportionate to his income are deemed ill-gotten.

Roco and Senator Renato Cayetano both agreed with Drilon that the burden of proof lies in the government official. Davide, however, contended that in the impeachment trial the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution, not with the Defense. He added that the presumption of guilt in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is still subject to proof.

However, until this very minute, the Presiding Officer has not received any motion for reconsideration or clarification from honorable Senator-Judge Roco or any other member of the Court.

Under Rule VI of the Senate Resolution No. 68 entitled, “Resolution Adopting the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Proceedings in the Senate,” a ruling of the Presiding Officer on “all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of materiality, relevancy, competency or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions” shall stand as the judgment of the Court, unless a member of the Court shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon which, in effect, would partake of a motion for reconsideration.

It must be stressed at this point that when the Presiding Officer announced the ruling, the assailed ruling, none of the prosecutors and judges took the Floor to challenge such ruling. It is thus unfortunate that a member of the Court used another forum to challenge the ruling and to even suggest that the Presiding Officer was dizzy or confused. The Presiding Officer hopes that henceforth, any member of the Court who is dissatisfied with a ruling of the Chair will take up his grievance before the Court; to do otherwise, may bring the Impeachment Court to discredit, or suggest bias on the part of such member.

The Presiding Officer will not wait for January 5, 2001 to hear the motion for clarification. The Court cannot afford to waste the time again on a very simple issue. The Presiding Officer will now make the ruling.

It rules that the challenge against or the motion to clarify the assailed ruling of the Presiding Officer is without factual or legal basis. This ruling is without prejudice to an extended resolution.

Proceeding to the issue at hand, “burden of proof” is defined under the Rules on Evidence of the Rules of Court as the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. That is Section 1 of Rule 131. That amount of evidence required by law is: a) preponderance of evidence in civil cases, Section 1 of Rule 133; b) proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, Section 2 of Rule 133; and substantial evidence in administrative cases, Section 5, Rule 133.

In these three provisions the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff, the prosecution, and the complainant in civil, criminal and administrative cases, respectively. For a party to discharge his burden of proof, he must introduce or offer evidence. This is what is known as the burden of going forward with the evidence, or in short, “burden of evidence” which is defined as that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him. Authorities are cited and this would appear in the extended resolution.

It is doctrinely settled that the burden of proof never shifts. I repeat, the burden of proof never shifts. On the other hand, the burden of evidence, I stress, the burden of evidence shifts to one party when the other has produced sufficient evidence to be entitled as a matter of law to a ruling in his favor. This is the main distinction between burden of proof and of burden of evidence. And in the extended resolution, the Presiding Officer will recite the authorities.

In short, the burden of proof is constant. While the burden of evidence may shift back and forth between the parties as the trial progresses. Authorities will also be cited in support of the resolution in the extended resolution.

In the instant case, the prosecution panel knew all along that it has the burden of proof in each of the Articles of Impeachment throughout the entire proceedings regardless of how it may classify an impeachment case. That is, whether it is criminal action, a civil case, or an administrative case, or whatever it would be. It knows equally well that it has the burden of the evidence.

In respect to the witness Clarissa Ocampo, she was presented to prove that the President of the Republic of the Philippines opened and maintained, and still maintains accounts with Equitable PCI Bank under and using the name Jose Velarde. I cited the transcript of the stenographic notes.

The Prosecution wanted to show that respondent owned P500 million under such accounts. It informed the Court that it would present evidence to prove facts showing that that money is ill-gotten. All the time, however, Atty. Mario Luz, representing the Prosecution, spoke of and mentioned only the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He reiterated many times that by other, by other evidence the Prosecution would present, it would prove its claim that indeed, the P500 million is ill-gotten. Because of its realization of the necessity of evidentiary links to prove that fact, the Prosecution explicitly declared that Ocampo’s testimony would be conditional.

Among others, here are the question of the Presiding Officer and the answer of Prosecutor Arroyo:

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The next question–still on conditionality–when you speak of conditionality, has it something to do with your plan to consider this as material or relevant but now only to be conditional because it has to be linked with other testimony later?

REP. ARROYO. Oh, yes. Conditional admission because it will be linked to other evidence.

That again appears in the transcript. The Private Prosecutor himself was more categorical in asserting that the testimony of Ocampo would be conditional and might even be stricken off the record if it would not be supported by other evidence. And here are parts of the testimony which the Presiding Officer finds very, very important and significant:

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have any evidence to which it may be linked that he had other sources of income which will not justify P500 million?

MR. BAUTISTA. That is a matter of defense, Your Honor. And that does not preclude the Prosecution.?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is exactly the reason for the Chair is asking you, for you to be able to make a link.

MR. BAUTISTA. I respectfully submit, Your Honor, that we can make the link later.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then what would you propose now if it could be linked later on?

MR. BAUTISTA. I would like to have the witness’ answer admitted conditionally. If we will fail to link…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER On condition that?

MR. BAUTISTA. On the condition that we will be able to present the evidence with respect to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And in the event you will not be able to?

MR. BAUTISTA. We are willing to have the testimony stricken off the record, Your Honor.

After further discussions, Atty. Bautista writes some entries upon alleged photocopy of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President. Yet, Atty. Bautista did not have that copy marked as evidence for the Prosecution. We know that mere manifestations are not evidence, especially if that manifestation is made by someone who is not a witness sworn under oath. Atty. Bautista was not a witness.

After the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon inter alia read Section 2 of RA No. 1379, “An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to have been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor,” the Presiding Officer issued the ruling and the Presiding Officer will have to quote the ruling again for the enlightenment of everybody.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now make a ruling. This relates to Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment and the Parties had agreed during the preliminary conference on the issue relating thereto and that is whether on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the President could be guilty of graft and corruption. It was pointed out by the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon that this particular Article mentions in fact two laws also related to graft and corruption. The first is the matter of the submission of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. This Statement or requirement of a Statement is a requirement under Republic Act 3019, as amended, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 6713, the Ethical Standard Act.

The second allegation in the Article relates to unexplained wealth and unexplained wealth may be ill-gotten wealth which is also covered by another law and that is Republic Act 1379 as mentioned by Senator Drilon. Consequently, any evidence tending to prove ill-gotten wealth may be deemed covered by Article 2. That is very clear. The only problem being that there is as yet no basis that the P500 million is ill-gotten so there must be a basis to show that, in fact, it is ill-gotten. Unless there is a basis that it is ill-gotten, then I think the objection may be sustained. So lay the predicate if you want to proceed, Mr. Counsel.

Then at this time, Atty. Bautista tried to assert that the burden of proof is on the President and the Chair ruled that that is not so, because the burden of proof is on the Prosecution precisely because the burden of proof, not the burden of evidence, never shifts and it is the duty of the Prosecution to move on or go forward with the evidence, that is, to discharge the burden of proof and the burden of the evidence. That is very clear in the proceedings which I shall quote in the resolution.

You will notice that there was a brief conference with the counsel and the parties attended by some senators. And after that brief conference, the Presiding Officer made the following remarks–this shall be quoted also in the extended resolution:

Before you go into that, the Chair would like to announce the agreement reached by the parties when the lawyers were requested to approach the Bench in relation precisely to the objection as to the unexplained wealth and the assurance of Prosecutor Arroyo that the Prosecution has enough evidence to show that indeed and in fact the P500 million is ill-gotten.

During the very brief conference with the lawyers, they have agreed to suspend the trial because of the lateness of the hour and because of the manifestation of Atty. Mendoza that on ground of health, he may not be able to sustain another prolonged trial.

On the other hand, the honorable Prosecutor Arroyo has assured the Presiding Officer, some Senator-Judges and the Senate President that the Prosecution will be able to introduce witnesses to show that the P500-million subject matter of the controversy now is ill-gotten. However, he cannot disclose the names of these witnesses for security reasons. Nevertheless, a compromise agreement was reached. Prosecutor Arroyo will disclose the names of these witnesses to the Senate President whose names shall be kept by the Senate President sub rosa meaning only to himself.

With this agreement therefore that the evidence established that the P500 million is ill-gotten and that it might be covered or it might be considered evidence to prove the second part of Article 2 that was mentioned earlier by the Presiding Judge, meaning the possibility of violation of RA No. 1379, the trial should now be suspended in the meantime.

It is very clear from the foregoing that the Prosecution is fully aware of its duty to discharge its burden of evidence in respect of its claim that the P500 million is ill-gotten and to go forward with the evidence thereon.

The belated reliance by the Prosecution on Section 2 of RA No. 1379 which was initially pointed out by honorable Senator-Judge Drilon and not by the Prosecution is patently premature at this stage of the trial–is patently premature at this stage of the trial. The pertinent portion thereof under which the Prosecution now takes refuge reads as follows:

Sec. 2. Filing of Petition. – Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency any amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.

Note that the prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully acquired arises only upon proof that the public officer or employee has:

(a) acquired during his incumbency;

(b) an amount of property which is manifestly out or proportion to:

(1) his salary; (2) his other lawful income; (3) his income from legitimately acquired property.

How can anyone then claim, unless, of course, he has already prejudged the case on the matter in issue that the presumption under Section 2 of RA No. 1379 has been established when:

1. Mrs. Clarissa Ocampo has not yet finished her testimony on direct-examination;

2. Mrs. Clarissa Ocampo–the Prosecution has only started to prove the basis for the presumption, the basis for the presumption; and

3. The Prosecution has yet to present other witnesses presumably to strengthen the foundation of the basis for the legal presumption?

The Presiding Officer wishes to underscore that the presumption provided in Section 2 of RA No. 1379 is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1185)

This logically proceeds from the definition of presumption as an inference in the form of a particular fact or a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to the existence of a presumed fact until presumption is rebutted.

Section 2 of RA No. 1379 puts in black and white the required facts, proof of which would give rise to the existence of a presumed fact, which is, the property is unlawfully required.(?) That is the presumed fact.

Section 8 of RA No. 3019, as amended, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which the honorable Senator-Judge Renato Cayetano mentioned last 22 December 2000 reads partly: “Prima facie evidence

of a…”

SEC. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. – If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One Thousand Three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.

And you have here some provisions regarding on how to prove that, including properties in the name of the spouse and dependents.

The first sentence thereof means that there should first be evidence to establish the prima facie presumption therein provided. The succeeding sentences refer to circumstances which may be offered in evidence.

The Presiding Officer therefore believes that in light of all the foregoing and without prejudice to the extended resolution, no one may insist at this stage of the trial–at this stage of the trial–I emphasize that, in connection with the unfinished testimony of Ms. Clarissa Ocampo that the burden of proof and the burden of evidence have been shifted to the Defense.

The Motion for Clarification is therefore denied, for lack of merit.

So Ordered.

The honorable Senator Roco.

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

Let me be the first to concur with the ruling. Unfortunately, there are some facts I have to clarify. But as regards the ruling, it is absolutely correct as far as I know that the burden of proof never shifts. In fact, that is exactly what I said in the radio program, and I was saying that it is the burden of evidence that may, in fact, shift from time to time depending on the developments in the trial.

The words of the headline are not my words. I never said that. In fact, I myself was surprised at the headline. I was in the province. The radio program was, in fact, given in almost pure Tagalog, except that I shifted in Bicol when I thought that the Bicolanos were listening. So that headline is not my responsibility and I hate to correct that headline. So publicly, I did not take it seriously.

It was the beginning of the holidays. In fact, I saw the 24th newspaper already on Christmas and I was not going to work out a letter to correct. I was later on in Bohol and I had no time to therefore… It did not even strike me as something that may be seriously looked at. Now in retrospect, it should have been corrected immediately. But all my statements were in Tagalog and I was precisely explaining or attempting to explain in Tagalog what the Chief Justice has just said. And I was mentioning Wigmore and I was mentioning Regalado, and I was mentioning Francisco. The burden, I said, ang pagkatanda ko, I don’t have the… because my staff were also on vacation so I am not sure I even have a tape of this. What I said as I recall, “Baka nagkakalituhan.” Because there was a news item. They were making me react. I was on the telephone and the members of the radio station who were therefore interviewing me were saying, “Ano ba itong sinasabing presumption?” Baka ‘kako nagkakalituhan diyan. Sapagkat ang burden of proof nga, tama iyong palaging nasa Prosecution. Hindi nagpapalit yon. Ngunit ang burden of evidence, puwedeng lumipat pag ang facts–I do not know if these are the exact words–kung iyang mga pinagtatalunan ay parang napagbigyan na ng ebidensiya because of judicial notice or because may sufficient support or may presumption created by law. Iyon ang paliwanag.

Now, how the writer or certainly how even the headline…because the writer may not even be faulted if he thought he was translating from Tagalog to English. So the writer is one thing, but we know for a fact that newspapers, the headline writers are different.

Now, how the headline writer reached the conclusion that the Chief Justice was dizzy, I am normally more polite than that. So that is the context.

But let me assert now, and by way of concurring, and basically, this has been mentioned.

The main distinction between “burden of proof” and “burden of evidence” is that “burden of proof” never shifts. This remains throughout the entire case exactly where the pleadings originally placed it and I am conscious of this. And that is why the party, whether the plaintiff or the defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue has this burden of proof. It is on him at the beginning of the case. It continues on him through the case. And when the evidence by whomsoever introduced is all in, if he has not by preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, as the case may be, established his proposition or claim, the decision of the Tribunal must be adverse to such pleader. This is basically Francisco quoting from Wigmore and I knew this. It was in the memos in our analysis of the pleadings because materiality and relevancy was always being raised.

The departure of Regalado in his book is slightly different. He says, “The burden of proof does not shift as it remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed. The burden of evidence shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial.” And he is the one who mentions, “The burden of proof is generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party. The burden of evidence is generally determined by the developments at the trial or by the provisions of the substantive law or procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the fact alleged.” I think that is presumptions, judicial notice, admissions and, sometimes, even stipulations.

So I wish to concur in the result of the ruling, but I really have to say that the basis upon which sound criticism may have been–I think the Chief Justice was reacting–are not my words and I should not be held accountable for that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, and after that, the honorable Sen. Rene Cayetano and then the honorable Senator Guingona, and then finally, the honorable Senator Osmeña.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I respectfully concur with your instant ruling without prejudice to a written extensive opinion at the proper time. The basis for my concurrence is a quotation from the case decided by the Supreme Court in 1989, entitled Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court which was precisely on the issue of RA No. 1379, the Forfeiture Act.

The Supreme Court in 1989, in that case of Republic vs. IAC, very clearly ruled:

Clear from these provisions is that the law creates a presumption against the public officer or employee who acquires property grossly disproportionate to his income, i.e., that the property was unlawfully acquired. However, this presumption is juris tantum. It may be rebutted by the public officer or employee by showing to the satisfaction of the court that his acquisition of the property was lawful.

In determining whether or not there is unexplained wealth within the purview of RA No. 1379, the courts are not bound by the statements of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent. On the contrary, this statute affords the respondent every opportunity to explain to the satisfaction of the court how he had acquired the property in question.

I notice that I have about 30 seconds. Therefore, I will deal with the question of the distinction between the “burden of proof” and the “burden of evidence.”

Once more, suffice it for me to quote from a case decided only in 1998 by the Supreme Court, Hizon vs. Court of Appeals:

Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case. Otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.

This ruling concerning a civil case was reiterated by the Supreme Court in a criminal case, in the separate case of Bautista vs. Sarmiento decided in 1985. A prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counterbalance the general presumption of evidence and warrant a conviction. But when a prima facie case is established by the prosecution in a criminal case as in the case at bar, the burden of proof does not shift to the defense. It remains throughout the trial with a party upon whom it is imposed the prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial. This burden of going forward with the evidence is met by evidence which balances that introduced by the prosecution, then the burden shifts back.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The honorable Senator-Judge Rene Cayetano.

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

I rise for two reasons: First because my name was mentioned in that news reports. I just want to tell the Presiding Officer that I never had an interview during the Christmas season. And, indeed, I was a little surprised about the news quoting Senator Roco. I do believe the explanation of Senator Roco. And I just want to point out that, certainly, I had no part as far as that news report is concerned.

Now, let me also…. Secondly, Mr. Chief Justice, let me point out that it was true, however, during the sidebar conference here that Senator Drilon–and I believe Senator Roco–and I were arguing about these burden of proof and burden of evidence. But that’s all there was to it in the sidebar, and that was not supposed to be printed.

But having said that, Mr. Chief Justice, I do recall too that, as you mentioned in your Order, that the Prosecution categorically stated that they were ready to present evidence to link the matter of ill-gotten wealth to the Article 2, second paragraph of the Impeachment.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Chair now recognizes the honorable Senator Guingona.

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

I just would like to state for clarification that the ruling of the Chief Justice, as far as my interpretation is concerned, does not or is consistent with the original ruling of December 22 when the Chief Justice ruled that the Prosecution can present relevant evidence to establish the basis

or the predicate so that the unexplained wealth of P500 million can

have a proper basis, either through further declaration of the witness

or other evidence, and as a necessary requisite so that the burden of evidence will now shift. If that interpretation is correct, and I hope it is,

I would like to….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much for the observation, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Sen. Sergio Osmeña III; and after that, the honorable Senator Biazon and also the honorable Senator Sotto.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Mr. Chief Justice, all the lawyers have spoken. Being a nonlawyer, I just have a couple of things I hope you might be able to clarify in our minds.

No. 1, you have been…. I heard you say that the P500 million has to be proven to be ill-gotten wealth. How would that be possible for anybody in this particular case to prove where the P500 million came from?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sure the Prosecution, Your Honor, will be able to do that. It promised already to prove it not only by the pronouncement of the Prosecution in open court but also during the conference. As a matter of fact, three names of witnesses were submitted to the Senate President for that purpose, among others. The honorable Prosecutor Arroyo wanted to furnish the names to the Presiding Officer, but the Presiding Officer for reasons all his own declined and suggested instead that the names be disclosed sub rosa to the Senate President.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). So, therefore, are you saying, Mr. Chief Justice, that the term “unexplained wealth” is not in, for and by itself a crime? I thought that was the basis–

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE. No, no…

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). — the prima facie…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …Your Honor, I did not say so. That was never intended in the rulings. The ruling of the Chair was very, very clear that that presumption that a certain property is unlawfully acquired will have to be based upon the establishment of certain facts required under Section 2 of RA 3019.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Then therefore, those certain facts will be: 1) to introduce in evidence the statement of assets and liabilities?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think we should leave it to the Prosecution.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). I see. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

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

I would like to throw in my concurrence to the ruling of the Chief Justice at this point in time. Because to probably remove the discussion from legalistic gobbledygook, may I just try to reason out why I am concurring at this point in time to the ruling.

There are two elements at issue:

Number one is to prove that the property is indeed acquired, and at this point in time I think the property has not been established to have been acquired. As a matter of fact, there will be a continuance of the testimony of Ms. Ocampo, and yet to be corroborated by another witness or witnesses.

Now, we have yet to establish first that the property is acquired before we can prove. Number two, that the property is ill-gotten. And that is why, Mr. Chief Justice, at this point in time, I throw in my concurrence to the ruling.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too. As a matter of fact, the Chair was also very clear the ruling must as up this point, as as of this point.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. May I just ask that the phrase “legalistic gobbledygook” be stricken off the record?

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon?

SEN. BIAZON. The term is not vulgar. The term is properly understood by the public, and I would refuse that this term be stricken out of the record.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. This is a legal proceeding and we use legal terms, legal concepts, and gobbledygook is simply not the word to describe the expressions being used in this forum.

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move to strike…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes–

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –you can have the last word now, Senator-Judge Biazon, on that before the Chair will make a ruling.

SEN. BIAZON. In one of the testimonies of one of the witnesses, vulgar words were used that normally would be censored in some public forum. It was allowed to stay in the records. And why should this “gobbledygook” term when it is easily understood, the meaning and the connotation of the term.

So, Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this “gobbledygook” that I used

be retained in the record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ruling of the Chair. The statement of the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon may remain on record but subject to the objections and the reasons which seem to be valid given by the Majority Leader.

We may now continue. The honorable…I am sorry. The honorable Senator-Judge Sotto.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No other one has made the reservation, so after this we can proceed.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes. This is going to be very brief.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice, I concur with your ruling, and I sympathize with Senator Roco. And that is the reason that I would just like to place on record for the Court records, that this representation has filed a leave from my television program since the start of the trial to avoid misinterpretations with the media. I just would like to place that on record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

And also for the information, we have to recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Enrile; after that, the honorable Judge Legarda-Leviste; and finally, the Prosecutor Arroyo has been raising his hand.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, with due respect to the ruling of the Chair, there is an undisposed issue; and that was an objection raised by no less than the Majority Floor Leader of the Senate with respect to the removal from the record of a term used by a member of this judging body. And so therefore, in view of that, I ask for a vote on the issue.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a motion… In effect there is a motion to reconsider the ruling of the Chair in the matter of the use of the word legalistic “gobbledygook.”

SEN. ENRILE. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

I ask for a vote.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. So we shall now ask. There is a request for a voting. The voting will be done by the raising of hands.

Yes, the honorable Senator Roco.

SEN. ROCO. I hate to do this to my friend, but I think I’m entitled to two minutes to disagree. Legal “gobbledygook” as Mr. Chief Justice, as all lawyers who read their advocacy literature will attest, is often used as an advice to us lawyers. We do have “gobbledygook.” Other professions may have “jargon” but we tend to be described as having legal “gobbledygook.”

I personally feel… I don’t feel insulted by legal “gobbledygook.” Sometimes it increases attorney’s fees. [Laughter] But that notwith-standing, Mr. President, I don’t feel my… I have developed enough resistance to criticism because of public life to be able to support my friend Senator-Judge Biazon and maybe we can let it stay.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I am not making the motion because I feel insulted about the word. As a lawyer, I am aware of the usage of this term. But since there is a motion made by no less than the Majority Floor Leader of the Senate and it has not been disposed,

I ask for a vote either way. We can either vote to maintain the word in the record or expunge it from the record. That is the way to dispose a pending motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of His Honor, the honorable Judge Enrile, the Chair made a ruling. So his motion shall be considered as a motion to reconsider. And therefore, we shall have a vote thereon.

SEN. ENRILE. Well, if that is the positon, Mr. Chief Justice, in deference to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is presiding in this particular proceeding, I withdraw the motion for reconsideration unless the Majority Floor Leader will insist on that motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

And I don’t think the Majority Leader will insist. He did not rise from his seat.

So we will now hear the honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

Not yet. I’m sorry. The honorable Senator-Judge Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you. Just 30 seconds. I just wanted to express my concurrence to the ruling of the honorable Presiding Officer. And I just wanted to state that I had never doubted for any moment the wisdom of the ruling.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

The honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, the Prosecution is happy with the ruling of the Chair because the motion we filed is not a motion for reconsideration but a motion for clarification. And in our motion, we stressed the issue of burden of evidence rather than the issue of burden of proof.

For the record, we would like to state the prayer.

The prayer of the Prosecution reads:

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the ruling of the Presiding Officer adverted to be clarified in the sense that the proof of the illegitimacy of the acquisition of the half-a-billion pesos subject of the testimony of Mrs. Clarissa Ocampo and the burden of evidence relative thereto shall be as provided in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, R.A. 3019, in relation to Republic Act 1379.

So, we abide by the ruling, not only abide, it’s consistent with our position.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chief Justice, I saw the Senate President yesterday, according to the agreement, and I submitted to him sub rosa our evidence on the ill-gotten wealth. So, that’s been known only between the Senate President and myself but that we can prove the ill-gotten character of that we shall do, as we promised in the open court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much and despite the…Well, we have to hear the Defense.

Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. On the part of the Defense, Mr. Chief Justice, the defense maintains its position that the testimony of Mrs. Ocampo is immaterial and irrelevant. It does not deal with any of the matters alleged under Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think on that matter, the Chair had already made a ruling earlier and that the Prosecution was allowed to continue with the evidence subject to the condition it agreed upon.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. For the record, may I affirm what Prosecutor Arroyo has said. His Honor had seen me yesterday at my residence to inform me of the position precisely of the Prosecution on this issue of additional testimony or evidence regarding the so-called illegal acquired wealth of P500 million or so.

And for the record also, I wish to make it known that I reported the issue to the Chief Justice, I mean, the matter of the conversation between me and Mr. Arroyo to the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I confirm the report made immediately before the start of the session this afternoon in the temporary office of the Presiding Officer.

We shall now consider the other items in the agenda.

These are just…Yes, honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. If those are administrative matters, I’ll wait, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Other matters. Just for…The Court will:

l. Note the following papers filed regarding the deposition of an oral examination of the custodian of report account and the Head of the Loans Division at the PNB:

First, the opposition on the Motion for the Issuance of a Protective Order or Opposition to the taking of deposition where the Prosecution was ordered to comment thereon. The Court notes the Comment that was filed by the Prosecution on 22 December 2000 and the Reply thereto filed on 27 December 2000 by the Defense. The Court also notes the following:

The Manifestation of Compliance–rather, the Counter-Manifest-ation submitted by the Defense in the matter of the Motion of the Prosecution filed on 19 December 2000.

Then the Court will also require the Defense if it so desires to comment on the urgent request for verification of medical condition re: Mr. Raul de Guzman filed by the Prosecution on 22 December 2000, three days if it is so minded.

For noting are the following:

The Urgent Manifestaton Re: Motions for production of docu-ments filed on 20 December 2000 by the Prosecution and the corres-ponding manifestation on the documents, the subject matter of the motion, et cetera.

The concurring opinion of Senator-Judge Ramon B. Magsaysay, Jr. filed on 22 December 2000 to the extended order of the Presiding Officer; the manifestation filed by the Prosecution on 22 December 2000 withdrawing the urgent ex parte request for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum et ad testificandum of 18 December 2000 with regard to Prof. Mila Reforma; the manifestation filed by the Prosecution on 22 December 2000 praying that said manifestation and submission be admitted to form part of the records of the impeachment proceedings and for the purpose of bestowing onto the witness, Gov. Luis Chavit Singson and Ms. Emma Lim and Ms. Ma. Carmencita Itchon, the privilege of immunity and exemption from prosecution or punishment for the

offenses with reference to information or testimonies given or may subsequently be given.

In connection with such noting, the Defense is given five days to comment thereon.

Next is the letter from the Alliance of Homeowners’ Associations of Quezon City to President Joseph Ejercito Estrada received by the Office of the Legal Counsel on 22 December 2000 — simply to be noted.

Then the comment on the proposed general format and tenor of subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum filed by the Prosecution on 29 December 2000.

On the other matter, the Presiding Officer will now make of record the issuances of the following resolutions or orders, if any. Copies of these resolutions should be furnished the honorable members of the Tribunal and all of these are simply noted because these are on record already.

Just enumerate for the record all these… Mr. Secretary, just enumerate, for the record, all these issued resolutions.

We shall now move to the trial proper.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before we do that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, notices have been posted all around the premises of the Senate that cellphones in the gallery will not be allowed to be opened or used during the proceedings. And may I just instruct the Senate security to confiscate any such cellphones being used in the gallery during the sessions of the Impeachment Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

The Majority Leader is now recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we are now in the trial proper. It is still the turn of the Prosecution to present the evidence. Before we suspended on December 22, 2000, Mrs. Clarissa Emerita Grey-Ocampo was on the witness stand. The Prosecution may wish to conclude with that witness.

The principal and assisting examining counsels are Atty. Mario Luz Bautista and Atty. Alexander Poblador, respectively; and the principal and assisting cross-examining counsels are Atty. Estelito Mendoza and Atty. Jose Flaminiano, respectively.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. On December 19, 2000, when the direct testimony of the witness Gov. Luis Chavit Singson was terminated, the Presiding Officer made the announcement that the cross-examination of this witness on the second Article and also in connection with his testimony on direct examination for the first Article will start on the second day of January 2001.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was not merely an announcement of the Chair, the Chair merely announced what the parties had agreed upon…

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …that the cross-examination of the witness will be today. But we had still the testimony of — what’s the name of this witness? — Clarissa Ocampo whose direct testimony was not terminated. Would you not prefer rather to terminate the direct testimony of Clarissa first, and thereafter, start the cross-examination of Singson and later on the cross-examination of Ocampo, unless you start to begin with the testimony of Ocampo? It would be a little orderly.

REP. ARROYO. May I wait for the reaction of the Defense?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. He is still conferring with the other counsel for the Defense.

MR. MENDOZA. May we be informed how long yet the direct testimony is going to take?

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. ARROYO. The remaining testimony of the witness Clarissa Ocampo will be very short.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Very brief.

REP. ARROYO. Very brief on direct. Now, it depends of course if the Defense does not put up objections. But there’s another witness which we mentioned earlier last December 22nd, that’s Atty. Manuel Curato, legal counsel or I think general counsel of the Equitable Pacific Bank…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would his testimony be very brief also?

REP. ARROYO. Very brief because it would only be of the testimony of Mrs. Ocampo just to attest that he really did sign the bank documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t think the Defense will have a very serious objection to that since it is closely related to the very same documents testified on by Ocampo.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a while. Yes. With the permission of the gentlemen on both the Prosecution and the Defense the Court recognizes the honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. A matter of clarification, Mr. Chief Justice, with respect to procedure.

It was my understanding that previously there was some degree of agreement that the judges could ask questions only from witnesses after the direct and cross-examination. Considering the fact that the witness Clarissa Ocampo has been presented as a witness and evidently the direct examination will be terminated and there will be another witness that will come after her as an intervening event, I would like to find out whether any member of the Court can propound clarificatory questions on her in order to enlighten the mind of anybody who is a part of this Court with respect to the matters that she has declared in this Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Logically speaking, Your Honor, immediately after the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo on direct examination, the Defense shall cross-examine and after the cross-examination, subject to the agreement of the members of the Senate, the member of the Senate may ask the question.

SEN. ENRILE. I raised this question, Mr. Chief Justice, in view of the fact that my understanding of the position of the Defense is that they are questioning the materiality of the testimony of this witness. And so, therefore, if there’s no cross-examination of this witness, then I would like to assume that any member of this Court can propound question because I intend to propound question on her to clarify certain points in her testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. That may be … You have the absolute authority to do that, Your Honor, but let us first inquire from the Defense if the Defense would immediately cross-examine Clarissa Ocampo upon the completion of the direct testimony.

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

MR. MENDOZA. May we make that decision after the completion of the direct testimony, Your Honor. And we would agree that the direct testimony be completed. Prosecutor Arroyo said briefly and I would assume “briefly” would mean not more than thirty minutes.

REP. ARROYO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It will really depend on how….

REP. ARROYO. If the Defense does not object… raise objections.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER That is correct. I hope it would really be very, very brief and there will be not much legal tussle on issues which are of legal consequence, not factual consequence.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. ARROYO. One procedural matter. Isn’t it that the Senator-Judges ask questions of a witness only after the termination of the cross, otherwise, our witness will be placed at a disadvantage that senator-judges would examine the witness even before the Defense has cross-examined.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the thrust of the position of the…

REP. ARROYO. Now, if that is still the ruling, then we will abide by it. But if the Senator-Judges would ask questions after the termination of the direct, that places us at a disadvantage.

SEN. ENRILE. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I raise this question precisely because, if the witness will not be cross-examined by the Defense, then I would like to believe that that does not mean that I’m foreclosed from asking any questions.

Second, that agreement was a tentative agreement. It was never put as a matter of a vote of the entire body.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, Your Honor, if the Rules of Court should even be construed liberally, the Chair does not find any reason why it can’t also construe liberally any agreement among the judges.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

REP. ARROYO. Then the next witness, Your Honor, will be Ms. Ocampo and Atty. Bautista will continue the examination under…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call Mrs. Ocampo for her to continue her testimony on direct examination.

Mrs. Ocampo, you can take your seat now, and you are advised that you will be testifying under the same oath.

Atty. Bautista, you may now proceed.

MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honors.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Good afternoon, Sirs.

We just want to make of record our continuing objection to the continued appearance of the private prosecutor, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That has already been made of record.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And it will continue to remain on record.

MR. BAUTISTA. If Your Honor please, before I proceed with the direct examination of the witness, I wish to manifest that pursuant to the directions of the Chair at the last hearing, the originals of the documents which were identified and authenticated by the witness, Mrs. Clarissa Ocampo, have been marked in exhibit and signed by the Clerk of Court in the presence of a representative from the Defense, In particular, Your Honor, these are Exhibits “UUU”, “UUU-1″…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Slowly, please. “UUU”–triple “U.”

MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. Only we have two?

MR. BAUTISTA. “UUU-2″, “UUU-3″, “UUU-4″. And there is a second set of the same exhibits which are indicated “UUU second”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Everybody has a copy now of these documents?

MR. BAUTISTA. I believe so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But the basis for your questions should be the original as marked.

MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now go ahead.

MR. BAUTISTA. Further Exhibits “VVV” and “VVV-1″, pertaining to the signature card, and Exhibit “V”, second set and Exhibit–I’m sorry, Exhibit “VVV”, second set, and “VVV-1″, second set. Exhibit “WWW”, Exhibit “WWW-1″. And second set, Exhibit “WWW”, Exhibit “WWW” second–”1″, Your Honor. Exhibit “XXX” and Exhibit “XXX-1″, Exhibit “YYY” and Exhibit “YYY-1″, Exhibit “YYY-2″, Exhibit “YYY-3″, Exhibit “YYY-4″, Exhibit “YYY-5″, Exhibit “YYY-6″, Exhibit “YYY-7″, Exhibit “YYY-8″ and Exhibit “YYY-9″, Exhibit “YYY-10″, Exhibit “YYY-11″ and Exhibit “YYY-12″ and “13″. Pursuant to the explanation or clarification of the honorable Chair’s order, we were trying to lay the predicate at the last hearing. And pursuant to that, Your Honor, we’re marking as Exhibit “LLLL” – I’m sorry. “LLLL”, four Ls.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Quadruple “L”?

MR. BAUTISTA. Quadruple “L”, Your Honor. This is a certified true copy of the December 31, 1999 Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President. Page 2 is “LLLL-1” and this was marked in the presence of the representatives of the Defense Counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have the date of the document?

MR. BAUTISTA. It is stamped on its face, “Tinanggap April 28, 2000”, Your Honor. It was certified as a true copy by the Office of the Ombudsman, Central Records Division, on November 27, 2000.

Exhibit “JJJJ”, Your Honor, is the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President as of June 30, 1998. Again, it is a certified true copy by the Office of the Ombudsman’s Central Records Division, the certification having been issued on November 27, 2000 and the second page is marked as “JJJJ-1”.

Lastly, Your Honor, the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President as of December 31, 1998, which was marked as Exhibit “KKKK”, second page, marked as Exhibit “KKKK-1”, certified as a true copy by the Office of the Ombudsman on November 27, 2000. All these exhibits, Your Honor, were marked and signed by the Clerk of Court in the presence of the Defense Counsel.

May I proceed with the questions to the witness, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Atty. Bautista.

MR. BAUTISTA. Ms. Ocampo, at the last hearing you testified that documents pertaining to the trust account of Jose Velarde were signed by the President in your presence?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. I should like to raise a very important point, Mr. Chief Justice. The testimony of this witness has been conditionally admitted subject to the condition that evidence will be adduced, whether testimonial or documentary, connecting the testimony of Ms. Clarissa Ocampo to any of the Articles of Impeachment.

I have listened quite carefully to the argument on whether or not the testimony of Ms. Clarissa Ocampo is material to any of the Articles of Impeachment.

I have also read the transcript of stenographic notes, particularly the observations of some of the senator-judges like the Senate President, Senator Roco, Senator Cayetano and Senator Drilon.

Now, I should like to go back to the allegation in the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. May I please the Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you objecting to the testimony of this witness?

MR. FLAMINIANO. I am objecting to the testimony of this witness, Your Honor, and I am now going to proceed to show the grounds why I am objecting to the continued testimony of the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You already had a standing objection and that had been…

MR. FLAMINIANO. If Your Honor please, at the last hearing on December 22, 2000, it is indeed true that the Chair had ruled that the testimony of the witness should be conditionally admitted. But during the holiday break, Mr. Chief Justice, we have tried to study carefully whether or not there is any materiality to the Articles of Impeachment of the proposed testimony of Ms. Clarissa Ocampo. We are speaking here, Your Honor, of unexplained wealth. That is the reason why this Court allowed the testimony of Ms. Ocampo to continue because it could possibly be covered by Republic Act 1379 on unexplained wealth in relation to Section 8 of R.A. 3019.

Now, we should like to state most respectfully that the provisions of Republic Act 1379 on unexplained wealth and the accompanying presumption, juris tantum, applies only if there had been a preliminary investigation conducted by the provincial or city prosecutor concerned that the public official concerned had indeed acquired unexplained wealth, Your Honor. Because the provisions of Section 8 of Republic Act 3019, which establishes prima facie evidence of and dismissal due to unexplained wealth, reads as follows:

If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine,

I repeat, Mr. Chief Justice,

If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act

Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, et cetera, …

If Your Honor, please. Now, we have always contended….

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Attorney Flaminiano –

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Sir.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. –is it your position that the President would have to be investigated by a provincial fiscal regarding this issue of ill-gotten wealth before we can proceed here?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, Sir, we are not saying that the President is above the law. No one is above the law. But that is what the law says, Mr. Senate President. It does not discriminate whether the public official concerned be a janitor, a director, a Cabinet secretary, a senator, or a vice president or a president, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Flaminiano –

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Sir.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. — with your permission.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Sir.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. We are not talking here of an ordinary criminal proceeding. We are talking here of the impeachment of the President. Don’t you think there is a distinction here?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Anyway, we are just making these manifestations, if Your Honor please, because we would want to maintain our objection to this kind of testimony because we sincerely believe that these are not covered by the Articles of Impeachment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As the Chair have said more than once, your continuing objection shall stay on the record, and there is no need to repeat that objection.

Secondly, the Chair also rules that this case need not go to a provincial prosecutor’s office or not because that is a matter that is reserved only after the completion of the impeachment case where it would result on a conviction because it is without prejudice to the criminal case.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Your Honor, please, I just wanted to point out that the presumption juris tantum arises only upon the filing of a petition by the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, if you limit yourself, if you focus yourself on the presumption juris tantum under Section 2 of Republic Act 1379, the Prosecution had only stated that it will be able to establish by its evidence not only from Ocampo but from three others that the P500 million is ill-gotten. So, why don’t we wait for that evidence and for you to make the proper objection at the proper time?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In short, your objection now is very, very premature.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Attorney Bautista.

MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor. Mrs. Ocampo, after the President signed the documents you testified on at the last hearing, what happened?

MS. OCAMPO. Sir, I gathered all the documents and I went back to the bank and I typed “Jose Velarde” under his signature in the Investment Management Agreement.

MR. BAUTISTA. That’s all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination, Atty. Mendoza?

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. The Defense panel will not cross-examine Mrs. Clarissa Ocampo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It will not?

MR. MENDOZA. Yes. It maintains its position that her testimony is not covered by the Articles of Impeachment. I have a somewhat elaborate dissertation of that, but we shall dispense with that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The dissertation can be submitted as part of a memorandum later on at the proper time.

MR. MENDOZA. May we reserve the filing of a manifestation on this point, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Manifestation in support of your position that the Defense will not cross-examine the witness?

MR. MENDOZA. On the ground of irrelevancy, immateriality and that the subject matter of her testimony is not covered by the Articles of Impeachment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That being the case, the Court will now recognize the honorable Senator Juan Enrile. Because if he

will have any question, the same can be done now in view of the waiver of the Defense to cross-examine the witness. Any member now of the Court may. Can we have the listing of the members? The Honorable Guingona, the Honorable Serge Osmena, then the Honorable John Osmena, the Honorable Legarda, the Honorable Cayetano, the Honorable Biazon, and the Honorable Flavier.

The Honorable Enrile. You may now begin your question.

SEN. ENRILE. With the permission of the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted.

SEN. ENRILE. This Agreement, Ms. Ocampo, reads:

Know All Men By These Presents:

This Agreement made and entered into on the date and at the place indicated herein below by and between:

C-163, Filipino, of legal age, single/ married…(to without mentioning the spouse), with address at…(without mentioning the address), hereinafter referred to as the Principal, and Equitable PCI Bank, a commercial banking corporation duly authorized to perform trust functions under Philippine laws, with principal place of business at Makati Avenue, cor. H. V. dela Costa St., Makati City, represented herein through its trust banking group by the duly authorized officer named herein below and hereinafter referred to as the Investment Manager.

I understand from this that this Agreement is between a principal and an agent. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. ENRILE. In fact, on paragraph 3, subparagraph (c), it states: “In the nature of agreement, this Agreement is an agency and not a trust agreement.” Am I correct in reading this?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before you answer, Ms. Ocampo, Mr. Chief Justice, will the Senator-Judge kindly refer to the document by exhibit number?

SEN. ENRILE. This is Exhibit “UUU” and I am reading from the first page. In effect, therefore, this Agreement is not a trust agreement but a Power of Attorney granted by the Equitable PCI Bank or granted by C-163 to Equitable PCI Bank to act as an Investment Manager of C-163. Am I correct on this?

MS. OCAMPO. We are an agent, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. All right. Do you know if any stamp tax was paid on this document?

MS. OCAMPO. It was not notarized. So, no doc. stamps were paid.

SEN. ENRILE. And so there is, therefore,….

MS. OCAMPO. It’s not required to notarize the document under the Trust regulations.

SEN. ENRILE. But isn’t it a matter of law that a Power of Attorney is required to be stamped in order to be a valid evidence in any Court?

MS. OCAMPO. Actually we followed the rules. This was also consulted….

SEN. ENRILE. Anyway, Mr. Chief Justice, that is a matter of law and so we will come to that at the proper time.

Now….

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before the Senator will proceed, can I interrupt this particular session so we can go into a caucus and define the parameters of questioning by Counsel pursuant to our Rules?

SEN. ENRILE. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m clarifying this point because before I can act as a judge to consider this document, I must be assured that it complies with all legal requirements for admissibility.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, the Senate President was only trying to point out the fact that the two-minute period granted had expired and perhaps the senator-judges could agree among themselves on the possibility of…In light of the fact that there was no cross-examination.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. That’s what I would like to request–that we go into a caucus now because, anyway, we are entitled to a brief recess.

SEN. ENRILE. I will just ask one more question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. After that the Senator-Judges will have a caucus precisely to consider the fact that there was no cross- examination, and therefore, probably an extension of the period may be given to the judges for clarification.

The honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, really the witness is placed at a disadvantage because there was no cross-examination. Now, in effect, a question may be propounded, which is actually a cross-examination, and we cannot object because it happens to be a senator-judge.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, you can object to the question of the members of the Court.

REP. ARROYO. We can object?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can.

REP. ARROYO. Thank you very much then.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can object.

SEN. ENRILE. All right. How many typewriters did you use in inserting words in this document?

MS. OCAMPO. Just one.

SEN. ENRILE. Just one. Did you use the same typewriter in inserting the figure P500,000,000 on paragraph 1 of–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What document number?

SEN. ENRILE. –page 1 of this Investment Management Agree-ment?

MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, we will object. There is no testimony that the witness herself did the typing.

SEN. ENRILE. I’m asking if she knows.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness identified the document and therefore she could be asked–

MR. BAUTISTA. We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –for clarification.

SEN. ENRILE. She is a party to this document.

MR. BAUTISTA. We submit, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. She’s responsible for every word that is written in this document as a party to this document. So the objection is meaningless. Go ahead, please.

MS. OCAMPO. I recall that there was only one typewriter that was used because this is a highly confidential account. Therefore, the typewriter of my secretary had to be used.

SEN. ENRILE. Is the same….

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. With the permission of Senator Enrile, can we go into a break now just to…

SEN. ENRILE. May I therefore reserve the right to continue my questioning of this witness until I have finished my question on this document, Mr. Chief Justice?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is suspended for 20 minutes. That will include already the regular break because it’s already 3:34 p.m.

SEN. ENRILE. I just want my reservation….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The reservation is noted.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that will be taken up during the caucus. The Presiding Officer will not attend the caucus. It should only be among the Senator-Judges.

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

It was 3:34 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:35 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., and the honorable Presiding Officer Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

The honorable Senate President is recognized for a statement as to the result of the agreement or consensus arrived at during the caucus of the honorable members of the Court.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, after a lengthy discussion in caucus, the senators have agreed:

1. To give all senators the right to ask questions of witnesses who are not cross-examined, five minutes of question time; and for this particular purpose Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile will be given an additional five minutes to do so.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. I thought the consensus was for this particular witness –

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. For this particular witness.

SEN. ROCO. — not because there is no cross but because there has been a request because of the importance of this witness.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. That’s all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So in other words, on a case-to-case basis.

SEN. ROCO. But we do not amend the Rules and it is upon the request because some of the senators feel strongly about it.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. And that’s all. But not because there is no cross.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Also because there is no cross.

SEN. ROCO. No, because if you say “because there is no cross,” then our distinguished friends lawyers will shift the burden on us. By just not crossing, you will have the burden of carrying forward the cross and that is a terrible situation. We should not expose … and that is how I understood the caucus consensus.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. That’s correct.

SEN. ROCO. Five minutes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, five minutes will be given to each member to ask questions.

SEN. ROCO. Without conditions. It happens that we are granting the request.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. On this particular witness.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, that’s all.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. If you want to put it that way.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. So we will now give the honorable Senator-Judge Enrile a fresh time of five minutes.

Your Honor may now proceed.

SEN. ENRILE. Ms. Ocampo, when you went to Malacañang to have this document Investment Management Agreement signed, did you check whether there was a Velarde, Jose Velarde living in Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. I didn’t know that it was Jose Velarde because when I went there, I was not told who was actually going to sign and who the principal was.

SEN. ENRILE. All right. In the notarial acknowledgment, this document was supposed to be signed in Makati. Why was it signed in Malacañang?

MR. BAUTISTA. May we request the Senator-Judge to identify the particular document?

SEN. ENRILE. We are talking of one document, Exhibit “UUU”. I would like the objections not to be counted with my time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That will not be counted, Your Honor. Even the answer will not be counted against the five minutes.

SEN. ENRILE. And also the intervals, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is the interval between questions, that will be counted against you.

MS. OCAMPO. I cannot answer the technical side. But

the point is, what was important to us is that this was signed on February 4, 2000.

SEN. ENRILE. All right. But supposedly in Makati.

MS. OCAMPO. No. Actually, the secretary typed it because it was automatic for her to just type “Makati.” I did not anymore change it. But what was important is that the document was signed on February 4.

If you will note on the first page, there was no date on the document. So we just used this date on the notarization portion as the date of the document.

SEN. ENRILE. If indeed, as your story goes, the President signed this document and he signed the name “Joseph Ejercito Estrada” and given the fact that you refer to a certain Savings Account/Current Account No. 0160-62501-5 supposedly in the name of “Jose Velarde,” would you have authenticated this document?

MR. BAUTISTA. Objection. The question is misleading.

SEN. ENRILE. No, it’s not misleading.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer. The objection is overruled.

MS. OCAMPO. Number one, if he signed “Joseph Ejercito Estrada,” I would have called the Chairman, Mr. Go, because the Debit/Credit Authority is “Jose Velarde”. So I cannot tell now whether that is the same person. Then I will have to wait for his instructions.

I cannot say now whether I will authenticate because I do not know whether I would have proceeded.

SEN. ENRILE. So, when he signed “Jose Velarde,” you did not authenticate, in fact, you said, “Nagulat ako!”

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. ENRILE. “I could not believe it that he signed “Jose Velarde.” And yet you say, if he signed “Joseph Ejercito Estrada,” you would not have allowed it. Which is which?

MS. OCAMPO. Because, as I said, on December 22nd, that the Debit/Credit Authority was in an envelope, okay, and I opened that envelope only after all the investment management agreements

were signed. So when I saw that it was consistent “Jose Velarde”,

then I proceeded with the transaction. But…

SEN. ENRILE. Why did you not authenticate it?

MS. OCAMPO. Because that is not his real name.

SEN. ENRILE. Oh. Is that so? But that, according to you–but according to you, that is the real name of the account mentioned in

the letter to Bagsit.

MS. OCAMPO. The trust transaction is just an offshoot,

is actually the leg, the last leg of the account.

SEN. ENRILE. But this is not a trust transaction.

MS. OCAMPO. This is a…

SEN. ENRILE. I asked you, this is an agency agreement?

MS. OCAMPO. This is an agency. It is under the trust. It is under the trust. It’s under the duties of the Trust Department to handle agency arrangements.

SEN. ENRILE. Is this covered by a special resolution of the Board of Directors of Equitable PCI Bank?

MS. OCAMPO. Which one, Sir?

SEN. ENRILE. This IMA, Investment Management Agreement, since this is outside the trust powers and authority of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. The agency is part of the duties of the trust.

SEN. ENRILE. Can you show us a specific provision to that effect?

MS. OCAMPO. Now?

MR. BAUTISTA. We object, Your Honor. I think the question calls…

SEN. ENRILE. May I request, Mr. Chief Justice–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection overruled. The witness may answer.

SEN. ENRILE. –that the people who are talking in the–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ENRILE. –gallery be excluded from the Court?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The audience is requested to observe the rules as prescribed by the Impeachment Court to preserve the dignity of the Court.

MS. OCAMPO. Sir, the trust regulations, that’s 1065. I under-stand that the Investment Management Rules are under 1411.

SEN. ENRILE. All right.

MS. OCAMPO. But we don’t have it now.

SEN. ENRILE. Incidentally, were you subpoenaed to come and testify here?

MR. POBLADOR. We object, Your Honor, on the ground of irrelevance and immateriality.

SEN. ENRILE. I just want to find out.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer. Objection overruled.

MS. OCAMPO. I was not subpoenaed.

SEN. ENRILE. You were not. Have you ever been a visitor of this place before you became a witness?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Were you the subject of a subpoena duces tecum, or rather the documents you brought to this hearing, were they subject of a subpoena duces tecum?

MR. POBLADOR. Same objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection overruled. The witness may answer.

MS. OCAMPO. I don’t really know whether…I’m not a lawyer, so we brought the documents because I understand it is part already. Because the subpoena covers all of the transactions of the account and the trust account.

SEN. ENRILE. What subpoena? What subpoena?

Anyway, were you clothed with a written instruction by the

Board of Directors of Equitable PCI Bank to be a witness here and to bring the documents that you brought as a part of your testimony here?

MR. POBLADOR. We object also, Your Honor, on the ground of immateriality.

SEN. ENRILE. It is material, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection overruled. The witness may answer.

MS. OCAMPO. There is a board resolution, Sir.

SEN. ENRILE. May we have a copy of that board resolution.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, we will give you a copy.

SEN. ENRILE. Who were the members of the Board who authorized you to come here and testify in this proceeding and to bring the documents that you brought here?

MS. OCAMPO. At that time, Mr. Go was still the chairman. So, Mr. Go, Mr. Vergara and all the other members of the Board. They were present.

SEN. ENRILE. That will be all, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Chair now recognizes the honorable Senator-Judge Guingona for five minutes.

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

Madam Witness, is it true that the Defense Counsels or any one of them contacted you before December 22 of the year 2000?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to object to the question as being…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground? On what ground?

MR. FLAMINIANO. It was not part of the offer of testimony

of the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. The witness may answer.

MS. OCAMPO. The Defense Counsel, Your Honor, did not contact me before December 22.

SEN. GUINGONA. So, there was no Defense Counsel who contacted you?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. May we now go to Exhibit “XXX”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Triple “X”. You may now go ahead.

SEN. GUINGONA. This Exhibit “XXX” is a letter signed by Jose Velarde, is it not?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Is it one of the documents that you already identified as having been signed by President Joseph Estrada?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. All right. It refers to an authorization, does it not?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. It refers to an authorization to debit his account?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Savings Account and Current Account

No. 0160-62501-5, maintained with the branch in Equitable PCI?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. All right. Authorizing the transfer of P500 million and to credit the same to his trust account. Is that correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Did these savings account and current account exist in that branch in your bank in the year 1999?

MS. OCAMPO. On the basis of this document, this was given to me by the branch, so it exists.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the answer of the witness?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, it exists.

SEN. GUINGONA. So, it was already existing in 1999?

MS. OCAMPO. Existing in 1999.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No further question, Your Honor?

SEN. GUINGONA. I’ve no further questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

We now recognize the honorable Senator Sergio Osmena III.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Ocampo, can you tell us or can you tell this Court if how long have you been familiar with the savings account/current account that was just mentioned, the number of which was just read to you by Senator-Judge Guingona?

MS. OCAMPO. Sir, I’m not familiar with this account because it is with the bank proper and I only handle the trust.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). So, therefore, this was the first time you heard of this account?

MS. OCAMPO. Actually, when I went to Malacañang to have the Jose Velarde, the President, sign the document, then I saw that there was this account in the bank. And I was told also by Mr. Go that the funding for the P500 million will be coming from the principal’s account with the bank.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Now, Ms. Ocampo, you said you did not know who you were supposed to see in Malacañang. So how did you know to go to the Office of the President?

MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Fernando Chua, the contact person for the transaction, the representative of the principal, mentioned that the signing of the Investment Management Agreement and all the documents will be made in Malacañang, but he never mentioned that evening, that was February 3rd, as to who I will be meeting. And actually, I only found out like one hour before that it was the President, in Malacañang already.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). So, you went to Malacañang and you were supposed to meet Attorney Chua in Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). And then, only then that he tell you that the principal would be –

MS. OCAMPO. The President.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). — the President.

Now, you also stated that you never saw the name “Jose Velarde” before that date.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). And that the Investment Management Agreement you had brought to Malacañang did not have the name “Jose Velarde” typewritten on it?

MS. OCAMPO. No.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). That came later.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). All right. Now, what about this debit-credit letter also dated February 4?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Exhibit Number, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Exhibit No. “XXX-1″, Mr. Chief Justice–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). — addressed to Ms. Beatriz Bagsit, First Vice President. When was the first time you saw this letter?

MS. OCAMPO. After all the Investment Management documents signed on February–they were signed on February 4–then I pulled out this document which was inside an envelope. So, that was the only time I saw it after he had signed all the trust-related documents.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). I see. Inside what envelope? An envelope you had brought with you to Malacañang or an envelope that Mr. Chua gave to you when you were in Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. An envelope that I brought which was given to me by a branch officer.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). I see. So, this had been prepared also by the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Obviously, ‘no?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor, but on the bank proper side, not the trust. That is…

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). . I see. By the banking side. All right. Now, then are you familiar if there are today, after February 4, are you familiar if there are any other Jose Velarde accounts?

MS. OCAMPO. I cannot answer that because I’m not familiar, except for the ones that have already been presented to this Court.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). And then would you be able also… Have you been able to take a look at the signature specimen card that is the subject of the Current Account No. 011025495-4?

MS. OCAMPO. Current Account?

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). That is a current account that was the subject of Envelope No. 1, as we know it here in the Senate, which was opened and then we sealed. That is Current Account No. 25495-4?

MS. OCAMPO. I don’t have it, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). But in the letter, the debit-credit letter to Ms. Bagsit, the Savings Account number, the counterpart in the combo account which ends 62501-5, you are familiar with?

MS. OCAMPO. Based on what was presented.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). I see. But you never saw this specimen signature card?

MS. OCAMPO. No.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). That is all, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much. We will now recognize the honorable Senator John Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Now,

Ms. Ocampo, these exhibits that you are using “UUU”, “UUU-2”, “UUU-3”, “VVV”, “VVV-1”, “VVV-2”, “WWW”, “WWW-2”, “XXX”, “YYY”, “YYY-2”, “YYY-3”, “YYY-4”, “YYY-5”, “YYY-6”, “YYY-8”
I don’t know why there is no 7….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That should be 7.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Okay. “YYY-9”, “YYY-10”, “YYY-11” and “YYY-13”. All of these documents are form documents of the bank, is that not correct?

MS. OCAMPO. The Investment Management Agreement, “UUU”, is a form document.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). No, all of the ones that I
okay, go ahead.

MS. OCAMPO. The “YYY” is a form document, “VVV” is a form document, but the directional letter
I don’t have a copy here
the directional letter of investment is not a form document. That was customized in view of the specific instructions of the principal.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Now, “UUU-2” which is identical to “UUU-1” and “UUU-3” are documents which have nothing in writing on their face except the typewritten figure P500 million in words and figures, is that not correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). And you have not initialed this document?

MS. OCAMPO. I actually signed….This is “UUU”?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). That is correct, “UUU”.

MS. OCAMPO. I actually signed the document.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). May I know where your signature is?

MS. OCAMPO. On the second page, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). No, I am talking about the first page of “UUU”; the second page is actually denominated as “UUU-1”.

MS. OCAMPO. It forms part of the agreement. I mean,….

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). But this could have been another document?

MS. OCAMPO. It’s not another document.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Well, that is now a matter of conjecture. What I am saying is that there is nothing on this document that relates to “UUU-1”.

MR. POBLADOR. We object. The question calls for a conjecture, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is asked for a fact, so objection is overruled. Witness may answer.

MS. OCAMPO. You can look at the account number which is 10178056-1, which is the trust account number of this Jose Velarde account. You can look at C-163 which is also the confidential account name. So, it is consistent with the signature card which also has the typewritten numbers.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Is it not correct that PCI Bank IMA Account No. 10178056-1, as well as the C-163, is not either handwritten or typewritten, this is computer-generated?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir. This is not a pro forma, I mean, it’s not a pre-printed, but it was generated by the computer. We got the account number in the confidential account register, and then we got the account name 163 in the confidential account register as well. So when we printed the document, we already put it in.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). May we ask that these three items as–C-163; the amount of P500 million and PCI Bank IMA Account No. 10178056-1–all be marked as Exhibits “UUU-a”, “UUU-b”, and “UUU-c”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Prosecution agree?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Of the Court, exhibits of the Court.

MR. POBLADOR. Your Honor, the Prosecution panel objects to the further marking of the originals. We had explained before that we do not wish it to be defaced. If the Court would like its own markings, at the very least, it should adopt its own markings, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would rule that the request can be taken into consideration. Anyway, the document will be presented in evidence and therefore the judges can make proper notice thereof at the time that they would be ready to deliberate on the merits of the case.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, I will go to Exhibit “YYY-8”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). “YYY-8”, Your Honor, and “YYY-5” and “YYY-3” and “YYY-4”. All of these four documents have not been in any way marked with any particular marking which would indicate that these are documents that relate to the account that we are under…that is subject of this hearing, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you agree with the observation, Madam Witness?

MS. OCAMPO. I would like to explain why not all the copies, pages were signed. In fact, I had more copies of the agreements. I had six (6) copies of the Investment Management Agreement, I had two (2) copies of the investment guidelines, I had four (4) copies, et cetera. But Atty. Fernando Chua informed me that the President–that was the time, that was about an hour before I found out that it was the President who was going to see me–informed me that the President does not want to sign too many documents, too many pages. So with that, I kept some of the copies. So for this particular document, which has eight (8) pages,

I just identified the most important pages and that’s what I asked him

to sign.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). But you admit that these were never signed and these are form documents?

MS. OCAMPO. These are form documents and there was a–

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you.

MS. OCAMPO. — reason for not signing.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you very much.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Now, when you refer to…Well, I would like to say that the same holds true for “YYY-9” and “YYY-10” also, Your Honor.

Now, let’s go to that document that you called the Investment Agreement?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). How do you describe “XXX”, Your Honor? How do you describe this document called “XXX”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exhibit “XXX”, Madam Witness.

MS. OCAMPO. This is the….Your Honor, this is the debit/credit authority.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). The debit/credit.

MS. OCAMPO. This is coming from the bank proper to allow the bank proper to actually debit the account of the principal with the bank and credit trust.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Okay. I heard you testify, please correct me, if I am wrong, that this document was inside an envelope and you did not open the document until after the other documents were signed, is that correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). So, you did not see the document signed?

MS. OCAMPO. I saw the document signed.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). You did not see the actual signing of this document.

MS. OCAMPO. I did. I did.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). It was in an envelope.

MS. OCAMPO. I pulled it out. And then I had the President sign it. Because after I had all the trust documents signed, I saw one envelope that….Then I remember that there was something that I had to have executed for the bank. So I opened it, pulled out the document and had the President sign and I saw the name “Jose Velarde”.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Okay. Then document “YYY,” did you prepare this document? It is signed by you.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). But this document does not bear any signature of the owner of the account, whoever he may be?

MS. OCAMPO. Some of the pages.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). No, no. “YYY” alone.

MS. OCAMPO. This is just the introduction. It actually discusses what kind of document is to be signed.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). I just want to know specifically that this document was signed by you.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). This is a form document or a…No, this is not a form document. Is this a form document?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, it is for that period. We change this from time to time depending on the market conditions.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). And the numbers C-163 and P/8 No. 10178056-1 was typewritten by you?

MS. OCAMPO. This was computer-generated.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). It was computer-generated under your responsibility?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

We now recognize the honorable Senator Loren Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I just would like to propound a few questions to the witness.

Can you please tell us, Madam Witness, who instructed you to go to Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Fernando Chua instructed me and

Atty. Curato to go to Malacañang.

SEN. LEVISTE. Attorney Curato, according to your testimony, is an officer of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. He is the head of our Legal Department.

SEN. LEVISTE. Of the Equitable PCI Bank?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And Atty. Fenando Chua is not in any way connected with Equitable PCI but is connected with the President, is that correct?

MS. OCAMPO. He is the representative. He was the representative of the President apparently because he is the contact person.

SEN. LEVISTE. And did you receive your direct instructions to go to Malacañang from Atty. Curato or from Atty. Fernando Chua?

MS. OCAMPO. Your Honor, Atty. Fernando Chua.

SEN. LEVISTE. He called you and requested you to go to Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Who requested you to prepare these documents and to bring them to Malacañang on February 4?

MS. OCAMPO. This was actually….The transaction, Your Honor, was discussed. And on the basis of the kind of transaction, then we decided, Atty. Curato and I, that this is the kind of documentation that we will do for the transaction. So, we prepared the documents.

SEN. LEVISTE. Did you have any idea that you were to meet the President?

MS. OCAMPO. I was going to Malacañang, I didn’t have that…Well, of course, I was assuming that probably I would meet him but I don’t really know who was going to sign the documents. I only found out an hour before the signing.

SEN. LEVISTE. Were these documents prepared before you went to Malacañang? Meaning, were they typewritten before you went to Malacanang?

MS. OCAMPO. Some of the form documents were already ready. We just generated the numbers and directed….The letter of instruction to invest in Wellex was prepared. It is not a pro forma. And the all others are form documents.

SEN. LEVISTE. So, let us just focus first on the Investment Management Agreement or Exhibit “UUU”. The numbers P500,000,000 were already typewritten on the agreement, on the first page before you went to Malacanang, is that correct?

MS. OCAMPO. This one was already typewritten.

SEN. LEVISTE. How about your name and Manuel Curato’s name, were these already typewritten?

MS. OCAMPO. Only my name, Your Honor, was typewritten.

SEN. LEVISTE. Mr. Curato’s name was typewritten, I assume, after the signature was made?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Was the name “Jose Velarde” typewritten already on the Investment Management Agreement before you went to Malacanang?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Your Honor. We typed it after.

SEN. LEVISTE. So, in the space provided for under the “Principal”, “By:” and there is a name “Jose Velarde” typewritten with the signature “Jose Velarde”, was this blank when you left the bank and when you inserted it in the envelope and this is the same document which you brought out in Malacanang for the President to sign?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor. It was blank.

SEN. LEVISTE. So, in the Investment Management Agreement, only the P500,000,000 typewritten words and numbers and your typewritten name was there?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. “Manuel Curato” and “Jose Velarde” were not there?

MS. OCAMPO. Not yet.

SEN. LEVISTE. When were these typed?

MS. OCAMPO. After they were signed already by the President under the name “Jose Velarde” and Atty. Curato had witnessed, then we went back to the bank and I had it typed.

SEN. LEVISTE. So, the signatures of Jose Velarde and Manuel Curato came first before the typewritten names under their signatures?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. You had no idea that you would meet “Jose Velarde” or that a person would sign the name “Jose Velarde” in this Investment Management Agreement?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. How about the signature cards under Exhibit “VVV-1”, was this prepared before you went to Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. Only the account name which is C-163 and the Trust Account No. 10178056-1 were typed.

SEN. LEVISTE. Did you have an idea upon–before you left the bank upon going to Malacañang who would sign or open this account?

MS. OCAMPO. No, I didn’t have an idea.

SEN. LEVISTE. Can you just explain to us what C-163 means?

MS. OCAMPO. This is the name that we assigned to the trust account because it is highly confidential. So in Trust, we have a register of confidential account numbers. So when we prepare our transaction “milia”(?) then we use the name. Since it is a very confidential account so I will not say Jose Velarde in my action sheet, which is the transaction “milia”(?). I would say, C-163.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. And in the other exhibits “WWW,” this was, I assumed, prepared again before you left the bank, this was signed by Jose Velarde. However, there are other documents where the signature of Jose Velarde cannot be located. Can you kindly explain once again, why Jose Velarde did not sign in the “Conforme” in the other exhibits, while in the other exhibits Jose Velarde had signed in the blank beside the “Conforme”?

MS. OCAMPO. As I have mentioned earlier, Your Honor, I was informed by Atty. Fernando Chua that the principal, the President, does not want to sign too many documents and too many pages. So I decided to actually pull out a lot of the documents, like for the Investment Management Agreement there were six, so I just decided to just have him sign three and down the line. But for this document which has eight pages, so I just felt that he may not want to sign all the pages and so I just identified what would be relevant to his transaction. So I asked him, like for the…the first page that he signed was Direct Credit Extensions….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you indicate the exhibit number, Madam Witness?

MS. OCAMPO. Exhibit “YYY-6”, Your Honor. I had him sign this because he would–there would be funds coming in from interest payments by Wellex, so this amount will then be invested. So I assumed that he would like to invest these funds in loans. So I had the President sign this particular page. I assumed, like for the next page which is marked “YYY-8,” for conservatism, I assumed that he would not want to invest in equities, so I did not have him sign the list of stockbrokers. So I decided which particular pages are relevant or are important because of the investment outlets that he would like to get into for the interest payments that would come from the loan.

SEN. LEVISTE. Was it, therefore, your judgment or your decision that prevailed in making Jose Velarde sign the signature in the “Conforme” in these exhibits?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And for this, which have been furnished us, you-the–bank would have the original-signed copies by Jose Velarde?

MS. OCAMPO. These are the–we have already provided, Your Honor, the originals.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. You said that you were surprised to see the President sign the signature “Jose Velarde.” What did you do after you saw the President signed “Jose Velarde”?

MS. OCAMPO. Actually, I…what can I do? I actually waited. He signed all the documents. But for my comfort, when I pulled out the debit/credit authority and it was consistent, it was also Jose Velarde, so I just felt that it was consistent with the bank and the bank had already reviewed the transaction and this is an account that was referred to me for handling by the Chairman, so he can identify or he knows the principal, he knows the transaction.

SEN. LEVISTE. After you had made the President sign Jose Velarde, according to your account, did you discuss this with the Legal Officer-in-Charge, Atty. Manuel Curato, and the representative of the President, Atty. Fernando Chua?

MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Curato was there and we just looked at the debit/credit authority, it was consistent; and he agreed to proceed with the transaction. We did not discuss it with Atty. Chua. It was between Atty. Curato and myself. What was important was that on the bank side, it’s not like it was the first time that the President had opened an account with the bank and the thrust was to decide whether we were going to accept it. There was already that existing account with the bank and then the name that was used is consistent.

SEN. LEVISTE. You had mentioned in your testimony that

Mr. Laquian, the former chief staff of the President, was also present during that time.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Were there any comments that transpired between you and Mr. Laquian after you were surprised to see the President signed “Mr. Jose Velarde”?

MS. OCAMPO. No, we did not talk. He was just seated on the right side of the President. And he was just there.

SEN. LEVISTE. This signing time, it took all of how many minutes?

MS. OCAMPO. Just very briefly, 10 minutes. Because there were not too many–like I pulled out a lot of the documents.

SEN. LEVISTE. And when these 10 minutes transpired, was there any conversation among Mr. Laquian, yourself, Atty. Chua and Atty. Curato?

MS. OCAMPO. We were just very quiet because we took the cue from the President. He was actually very quiet. I was explaining to him the nature of the documents before he would sign and he did not comment. So, we just proceeded with the signing.

SEN. LEVISTE. Did the President ask you any questions?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Upon having left Malacanang, you mentioned that you discussed things with Atty. Curato?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. LEVISTE. May we know what was the first question, if you had indeed have some apprehensions about this?

MS. OCAMPO. Well, I asked him: “This is Jose Velarde, can we proceed?” And then he agreed. Because, as I mentioned, it is already the account in the bank.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. And that is all that transpired on this account between you and Atty. Curato?

MS. OCAMPO. To my recollection, yes.

SEN. LEVISTE. Did you, at all, discuss this with any of your officemates or even with the Chairman, Mr. George Go, of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. With my officemates, no. Because it was assigned to me as trust officer, highly confidential. So I am supposed to handle the transaction. I did not discuss it with George Go anymore because I assumed that he instructed me to handle it. And he had talked to Atty. Chua before he instructed me, so he knows the whole transaction already.

SEN. LEVISTE. I assumed that you had already conducted similar deals in the past, is that correct? Or is this the first time that you had been witness to an alias being used?

MS. OCAMPO. There are accounts that actually used account numbers. But there should be one signature card that contains the signature of the person who is actually signing the agreement. So, there are transactions that have account numbers only. But this, where all the documents, all the signatures are Jose Velarde, it is the first time.

SEN. LEVISTE. Was it, therefore, unusual that you had seen a person sign a name other than his in a signature card and in an Investment Management Agreement?

MS. OCAMPO. For Trust, it is. Because, actually for PCI Bank, because I came from PCI bank, so, it was, actually, the first time in terms of seeing a person sign a different name for all of the documents.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you. And my last question is, what prompted you to come to the Senate and testify?

MS. OCAMPO. There are actually three reasons. When I saw that the check that was presented on Day One, that was an Equitable bank check, and bore the signature of Jose Velarde, so I thought to myself that, eventually, I will come out because I can identify. That’s one. But I have probably to wait for my turn.

The second is that I was concerned because of the fact that Atty. Chua saw me sometime in the first week of December and asked me about the documents and asked me what we’re doing about it, et cetera. So, in other words, they remember that I was there, I witnessed. And apparently, after reviewing all the transactions with the bank, there are probably just two of us who have actually witnessed the President sign “Jose Velarde”. So I was then afraid for my life and the security of my family. It is a real concern.

SEN. LEVISTE. And your third? Are these the three reasons?

MS. OCAMPO. There was actually an instruction to prepare a second set of documents. This was… It was actually instructed by

Mr. George Go. So he told me to prepare another set of investment management documents. And because the principal had, I supposed, talked to him to assign his rights and interests over the IMA to a certain Jaime Dichaves. And that was done because, of course, I have… this is just an agency. We are just agents, then the principal is the President, say, in the name of Jose Velarde. So if he had instructed us to do it, then we will do it. But what really concerned me was that, first, it was signed December 11. Mr. Dichaves was there. So I witnessed the signing. And then I had to go for signing or for execution of the Investment Management Agreement and it was done in the office of… I am sorry, but it was done in the office of Atty. Estelito Mendoza. So that concerned me a lot. And there was another thing that was needed. We needed a letter of authority from the principal, Jose Velarde, or the President to transfer his rights and interests to Jaime Dichaves which never came. So that concerned me. In fact, that was the reason why on December 13 I then talked to external counsel and I talked to the President about all of this.

SEN. LEVISTE. The President of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. The bank, the bank.

SEN. LEVISTE. That is all, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you, Madam Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Chair would now recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

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

I would have loved to begin my questioning about your voluntary appearance and you already explained it. You explained it well. And let me just add a few more questions. So, as a result of the execution of the second document, you have now two documents. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. The second document was not implemented. So there is really just one. As far as we are concerned, it is Jose Velarde. He did not execute any assignment.

SEN. CAYETANO. There was no….

MS. OCAMPO. So, there’s… that one is out.

SEN. CAYETANO. So the second document was not executed at all?

MS. OCAMPO. It was executed but not implemented because it is incomplete.

SEN. CAYETANO. I see. So as far as your record is concerned, it is still Mr. Jose Velarde, as you testified, which is the President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, Mrs. Ocampo, tell me, do you remem-ber the shape of the presidential table where all these papers were signed?

MS. OCAMPO. It was a very big round table.

SEN. CAYETANO. A very big round table.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. And I recall, ang sabi mo dito ay nasa kaliwa ka ni Pangulo?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. A foot away?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. At the time he signed “Jose Velarde.” Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Oho, oho.

SEN. CAYETANO. And can you tell us the locations of the individuals that you mentioned? For instance, you talked about

Atty. Curato being with you. In this round table, where was he located

in relation to you?

MS. OCAMPO. He was to my lelft. Atty. Curato.

SEN. CAYETANO. How far to your left?

MS. OCAMPO. One foot away, the next chair.

SEN. CAYETANO. One foot away.

MS. OCAMPO. The next chair.

SEN. CAYETANO. And you also mentioned the presence of

Mr. Laquian. And where was he located in reference to the President?

MS. OCAMPO. He was on the right side of the President.

SEN. CAYETANO. Am I correct in concluding that there were four of you in the presidential table?

MS. OCAMPO. There was another one but he stood up and walked around the table. That was Atty. Fernando Chua.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. But did he sit first before he walked out?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Where was he located in relation to you?

MS. OCAMPO. He was actually…he was about two or three seats away from me on my left side. He was beside Atty. Curato.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. So, you are on the left side of the President, one foot away and a foot away from you is Atty. Curato. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And a little farther to the left of Curato is Mr. Chua. Atty. Chua.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And to the right of the President is

Mr. Laquian.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. How far is Mr. Laquian from the President? Do you recall?

MS. OCAMPO. He was initially about a foot away but when the signing took place, he pulled back his chair. So he became like farther away, like maybe about two feet, two-and-a-half feet away.

SEN. CAYETANO. Did Mr. Laquian see the signature affixed by the President as Jose Velarde? Do you recall?

MS. OCAMPO. To my recollection, he did not. He did not see.

SEN. CAYETANO. He did not.

MS. OCAMPO. Because he was quite far. About two-and-a-half to three feet away already. Because he pulled the chair back when the signing started.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Do you recall what hand the President used in signing?

MS. OCAMPO. The left hand.

SEN. CAYETANO. The left hand. Now, you testified earlier that your appearance here is with the approval of the Board. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. You are talking about the Board of Directors of Equitable PCI Bank.

MS. OCAMPO. PCI Bank.

SEN. CAYETANO. And is this a verbal approval or a written approval?

MS. OCAMPO. There is a written approval.

SEN. CAYETANO. A written approval. And I recall also that you said you brought all these documents, all these exhibits, with you with the approval of the Board. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor. The Board and the Management.

SEN. CAYETANO. And this was also part of the written approval by the Board of Directors?

MS. OCAMPO. I cannot…I cannot answer that. I suppose yes because it was all-encompassing.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, you said that you did not discuss this matter anymore with Mr. Go because you assumed that Mr. Go knew about this account. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Why did you assume that?

MS. OCAMPO. Because Atty. Fernando Chua called…actually talked to him at The Anvil Restaurant. That was February 3rd. They were talking for a while and only after they talked when then Mr. Go called me in to tell me about the fact that there is this principal, this client of the bank, who is represented by Atty. Fernando Chua, who would like to do a transaction.

SEN. CAYETANO. I see. And at no time did you ever discuss this matter with Mr. Go except when a second document was supposed to be executed by Mr. Dichaves. Am I correct?

MS. OCAMPO. There were times when I had to discuss it but we would refer to, we would not mention the name “Jose Velarde.” Like we would just say, “the principal.” Like, when,…the collateral cover. The collateral was Waterfront shares. Because of the decline in the value, then he is not amply covered for his P500-million loan. So I would discuss with Mr. Go and give him an update and tell him that I am trying to get some more collateral from Mr. Gatchalian.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Now, you mentioned that you voluntarily appeared here because, among others, in fact, I think No. 1, ang sabi mo ay dahil nakita mo iyong tseke na may pirmang “Jose Velarde.” Why did you say that you thought that you have to come here anyway?

MS. OCAMPO. Because I will…because it is part of…the transaction is actually coming from the bank funds. And if you will…I have not seen the ledgers. But definitely, the ledgers will show that there is a withdrawal of P500 million and I am sure that the auditors, the parties will try to trace that. So, it will then go to trust and I will be presented.

SEN. CAYETANO. And you feel that…are you saying that there are more than P500 million account of Jose Velarde?

MS. OCAMPO. I really don’t know.

SEN. CAYETANO. Is that your conclusion?

MS. OCAMPO. Sir, I don’t know how much is in the savings because I never really…that’s a bank transaction. With the trust, it is P500 million plus the interest income already on the loan.

SEN. CAYETANO. That is all you know?

MS. OCAMPO. For the trust.

SEN. CAYETANO. For the trust.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, ever since the check of P142 million came, you already knew that that is “Jose Velarde” and not “Jose Valhalla”?

MS. OCAMPO. It looked like “Valhalla”, but I knew that it was “Velarde”, you know, because that is the… As I know, that is the account in the bank. Later on, I found out.

SEN. CAYETANO. Because the signatures were familiar to you.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. One final question. You said that you saw Atty. Fernando Chua. When was that, December 11?

MS. OCAMPO. No. Sometime, the first week of December, he visited me in the office unannounced, unannounced.

SEN. CAYETANO. And what did he say?

MS. OCAMPO. Well, he was asking about the transaction, I mean the documentation and–

SEN. CAYETANO. About the P500 million.

MS. OCAMPO. –P500 million on the trust side, and he was just asking me… Well, he asked me to protect the President.

SEN. CAYETANO. In what way?

MS. OCAMPO. I don’t know.

SEN. CAYETANO. I mean, in what way did he say, “Protect the President”? Ano ang sabi niya? As far as you recall, ano ang pagkakasabi ni Mr. Fernando Chua?

MS. OCAMPO. Well, he asked me, “Where are the documents?” And then I said that I have already given them to Senior Management because, of course, the management was already reviewing all of the Velarde accounts. And so what are we going to do about it? Then I said that Senior Management will probably get in touch with you. And then… So, I cannot commit anything, you know, because I brought it up, they are reviewing, we were looking at how we are going to go about it. Well, if we were going to cooperate, actually. That was a commitment of the bank, and when I will appear, when will Betty Bagsit appear, et cetera. But he then reminded me, he reminded me that, “You should protect the President.” That is what he said, and I just looked at him.

SEN. CAYETANO. Exactly that word.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. “Protect the President”.

MS. OCAMPO. Uhumm.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Do you know this Ms. Bagsit personally?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes. She is First Vice President of the bank proper, of Equitable PCI Bank.

SEN. CAYETANO. And is she the one in charge of Jose Velarde’s account?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, she is the one in charge now. But there probably are certain people higher than her who are likewise in charge, but I don’t know who.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, one final question. Do you still fear for your life?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, of course, I do.

SEN. CAYETANO. Why?

MS. OCAMPO. Because this is the government, this is Malacañang, especially after the bombings, I was really very concerned. I don’t really know the source of the bombings, but it’s a lot of concern, you know. It’s very difficult to be hiding. It’s very difficult to be in this situation. I am just telling the truth.

SEN. CAYETANO. Well, we are praying for you.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too. The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon; then the honorable Senator-Judge Flavier who earlier made a reservation.

Then honorable Senator-Judge Biazon first.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Chief Justice.

To the witness, Mrs. Ocampo. You have a mention of a second set of documents?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Can you describe what these documents were?

MS. OCAMPO. These would be the same documents: the Investment Management Agreement, the directional letter of investment to Wellex, the investment guidelines, and the signature card.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. And these were the second set of documents. Who were supposed to be the signatories?

MS. OCAMPO. Mr. Jaime Dichaves was going to be the assignee, so the principal, and myself as trust officer.

SEN. BIAZON. Was the name of Jaime Dichaves already typewritten or entered into the documents?

MS. OCAMPO. I understand that it was not typed. It was not typed because it was mentioned to me only like that day, the day that the signing was going to be done. That was… The first signing was December 11, to my recollection.

SEN. BIAZON. The signing of documents by Mr. Dichaves.

MS. OCAMPO. The documents by Mr. Dichaves. Because he went to the bank, he went to the bank initially. He went to the bank and some documents were already signed there in my presence. So, I am familiar with his signature.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. And what would be the account number involved in the second set of documents?

MS. OCAMPO. So it was an assignment. So it was supposed to be an assignment. That was the instruction of the principal, so it would have the same Account Number 10178056-1.

SEN BIAZON. This is in reference to the trust account?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. BIAZON. But in this letter of Jose Velarde to Ms. Bagsit, there is a reference to a debit to his savings account, last Current Account No. 0160-62501-5. Would this also be involved in the second set of documents?

MS. OCAMPO. This was not anymore prepared. This was not executed. It was only for the trust.

SEN. BIAZON. It was only for the Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 which was initially, as you know, an account belonging to one “Jose Velarde”.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

MS. OCAMPO. But this was not…. We did not prepare another one of this to be signed by Jaime Dichaves because it was just an assignment on the trust side, for the trust part of the transaction. So it was not required by our Legal Department because the funds were coming from Jose Velarde account. He is assigning his rights and interests to the trust transaction to Jaime Dichaves so the documents on the trust side were the ones that were actually replicated.

SEN. BIAZON. I am wondering why you would receive instructions from Mr. Fernando Chua. Do you know him personally?

MS. OCAMPO. He was actually introduced to me by Mr. George Go and on that basis, I dealt with him.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. How was Atty. Fernando Chua introduced to you by Mr. Go?

MS. OCAMPO. It was in the party, his asalto. That was February 3. We had cocktails at The Anvil Restaurant. That was about 6:00 or 6:30 and Mr. Fernando Chua came in and talked to Mr. Go. I don’t know how long. And then Mr. Go called me and introduced me to Mr. Chua.

SEN. BIAZON. And how was Mr. Chua introduced to you? As what? A businessman?

MS. OCAMPO. He just said that he is representing a certain client of the bank, the principal, and he would like to discuss with me a transaction with regard to the principal’s account which will involve trust.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. And this was the beginning of the moves for that transaction that ended up in Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Okay. Now, this second set of documents, I am interested in that. Where was this prepared?

MS. OCAMPO. The second set, in my office.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. And was it actually signed?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. BIAZON. Where was it signed? In your office?

MS. OCAMPO. The signature card, the investment guidelines, and the directional letter of investment was signed on December 11, on the 21st Floor of Equitable PCI Bank, Tower I. And then the Investment Management Agreement was signed in the office of Atty. Estelito Mendoza.

SEN. BIAZON. How did it end up in the office of Atty. Estelito Mendoza? On whose instructions were these documents brought to the office of Estelito Mendoza?

MS. OCAMPO. Actually, I was informed to just go to this office, Dynavision, 108 Rada St., Fourth Floor. So Mr. Dichaves was supposed to be there. So I thought it was the office of Mr. Dichaves. I didn’t anymore check whose office, but Mr. Go mentioned that Mr. Dichaves will be there. So I went to the office and I was looking for Mr. Dichaves, and the guard told me there is no Mr. Dichaves in the office, in that building. And then he mentioned that “Some of your companions are there.” So I went up. And then it ended up that Mr. Dichaves was there in the office and it was the office of Atty. Mendoza.

SEN. BIAZON. Are you certain that it was in the office of Atty. Mendoza?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, I am, because I saw him and I talked to him.

SEN. BIAZON. Were there other personnel with you in the bank, officials of the bank, that went with you in that office?

MS. OCAMPO. I was…. I went alone but Mr. Go was likewise there. He was in the room with Atty. Mendoza. And there were two men, their backs were against the door. I assumed that it was Mr. Dichaves. I did not enter the room when the signing was done. I just asked this lady who approached me to just bring in the documents for signature because I am familiar with the signature anyway.

SEN. BIAZON. Were the documents signed there?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Who signed the documents?

MS. OCAMPO. Mr. Jaime Dichaves signed the documents.

SEN. BIAZON. And for what name? Was it for the name of Jaime Dichaves or some other name?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Jaime Dichaves.

SEN. BIAZON. As owner and claimant of the trust account?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, yes. If that was implemented, yes. But it wasn’t implemented.

SEN. BIAZON. Why was it not implemented?

MS. OCAMPO. Because the principal,… the principal is really Jose Velarde. And if he wants to assign his interest and writes over that investment management arrangement for P500 million, then we should get his signature on a directional letter. But that never came. So, how can we implement it? We have no authority.

SEN. BIAZON. Were there other developments after that, what you might call “aborted signing” in the office?

MS. OCAMPO. It was not implemented, so…

SEN. BIAZON. It was not pursued.

MS. OCAMPO. No, not at all.

SEN. BIAZON. There were no other instructions after that?

MS. OCAMPO. No, no.

SEN. BIAZON. And this happened, what date?

MS. OCAMPO. December 13.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Mendoza?

MR. MENDOZA. May I be allowed to make a manifestation, either now or after the questions of the senators but before the witness leaves the witness stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think it would be much better if it would be after all the senators shall have…

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader is recognized.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, it is now 5:42. In keeping with the agreement of the parties in the Court, we should be taking a –

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We shall have a short break, 15 minutes break.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. –15-minute break at this point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After that, we shall continue with the questions of the other members of the Court.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, could the lady be….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Pardon?

REP. ARROYO. Could the witness be accompanied to….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, exactly. Somebody should accompany the witness. That would be the problem of almost everybody anyway.

So, thank you. Fifteen minutes break.

It was 5:42 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 6:02 PM.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and the honorable Presiding Officer Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is resumed.

We shall have a continuation of the questions by members of the Court.

And the next will be the honorable Senator-Judge Flavier. After that, we will have the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon; then, the honorable Senator-Judge Oreta; and the honorable Senator-Judge Coseteng.

You may now proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Mr. Chief Justice, can I ask the witness a few clarificatory questions for my continuing education?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Gladly, Your Honor. You may now proceed.

SEN. FLAVIER. Ms. Ocampo, you alleged that you personally witnessed President Joseph Estrada affix the signature “Jose Velarde” in your presence, as shown in Exhibit “UUU.” Is that correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Aside from that particular incident of the signing by President Joseph Estrada, were you witness to the signing of any other document in which President Joseph Estrada affixed the name “Jose Velarde”?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. So that was the only one?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And you are specifically refer-ring, Madam Witness, to what exhibit, for clarification again?

SEN. FLAVIER. “UUU.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “UUU-1.”

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Were there also any occasion when the name “Jose Velarde” was ever affixed on a document not by President Joseph Estrada?

MS. OCAMPO. To my knowledge, there is none.

SEN. FLAVIER. Your personal knowledge–

MS. OCAMPO. There is none.

SEN. FLAVIER. –and you’re witnessing yet?

MS. OCAMPO. None.

SEN. FLAVIER. No. You alluded to Fernando Chua telling you in some way to protect the President. Did I get you right?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. In that second set of documents involving “Jaime Dichaves,” was this part of that attempt to protect the President?

MS. OCAMPO. I really … well, that was an instruction of

Mr. Go, because the principal had instructed the bank to actually

assign his interest, so I wouldn’t know whether it’s a scheme to protect

the President. But this is an agency so the principal is Jose Velarde, the President, and he wants to assign his rights, then, as an agent then, we have to follow, but….

SEN. FLAVIER. So this was executed in the course of events without pre-knowledge on your part as to what it was for?

MS. OCAMPO. I was told that we were to prepare a new set of the investment management documents because the principal wants to assign his interests over the investment management account to another … a third party, which I found out to be Jaime Dichaves later.

So, I prepared them without knowing actually who the person was, but the reason for it was described to me.

SEN. FLAVIER. I see. Now, have you read in the papers something that I have read in which Jaime Dichaves claims that the Jose Velarde account belongs to him?

MS. OCAMPO. I read that in the papers.

SEN. FLAVIER. Do you, of your own knowledge, know any connection between what transpired in your personal presence with the lawyers and that particular claim of Jaime Dichaves?

MS. OCAMPO. No, if we are going to follow … for the trust, we were going to follow instructions of the principal. So if Jose Velarde or the President was going to instruct us, it was a transfer from Jose Velarde to Jaime Dichaves.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes.

MS. OCAMPO. So Jaime Dichaves will eventually be the assignee of the account.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes, but earlier before the break, you mentioned that the transaction did not materialize–

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. FLAVIER. –or was not completed.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Because the signatory, Joseph Estrada, for the Jose Velarde account, did not sign that, in effect, did not assign it to Dichaves.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Now, if the signature was attained, would it be correct to say that, in effect, the account would then belong to Dichaves and his claim in the newspaper would be correct?

MS. OCAMPO. If the President or Jose Velarde, as he signed it, would instruct us, and we are just agents, then we will implement. But definitely, we will refer the matter to external counsel first.

SEN. FLAVIER. I see. But the signature in the signature card would be the name of Dichaves after it is assigned to him.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Did you see him, meaning, Dichaves affix his signature on the signature card?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. What name did he use? His own name or another name?

MS. OCAMPO. Jaime Dichaves.

SEN. FLAVIER. So that was the name he used and signed it on the card.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Finally, I am intrigued by the fact that part of the incident you recount happens in the law office of Atty. Estelito Mendoza, whom I am glad is coming in, at the right cue. Could you tell this Court, Ms. Ocampo, what was the involvement of Atty. Mendoza in that particular incident in which you went to his office?

MS. OCAMPO. I do not know because I just went there to have Mr. Dichaves actually sign, and I was surprised that it was not the office of Mr. Dichaves. But I saw … I didn’t enter the conference room. I was being invited to go into the conference room and have Mr. Dichaves sign the Investment Management Agreement, but as they opened the door I saw Atty. Mendoza in the room. So I really don’t know what his involvement was, but the documents then were brought out and signed by Mr. Dichaves.

SEN. FLAVIER. Were they just using his office or was he involved in the whole transaction?

MS. OCAMPO. I would not know.

SEN. FLAVIER. You wouldn’t know. I see. But in that particular incident, it went as far as the signing by Dichaves and no signature of the President ever occurred and, therefore, did not get consummated?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Is there any other incident that happened in that particular thing that you would like to share with us?

MS. OCAMPO. Nothing else.

SEN. FLAVIER. No more.

MS. OCAMPO. We did not implement the assignment.

SEN. FLAVIER. Can you repeat that?

MS. OCAMPO. We did not implement the assignment. So as far as the trust is concerned, it is a Jose Velarde account.

SEN. FLAVIER. And then after that, you all left and said your goodbyes and Atty. Estelito Mendoza did not have any hand, active or otherwise, in the transaction.

MS. OCAMPO. I actually met Atty. Mendoza only at the foyer, the foyer ‘no, because his daughter is actually a friend of mine. We were best friends in grade school at St. Scholastica’s College and she was in the office. So she introduced me and reminded Atty. Mendoza that I am Clarissa Grey. And we were just talking about the good old days because I used to visit their house and sleep there when I was a little girl. So that’s what we talked about.

SEN. FLAVIER. I see.

MS. OCAMPO. We didn’t talk about the Dichaves account.

SEN. FLAVIER. So, I assume that you know Atty. Estelito Mendoza.

MS. OCAMPO. I know him because when I was a little girl, you know, I was…You know, his daughter was my best friend–

SEN. FLAVIER. I see.

MS. OCAMPO. –so I used to sleep in his house. But then, I don’t know if he still remembers me.

SEN. FLAVIER. I see. Is he present in this room? And if so, can you point to him?

MS. OCAMPO. This one.

SEN. FLAVIER. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.

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

Mrs. Ocampo, in the second set of documents that you have already testified to, do you recall what the dates indicated were?

MS. OCAMPO. I was told that the principal wants the date to be February 4, 2000, the same date as the original.

SEN. DRILON. Who told you that the principal wanted that date?

MS. OCAMPO. Mr. Go.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Go. And did the documents, in fact, indicate the date February 4 of the year 2000, the second set?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. Now, where are the second set of documents now?

MS. OCAMPO. I submitted it to external counsel.

SEN. DRILON. You submitted it to the external counsel. Would you have a way of retrieving the second set of documents?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. And would you be able to retrieve that and bring it before this Court at a subsequent date?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. Did anyone ask you, or did anyone give you instructions on what to do on the first set of documents?

MS. OCAMPO. It was supposed to be just kept like a dormant file, if we were able to implement the assignment.

SEN. DRILON. All right. Now, let me go to some other matter. I would refer you to Exhibit “XXX”. Can you look at Exhibit “XXX”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Microphone, please.

SEN. DRILON. Can I refer the witness to Exhibit “XXX”? If Exhibit “XXX” is in front of you–I refer to Exhibit “XXX-1″–did you see President Joseph Ejercito Estrada sign above the typewritten name “Jose Velarde”?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Now, this letter is an authorization, and let me read it. It says:

This is to authorize you to debit my SA/CA. 0160-62501-5, maintained with your branch in the amount of P500 million and credit my Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 representing my initial contribution.

Now, when the President said, “My SA/CA No. 016062501-5,” this means that he owns this account?

MS. OCAMPO. That’s right, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. All right. Can I refer you now to Exhibit “UUU-4”? This is the second page of the Exhibit “UUU”. May I refer you to “UUU-4”? There is a signature above the typewritten name “Manuel Curato”. Was this signed in your presence?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. And you can attest that this is the signature of Manuel Curato?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Why do you okay?

MS. OCAMPO. He is a bank officer and he handles trust as well. He is the head of our Legal Department and he signs a lot of the legal opinion rendered by the Internal Legal Department of the bank.

SEN. DRILON. May I refer you now to Exhibit “UUU”…I think if I’m not mistaken, yeah, “UUU”. Would you consider this as a business … “UUU”, do you have it right now?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Would you consider this as a business transaction?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes. These are the instructions with regard to the P500 million. We are just an agent. So we have to follow the specific instructions.

SEN. DRILON. And this is a business transaction?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, it is a business transaction.

SEN. DRILON. Now, I recall you having mentioned that you made representations with Mr. Go that the security under Exhibit “UUU” is no longer sufficient. Did you require additional security for this?

MS.OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. And was additional security given?

MS. OCAMPO. Mr. Gatchalian gave additional when he gave us Wellex, Incorporated shares to supplement these Waterfront shares.

SEN. DRILON. How many Wellex shares to your recollection?

MS. OCAMPO. If I recall, I can just correct later if it is not right. It is about 300 million–

SEN. DRILON. Three hundred million?

MS. OCAMPO. –shares.

SEN. DRILON. Shares. And to your knowledge, is this account fully paid or still outstanding?

MS. OCAMPO. It is still outstanding but the interest is updated.

SEN. DRILON. The interest is being updated. That is all for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The Chair now recognizes the honorable Senator Aquino-Oreta.

SEN. ORETA. May I ask some clarificatory questions to the witness, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

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

Madam Witness, you came on your own volition and volunteered to testify in this case on certain accounts and documents without being required by the Court to do so. Is this correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ORETA. So in respect to the documents which you brought to the Court and marked as Exhibit “UUU”, with the submarkings, you did not receive a subpoena duces tecum, specifically directing you to present or submit documents you brought to these proceedings, is this correct?

MS. OCAMPO. I don’t know the technical, as I mentioned, the technical side, so I volunteered. Management also knows that I am coming forward, the Board, so I am here presenting. I cannot answer that.

SEN. ORETA. Yes, you presented it without a subpoena?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ORETA. So the documents you brought…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the answer? It is not very clear in the record. Is it “yes” or “no”?

SEN. ORETA. Yes, she came voluntarily, Mr. Chief Justice..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So do not just simply nod or whatever. State, for the record, the answer.

SEN. ORETA. So the documents you brought with you at the hearing on December 22, 2000 are confidential, as is evident from the fact that it is a trust account and it is referred to a Number Account C-163, is it not?

MR. POBLADOR. We object, Your Honor. That calls for a legal conclusion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is very competent to answer the question, being the Vice President for Trust. So the objection is overruled. The witness may answer.

MS. OCAMPO. The account is confidential but we have referred the matter to external counsel first before actually coming forward with the documents, and they cleared it. They approved our presentation.

SEN. ORETA. Yes, but you brought these documents here for the hearing on December 22, 2000.

MS. OCAMPO. With the lawyers, with my external counsel.

SEN. ORETA. Madam Witness, how long have you been a trust officer of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. I have been with the Trust Department since 1989. So, 11 years now. But I handled the overall trust of Equitable PCI Bank as OIC only in August and then Trust Officer as of October 1999. But I have been handling trust for 11 years.

SEN. ORETA. For 11 years. And do you keep the accounts entrusted to you confidential?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ORETA. You do. And so…but for the Jose Velarde account you broke bank confidentiality.

MR. BAUTISTA. We object, Your Honor, argumentative and it has no basis. There is no law which makes this account confidential.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, you are answering for the witness. Overruled. The witness may answer. She should know the banking laws.

MS. OCAMPO. The account is confidential but, as I mentioned, that we cleared it with the external counsel if we can present. Since they cleared it, then we could bring the documents here.

SEN. ORETA. Yes. May we know who this external counsel is, Madam Witness?

MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Mario Bautista; Atty. Poblador.

SEN. ORETA. Oh, the ones representing you now?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ORETA. I see. That’s it. Thank you, Madam Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The honorable Senator Coseteng is now recognized for her questions; after that the honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. COSETENG. Mr. Chief Justice, with your permission, just a few questions because most of the questions have already been asked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. C-163 is a confidential account as you mentioned, Mrs. Ocampo.

MS. OCAMPO. That’s the name of the account.

SEN. COSETENG. You keep mentioning the fact that external counsel and the members of the Board have approved your divulging this information and bringing forth these documents before this Court. Is that correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Ma’am.

SEN. COSETENG. Did the owner of the account give you the permission or was his or her permission sought?

MS. OCAMPO. It was discussed with the management. This was thoroughly discussed, so I don’t know whether the chairman of our bank, Mr. Go, had discussed it with Jose Velar…the President.

SEN. COSETENG. But as far as other accounts are concerned, should the owner of the account not grant the permission for banks to divulge this information?

MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, this goes into an interpretation of Section 55 of the New General Banking Act.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes that it does not. The witness again is very competent because she is in the banking business.

MS. OCAMPO. But the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. The witness may answer.

SEN. COSETENG. I just want to know, Madam Witness, if the owner of the account, his permission was sought before this was divulged.

MS. OCAMPO. As I understand it, as a layman, the case is an impeachment case against the President and the account is owned by the President, so this is exempt. But for the other accounts …

SEN. COSETENG. So, this is a conclusion that you had determined that this is owned by the President?

MS. OCAMPO. This is not a conclusion. I saw it. He actually signed the documents, and the debit-credit authority which says that “to debit my account” means that he owns the Jose Velarde account in the bank proper.

SEN. COSETENG. Before your visit to Malacañang, have you come across the name Jose Velarde?

MS. OCAMPO. No. No, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Not at all?

MS. OCAMPO. No.

SEN. COSETENG. You are a member of the Trust Committee of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. The Management Committee?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. COSETENG. The Asset and Liability Committee of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. COSETENG. And the Retirement Committee?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Ma’am.

SEN. COSETENG. Was this transaction ever discussed in any of these committee meetings?

MS. OCAMPO. It was actually taken up in the Trust Committee, not… It was presented because it’s required for us to present all of the transactions or accounts opened and closed. So, it was then presented in one of the meetings, subsequent meetings of the Trust Committee–the Trust Account Number and then the Confidential Account No. C-163, P500 million lending to Wellex. So that’s minuted.

SEN. COSETENG. So, that came about before your visit or after?

MS. OCAMPO. After, after.

SEN. COSETENG. After the visit?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Ma’am.

SEN. COSETENG. Did you raise any kind of objection or apprehension or discomfort about what you had seen in any of these meetings?

MS. OCAMPO. The Chairman of the Trust Committee then was Mr. George Go and he instructed me to actually handle this transaction. So it was presented. Then we just presented the facts, it was not discussed in length, it was just mentioned in the account’s open and close document or report.

SEN. COSETENG. So you didn’t raise any objection or asked any other questions?

MS. OCAMPO. Ma’am, I was already instructed to handle it and the name is consistent with the account name in the bank proper.

SEN. COSETENG. Okay. Do you know who got this appoint-ment to go to Malacañang?

MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Fernando Chua.

SEN. COSETENG. So you didn’t have to call anyone in Malacañang for this?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Ma’am.

SEN. COSETENG. When did you actually tell the Prosecutors that you were willing to testify?

MS. OCAMPO. There were discussions with management. That was December 21st.

SEN. COSETENG. So, on December 21st–that was a day before you came to the hearing–you told the Prosecutors that you wanted to testify?

MS. OCAMPO. Actually, I told management that I am willing to testify. I can wait for my turn but it’s really up to them to want me to go ahead. So they had discussions with the Prosecution. I was just told that I was going to be presented the next day.

SEN. COSETENG. So, when did the first discussions come about between management and you?

MS. OCAMPO. That was the Friday before that, maybe

December 8.

SEN. COSETENG. So more than a week before? Yes, two weeks before?

MS. OCAMPO. No, it was the week before.

SEN. COSETENG. The Friday before the day you came here? Was that…?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. COSETENG. Was the so-called external counsels that you were referring to, are they regular lawyers of the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. They are retained by the bank.

SEN. COSETENG. So, they were not consulted just for this particular case? The bank has been consulting them?

MS. OCAMPO. The bank retained them for this trust transaction.

SEN. COSETENG. For this particular case?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. COSETENG. Thank you, Madam Witness. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too. Finally, the Chair recognizes the honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I’ve been listening and my friends Senator-Judge Leviste and then Senator-Judge Drilon, and several others, I think Senator-Judge Flavier appear to have established, based on your narration, that there is a set of Dichaves documents. Is this correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. This is the one signed on December 11?

MS. OCAMPO. Eleven and thirteen.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. So, before proceeding, Mr. Chief Justice, could I ask that compulsory subpoena duces tecum be issued as regards this document that you refer to, and that in answer to Senator Drilon, you said that you can have access to in any event?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness, Your Honor, already promised that she should be able to retrieve it from the external officer and to bring the documents here.

SEN. ROCO. To bring the documents, and….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. External who?

SEN. DRILON. Counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. External counsel, and they should be able to bring the documents here. So the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum will not be necessary.

SEN. ROCO. Okay. Can I then just use up two minutes and then I’ll ask to look at those documents and continue with my….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You would want to make a reservation about the documents until tomorrow when she will be able

to produce the documents?

SEN. ROCO. No. But before that, there are some questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Preliminary questions, Your Honor?

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, so if I can have a look at them later on. You did mention a conversation held between you and Atty. Chua early December?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. What happened in that conversation?

MS. OCAMPO. I mentioned earlier that he just came to my office unannounced asking about the documents and where they were.

I just mentioned that they are still intact definitely because that account

is still outstanding, and I mentioned that I have submitted them to

senior management.

SEN. ROCO. And what else did he say?

MS. OCAMPO. Then he mentioned what is management going to do about this, and I said…Well, I just mentioned that it’s being discussed, but, of course, what management was doing was actually to outline exactly who is going to be presented and then reviewing all the consistency, the transaction of the trust, the documentation of trust and the bank proper. And then he mentioned, because I was not discussing anything about, let’s say, suppression. I really don’t know what he meant, but he just said: “I hope that your direction is to protect the President.”

SEN. ROCO. Did he use the word “suppression”?

MS. OCAMPO. No, no. He didn’t mention anything but he just said….Because I did not discuss any scheme. Because he said, “What are you doing?” I did not discuss any scheme. So he just mentioned: “I hope that you are doing something to protect the President.”

SEN. ROCO. So this was early December of….Can you try to recall–was it December 1, 4, 7? What do you recall?

MS. OCAMPO. I can’t really recall. I didn’t calendar it.

SEN. ROCO. But in any event you remember December 11.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. When you went to the office–the law office.

MS. OCAMPO. That was 13.

SEN. ROCO. Ah, 13?

MS. OCAMPO. 11 was the signing in the bank.

SEN. ROCO. December 11…

MS. OCAMPO. There were certain documents already signed in the bank.

SEN. ROCO. By…Dichaves?

MS. OCAMPO. By Jaime Dichaves. That’s why I met him.

SEN. ROCO. What were these documents?

MS. OCAMPO. The signature card, the investment guidelines and the directional letter of investment.

SEN. ROCO. This will be a duplicate of all the things we have marked as exhibits?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. ROCO. So there will be a complete replication of all these documents signed by Dichaves?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Sir.

SEN. ROCO. I see. And was there any conversation between you and Dichaves?

MS. OCAMPO. No, I don’t…Well, he asked me: “Is William paying? Is he updated?” And I said: “Yes.”

SEN. ROCO. William. Referring to whom?

MS. OCAMPO. Mr. Gatchalian.

SEN. ROCO. Okay. Is Mr. Dichaves, by any chance, in the courtroom?

MS. OCAMPO. I don’t see. No.

SEN. ROCO. No, you don’t see him. Now, in the December 13 discussion, who were in the room? I know you already mentioned that Atty. Mendoza was there. But who else was there?

MS. OCAMPO. There were two. I could see two….When the door was opened there were two men. Their backs were against the door…the walls. So I didn’t know. But I saw one–Mr. Dichaves. And there was

Mr. Go in the room as well and Atty. Mendoza. But it was not fully opened–the door–so I don’t know if there were other people.

SEN. ROCO. But you were…never entered.

MS. OCAMPO. No, I never entered.

SEN. ROCO. It would not therefore be surprising for the counsels of the Defense, or what you know or what you went to the bank for, would not have been a source of surprise for counsels for the Defense?

MS. OCAMPO. I really don’t…If they were surprised that I was there?

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Would they be surprised about what you know?

MS. OCAMPO. I really don’t know if they were surprised.

SEN. ROCO. But would they be surprised seeing you here?

MS. OCAMPO. I don’t know if they were surprised seeing me here.

SEN. ROCO. Would they be surprised about what you know?

MS. OCAMPO. The Dichaves document was signed in the office of Atty. Mendoza. So I suppose they’re not surprised that….

SEN. ROCO. Yes. They might not be surprised. Now, my two minutes. Since the Chief Justice has been sustaining your expertise in banking, let me read a ruling on Banco Filipino vs. Purisima. It was written by eminent justice, Justice Narvasa. It says, and I’ll ask you:

The inquiry into illegally acquired property or property not legitimately acquired extends to cases where such property is concealed by being held by or recorded in the name of other persons.

Are you familiar with this bank ruling?

MS. OCAMPO. No, I’m not.

SEN. ROCO. But it seems to be a good ruling?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. The only other question…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was that intended to elicit an answer from the witness?

SEN. ROCO. No. Maybe a rhetoric, Mr. Chief Justice. In any event, it has been answered.

Is there any law that requires that an IMA account must be notarized?

MS. OCAMPO. The trust regulations, that’s MB 1065, I understand, in my recollection, under Section 1411, is silent on that. So it need not be notarized.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. As a matter of fact there is no bank regulation by BSP that requires notarization of IMA accounts.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you very much. As a matter of fact, there is no bank regulation by BSP that requires notarization of IMA accounts.

Thank you. I have two minutes and 15.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will make a reservation for tomorrow?

SEN. ROCO. Yes, after I have examined the said documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because it will only be tomorrow that the lady will be able to bring the documents, as she promised.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you have your reservation.

The Chair would now recognize the honorable Senate President-Judge for some questions too.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Very briefly, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Ocampo, kindly look at Exhibit “XXX.” This letter is addressed to Ms. Bagsit and it says: “This is to authorize you to debit my SA/CA No. …. maintained with your branch in the amount of

P500 million credit my Trust Account No. ….representing my initial contribution.”

What I would like to find out is, was this covered by the issuance of any check in addition to this letter of authorization?

MS. OCAMPO. On the basis of this instruction, there should have been just credit to trust, a credit of the funds. So, from the bank proper, they will just credit the trust account number. That is the essence of the instruction letter, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Where would those documents be now, Ms. Ocampo?

MS. OCAMPO. The implementation documents would be with the bank.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Would you be able to access those and retrieve them for us also along with the documents that you promised us?

MS. OCAMPO. I will talk to the bank proper officers.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Please do that.

Now, lastly, when Mr. Dichaves, you said, signed the signature cards on December 11, 2000, was that the correct impression of mine that he signed on December 11?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Did he sign “Jose Velarde?”

MS. OCAMPO. He signed as “Jaime Dichaves.”

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. So, he used his complete name and full name then.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

The honorable Senator-Judge Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mrs. Witness, did you go to school with President Estrada?

MS. OCAMPO. No.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Did you work with him in any capacity?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Ma’am, except for this transaction we handled.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Would you describe yourself as a close friend or even just a close acquaintance of the President?

MS. OCAMPO. I’m not close to him at all.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Not at all.

MS. OCAMPO. We just went there for the signing, Ma’am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Is that the only time you came face to face with President Estrada?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Ma’am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. The one and only time in your life you came face to face and the President of the Philippines sat down and signed on a document using an alias involving P500 million. That is the story you are telling. Isn’t that so?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Thank you.

Let me proceed to another question. You don’t have to answer this question if you don’t know what the answer is. That would be perfectly acceptable.

Do you know that there is a common practice in Philippine politics for big business, especially corporate executives, to give so-called campaign contributions after a President has been proclaimed as having won the presidential election. If you don’t know because of lack of background, that is also acceptable. You may say, “I don’t know.”

MS. OCAMPO. I do not know.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Well, when President Estrada…. isn’t that an interesting question though. It makes you think of all our past presidents and how much they must have received the moment they proclaimed themselves as elected by the Filipino people, and particularly thinking of 1992.

But let me go on to the next question. You said you were only one foot away and the President, without his ballpen or whatever pen he was using, then signed and affixed his name to the document using an alias, an act which is criminal under the Penal Code and under the Anti-Alias Law. That is your version. Isn’t that so?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Did the President bother to explain to you where he got the P500 million?

MS. OCAMPO. No, he did not talk.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. He did not bother to say, “These are my excess campaign contributions that corporate executives gave to me after I became President.”

MS. OCAMPO. No.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. No, he never did. He didn’t say, “These are prospective campaign contributions that corporate executives are giving to me for the May 2001 elections.” He never did?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Ma’am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. He just signed in silence.

Well, let me go to a more legal point. According to you, this IMA, Investment Management Agreement was signed on 3 February or about that period.

MS. OCAMPO. February 4.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I would like to read to you a circular of the Bangko Sentral Governor, Circular No. 251, series of 2000. I will presume that you have knowledge but if not, it’s no denigration of your capacity as a witness. This circular says:

Unless otherwise prescribed under existing laws, anonymous account or accounts under fictitious names should not be kept or allowed.

That is paragraph 3 of this circular.

Paragraph 6 says, among other things:

If there is reasonable ground to believe that the funds are proceeds of a criminal or other illegal activity, they should be reported to competent authority without violating any law. If the fund is held as deposit, the account should be closed.

Now, according to you, Mrs. Witness, you signed this document according to your version, together with the President on February 3. It is now nearly a year from that day. In that intervening period between the time you signed the document and today, did you make any attempt to comply with the provisions of this circular that I have just read?

MS. OCAMPO. This is the account of the Chairman of the Board, so I–

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Please just be responsive to the question. That’s legal language, so please come to the point. Yes or no?

MS. OCAMPO. Did I? Did I? No.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Right. This circular says, “if there is reasonable ground to believe that the funds are proceeds of a criminal or other illegal activity, they should be reported to competent authority without violating any law,” meaning to say, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits law. “If the fund is held as deposit, the account should be closed.”

What I want to know is: Did you take any step to implement this provision of the Bangko Sentral Circular I have just read?

MS. OCAMPO. No, Ma’am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. No. Thank you. That’s pretty straightforward.

Now, let’s go to December 11 or was it 13, when you said you went to the office of Atty. Mendoza and you met there Jaime Dichaves and a few other people, because Jaime Dichaves was willing to accept a Deed of Assignment over this controversial account. That would be–would that be correct?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes. We were going to implement the instruc-tions of the principal who was willing to assign his interest to Jaime Dichaves.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. That is right, you are perfectly correct there. Thank you.

According to you–let me just check this day. This was December 11, 2000, isn’t that so?

MS. OCAMPO. Eleven and 13.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Right, 11 or 13. And during that time, was the resign-or-impeach-Erap movement already under way to your best knowledge?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. It was already under way?

MS. OCAMPO. It was already–Oo.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. All right. There were already sectors of our society saying, “Don’t even bother to impeach him, force him to resign.” And there were some who said, “No, let’s give him a chance to defend himself. Let’s impeach him and make him undergo trial.” This was during December 11 to 13, isn’t that so?

MS. OCAMPO. Oo.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. And when you had this meeting in the office of Atty. Mendoza, there was a man, Jaime Dichaves who, in effect, was willing to take the rap for President Estrada. Assuming that your version is correct, that the real owner of this controversial account is President Estrada, here was a man who was willing to assume ownership of the money even if it came with a big cloud of legal doubt over it. Would that be a fair statement?

MS. OCAMPO. I don’t really know what his intentions were. It was between him and the President, I suppose.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. All right. So in other words, you are perfectly within your rights to express your opinion in that way because we want transparency here. So in other words, December 11 to 13, 2000, just a month ago when the campaign to remove the President was already gaining ground, when the ball was already rolling, a person wanted to accept a Deed of Assignment which, in effect, in my view, would have taken the heat off the President because there was a man who was willing to be a fall guy and yet, the President, according to you did not sign the Deed of Assignment. Is that correct?

MS. OCAMPO. There was no Deed of Assignment presented.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. The President refused because the Deed of Assignment never reached the bank and that’s why the document, the transaction was not finalized?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Ma’am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Right. So the President refused to let a fall guy take the rap if that is the view?

Audience, this is not entertainment. This is a legal proceeding. I will have to request the Chief Justice to give just one final warning to the audience.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The public is directed again to observe faithfully the rules to preserve precisely the dignity of the Impeachment Court.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. This has been repeated many times. If you are asking for law in our society, may I remind you, the Senator-Judge, you should be the first to observe that law.

Let me proceed because I am under a time limit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Presumably this Investment Management Agreement or what you have clarified to be a contract of agency has not been terminated?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Ma’am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Even at the very height of the movement to remove President Estrada before the expiration of his official term of office for which he was elected by a historic majority, even at that very height, this account has not been closed?

MS. OCAMPO. We are just an agent. It is still active.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. That is right. It is just a factual question. This account is still active.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The attention of Her Honor is now directed to the time limit.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Oh, I am very sorry. I have already exceeded my limit. All right, thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you too. The honorable Senator Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Just a few questions, Mr. Chief Justice.

Madam…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, you have asked the question before.

SEN. GUINGONA. I did not consume my time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, you were able to…you did finish and you waived, in fact, at the time. So the Chair will not allow you for the second time. Not until the others will be able to ask because there are others who might ask questions.

SEN. GUINGONA. I thought there were three homeruns.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry to have noted again your name. It turned out that you were the second to be recognized earlier. So, with your kind permission, Your Honor, we have to hear first the others.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. [Silence]

Nobody else had made a reservation? And, therefore, the matter is…

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. SOTTO. Is there a continuing cross-examination by the judges tomorrow?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be tomorrow, because of the reserved two-minute period by the Honorable Judge Roco for the production of the documents.

SEN. SOTTO. Thank you. Therefore, we will just take that up.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless Judge Roco will waive the production of the documents.

SEN. SOTTO. We will just then raise the question, if it is raised tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will ask tomorrow?

SEN. SOTTO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, in the meantime, therefore, the witness has to be excused.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

SEN. ROCO. May I…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a while, the Chair has recognized Atty. Mendoza.

SEN. ROCO. I am sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All right.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, although earlier, you had stated that I may make a manifestation after all the Senator-Judges have asked their questions. But now that these questions of the Senator-Judges will be terminated tomorrow, I feel that, perhaps, it may be unfair if my manifestation will be deferred until tomorrow. Because by this time, media, everybody else is speculating on what the witness has stated regarding myself.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us hear from Senator Roco first on what he wanted to say.

SEN. ROCO. In the interest of hastening the proceedings, I am prevailed upon by my colleague who is still looking at me, to withdraw. I am waiving my two minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So it is withdrawn and therefore…

SEN. ROCO. So if there are no other questions, maybe the witness can be excused.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator-Judge Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. I may waive my other questions. I just have some layman questions, Mr. Chief Justice, if I may be allowed?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator-Judge Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. Ms. Witness, you came out into the open on this on December 21? You went to talk to the Prosecutors on December 21?

MS. OCAMPO. I went to management. That was earlier. Then we discussed whether I would go ahead. And management actually talked to counsel and the Prosecution.

SEN. SOTTO. When you say “management”, was that President George Go? George Go management?

MS. OCAMPO. The President of the bank.

SEN. SOTTO. George Go?

MS. OCAMPO. No, he is the chairman. Mr. Wilfredo Vergara.

SEN. SOTTO. I understand that Mr. George Go resigned or left the bank?

MS. OCAMPO. As Chairman of the Board.

SEN. SOTTO. When?

MS. OCAMPO. December 12.

SEN. SOTTO. Oh, after or before you came out into the open. And who was the new President who replaced George Go?

MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Romulo.

SEN. SOTTO. Atty. Romulo is the new bank president.

MS. OCAMPO. Ricardo Romulo, chairman of the bank.

SEN. SOTTO. Chairman. The same Atty. Romulo who is pres-ident of the Makati Business Club?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. SOTTO. Is he related to the Romulo Law Office–

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO. –that is handling the prosecution?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

SEN. SOTTO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you too. We shall now hear the reserved manifestation by Counsel for the Defense. In the meantime, we will have to excuse the witness from the witness stand and to thank the witness….

ATTY. MENDOZA. If the witness will agree, Mr. Chief Justice, may I make my manifestation in her presence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, if the witness will agree.

MS. OCAMPO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will agree, Madam Witness?

MS. OCAMPO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you can continue to sit down there, no longer as a witness.

ATTY. POBLADOR. If Your Honor please, if I may be permitted to say something. The Defense has already waived cross- examination..

ATTY. MENDOZA. I am not cross-examining.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a reservation made and the reservation was allowed and granted.

ATTY. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, honorable Senator-Judges, I am speaking in my own behalf. I am not speaking in behalf of the Defense because of allusions to myself by the witness which affect my honor, my dignity and my standing in the profession.

The witness has correctly stated that she was at our office on December 13, 2000. That was actually the day after the sealed first envelope was brought to the Senate. That morning, Mr. George Go, Chairman of Equitable PCI Bank, showed up in our office. I did not ask him to go to our office. He had no appointment to see me. But he was Chairman of Equitable PCI Bank, and it is a bank well-placed in the community, in the business community, so I welcomed him to the office.

Not too long after that, Mr. Jaime Dichaves came also. And after he came, Mr. Jaime Dichaves, Mr. George Go and a companion of Mr. Dichaves and myself met for a while, met at our conference room.

In our office, I have my office. And beside my office-and Atty. Poblador is very familiar with this-there is a conference room which is my conference room. Since I was working in that conference room, I met with them and talked to them for sometime, a few minutes. And after our conversation, Mr. George Go and Mr. Jaime Dichaves–and by that time, I knew Mr. Dichaves was a client of PCI Bank Equitable–asked whether they may continue to stay in the room because they had some business between themselves.

So I told them that all the work I was doing was in that room. The papers were all over the place, but they may use my office which was adjoining to the conference room. So they stepped into the office which was my office. And then immediately after that, I went out to the hall, and that was when I met Mrs. Ocampo.

No. I think she makes a mistake. She was not introduced to me by my daughter. She was the one who introduced herself to me or reminded me that she was a classmate of my daughter, Susan, at St. Scholastica’s College and they were the best of friends and that both of them had married an Ocampo. There was a small talk and she told me she was head of the Trust Department of PCI Bank Equitable, and that was all.

I did not know why Mrs. Ocampo went there. I had no conversation with her about any trust agreement. I had absolutely no knowledge about this trust arrangement entered into by Jose Velarde or the bank. I never knew about this and certainly I was not present if there was any document at all signed while Mr. Go and Mr. Dichaves were in the office.

Well, Mrs. Ocampo did not say that she saw me while they were signing the documents. She said she saw us in the room but I am certain that no document was signed by Mr. Dichaves while I was in the room. That was why I said then, on December 22 Mrs. Ocampo testified, I was surprised. And I was indeed surprised to hear about that trust agreement. I never knew about this. Had I known about this, then I would have prepared for it. As I have manifested, I was engaged by the President in this case on the suggestion of some of his friends. And I accepted this engagement on the basis of the Articles of Impeachment.

Actually, Mr. Chief Justice, I am not suggesting anything. Even now I am hearing I should withdraw from the case. Let me make it clear that I did not solicit the case, in the same way that I never solicited in my entire professional life of nearly half a century any case or any client.

Early on in this case after the opening proceedings, this one I had kept to myself. But now I think it is time to come out fully about all the facts. I and my family received many threatening calls asking me to withdraw from this case. But I have lived the life of a lawyer. I am not easily intimidated notwithstanding apprehensions expressed by my family. As you all know, I stayed on the case. Not too long after, just last Christmas, I suddenly, according to many, had a heart attack. There was a room number at St. Luke’s where I had been confined. And the suggestion was, again, that I should withdraw from the case.

Before the witness came here today, they were, principally by Congressman Defensor, saying I should be inhibited from the case because I had breached the ethics of the profession. I deny that.

So, let me state clearly and categorically that I have no awareness, no participation at all in regard any document dealing with this trust account.

As far as my appearance in this case, I can withdraw anytime. As far as I am concerned, this case has been a difficult case. Not because of the legal issues involved but because of the political environment under which this case is being litigated. I am not used to this environment.

I have always litigated my case according to the rules prevailing in the courts. And the rules here are not quite as clear, as explicit and as definite as those rules. But I have received this engagement. I think

I have a function and a duty to perform. But I would like to say now, clearly and categorically, that if the President will allow, I am prepared to withdraw from this case. However, I am not one who will withdraw from the case and impair the interest of a client even though continuation in the case may impair my own welfare.

So, this is a matter I will communicate to the President and the decision will be his as to whether I should withdraw from the case. But let it be clear that I am not withdrawing from the case on the basis of any insinuation or speculation that I have been guilty of any impropriety.

I have asked Mrs. Ocampo to stay on the witness stand and she can tell the Court whether what I say is the truth or not.

Thank you very much.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. The Prosecution laments the alleged involve-ment of our colleague Estelito Mendoza. No lawyer likes a colleague to be involved in some kind of what you would call professional misconduct. Yet, much as I lament his alleged involvement, what did he mean by taking this, by making his position known? He is not bound by any oath. He cannot be cross-examined. What value does that have? But it’s on the record.

The Prosecution has not accused Atty. Mendoza of anything. What the witness Ocampo simply said was in answer to questions of the Senator-Judges, not questions propounded by the Prosecution.

Now, I can understand the problem of my friend, Mr. Mendoza. But that is his problem, and that problem he must address himself. But it is not fair that he takes the podium and tells us his defense, not under oath but…and cannot be examined. I have no desire to cross-examine him. But it is unfair that the testimony of Mrs. Ocampo is under oath, then the testimony of Mr. Mendoza is not under oath. Is that fair? So in that regard, what is the value of the statement of Mr. Mendoza.? It is not the evidence, it is not testimony.

I submit, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIIDENT. The value of Mr. Mendoza’s exhortation here is to his need to explain the circumstances of the alleged signing of the documents referred to by Mrs. Ocampo in his office on December 11. Was it?

MR. MENDOZA. Thirteen.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. December 13.

Now, Mr. Mendoza, even if you cannot be cross-examined, I’d like to ask you this question: Why then were Mr. Go and Mr. Dichaves in your office in the first place?

MR. MENDOZA. They went there on their volition and I think they did so, because by that time, Mr. Jaime Dichaves already came out in the open when he said he owned the Jose Velarde-Jose Valhalla account.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. In effect, you knew that that was the claim of Mr. Dichaves.

MR. MENDOZA. It was the claim. That was the claim and I think it was for that reason that they went there.

May I say that my manifestation is not evidence. And if one will look at it, it does not contradict Mrs. Ocampo’s. There is a consistency. She never said that I was present when it was signed. She did not see the documents signed. So there is really no inconsistency with that, and it is not evidence, and it may be entirely disregarded. But since her testimony has been stated in open court, broadcast nationwide, I think it is but fair that I should say my part of the story.

Thank you very much.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. The witness Ocampo testified on cross- examination or rather on examination of the Senator-Judges.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no cross-examination.

REP. ARROYO. No, no. I mean examination or questions of the Senator-Judges.

She made a statement or rather she testified as to the events on December 13th. Remember, there is a date “December 13th”. That December 13th is important, because it was on that date that the Investment Management Agreement was signed by Jaime Dichaves. The other commercial documents were signed on December 11 in the bank but one was not signed-the Investment Management Agreement. That is on December 13th. That is her narration. No one, as far as we can see, has been able to traduce her testimony.

Now comes much to my regret about my friend here Estelito that he gets involved in this situation where there is the insinuation of some kind of a misconduct. I am not saying it because I did not say it. Mrs. Ocampo did not even say it. She is not charging anyone. Her statement is the fact that on that particular day of December 13, here was a document where Jaime Dichaves was trying to supplement or supplant an earlier document. Now, it was not implemented. Why? Because the principal, the President, did not give instructions. But the attempt to change, the attempt that three documents should be changed and assigned to Jaime Dichaves claiming that that was the President’s, gives a color of irregularity in this whole transaction and that is what we are here; that why should these documents be changed? This is the issue.

Now, with the explanation of Atty. Mendoza, the December 13th incident is therefore erased because he has explained it. What happens now to the testimony of Mrs. Ocampo? The testimony of Mrs. Ocampo can only be rebutted by another testimony but not by a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, I think it is easy to resolve this issue. No less than Atty. Mendoza said that a manifestation is not evidence.

REP. ARROYO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And I cannot understand why you are now saying that it is evidence. So the manifestation….

REP. ARROYO. Well, we wanted it very clear.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The manifestation is simply noted; the observation is noted; the testimony of the witness is on record, and that would be appreciated by the members of the Court.

REP. ARROYO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. What is the pleasure of the honorable Senator Guingona?

SEN. GUINGONA. Would it be all right, Mr. Chief Justice, for a few questions only to Atty. Mendoza?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza was making only a manifestation in defense of himself. So I don’t think it would be proper for a member of the Court to ask him questions now.

SEN. GUINGONA. This is the second time I am struck out. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry if I have to make that ruling. The Chair has to make certain rulings which may not be agreeable to all but it is the function and duty of the Chair to do that.

The honorable Sen. Sergio Osmeña III.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Well, Mr. Chief Justice, if we cannot ask questions of Atty. Mendoza because he mentioned Dichaves’ presence in his office, may we ask questions of Atty. Arroyo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same matter. The Chair also may not allow Your Honor to ask questions because Prosecutor Arroyo merely made a manifestation. There should be no debate anymore on manifestations.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Am I allowed also to make a manifestation then?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can make a manifestation but not by way of a rebuttal or a….

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). No, this is just a matter of facts, Mr. Chief Justice. I heard Atty. Mendoza earlier say that Mr. Dichaves had claimed the account around December 13th. However, this Court only received the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum which has been filed by Atty. Dichaves and his attorney, Atty. Lazaro, on December 20.

So, in other words, if I am correct, Mr. Chief Justice, on December 7th , the prosecutors made their opening statements, and the check for P142 million was first flashed on the screen, on the giant screen, and that was the first time that we, the Judges, learned about the P142-million check. That was a Thursday.

So by Monday, there were already meetings for, it seems, Mr. Dichaves to claim the account as his and for Mr. Jose Velarde to assign the trust account to Mr. Dichaves. Something else happened on December 13, and by December 20, Mr. Dichaves had filed a notice, an urgent motion to quash/vacate the subpoena duces tecum filed before the Senate Legal Counsel so that the account, the savings current account which he mentions here that he is the holder of, 0011025495-4 were his and not the President’s.

So that’s all I want to say, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

Yes, the honorable Senator Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Just as a slight supplement to the manifestation of Senator Osmeña.

On the record is a letter of the law offices of M. M. Lazaro and Associates, dated 18 December, 2000, where, for the first time, Jaime Dichaves claimed that he is now the owner of these accounts. So five days after the meeting in Atty. Mendoza’s office, this letter came into the record of the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you for the information, Your Honor.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. We are ready with the next witness, Atty. Manuel Curato. His testimony will be very short.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. I thought we are going to cross-examine Governor Singson. That was scheduled for January 2.

REP. ARROYO. On December 22, I mentioned about Atty. Curato, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the start of the proceeding this afternoon, the Prosecution informed the Court that precisely to connect immediately the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo with that of–

REP. ARROYO. Atty. Manuel Curato, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –Atty. Samuel Curato–

REP. ARROYO. Manuel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Manuel Curato who is a signatory to that investment agreement–

REP. ARROYO. That is correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –which is only be corroborative, and the testimony would be very, very brief. The Chair recalls that it might not be reluctant to allow the testimony of that witness because it is closely related to Ocampo’s testimony. Just merely probably to identify the signature in that investment agreement.

REP. ARROYO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s the only purpose. So,

I think we can allow.

REP. ARROYO. Atty. Poblador will conduct the examination under my supervision and control.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call in the witness.

MR. POBLADOR. Someone is calling the witness, Your Honor. [A long pause]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is the witness?

MR. POBLADOR. I have requested someone to call him, Your Honor. He’s just in one of the rooms across the Session Hall.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many minutes would be the direct testimony, Atty. Poblador?

MR. POBLADOR. Around 20 minutes, Your Honor. We will go straight to the February 4 incident.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is only corroborative, make

it less.

MR. POBLADOR. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because you can even dispense with the corroborative witness.

Administer the oath on the witness, Mr. Secretary.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your hand and put your left hand on the Bible and answer me.

You, Manuel Curato, 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. CURATO. I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat and the witness is yours, Mr. Poblador.

MR. POBLADOR. With the permission of the honorable Court, the testimony of the witness, Atty. Manuel Curato, is presented to corroborate the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, specifically that on February 4, 2000, President Estrada, using the name and signing as “Jose Velarde,” opened a trust account with Equitable PCI Bank and deposited into that account P500 million, using funds in his savings and current account in the same bank.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. In order not to disrupt the proceedings by objections that we may raise, considering that we are objecting to the purpose of the offer just mentioned by the private prosecutor. In the case of Ms. Ocampo, the offer of testimony is couched in the following language.

MR. BAUTISTA. And I quote, “This witness is being presented to prove that the President of the Republic of the Philippines, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, opened and maintained and still maintains accounts with Equitable PCI Bank under and using the name using ‘Jose Velarde’.”

That was the purpose of the offer of testimony when Ms. Ocampo was called to the stand.

Now, we have objected to Ms. Ocampo’s testimony on the ground that the testimony that was elicited from her or sought to be elicited from her do not prove any of the allegations of the fact in the Second Paragraph of Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment. And we have to reiterate that same objection regard to the testimony of Attorney Curato, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same objections are noted, and since there was a continuing objection–

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –tendered before–

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –the same continuing objection will apply to this witness insofar as the Defense is concerned .

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

MR. POBLADOR. May we now proceed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

MR. POBLADOR. Mr. Witness, please state your name, your employment and other personal circumstances.

MR. CURATO. My name is Manuel V. Curato. I am of legal age, married. I am the First Vice President and Head of the Legal Services Division of Equitable PCI Bank, with office address at the 7th Floor, Equitable PCI Bank, Tower I, which is found on the corner of the Horacio dela Costa and Makati Avenue, Makati City.

MR. POBLADOR. Mr. Curato, since when have you been Head of the Legal Services Division of Equitable PCI Bank?

MR. CURATO. I have been Head of the Legal Department for the past 10 years, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. Can you state briefly your duties as Head of this Legal Services Division?

MR. CURATO. As Head of the Legal Services Division, we provide advisory, legal advisory, we do legal documentation, both in the area of document preparation and document review. We also handle litigation of the bank in some cases.

MR. POBLADOR. Mr. Witness, where were you on February 4, year 2000 at about 12:00 noontime?

MR CURATO. Noontime of February 4, I was in Malacañang.

MR. POBLADOR. And what were you doing in Malacañang?

MR. CURATO. I was there with Ms. Clarissa Ocampo to have certain documents signed.

MR. POBLADOR. Signed by whom, Mr. Witness?

MR. CURATO. By the President, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada.

MR. POBLADOR. Now, who were with you in that meeting?

MR. CURATO. Aside from Clarissa Ocampo, I remember seeing Mr. Aprodicio Laquian and we were in the company of Mr. Fernando Chua. The President was there as well.

MR. POBLADOR. And can you please tell us what happened at that meeting?

MR. CURATO. In that meeting, we asked the President to sign certain documents. I am referring to an Investment Management Agreement, a Letter of Instruction directing us to invest or lend the money that was funding the Investment Management Account. He also signed an investment guideline and later what turned out to be an authority to debit a savings or a current account. Those documents were signed in our presence on that occasion.

MR. POBLADOR. How many copies of the Investment Management Agreement?

MR. CURATO. At the request, specific request of Attorney Chua, the President signed three copies of the Investment Management Agreement although we prepared six copies.

MR. POBLADOR. How many copies of the signature cards?

MR. CURATO. I remember there were two signature cards signed by him.

MR. POBLADOR. How many copies of the directional letter?

MR. CURATO. The directional letter, if I remember it right, I guess there were two copies.

MR. POBLADOR. And how many copies of the debit/credit instruction?

MR. CURATO. I remember only one copy having been signed.

MR. POBLADOR. How about the Investment Guidelines, how many copies?

MR. CURATO. The guidelines, only one set was signed.

MR. POBLADOR. And what did the President do with these documents?

MR. CURATO. He signed them and then he handed it to… as he signed … after signing the document, he handed it to Clarissa Ocampo, after which Clarissa also forwarded these documents one at a time to me.

MR. POBLADOR. Now, Mr. Curato, where was Clarissa Ocampo in relation to President Estrada at this time?

MR. CURATO. Clarissa Ocampo was seated to the left of the President, right next to the President.

MR. POBLADOR. And how far was she from the President?

MR. CURATO. Right next to him, as a matter of fact.

MR. POBLADOR. How about you, where were you in relation to Clarissa Ocampo and the President?

MR. CURATO. I was seated right next to Clarissa Ocampo to her left. So I was a seat away from the President.

MR. POBLADOR. And when the President signed these documents, what were you doing?

MR. CURATO. I was observing the entire proceedings from where I was sitting.

MR. POBLADOR. To your recollection, what signature did the President affix on these documents?

MR. CURATO. He signed these documents in the name of

“Jose Velarde.”

MR. POBLADOR. Now, if you were shown these originals of the documents which you referred to, would you be able to identify them?

MR. CURATO. Yes, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. I’m showing to you three documents: denominated Investment Management Agreement which had been previously marked as Exhibit “UUU”, “UUU second”, and “UUU third”. Please tell us what relationship these documents have with the Investment Management Agreement which you mentioned earlier?

MR. CURATO. Exhibit marked as “UUU” is the Investment Management Agreement I was referring to. These are the three copies that were signed by te President, all marked as Exhibts “UUU-2”, and “UUU-3”.

MR. POBLADOR. Can you please go over these documents and point to us the signature affixed by President Estrada?

MR. CURATO. The President signed this documents marked as Exhibit “UUU” of the second page. And I’m pointing to you that this is his signature.

MR. POBLADOR. Can you please go over these documents and point to us the signature affixed by President Estrada?

MR. CURATO. The President signed this document marked as Exhibit “UUU” on the second page. And I’m pointing to you that this is his signature.

MR. POBLADOR. Can you please read the signature?

MR. CURATO. The signature itself is not readable to me, but it was made now on this document over the typewritten name “JOSE VELARDE”.

MR. POBLADOR. Witness has just referred to, to Exhibit “UUU-2”, Your Honor.

Please go over Exhibit “UUU Second”, and please tell us what signature or where the signature affixed by the President is.

MR. CURATO. May I refer you to page 2 of this Exhibit “UUU Second”. This is the signature of President Estrada.

MR. POBLADOR. For the record, witness has just pointed to Exhibit “UUU Second-2”.

Please go over Exhibit “UUU Third” and tell us where the signature affixed by the President is located.

MR. CURATO. With respect to Exhibit marked as “UUU Third”, I’m referring you to second page, and this is the signature of the President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the witness is a lawyer, would you just tell him to mention the Exhibit number now of the signature testified to by him.

MR. CURATO. Yes, Your Honor.

I’m referring to Exhibit marked as “UUU-2 Third”, Your Honor.

MR. POBLADOR. Now, Mr. Witness, you mentioned two signature cards which the President also signed. I’m showing to you two documents, denominated signature cards, previously marked as Exhibit “VVV” and Exhibit “VVV Second”.

Again, please tell us what relationship these exhibits have with the signature cards which you mentioned earlier.

MR. CURATO. Exhibit marked “VVV Second” is the exhibit I was referring to as the signature card signed by the President.

Whereas Exhibit marked “[VVV-1 Second]”, bracketed, are the signatures made by the President in my presence. Exhibit “VVV-1″ or “VVV” is another signature card that was signed by the President in my presence. Referring now to the Exhibit marked as “VVV-1″, this refers to the three signatures, sample signatures made by the President on the signature card, Your Honor.

MR. POBLADOR. Now, Mr. Witness, you also mentioned another document, the Directional Letter which is marked as Exhibit “WWW” and triple”WWW-Second”. I’m showing you these documents, Mr. Witness, and again, please tell us: Is this document have any relationship with the documents which you referred to?

MR. CURATO. Exhibit “WWW” is the…what I call the Letter of Instruction to the agent signed by the President which is marked as Exhibit “W-1″. Exhibit “WWW-Second” refers to the second copy of the exhibit, that is the written direction of the President on how the agent bank is supposed to invest the money. And I refer to Exhibit “WWW-1 Second” as the signature of the President which was done in my presence.

MR. POBLADOR. Now, Mr. Witness, you also mentioned Debit-Credit Instructions. I’m showing to you a Letter dated 4 Year 2000, previously marked as Exhibit “XXX”. Again, please tell us what relationship this exhibit has?

MR. CURATO. This document was not pre-reviewed by the Legal Department, but I noticed that this was the last document that Clarissa Ocampo got from the file she had with her and it was only later that I found that this was also signed last by the President. And

I’m referring to Exhibit “3″ as the Authority to Debit Account – “XXX”, I’m sorry-and “XXX-1” refers to the signature of the President over

the typewritten name, Jose Velarde.

MR. POBLADOR. Another document which you mentioned,

Mr. Curato, were Investment Guidelines. I’m showing to you a document previously marked as Exhibit “YYY”. Can you look over this document and tell us what relationship this document has with the Investment Guidelines which you mentioned?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the answer of the witness?

MR. CURATO. This is the Investment Guideline marked as Exhibit “Y” that was signed by the President also, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. Can you tell us using the appropriate markings where the signatures affixed by the President are located?

MR. CURATO. I’m referring to Exhibit “YYY-6″ as the page where the President signed and I’m referring specifically to Exhibit “YYY-7″ as the signature of the President which he made in our presence.

MR. POBLADOR. I’m showing you Exhibit “YYY-6,” there appears a signature after the word “CONFORME.” Can you identify that signature?

I withdraw the question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was testified to by the witness already.

MR. POBLADOR. I’m sorry, Your Honor. I’ll move to the next question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And he specifically mentioned Exhibit “YYY-7.” Go to another point.

MR. POBLADOR. Now, Mr. Witness, let’s go back to Exhibit “UUU” — I’m referring to the second page — there appears a signature over the typewritten name “Clarissa G. Ocampo.” Whose signature is this?

MR. CURATO. This is the signature of Ms. Clarissa G. Ocampo which has been marked as “UUU-3.”

MR. POBLADOR. Why do you say that it is her signature?

MR. CURATO. Well, not only was it signed in my presence, I’m very familiar with the way she signs her name.

MR. POBLADOR. There appears another signature over the typewritten name “Manuel Curato.” Whose signature is that?

MR. CURATO. Exhibit marked “UUU-4” is my signature, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. May I refer you to Exhibit “UUU Second” — particularly the second page — again, there is a signature over the name “Clarissa G. Ocampo.” Whose signature is that?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What exhibit number are you referring to?

MR. POBLADOR. “UUU Second”, Your Honor, second page which is “UUU-3 Second”.

MR. CURATO. Exhibit “UUU-3 Second” is the signature of Clarissa G. Ocampo, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. There appears a signature marked as Exhibit “UUU-4 Second” over the typewritten name “Manuel…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was testified to by the witness already. Haven’t you?

MR. POBLADOR. No, Your Honor. This is second Investment Management Agreement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Second Page. Okay.

MR. POBLADOR. There are three copies. Whose signature is that?

MR. CURATO. Exhibit “UUU-4 Second” is my signature, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. Finally, Mr. Witness, I’m showing you Exhibit “UUU Third”…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “UUU-3.”

MR. POBLADOR. …-3” third.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Third.

MR. POBLADOR. There appears a signature over the typewritten name “Clarissa G. Ocampo.” Is that also Mrs. Ocampo’s signature?

MR. CURATO. Yes, Sir, that is her signature.

MR. POBLADOR. There appears another signature over the typewritten name “Manuel Curato” which is marked as Exhibit “UUU-4 Third”. Whose signature is that?

MR. CURATO. Exhibit “UUU-4 Third” is my signature, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. After these documents were signed, what did you do, Mr. Curato?

MR. CURATO. Since I was the last in the seating positioning after everything has been gathered, I handed this document to Ms. Clarissa Ocampo, Sir.

MR. POBLADOR. That would be all for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination? Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, consistent with our objection to the testimony of the witness earlier presented in the person of Ms. Clarissa Ocampo that the testimony sought to be elicited were elicited by this witness, there is no materiality to the issues in this case as raised in the allegations of the Articles of Impeachment. We have no cross-examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The reason given for the waiver of a cross-examination is noted.

And the honorable members of the Court are advised accordingly as to the reason for the absence of the cross-examination.

Any question from the members of the Court?

There being none, the witness is now excused.

Thank you, Atty. Curato.

MR. CURATO. Thank you, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness for cross-examination, Gov. Singson.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. It’s 7:34. So, it gives us 26 minutes. May I ask that the cross-examination be held tomorrow. It is somewhat difficult to cross-examine and then leave it hanging.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection from the prosecu-tion?

MR. MENDOZA. I believe that I can finish the cross-examina-tion in one day.

REP. APOSTOL. No objection, especially that the Majority Leader is looking at me. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request may be granted, not that the Majority Leader is looking at you.

Anyway, the Majority Leader is recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, at this point I move that the trial proper if this Impeachment Court stand in recess until two o’clock in the afternoon, tomorrow, 3rd of January 2001 without prejudice to our ten o’clock sitting for the incident related to the surveillance.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? There being

none, the trial proper is suspended until two o’clock tomorrow afternoon. There will, however, be a continuation of the hearing on the bugging incident at 10:30 o’clock in the morning.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Ten thirty in the morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten thirty o’clock in the morning tomorrow.

Session is now suspended until tomorrow.

It was 7:37 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 7:37 P.M.