Estrada Impeachment Jan, 5, 2001 (PM) Transcripts

JANUARY 5, 2001 (AFTERNOON)

AT 2:00 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE RESUMPTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS (MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ). Please all rise for the entrance of the Senator Judges.

Please remain standing for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and the Honorable Presiding Officer, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE). The resumption of the trial on impeachment of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines is now called to order.

The Honorable Senator Judge Blas F. Ople will lead us in prayer.

SEN. OPLE.

PRAYER

Lord, beset as we are by all manner of troubles and woes, we implore Your mercy and Your love so that in the end reason and unity will prevail and our country can be saved with our democratic institutions not weakened but strengthened and fortified.

Lord, who freed Your chosen people from their bondage in Egypt, please take Your people, the Filipino people, in the hand and guide them gently and firmly on the path of peace, fraternity and solidarity.

Lord, the nation is being driven by dissension, violence and terrorism. Please bestow upon us the healing grace of Your love.

Thank you, Lord. Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated.

The Sergeant at Arms will now make the proclamation.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the Impeachment Court of Tuesday, January 2, 2001, which was distributed last night to all the members of the Court and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?

There being none, the motion is approved.

The Secretary is directed to call the case.

THE SENATE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO BARBO). Impeachment Case No. 001 2000, entitled, In The Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Parties are directed to enter anew their appearances.

REP. APOSTOL. Same appearance for the prosecution. We are ready.

MR. DAZA. For the defense, same appearances. Ready.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can proceed to the trial proper.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Before we proceed, Mr. Chief Justice, I move that Senator Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago be recognized on a matter of extreme importance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Thank you. This is a point of personal and collective privilege. I would like to enter into the record my gratitude and my most humble congratulations to the Supreme Court, through the Chief Justice, the Honorable Hilario Davide, Jr., for issuing this morning a temporary restraining order in the petition for injunction that I filed with the Supreme Court before the Christmas vacation . The TRO which applies by logical implication to all Senator-Judges, reads:

“NOW, THEREFORE, (l) let a temporary restraining order be issued therein directing respondent Akbayan, its officers, members, those in privity with it and all others similarly minded from holding any public assembly of any kind, at any time, in the vicinity of petitioners home and restraining any public assembly for the duration of the impeachment trial, in the vicinity of petitioner’s offices calculated to coerce, threaten or intimidate her as a senator-judge; (2) refer this case to the Executive Judge, RTC-Quezon City, for raffle among the branches thereat; and (3) direct the judge to whom the case will be assigned, to take appropriate action therefor.”

With respect to the incident yesterday that ensued after I filed in effect, a motion to cite at least three persons within the Session Hall for direct contempt of court, I understand that there has been an offer conveyed through the Minority Leader for those three persons to extend a public apology if I perceived their behavior to have been in disharmony with accepted decorum in the courtroom. If this is the case, then I file now a motion for reconsideration so as to allow those three persons back into the premises of this Impeachment Court to observe the rest of the trial on the understanding that since they’ve had access on additional information about proper behavior that this will be properly observed.

Finally, I come to the point of personal and collective privilege. Yesterday, the defense counsel read a press release purported to have come from the prosecution panel prompting the head of the prosecution panel to denounce and disown that press release. The words of the head of the prosecution panel were, he believes that there is a deliberate effort to foment intrigue and to sabotage these proceedings, legal in nature. I would like to add to the observations of the head of the prosecution panel these thoughts in connection with events in my own life today.

Early this morning I was interviewed and the interviewer told me that he had just received a press release purportedly from a group called Sakbayan and announcing their intention to stage a rally in front of my house, not my satellite office but my house in Quezon City. Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued the TRO in time, possibly for the organizers of that rally to realize that they had no legal or moral choice but to desist from their criminal intentions.

Sakbayan, I understand, is a leftist group. The first group that staged a rally in front of my house last December l5 was Akbayan, also admittedly a leftist group. The point I come to now is this: it might be possible that this impeachment trial which has taxed both the physical, the intellectual and the emotional resources not only of the entire membership of the Philippine Senate but even of the one person who embodies the rule of law in the Republic of the Philippines, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic, it might be that this impeachment trial will no longer be able to determine who will win this case. It might be that the winner will neither be President Estrada nor Vice President Arroyo. That the winner will neither be the poor nor the rich but there is a very clear and present danger that the winner in all these might emerge to be the radical left wing extremists in our country who are seeking to maximize this opportunity to further divide and rule our society. We are all adherents of the rule of law, that’s why most of us in this assembly took up law as a profession, and that is why we are undergoing this painful and oftentimes tedious and exhaustive process of law. Yet, this exercise will prove utterly futile should we yield to the passions of the moment, should we forget the rationality behind the logic of the law and allow the leftists, extremists, radicals to take center stage.

If the tip of the prosecution panel is correct that that press release yesterday did not come from the prosecution panel, then it is entirely possible that it was meant to incur the ire of the defense panel and to have it directed against the prosecution panel so that in the end, anarchy and chaos would ensure in this tribunal and forum of the law. It is possible also that Senator Judges are being egged on or persuaded this way or that way by parties and groups so that in the end, the institutional solidarity of the Senate will be sacrificed in order ostensibly to serve the parties and purposes of one group, but in reality, to serve the deeper undercurrents of political crisis and sabotage in our society.

I take this opportunity, therefore, to appeal to our gallery. You are educated men and women, you have your convictions just as we, the Senator Judges, have ours. Let us respect each other’s convictions. Let us have a dialogue in reason by means of this impeachment trial.

Maybe some of you were surprised yesterday with the vehemence with which I insisted on the rule of silence in the courtroom. And I realized, having been an RTC judge for five years, that your perplexity may have stemmed from the fact that many of you have never stepped inside a courtroom, an RTC or an MTC, much less possibly, the Supreme Court. And maybe, you will not take it amiss if I inform you that in all these courts, absolute silence is the rule. In fact, there is widespread and sometimes justifiable suspicion in the public mind that every judge is a little despot because in some minor MTC, it is common for a mere MTC judge not to allow any kind of physical movement in the courtroom on pain of instant imprisonment, contempt of court when committed directly in the presence of the judge, no longer necessitates a hearing or an investigation and may call properly for a penalty of as much as six months if it is committed in the very vicinity where the judge sits.

The very purpose of the rule of silence is not for the court to impose its arbitrary or maybe pompous will on the electorate, but to allow the judge to concentrate on what the witness and the counsel are saying.

We, Senator Judges, are compelled to sit here from two to eight o’clock every evening and starting Monday, we shall be working in the morning as well. But we are compelled to come here when we could very well listen to the proceedings in our own private rooms, or even watch it on closed-circuit TV if we want to. But the law compels us to be present so that we can observe the demeanor of the witness because that is the major way by which we can test her or his credibility. The way she looks, the way she speaks, the gaps and the breaks in her voice are important to a judge, that is why there is a rule of silence.

And furthermore, the rule of silence is sustained by the view that a judge must be blindfolded exactly like the statue of the Lady of Justice who wears a blindfold, for the judge is not bent to issue rulings or a decision on the basis of what he or she thinks will earn him the praise or the applause or the compliments of the crowd no matter how privileged or how elitist. The judge must be impervious to popularity, must administer justice no matter when even if the heavens fall.

That is why there is a rule of complete silence in the courtroom so that the judge will not play to the gallery, will not play to the TV cameras, but will answer only to his own conscience as shaped by his education and experience as an officer of the law and a member of one of the most distinguished professions in the world, the profession of the law.

Therefore, I beg your indulgence if I had overemphasized this rule, but we must insist on the rule of silence in this courtroom. You wouldn’t want to be party to a case where your judge is extremely sensitive and hopes to respond to every single expression of approval or disapprobation on the part of an uneducated mob.

Let me then end with this very humble warning. It might be that the left wing radical extremists in society seek to play one end of our society against the other, seek to play the prosecution against the defense, the rich against the poor, Estrada against Arroyo, in order that they can forcibly overthrow our government.

My last sentence is this. We have to realize, as members of the same Filipino people, that every single one of us has a sense of the shared destiny of all the other of the 75 million Filipinos.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano.

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

If I remember the remarks of Senator Judge Santiago, she has moved for a reconsideration of the ban imposed by the Senate judges on three individuals. If that were so, I second that motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before we do that, the Chair would like to inquire from the Honorable Judge Defensor Santiago if that motion was unconditional. It is not very clear to the Chair.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Senator Guingona, the Minority Leader, very kindly informed me yesterday that the parties were willing to extend a public apology and were thereafter hoping that the citation for contempt could be lifted on that basis and on the promise that they would thereafter strictly observe the three rules that are prominently displayed one, silence; two, no clapping or jeering; and three, to remain seated.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Mr. Chief Justice, there is a slight correction that we have to make. Because when we were called in the caucus, I had not yet talked to the three persons who were singled out by the distinguished Senator Judge Miriam Santiago. And while we were in caucus, during the course of the exchange of arguments, I had a fortune of sitting beside her and I told her…Before that, I explained to the group that the three persons…What I was told by someone before I went to the caucus, the three persons did not actually jeer or laugh or but that they were straining themselves to see the persons. And I asked Senator Santiago whether it would be possible to have a settlement of this if they clarified things, but I have not gotten from them any assurance that they would apologize. But I did inform Senator Santiago of that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That being the case, the resolution on the motion will have to be deferred until Monday. We’ll take that up again on Monday.

But in connection with the incident yesterday, the Presiding Officer will inform the Court that his office received at 9:50 o’clock this morning, a letter from the Honorable Congressman Heherson T. Alvarez and another letter dated January 4 but received by the Office of the Presiding Officer at 1:20 p.m., from the Honorable Raul Gonzales who is a prosecutor in this case too, all related to it.

So, with the deferment of the motion of the Honorable Senator Defensor Santiago, these two letters will also be taken up on Monday.

Yes. The Senate President is recognized.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Impeachment Court.

I wrote the Chief Justice a letter today which I would like to read into the records, and this has to do with the incident involving the microphone which Senator John Osmeña had complained about.The letter goes as follows:

“Mr. Chief Justice:

GMA Channel 7 officials headed by Mr. Roberto Barreiro, saw me this morning to explain their position on the controversial microphone which Senator John Osmeña had complained about. Their explanation follows:

1.The microphone was intended merely to capture the ambiant noises to lend authenticity to their video coverage of the proceedings.

2.There was no audio recorder to which the microphone in question was attached.

3.Thus, there was no intention to monitor the conversation of the Senator Judges or to bug their private talk.

Mr. Barreiro also relayed the apologies of GMA Channel 7 to the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court and the Senator Judges for their personnel’s having caused a disruption of the proceedings of the Court and some apprehension to Senator Judges.

The Chief Justice and the members of the Impeachment Court will please take note that as a result of this microphone incident, all stationary cameras, television cameras inside the Session Hall of the Senate, have been asked to remove the additional microphones attached to the cameras. Moreover, the Senate Public Information and Media Relations Office was instructed to relay to all concerned, that no cameras, still or moving, and microphones may be installed inside any room, hall or premise of the Senate without permission by the Senate President.

With the explanation and the proferred apologies of the GMA Channel 7, it is recommended that the incident complained of by Senator Judge John Osmeña be deemed closed and the microphone which was ordered confiscated by the Presiding Officer, be returned to its owners.

Very truly yours,

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.

Senate President”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we proceed to the trial proper, may I have leave of the court to dwell on a small social item involving two distinguished members of the prosecution and the defense. Yesterday was the birthday of Prosecutor Arroyo and we failed to greet him. Today is the birthday of Defense Counsel Mendoza.

(Applause)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the Court would express its greetings to the two birthday celebrants who are both members of the Upsilon Sigma Phi.

MR. MENDOZA. I would like to express my appreciation, Mr. Chief Justice, as well as to the Senator Judges. I can assure you that I have grown in age by one year today, and it is not in any way attributable to the impeachment proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice. Since the cat is out of the bag Actually, our birthday is the same today.

Thank you very much. With the same age.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can have a joint celebration.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may we now proceed to the trial proper.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still a pending incident, Your Honor. There was a recommendation by the Senate President that the incident complained of by the Honorable Senator-Judge John Osmeña yesterday regarding the microphone be deemed closed and terminated, and that the microphone which was ordered confiscated by the Presiding Officer be returned to its owners.

Is there any objection from the Court? There being none, the recommendation is approved. That incident is now deemed closed and terminated, and the microphone which was ordered confiscated by the Court, through the Presiding Officer – not by the Presiding Officer alone – is now ordered returned to its owners.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. To the trial proper, the prosecution will continue to present evidence. As announced yesterday, they will present Mrs. Eleanor Madrid as witness. Prosecutor Antonio Nachura, Jr. will be the principal examining counsel, assisted by Private Prosecutor Joey Tenefrancia. Cross examination will be handled for the Defense by Atty. Sigfrid Fortun and Atty. Jose Flaminiano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And…? Who is the other one?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Flaminiano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Flaminiano.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Daza.

MR. DAZA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, today is Friday and it has been agreed and it has been practiced that before the trial, there be some time for motions. Would these motions be treated now or later this afternoon?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean motions which were filed already?

MR. DAZA. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will take that up afterwards.

There are actually a separate agenda for the pending incidents.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, I was about to manifest also that we have some pending motions to be resolved. Since the Chief Justice decided that all these motions will be called later, we will wait.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

Your witness now. Call the witness, Eleanor Madrid.

The Secretary of the Senate shall administer the oath on the witness.

Kindly take your oath, Madam Witness.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left hand on the Bible and answer me.

You, Eleanor Madrid, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MS. MADRID. I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat.

Congressman Nachura.

REP. NACHURA. Mr. Chief Justice, the witness is being presented for the purpose of identifying and authenticating Land Transportation Office certification dated 2 January 2001 containing data on the driver’s license of one “Victor Jose Tan Uy,” issued by Eleanor Madrid and already marked as Exhibit “MMMMMM-2” as well as the accompanying computer-generated photograph with the personal details of the same “Victor Jose Tan Uy” likewise premarked as Exhibit “MMMMMM-2”.

And No. 2, to confirm the identity and the personal circumstances of Victor Jose Tan Uy also known as “Eleuterio Tan” who participated in the illegal diversion of funds released under Republic Act 7171 in connection with the charge of Graft and Corrupt Practices under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, may please the Honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). If counsel is presenting this witness to identify Exhibit “MMMMMM-1”, then we are willing to stipulate that witness if asked, will be able to identify both documents and authenticate the same.

REP. NACHURA. May I then propose one more stipulation that the data contained in the certification, as well as in the computer-generated photograph shall then be affirmed and confirmed by the witness with respect to their veracity based on the records of the Land Transportation Office.

MR. FORTUN (S). Well, we can only stipulate as to the existence of the document and as to the existence of matters stated in this document. I’d like to believe, Your Honor, that it is plain and straightforward enough for us to have no further questions over.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you say, Prosecutor Nachura?

REP. NACHURA. As long as the defense is willing to stipulate on all the matters contained in the document …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They have agreed.

MR. FORTUN (S). Existence …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They have agreed.

MR. FORTUN (S). … but not as to the truth, we are willing to do that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They have agreed on the existence of these documents which are public documents.

REP. NACHURA. Then on the basis of such a stipulation, we’ll do away with the witness, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not do away with the witness. We’ll just simply excuse her…

REP. NACHURA. We will dispense with the testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … and thank her for the cooperation.

MR. FORTUN (S). I would like to … Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to make clear that the stipulation covers only existence and perhaps the ability of the witness to identify these documents and does not relate to the truth of the matters stated in the documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. These are public documents and the entries, you know, you know the presumption relating to public documents.

So we can now excuse the witness, Prosecutor Nachura?

REP. NACHURA. Just one question we would like to ask the witness relative to the contents of the certification. If she is willing to affirm the veracity of the contents of these two documents …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you doubt …

REP. NACHURA. … based on records contained in the — no, because there is no such stipulation.

MR. FORTUN (S). I do not …

REP. NACHURA. No such stipulation made and no agreement given by the defense.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that the witness will not be able to confirm the truth of the matter stated here but she perhaps will be able to state that these are the information contained in …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s wait for the answer of the witness.

MR. FORTUN (S). Certainly, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The counsel may ask the question.

REP. NACHURA. Madam Witness — all right. Will you please state your name and other personal circumstances?

MS. MADRID. I am Eleanor A. Madrid, 57 years old, a Filipino, married and living at 51 Edward Street, Kingsville Subdivision, Antipolo, Rizal.

REP. NACHURA. What is your occupation, Madam Witness?

MS. MADRID. Well, I am a government employee from the Land Transportation Office, East Avenue, Quezon City.

REP. NACHURA. What position do you hold at the Land Transportation Office?

MS. MADRID. I am the head of the License Section, Sir.

REP. NACHURA. As head of the License Section, what are your principal functions?

MS. MADRID. I supervise the issuance of driver’s license in the office. I supervise the evaluation of driver’s license application. I supervise the issuance of certification of driver’s license record for the following purposes: (1) for insurance claim; for court evidences; for those applying abroad; and for those applying for a duplicate of their lost licenses, Sir.

REP. NACHURA. As head of the License Section of the Land Transportation Office, do you recall having issued this certification which we are showing to you already marked as “MMMMMM”?

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, this is precisely what we are stipulating on …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, not covered by the stipulation.

MR. FORTUN (S). … these are matters which she will be able to identify.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … It is a preliminary to the purpose earlier announced by counsel.

MR. FORTUN (S). Very well, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let him proceed. The wit¬ness may answer.

MS. MADRID. Yes, Sir.

REP. NACHURA. There is a signature appearing above …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You just proceed directly to the point.

REP. NACHURA. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is presumed to be admitted in the stipulation.

REP. NACHURA. At the middle portion of Exhibit “MMMMMM” are data relating to the driver’s license of Victor Jose Tan. Where did you obtain these data?

MS. MADRID. Sir, the certification was based on our records.

REP. NACHURA. Do you, therefore, affirm the veracity of these data on the basis of the records existing at the Land Transportation Office?

MS. MADRID. Yes, Sir.

REP. NACHURA. Thank you.

Now, in the accompanying document marked as Exhibit “MMMMMM 2″, which is a computer generated photograph, there appear personal details below the photograph. Will you please tell us where you obtained these data relative to the personal details of Victor Jose Tan Uy?

MS. MADRID. This came from our records on file, Sir.

REP. NACHURA. And the photograph itself?

MS. MADRID. Also from our records file, Sir.

REP. NACHURA. Do you then affirm the veracity of these details on the basis of LTO records?

MS. MADRID. Yes, Sir.

REP. NACHURA. Thank you. That will be all with the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross examination, if any?

MR. FORTUN (S). No cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Any question from the Members of the Court?

The Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Ms. Madrid, I will ask the Secretary to show you some documents which are pasted on a black cardboard, which we will ask you to identify whether you recognize the pictures shown on those documents which are already marked. The Secretary will kindly show the documents to the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Come nearer.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And kindly identify the docu¬ment, Mr. Secretary, that you are showing to the witness. You start with that smaller piece where the picture appears.

For the record, what is the exhibit number, Mr. Secre¬tary?

THE SECRETARY. The witness is pointing to “IC A”.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Impeachment Court Exhibit ” A”? All right. Kindly …

THE SECRETARY. And the picture, Your Honor, is “IC A 2″.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right. Ms. Madrid, kindly tell this Court if the picture you have seen you are now looking at in those exhibits, if you recognize the picture of the person there.

MS. MADRID. This is the picture of Victor Jose Tan Uy, Sir, from our records.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other question from the Members of the Court? There being none, the witness is now excused.

Next witness for the prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness is Gwen Marie Judith Samontina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Samontino?

REP. APOSTOL. Samontina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Samantha.

REP. APOSTOL. The Chief, Records Division, Social Security System, East Avenue, Quezon City. The examining public prosecutor is Congressman Eduardo Antonio Nachura, the assisting counsel is private prosecutor Joey Tenefrancia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And who will be the cross examining and assisting cross examining attorneys?

MR. FORTUN (S). For the defense, Your Honor, it will be Atty. Sigfrid Fortun and Atty. Jose Flaminiano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary of the Senate is requested to administer the oath on the witness.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left hand on the Holy Bible and answer me.

You, Gwen Marie Judy Dumol Samontina, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So help you God.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat. Prosecutor Nachura.

REP. NACHURA. Mr. Chief Justice, the witness is being presented for the purpose of identifying and authenticating the following documents:

Social Security System Form E 1 filed by Ms. Delia Elan Rajas with the Social Security System, premarked as Exhibit “UUUUUU”;

The SSS Form R 1 filed by the following employers of Ms. Rajas with the Social Security System, namely: Admate Company Incorporated; Energetic Security and Specialists; Gethro Construction and Development Incorporated; and Power Management and Consultancy Incorporated, all of which have been premarked as Exhibits “VVVVVV”; “YYYYYY”; “AAAAAAA”; and “CCCCCCC”, respectively.

And the Social Security System Form R 1A filed by the said employers of Ms. Rajas with the SSS indicating that Ms. Rajas is an employee of said companies, also premarked as Exhibits “WWWWWW”; “XXXXXX”; “ZZZZZZ”; “BBBBBBB”; and “DDDDDDD”, respectively.

And finally, to confirm the identity and the personal circumstances of Ms. Rajas, who participated in the illegal diversion of funds from Republic Act 7171, in connection with the charge of Graft and Corrupt Practices under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the pleasure of Atty. Fortun?

MR. FORTUN (S). If these documents which the counsel had listed, had announced will be identified by the witness, we are willing again to stipulate on the existence of these matters but certainly not on the truth of the contents thereof.

REP. NACHURA. We accept the stipulation and there will only be a few questions that we would like to ask the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The stipulation has been accepted and you may proceed on some questions not covered by the stipulation.

REP. NACHURA. Before that, Mr. Chief Justice, may I just ask, Compañero, if the stipulation includes all submarkings we have made on the document?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the admission is on the existence of the document, then necessarily, all the contents of the documents.

MR. FORTUN (S). Certainly, Your Honor. The stipulation is inclusive of the submarkings.

REP. NACHURA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Prosecutor Nachura.

REP. NACHURA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Madam Witness, will you please state your name and other personal circumstances?

MS. SAMONTINA. My name is Gwen Marie Judy Dumol Samontina, married, of legal age.

REP. NACHURA. Address.

MS. SAMONTINA. I’m residing at 78 Puffin Street, Strip 70, Concepcion, Marikina.

REP. NACHURA. What is your occupation?

MS. SAMONTINA. Yes. I’m a government employee and I’m Assistant Vice President and Head of the Records and the Information Management Center at the Social Security System.

REP. NACHURA. Since when have you been vice president and head of the Records Division Center of SSS?

MS. SAMONTINA. Since January 1998, Your Honor.

REP. NACHURA. As such vice president and head of Records, what are your principal functions?

MS. SAMONTINA. As head of the Records and Information Management Center, I am the official records custodian of the SSS and I’m also in charge of insuring that records received by different SSS offices are preserved and archived.

REP. NACHURA. Last night, Ms. Samontina, you were requested to bring documents representing SSS records and you brought these documents which have all been premarked. But there is one document which was included in the request, namely, the certified true copy of the Birth Certificate of Ms. Rajas which she filed with the SSS along with her SSS Form E 1. Did you bring a copy of this document with you today?

MS. SAMONTINA. No, Your Honor. We don’t have a copy of the Birth Certificate of Delia Rajas.

REP. NACHURA. Why could you not bring a copy with you?

MS. SAMONTINA. We do not have a copy on microfilm on file. And it may also be seen from the E 1 which she submitted when she got her SSS Number, there is a portion there Exhibit “UUUUUU”…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show the document to the witness.

REP. NACHURA. In the lower portion, left lower portion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Of what Exhibit Number, Madam Witness?

MS. SAMONTINA. “UUUUUU”, Your Honor. This is the E 1 Form of Delia Rajas. We usually check the counter personnel usually check the submitted documents, and there is no indication that she submitted any of the documents.

REP. NACHURA. Will you please point to that portion you indicated earlier?

MS. SAMONTINA. This portion, the lower left portion.

REP. NACHURA. Lower left portion.

MS. SAMONTINA. With caption “Documents Submitted Certified True Copy.” So there was no check marks on the items: “Birth Certificate, Baptismal Certificate.”

REP. NACHURA. May we just request, Mr. Chief Justice, that that portion indicated by the witness be marked as Exhibit “UUUUUU 4″, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.

REP. NACHURA. There are entries in this Personal Data Record Sheet already marked as “UUUUUU”. Will you please tell us who accomplished this document and who filled up those information required in the document?

MS. SAMONTINA. Per our record, a certain person with surname: “Rajas,” given name: “Delia” and middle name: “Hilan” accomplished this form, Your Honor.

REP. NACHURA. For the record, Mr. Chief Justice, we just would like to recap the documents that the witness brought identifying each of these documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There had been stipulation already. What would be the necessity therefore?

REP. NACHURA. Well, just one final manifestation, Your Honor, which, of course, is already may be covered by the stipulation. The markings on the documents made in the photocopies have actually been the photocopies had actually already been compared with the originals and the defense has …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the machine copies were taken from the originals as marked …

REP. NACHURA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … according to the agreement.

REP. NACHURA. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What else? Nothing further?

REP. NACHURA. In the case of “CCCCCCC” and “DDDDDDD”, Mr. Chief Justice, the markings were made on photocopies of the photocopies that the witness brought because she had to bring back the original documents that she brought with her.

So, with that final manifestation …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably you don’t have to worry about that. The defense …

REP. NACHURA. We already stipulated.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, we are willing to accept even the machine copy of a machine copy.

REP. NACHURA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice, that will be all for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are through with the direct examination?

REP. NACHURA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any cross?

MR. FORTUN (S). We have no cross examination questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Any question from the members of the Court?

The Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Just some clarificatory questions, Your Honor, if the Court may allow. Under Exhibit is this CCC … How many Cs are these, and this is the R 1, the employer’s registration? Or, anyway, I’ll just ask the question directly.

On the basis of these documents that you submitted, particularly the last three documents, who appears to be the employer of this person, Delia Rajas, on the basis of these documents?

MS. SAMONTINA. Can I have copy of …?

(At this juncture, the documents were shown to the witness.)

MS. SAMONTINA. Sir, are you referring to Exhibit “C seven “Cs?”

SEN. DRILON. Yeah, seven “Cs.” That’s correct, yes.

MS. SAMONTINA. Yes. The entry here, we cannot see who the employer of Delia Rajas here. The certifying officer is the treasurer, which is a certain Cesar D. Sulit. So …

SEN. DRILON. Is the employer the employer firm is Power Management and Consultancy, Inc.?

MS. SAMONTINA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Now, on the next page, which is “DDDDDDD 3,” indicated here is Charlie Ang. Can you tell us the relation between Charlie Ang and Power Management …

MS. SAMONTINA. Okay. So …

SEN. DRILON. … as indicated in the record?

MS. SAMONTINA. In Item 3 of the R 1A, there is a certain entry, “Ang, Charlie T.,” with SSS No. 0350887054. He is the security officer of this Power Management and Consultancy, Incorporated.

SEN. DRILON. Security officer?

MS. SAMONTINA. This is the position indicated here, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. You mean, “S E C. Officer.”

MS. SAMONTINA. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. Why do you interpret that as “security,” just as a matter of curiosity?

MS. SAMONTINA. We usually if we see this abbreviation, we mean this would mean that this would be “security,” “S E C.”

SEN. DRILON. All right.

MS. SAMONTINA. No, it’s not a “secretary officer.”

SEN. DRILON. Security officer.

MS. SAMONTINA. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. No more questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Any other member of the Court? (Silence.) There being none; the witness is now excused.

Next witness for the prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness is Maria Lorena Flores, Land Bank Malacañang; examining prosecutor is Public Prosecutor Congressman Oscar Moreno; assisting prosecutor is Private Prosecutor Joey Tenefrancia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And for the cross examining and assisting cross examining attorneys?

MR. FORTUN (S). Same counsel, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Administer the oath to the witness.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). May we know under which article we currently are presenting evidence over? It would seem to me that these are all matters covered by Article II. If Prosecutor Moreno can confirm the matter, then we would be most satisfied.

REP. MORENO. That’s right, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the testimony of this witness would be to prove the allegations…

REP. MORENO. Under…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

REP. MORENO. That’s right.

MR. FORTUN (S). Is it our understanding, Your Honor, that we had completed presentation for Article I and had thus moved to Article II? Considering that there seems to be there seems to be witnesses which would, in succession, be testifying on matters covered by Article II when we had not yet been apprised of our having completed presentation for Article I.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The understanding yesterday was that we should finish first with Article I.

So, since they are now in Article II, the Chair would suppose, unless it is contradicted, that the prosecution will now be limiting itself to Article II.

MR. FORTUN (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we have not closed Article I because some of the motions which is pending now involves some witnesses of Article I. And we are not in a position to present them because they are still mentioned in the motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there still pending applications for depositions on oral examination and production of certain documents?

REP. APOSTOL. Some some recall of witness, some is declaration of hostility, and some is we request for an examination of the health of a witness through the physician of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That matter was already resolved the other day, I think. The defense was given three days within which to comment thereon…

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. That’s why…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …on the health of the witness, Raul de Guzman.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice, is it therefore our understanding that other than those witnesses covered by certain pending incidents, the prosecution have has no other witness to present insofar as Article I is concerned?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That seems to be clear from the manifestation of Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, but our little problem is some of the witnesses of Article II may be adopted by us…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can make the announcement later on.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the more appropriate

time.

MR. FORTUN (S). Provided that that is a clear understanding that the only witnesses for Article I are those covered by certain pending incidents, whether hostilities or not.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was admitted by Prosecutor Apostol.

MR. FORTUN (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. With the indulgence of Congressman Prosecutor Apostol, there may still be witnesses who may be subpoenaed, depending on the results of the inspection and production of documents that the prosecution has filed, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think, the prosecution should put their act together. We will give you time to confer with one another, so each one should not be making statement for and in behalf of the prosecution…

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …which might be different from the statement of the other.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, I confirm the statement of Prosecutor Oscar Moreno.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness now.

The Secretary shall administer the oath on the witness.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. (Administering oath to the witness.)

Kindly raise your right hand.

Put your left hand on the Holy Bible and answer me: You Maria Lorena Flores, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

MS. FLORES. Yes, I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat, Madam Witness.

Prosecutor Moreno.

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

Today, we will begin with the paper trail, money trail pertaining to the 200 million released to the Province of Ilocos Sur relating to the Republic Act 7171, Excise Tax.

And, Mr. Chief Justice, before I begin with our witness, may I propose, in respect of the documents that had been submitted by the Department of Budget and Management covered in the notice issued by the Honorable Secretary of the Senate, Atty. Barbo, in which he had stated that-this is dated 21 December 2000-addressed to the Honorable Presiding Officer and the Honorable Senate President-Judge that the DBM submitted to the Senate Legal Counsel several public documents.

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, in order to expedite the proceedings and dispense with the calling of the DBM representative to identify said documents, may we request from the defense panel for a stipulation on the genuineness, authenticity, and due execution of the following public documents. These have been premarked earlier, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, and copies-in the presence, of course, of the defense panel-and copies of the premarked documents were earlier distributed to the Senators-Judges. And…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What are these exhibits?

REP. MORENO. These are Exhibits “RRRRRR”, Special Allotment Release Order No. D-98-02836 dated August 19, 1998; second, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is Exhibit “SSSSSS”, Advice of NCA issued dated 20 August 2000; the third is “NNNNN”, MDS Check No. 097731-88 dated August 24, 1998 in the name of the province of Ilocos Sur for the amount of 200 million; and lastly, Notice of Funding Check issued, Exhibit “TTTTTT”. This is Notice of Funding Check Issued, Fund 103, dated August 25, 1998.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are these the very documents which the witness will identify?

REP. MORENO. Separate, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is not going to testify on these exhibits that you mentioned.

REP. MORENO. That’s right, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, why are you asking for a stipulation ahead of the witness?

REP. MORENO. No. This has nothing to do with the witness in the meantime.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you do it somewhere else. You have the witness there.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. We thought that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have all the time for stipulations on other matters.

REP. MORENO. We thought that for an orderly…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that is why the Chair had asked you whether the witness will testify on this, in like manner that the other two witnesses did. So, you could have stipulation on the matters to be testified to by the witness to shorten the testimony of the witness.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to mention that these exhibits would have been testified to by the DBM representative, Mr. Chief Justice. The witness is the Branch…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you can ask for the stipulation later.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go on with the witness now.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, we are presenting the testimony of Mrs. Maria Lorena S. Flores, the Branch Manager of Land Bank of the Philippines, Malacañang Branch, to prove the following:

Number one, that for fund releases by the DBM in respect of certain priority projects such as releases from special shares from the proceeds of National Excise Taxes on Tobacco pursuant to Republic Act 7171, these releases are coursed through LBP Malacañang Branch.

Secondly, the aforesaid releases are effected via checks issued by the DBM which are drawn on LBP Malacañang Branch as drawee and are payable also to LBP Malacañang Branch.

Thirdly, on Aug. 26, 1998, Land Bank of the Philippines-Malacañang Branch received from the DBM the following:

A. Copy of the DBM Disbursement Voucher No. FS 103 98 08 150;

B. DBM Advice of Checks Issued and Cancelled No. 98 8 30 addressed to the Bank Manager, Land Bank of the Philippines Malacañang Branch dated August 24, 1998; and

C. Check issued by the DBM dated August 24, 1998 drawn payable to Land Bank of the Philippines-Malacañang Branch for the account of the province of Ilocos Sur, Region I and drawn on LBP Malacañang Branch in the amount of 200 million, all in connection with and covering the release by the DBM of 200 million for the purpose of funding the requirement for the establishment of a Tobacco Curing and Redrying Plant in Santa, Ilocos Sur, under SARO No. D 98 02836 dated August 19, 1998 also issued by the DBM.

Fourthly, that on August 26, 1998, the 200 million was transferred via an interbranch credit advice by Land Bank of the Philippines-Malacañang Branch to Land Bank of the Philippines-Vigan Branch where the account of the province of Ilocos Sur with Land Bank of the Philippines is maintained. And also,

Fifthly, to identify the aforesaid DBM Disbursement Voucher, DBM Advice of Checks Issued and Cancelled, DBM Check for 200 million and Interbranch Credit Advice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

REP. MORENO. Madam Witness, can you please tell this Honorable Court your name and other personal circumstances.

MS. FLORES. I’m Maria Lorena S. Flores, of legal age, married, and residing at Greenfields I, Novaliches, Quezon City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your present occupation?

MS. FLORES. I’m the present manager of Land Bank Malacañang Branch, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now pick it up from there, Prosecutor Moreno.

Do you have the documents with you, at this time, Prosecutor Moreno, or you need a little time.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, I had it with me a while back. Yes, I have it with me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You need time to look for them?

REP. MORENO. No, it’s okay, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

REP. MORENO. Mrs. Witness, could you please tell this Honorable Court very briefly, what do you mean by the Modified Disbursement Scheme.

MS. FLORES. Well, the Modified Disbursement Scheme, as we all call it, the MDS Account or the accounts being maintained by the government agencies wherein the Department of Budget and Management releases Notice of Cash Allocation are for credit to the respective MDS accounts of the government agencies, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, the Modified Disbursement Scheme applies only to certain releases, certain projects, is that right?

MS. FLORES. It applies to all government agencies.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And as far as the entire scheme is concerned, the initial step is, the DBM issues an NCA or the Notice of Cash Allocation, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. That’s why, Mr. Chief Justice, I had wanted earlier although, of course, I must beg for your indulgence, for easier presentation, the DBM documents would better be stipulated, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair maintains the position earlier taken.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Now, as far as … and then after the NCA is issued, what does the head office of Land Bank do?

MS. FLORES. Usually, it’s our Reconciliation Management Department who pick it up to the Office of the Department of Budget and Management.

REP. MORENO. And then?

MS. FLORES. And they usually summarize it and then verify the authenticity of the signatories, and then they transmit it to the different branches of the bank.

REP. MORENO. And then after that, what does the DBM do with respect to that particular NCA?

MS. FLORES. After we receive the Notice of Cash Allocation, we credit it to the respective accounts of the agency. And then it’s through the issuance of check by DBM wherein we can … wherein the agency can disburse whatever releases they want to.

REP. MORENO. And then with respect to the particular releases that are handled by the Land Bank of the Philippines, Malacañang Branch, what, if any, what projects are these?

MS. FLORES. In Malacañang Branch, DBM releases, such as the Internal Revenue Allotment which we call it “IRA”, the Priority Development Projects, Calamity Funds, the National Excise Tax, and some other special projects are being released through Land Bank-Malacañang Branch.

REP. MORENO. So, are you telling this Honorable Court then that with respect to these projects, only the Land Bank of the Philippines-Malacañang Branch, is used by the DBM as the conduit with respect to these releases?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit, original copy of Exhibit … I’m sorry, this is a certified true xerox copy of Exhibit “JJJJJJ”. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what this is all about?

MS. FLORES. This is the Notice of Cash Allocation being released by the Department of Budget and Management. This is being picked up by our head office, Reconciliation Management Department, in particular.

So, I brought here the original copy.

REP. MORENO. And this is addressed … on top … this is Exhibit “JJJJJJ”. On top, this is addressed to Land Bank of the Philippines-Makati City. Can you tell this Honorable Court there is a box here which says, which reads, “Department Code 54.” There is a typewritten number 54. What does that mean?

MS. FLORES. This is the code of Land Bank.

REP. MORENO. And then Fund No. 103.

MS. FLORES. Fund 103, usually, it refers to the special projects being released by DBM to the local government units or any government agencies.

REP. MORENO. And “103″ refers to what particular fund?

MS. FLORES. “103″ refers to the special projects.

REP. MORENO. For local government units. And this is in the amount of?

MS. FLORES. This Notice of Cash Allocation is in the amount of 200 million.

REP. MORENO. And then the particulars of this Notice of Cash Allocation are indicated towards the middle part of this Exhibit “JJJJJJ”.

It says here at the left portion, “Department of Budget and Management which is the agency unit, Financial Service.” Agency Code is “D0055”, what does this mean, “D0055”?

MS. FLORES. I’m no longer concerned with the agency code, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And then, Malacañang Branch, this is your branch?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, it says here, “MDS Sub-Account Number”, the numbers are 2151-90037-5. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what these numbers are all about?

MS. FLORES. This is the MDS Sub-Account of the Department of Budget and Management.

REP. MORENO. In other words, this is the credit account or the deposit account of the DBM with…

MS. FLORES. Malacañang Branch.

REP. MORENO. … the Land Bank of the Philippines, Malacañang Branch?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And the amount is…

MS. FLORES. Two hundred million.

REP. MORENO. … two hundred million.

And together with this, you said — or let me reform, Mr. Chief Justice. I am showing to you Exhibit “KKKKKK”. I am showing to you the certified true xerox copy and then there is “KKKKKK”. There is a name towards the right portion at the bottom, “Reynaldo C. Capa, ADM-II”. Can you please tell this Honorable Court who this Reynaldo C. Capa is?

MS. FLORES. Mr. Reynaldo C. Capa is our Assistant Department Manager at the Reconciliation Management Department, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And this document marked as Exhibit “KKKKKK”, can you please tell this Honorable Court where this came from, where this was addressed, to whom this was addressed, and what this one is all about?

MS. FLORES. This is the telefax for transmission being prepared by our Reconciliation Management Department to be forwarded to the different branches of the bank.

REP. MORENO. And this one is addressed to?

MS. FLORES. For this particular exhibit, it is addressed to LBP-Malacañang Branch, so it’s for the credit of the Department of Management — of Budget and Management, and the other one is for the NCRFW.

REP. MORENO. It says here in the enumeration at the middle of this Exhibit “KKKKKK” towards the right, “C/A Number”, and the numbers 2151-90037-5 are typewritten. Is this the same account number of DBM with Land Bank of the Philippines, Malacañang Branch?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And the amount is for 200 million, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And by the way, there is a signature that appears on top of the handwritten name “Reynaldo C. Capa”. Whose signature is this?

MS. FLORES. That’s the signature of Mr. Reynaldo C. Capa, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Why do you say that that is his signature?

MS. FLORES. Everyday, we receive transaction from the department, so I am familiar with the signature of Mr. Capa.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you a copy of Exhibit “LLLLL”, Disbursement Voucher. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what this document is all about?

MS. FLORES. This is a form of the Department of Budget and Management, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And the paying agency is…

MS. FLORES. The paying agency is Department of Budget and Management. It’s an attachment to the check and the Advice of Check Issued and Cancelled which we call it the ACIC.

REP. MORENO. Are you referring to Exhibit “MMMMM”, Advice of Checks Issued and Cancelled, this is from the Department of Budget and Management, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And in a nutshell, can you tell this Honorable Court what is the relation between the Disbursement Voucher and the Advice of Checks Issued and Cancelled?

MS. FLORES. The Disbursement Voucher is a document of the DBM for them to process whatever disbursement they have while the other one, the Advice of Check Issued and Cancelled, this is standard form to be submitted everytime that they issue a check for encashment.

REP. MORENO. And the advice of check issued and cancelled again contains the 200 million, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And the check number here is indicated as “97731 BT” dated date of issue August 24, 1998, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And this is for and I am showing to you copy of the check certified true copy of the check for 200 million drawn by the DBM on Land Bank of the Philippines, Malacañang Branch, this is Exhibit “NNNNN” and it is paid to the order of LBP Malacañang, for the account of the province of Ilocos Sur, Region I, the amount of P200 million dated August 24, 1998. Can you please identify or tell us what this check is all about?

MS. FLORES. This check was the one given to us on August 26 for the account of the province of Ilocos Sur, Region I, in relation to the funding requirement of establishment of a tobacco curing and redrying plant in Santa, Ilocos Sur for the account of our Vigan Branch.

REP. MORENO. So, in point of timing, you first received the reconciliation statement or from the Reconciliation Management Department. This is Exhibit “KKKKKK”. Is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor, with the Notice of Cash Allocation to be credited to the account.

REP. MORENO. And this Exhibit “K” is dated August 24, 1998, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. When did you receive this?

MS. FLORES. We usually receive it on the afternoon of the same date, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, on August 26, 1998, what documents, if any, did you receive from the DBM?

MS. FLORES. On August 26 of 1998, Malacañang Branch received the disbursement voucher, Check No. 97731 BD dated August 24, 1998, together with the covering Advice of Check Issued and Cancelled which is the ACIC.

REP. MORENO. For the record, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, the witness was referring to Exhibit “MMMMM”, “NNNNN” and “LLLLL”. The advice of checks issued and cancelled, the check for 200 million and the DBM disbursement voucher, respectively.

And what time on August 28 26, I’m sorry, did you receive these three documents?

MS. FLORES. I can no longer remember the exact time it was received by our cash clerk but per record, per document, it was validated at around 10:56 in the morning.

REP. MORENO. And then, when you received the check, did you issue any official receipt?

MS. FLORES. Upon receipt of the check and the advice, we usually authenticate the signatories of the check and once it’s…

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit “OOOOO”, this is official receipt, Bangko…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the witness completed the answer?

REP. MORENO. I’m sorry, Your Honor.

MS. FLORES. So, what I’m saying is, upon receipt of the advice and the check, we usually validate the signatories and then that’s the time we issue an official receipt to acknowledge receipt of the document.

REP. MORENO. And so, after having validated the signatories of the documents that you referred to earlier — I am showing to you Exhibit “OOOOO”, official receipt of Land Bank-Mandaluyong Branch. What, if any, is the relationship between this receipt and the acknowledgement that you said you issued?

MS. FLORES. The official receipt is our official acknowledgement receipt that we received the check, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And to whom did you issue this?

MS. FLORES. We issued it to the DBM.

REP. MORENO. And then after having validated the check, the signature and all those documents that you have received from the DBM, what, if any, did you do?

MS. FLORES. The next procedure is for the cash clerk to prepare the inter-office credit and debit advice to be transmitted to Vigan Branch where the account of Ilocos Sur is being maintained, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit “QQQQQ”, this is an inter-office credit advice. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what is the document all about?

MS. FLORES. This is the document we use in transmitting the funding to the branches where the account should be transferred.

REP. MORENO. And in respect to this particular inter-office credit advice, who was the beneficiary of the credit advice? In other words, which branch of Land Bank of the Philippines was supposed to have received the 200 million?

MS. FLORES. The account of the province of Ilocos Sur is being maintained at our Vigan Branch. Hence, we transmitted this inter-office advice to our Vigan Branch, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Did you remit the entire 200 million as covered by the check that you received from the DBM?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What time did you transmit? What did you do with this inter-office credit advice, did you send this by mail, did you send it by fax or any other means?

MS. FLORES. Initially, we send it through fax machine in the latter part of the afternoon but I can’t no longer remember the exact time, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And there was another instrument that was issued in addition to the inter-office credit advice, am I right?

MS. FLORES. Your Honor, this is the document we transmitted to our Vigan branch, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And as far as your office, the Land Bank of the Philippines, Malacañang Branch, do you have any document that you also prepare whenever you issue an inter-office credit advice?

MS. FLORES. We usually prepare the inter-office advice, both the credit advice and the debit advice. The credit advice is for the Malacañang Branch whereas the debit advice, which is for the responding branch, which is our Vigan Branch. So at Malacañang Branch, on my file copy, it’s only the credit advice.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And the credit advice is Exhibit “QQQQQ”, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And the inter-office debit advice is Exhibit “PPPPP”, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And, just for the sake of clarity, what does the inter-office credit advice seek to do and what does the inter-office debit advice also seek to do?

MS. FLORES. This inter-office credit advice, it’s our instrument wherein we can credit to the account of the concerned beneficiary. Whereas on the other part, on the Vigan Branch, it’s the debit advice since they are the responding branch, so they have to debit it to the – The entry is due to due from our head office. That’s why to close the account we have to prepare both the debit and the credit.

REP. MORENO. And that explains that in Exhibit “QQQQQ”, there is a blot(?) that the box rather at the lower right portion in Exhibit “PPPPP” is blocked in Exhibit “QQQQQ”, is that correct?

MS. FLORES. Yes, Your Honors, since Vigan is the responding branch.

REP. MORENO. And just for the purpose of identifying some other submarkings, let me go back to Exhibit “PPPPP.” There is here a box that reads:

“Malacañang Branch certified true copy, Maria Lorena S. Flores, authorized signatory”,

submarked as Exhibit “PPPPP 1″.

Can you please tell this Honorable Court what this submarked item is about?

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice, we are willing to stipulate on the matters which counsel is now trying to address, that if asked, the witness will identify this as her certification.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Which…

REP. MORENO. These are the submarked items in Exhibit “Q 1” which says: “Malacañang Branch, certified true copy, Maria Lorena S. Flores” and then there is a signature on top of this.

I’m happy, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, that Atty. Fortun is willing to stipulate, that Malacañang Branch which prepared which stamped this and it was Mrs. Flores, the witness, who signed the signature on top of her name.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are those the only documents where you can find the signature of the witness?

REP. MORENO. There are other documents, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, why don’t you stipulate on all?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Enumerate the sub exhibits referring to the signature of the witness.

REP. MORENO. And in addition to that, Mr. Chief Justice, Exhibit “PPPPP 1″, this is…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You look at them, Atty. Fortun, so you could agree later on.

REP. MORENO. Again, same marking with the same signature of Mrs. Flores; “OOOOO 1″, again, same rubber stamp marking; same signature of Mrs. Flores; “MMMMM 1″ again, same rubber stamp marking, same signature of Mrs. Flores.

That’s all, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). We so stipulate, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I’d like to thank Atty. Fortun.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, these are now deemed stipulated and agreed upon in the records.

REP. MORENO. We’d like to thank Atty. Fortun, Mr. Chief Justice.

So, Mrs. Witness, did you receive any advise from Land Bank, Vigan Branch, which was the beneficiary of your inter-office credit advice and which was supposed to respond to the inter-office debit advice?

MS. FLORES. The following day, it was confirmed with my cashier…

REP. MORENO. What was confirmed…?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, we have spent quite an amount of time on this very non controversial issue. I don’t think there’s any issue about the movement of this money from Malacañang to Land Bank-Malacañang to Vigan, credited to the account of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and so forth and so on. Is it possible for the prosecution and the defense to just stipulate on this fact? I don’t think this is a very material issue so that we can cut short the proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer fully agrees with the observation. As a matter of fact, they could even go beyond and relate it to the other exhibits earlier identified by the witnesses.

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice, we had, in fact, allowed the questions to be asked to leading questions. Also, we’d like to abbreviate the proceedings because we seemed not to see the contentious character of these pieces of evidence. So, we are willing to stipulate provided the prosecution offers the appropriate request for stipulation by us and we can terminate this in a few minutes, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. ENRILE. Maybe we can do this in five minutes if we if the two sides will stipulate on many of these documentary evidence that are being presented. There is no contentious matters involved in these things.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So what do you say, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that this really relates to the 200 million excise tax and you could stipulate on the movements of the money up to a certain point where you may no longer agree.

REP. MORENO. That is why, Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have the SARO, you have the NCA, you have the check forwarded to Vigan Branch.

REP. MORENO. That is why, Mr. Chief Justice, at the beginning I proposed that we stipulate…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the whole trouble is you made the proposal when you are here already and these were documents to be identified by the DBM. You could have done this much earlier. As a matter of fact, during the first preliminary conference among the lawyers of the prosecution and the defense, the parties were advised to take advantage of stipulation of facts. And we have lost so much time already on matters which are non controversial.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I think there is no issue at all about the release of P200 million by the DBM to Ilocos Sur. The issue is whether a portion of this money was really diverted for an illegal purpose. That is the contentious portion of this point. But all others could be agreed upon. We can abbreviate this and deal with that point where if there is any money that was diverted out of this 200 million so that we can finish this. Otherwise, if this is the way we are going to handle this case, we will not finish this until 2001 … 2002.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are…

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … encouraged to exactly do that.

MR. FORTUN (S). We await the prosecution’s offer, Your Honor. We are ready to stipulate with them on matters which they identified.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You enumerate all the facts you would like to be admitted…

REP. MORENO. Actually, Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … up to where you may disagree. And the disagreement, I understand, is only on the matter of the 130 million which supposedly was the amount involved in the particular charge.

REP. MORENO. We are willing to offer, Mr. Chief Justice.

Firstly, as far as the DBM is concerned, if the defense panel would be willing to stipulate…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, that have been testified to already. You have completed practically, you have completed the aspect of the DBM.

REP. MORENO. Not yet, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we suspend the proceedings for some time so that the two parties can get together and dispose this issue and we finish it so that we will not make any we will not waste our time here hearing this tedious questioning on very simple documentation of the movement of 200…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, the stipulation can now start from Vigan, Land Bank. There is an evidence already to the effect that the amount of 200 million was received and duly credited with that bank. And that is why, you have a debit note already.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you start your stipulation from there and you will be able to save time.

REP. MORENO. Beginning at Vigan Branch, although of course, Mr. Chief Justice, if you will allow me later, because there are some DBM documents that the witness has not yet testified.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can cover that up.

REP. MORENO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If these are documents which are only some of the details that would be covered, as a matter of fact, by the principal ultimate facts of ultimate facts of the release of the money, you did not even mention about SARO, you have the NCA, and so on and so forth.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, as far as the Vigan Branch is concerned, we would like to we would propose the stipulation on the following: That P200 million was having been released by the DBM to Land Bank Malacañang for the account of the province of Ilocos Sur.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Established already by your exhibits.

REP. MORENO. This was accepted …the 200 million was received by Land Bank-Vigan Branch on August 27, l998 via an interbranch advice. What we have established was only the remittance, Mr.Chief Justice. This time it’s the receipt by the branch of the 200 million.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As I said, you can probably begin your stipulation from there.

REP. MORENO. I propose that for stipulation, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). We so stipulate, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you want to sit down together and…

MR. FORTUN (S). We even are willing, in fact, Your Honor, to stipulate on other witnesses which will establish …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable…

SEN. DRILON. I join the call of Senator Enrile to have a few minutes recess to allow these two counsels to come up with their stipulations.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, how many minutes would the counsel need? Why don’t you work on the other documents to be produced by the succeeding witnesses?

MR. FORTUN (S). And if I may suggest, Mr. Chief Justice, the witnesses as well, we will be willing to testify on the matters which the witnesses…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I would suppose that the other witnesses will be testifying on official documents. And you can stipulate on this.

REP. MORENO. 30 minutes.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many minutes?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thirty minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minute-suspension.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I so move, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That will include the break already.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Regular break, oo.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:40 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:31 P.M.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

The Honorable Prosecutor Moreno.

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

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, as directed by the Court during the break, I’d like to manifest that we had a good discussion with the defense panel and we have agreed to the following stipulations, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Fortun, be ready to manifest on the alleged agreement.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, with respect to the Department of Budget and Management, the Secretary of the Senate has submitted a Notice dated December 21 addressed to the Honorable Presiding Officer and the Honorable Senate President Judge, that the DBM has submitted several public documents.

We would like to propose stipulation with the defense on the genuineness, authenticity, and due execution of the following public documents:

Number one is the Special Allotment Release Order No. D 98 02836 dated August 19, 1998, previously marked as Exhibit “RRRRRR”.

Second is the advice of NCA issued dated 20 August 2000, previously marked as Exhibit “SSSSSS”.

Third is MDS Check No. 097731 88 dated August 24, 1998, issued in favor of the province of Ilocos Sur for the amount of P=200 million, previously marked as Exhibit “NNNNN”.

And lastly, Notice of Funding Check Issued, Fund 103, dated August 25, 1998, previously marked as Exhibit “TTTTTT”.

We propose these stipulations, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). We so stipulate, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You so stipulate and agree.

MR. FORTUN (S). On the… And agree.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, and thank you also to Atty. Fortun.

The second proposed stipulation has to do with the Land Bank of the Philippines Vigan Branch. And we propose stipulation on the following:

Number one, that P200 million released by the DBM to Land Bank-Malacañang for the account of the province of Ilocos Sur for the purpose of funding the requirement for the establishment of tobacco curing and redrying plant in Santa, Ilocos Sur under SARO No. D-98-02836 dated August 19, 1998 was transferred via an interbranch transaction to the Land Bank-Vigan Branch from the Land Bank Malacanang Branch on August 26, 1998.

Mr. Chief Justice, shall I read all these proposed stipulations, or one by one?

If I were to read all of them, Mr. Chief Justice, the second would be that Land Bank-Vigan Branch received on August 27, 1998…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will you now read the exhibit number for the record? So, for every exhibit number covered by stipulation and admission must be read into the record.

REP. MORENO. These are Exhibit “MMMM”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “M”?

REP. MORENO. “M” as in mother, Mr. Chief Justice.

And Exhibit “MMMM-1”, Exhibit…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about “NNNN”?

REP. MORENO. This is the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It’s the entire document, is it not? And “NNNN-1” is the date, the stamp mark…

REP. MORENO. “NNNN”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “N”.

REP. MORENO. This is the inter-office debit advice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. MORENO. “OOOO”, this is the credit advice issued by Vigan; Exhibit “PPPP”…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The authorization.

REP. MORENO. The authorization. “QQQQ” which is the copy of the check for 170 million dated August 27, 1998, the dorsal portion is on Exhibit “QQQQ-1”; and then Exhibit “RRRR”, the accountant’s advice on local check disbursement dated August 27, 1998; Exhibit “SSSS” which is the letter from Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson dated August 27, 1998 addressed to Ms. Maria Elizabeth B. Balagot, Manager, Land Bank of the Philippines, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; Exhibit “TTTT”, the application for demand draft-this is a form of the Land Bank of the Philippines-Vigan Branch for 20 million payable to Delia Rajas; “UUUU”, Exhibit “UUUU”, the, again, application for demand draft-this is a form of the Land Bank of the Philippines-Vigan Branch for the amount of 30 million payable to Delia Rajas; Exhibit “VVVV”, application for demand draft, form of Land Bank of the Philippines-Vigan Branch for the amount of P40 million payable to Nuccio Saverio; Exhibit “WWWW”, again, an application for demand draft, Vigan Branch of Land Bank of the Philippines for the amount of P40 million payable to Eleuterio Tan; Exhibit “XXXX”, this is the draft itself dated August 27, 1998 issued by Land Bank of the Philippines Vigan Branch, Payable to the Order of Delia Rajas for P20 million and addressed to the Land Bank of the Philippines, Cash Department.

Exhibit The dorsal portion is Exhibit “XXXX 1″ bearing certain markings which will be the subject of testimony later, Mr. Chief Justice.

Exhibit “YYYY” which is the demand draft issued by Vigan Branch, Land Bank of the Philippines dated August 27, 1998, payable to Delia Rajas for P30 million. And this is payable at Land Bank of the Philippines, Cash Department.

Dorsal portion Exhibit “YYYY 1″ which, again, has some markings which will be the subject of a testimony later, Mr. Chief Justice.

Exhibit “ZZZZ”, Demand Draft dated August 27, 1998, issued by Land Bank of the Philippines Vigan Branch, payable to Eleuterio Tan for P40 million, and payable at Land Bank of the Philippines, Cash Department.

Dorsal portion is Exhibit “ZZZZ 1″, again, with some markings which will be the subject of a testimony, Mr. Chief Justice.

Exhibit “AAAAA”, Demand Draft dated August 27, 1998, payable to Nuccio Saverio for P40 million also payable at the Land Bank of the Philippines, Cash Department. And Exhibit “AAAAA 1″.

Furthermore, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, Exhibit “BBBBB” which is a letter signed by Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson dated September 3, 1998 and addressed to Ms. Maria Elizabeth C. Balagot, Land Bank Manager Vigan Branch.

Exhibit “CCCCC” which is a memorandum signed by Lolita M. Almazan, addressed to the Manager, Vigan Branch, from the Manager, Shaw Boulevard Branch.

Exhibit “DDDDD” which is an interbranch deposit accommodation for P40 million. The beneficiary is Alma Alfaro, Account No. 0561 0445 38.

Exhibit “EEEEE 1″ an interbranch transaction advice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exhibit “EEEEE”.

REP. MORENO. Exhibit “EEEEE” I’m sorry. I stand corrected, Mr. Chief Justice issued by Vigan Branch as the originating unit with Shaw Boulevard Branch as the responding unit, both of Land Bank of the Philippines for P50 million, representing the deposit made with Vigan Branch in favor of Delia Rajas who had an account with Shaw Boulevard Branch.

Next, Mr. Chief Justice, Exhibit “FFFFF”, an interbranch transaction advice originating unit is Vigan Branch, and responding unit is Shaw Boulevard Branch, dated August 28, 1998, the amount is P40 million representing the amount deposited with Vigan Branch in favor of the account of Eleuterio Tan with the Shaw Boulevard Branch, both of Land Bank of the Philippines. This Account No. is 0561 0446 00.

And then Exhibit “GGGGG”. This is an enumeration of interbranch transactions, Land Bank of the Philippines, totalling P130 million.

These were all deposited with the Vigan Branch of Land Bank of the Philippines, for the account of these individuals having accounts with Shaw Boulevard Branch of Land Bank of the Philippines, particularly Alma Alfaro for 40 million, Account No. 0561 0445 38; Delia Rajas, 30 million, Account No. 0561 0445 97; Eleuterio Tan, for 40 million, Account No. 0561 0446 00; Delia Rajas again for 20 million, Account No. 0561 0445 97, effected between August 27 and August 28, 1998.

Next, is Exhibit “HHHHH”, certification issued by Ms. Elizabeth G. Balagot, Branch Manager of Vigan Branch, Land Bank of the Philippines, with respect to the interbranch deposits with a total amount of P130 million.

And next is Exhibit “IIIII”, letter from Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, addressed to Ms. Elizabeth Balagot, Branch Manager, Land Bank-Vigan Branch.

Next is Exhibit “JJJJJ”, a certification issued by Ms. Ma. Elizabeth G. Balagot, Branch Head, Vigan Branch, covering certain confirmation of certain transactions from August 27 to August 28, 1998, totalling P117 million.

And, finally, Exhibit “KKKKK”. This is Debit Ticket for P40 million issued by Land Bank, Head Office, Cash Department, addressed to the Vigan Branch of the same bank, representing the face amount of Demand Draft payable to Nuccio Saverio in the amount of 40 million, which was negotiated over the counter at Head Office, Cash Department on August 28.

Mr. Chief Justice, the other matters that the defense and the prosecution have agreed to stipulate are the following.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Another series of documents?

REP. MORENO. No, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, why don’t we require first Atty. Fortun to react on Exhibits “MMMM” up to “KKKKK”, inclusive, all the documents that you have read into the records.

Do you admit the existence, authenticity… and authenticity of these documents?

MR. FORTUN (S). We do, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, as so stipulated and admitted.

Other items for stipulation?

REP. MORENO. These are the — this is the summary of the documents that had been the subject of stipulation and which the defense has agreed which, if you will please allow this representation to read, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say “summary”, only an inventory of the documents that you have already read into the records?

REP. MORENO. The explanation of these documents, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The proper time for that would be the offer. I don’t think the defense will be ready to stipulate on the explanations — unless they will. Atty. Fortun, have you seen this summary?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, except for a few items which we had purposedly been trying to stipulate this over.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You agree on some?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor, we do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, delete the portions where you cannot agree upon.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, during the break, we have agreed on what I will read, if Your Honor will allow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Simply delete. Cross the portions not agreed upon and mark the summary.

Yes, Senator Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. With your permission, Mr. Chief Justice, can the Court also hear what they have stipulated upon by allowing counsel to read the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, you are not ready to furnish the Members of the Court with copies of the summation in like manner that you had done for the exhibits stipulated upon?

REP. MORENO. We can do so, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Afterwards.

REP. MORENO. Afterwards, but if you will allow…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How long is it, how long is it?

REP. MORENO. It’s less than two pages.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.

REP. MORENO. That out of the funds of 200 million, 170 million was withdrawn on August 27 by check for the same amount issued on behalf of the province of Ilocos Sur by Governor Singson and the Provincial Treasury and drawn on LBP-Vigan Branch. The aforesaid P170 million was dealt with as follows:

Initially, although this did not materialize via five demand drafts proposed to be issued by Land Bank-Vigan, all payable to Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson totalling P170 million and encashable at Land Bank, Philippines, Cash Department, Head Office. Subsequently, the payees of the five demand drafts totalling P170 million were changed as follows:

First, two demand drafts were issued in favor of Delia Rajas as payee in the amounts of 30 million and 20 million, respectively;

Second, one demand draft was issued in favor of Eleuterio Tan as payee in the amount of P40 million;

Third, one demand draft was issued in favor of Nuccio Saverio as payee in the amount of 40 million.

The issuance of the fifth demand draft, originally intended to be in the amount of 40 million and payable to Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson was aborted. Subsequently, the cancellation of the two demand drafts issued in favor of Delia Rajas in the amounts of 30 million and 20 million, respectively, and the one demand draft issued in favor of Eleuterio Tan in the amount of 40 million. And, thereafter and finally, the sum of 130 million, representing the total of the cancelled two demand drafts in favor of Delia Rajas for 50 million, the cancelled demand draft in favor of Eleuterio Tan for 40 million, and the 40 million that was intended to fund the purchase of the fifth demand draft was dealt with as follows:

First, the sum of 40 million, via an interbranch deposit accommodation wherein the 40 million was deposited with the Land Bank-Vigan Branch, and the latter credited the account of Alma Alfaro under SA No. 0561-0445-38 maintained with the Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch by an interbranch credit deposit.

The sum of 50 million via an interbranch deposit accommodation wherein the said 50 million amount was also deposited with the Land Bank-Vigan Branch, and the latter credited the account of Delia Rajas under S.A. No. 0561 0445 97 maintained with the Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch via an interbranch credit transaction.

And thirdly, the sum of P40 million, also via an interbranch deposit accommodation wherein the said 40 million was likewise deposited with Land Bank-Vigan Branch, at the latter credited the account of Eleuterio Tan under S.A. No. 0561 0446 00, maintained with the Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch.

Now, Mr. Chief Justice, remaining item would be the circumstances under which the changes were made in the manner of the disposition of the sum of 130 million out of the 170 million check issued by the province of Ilocos Sur in favor of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson. This was ticked by the defense panel. But I would imagine, Mr. Chief Justice, it would be better if the testimony of Mrs. Balagot would be taken in respect of these circumstances, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any comment, observation, admission from the defense?

MR. FORTUN (S). We confirm, Your Honor, that these were matters of stipulation during the break. We confirm that we have agreed to these matters announced by Prosecutor Moreno.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. FORTUN (S). We thus so stipulate for the record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the facts read into the record under the summary are now deemed admitted by the other party by way of stipulation.

You can now go to some other points, Prosecutor Moreno.

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

And again, let me express our thanks to Atty. Fortun in the defense panel.

Now, with respect to the Shaw Boulevard Branch, Mr. Chief Justice, also of the Land Bank of the Philippines, these are the following exhibits, Mr. Chief Justice, which we have agreed to stipulate on.

First is Exhibit “RRRRR”. This is the Savings Account Opening Form dated August 27, 1998 covering Account No. 0561 0445 38, in the name of Alma A. Alfaro; Address Captain Savi Street, Zone 4 A, Talisay, Negros Occidental; Business address care of Power Express. There are three specimen signatures of Alma A. Alfaro.

Exhibit “RRRRR 1”, which is the dorsal portion of the account opening form. I.D. is presented, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. School I.D. AAA1103770; SSS 07 1686015 2. This is also dated August 27, 1998.

Exhibit “SSSSS”, which contains photocopies of the Social Security System I.D. of Alma Aligato Alfaro; and University of Negros Occidental Recoletos I.D. No. 13409, also of Alma A. Alfaro.

Exhibit “TTTTT”, which is cash deposit slip dated August 27, 1998, Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Blvd. Branch; Name: Alma A. Alfaro in the amount of P1,000 representing the initial deposit.

Exhibit “UUUUU”, Savings Account Withdrawal Slip dated August 28, 1998; Account Name: Alma A. Alfaro; Account Number: 0561-0445-38 in the amount of P40 million and signed also by Ms. Alma A. Alfaro and approved by the officers of Land Bank-Shaw Blvd.

Exhibit “VVVVV”. This is the Account Opening Form of Land Bank-Shaw Blvd. Branch dated August 28, 1998. The name of the depositor is Eleuterio Tan; Address: 20 Pilar St., Mandaluyong City; Account Number: 0561-0446-00, containing six specimen signatures of Eleuterio Tan.

Exhibit “VVVVV-1” is the dorsal portion of the information – the specimen signature card. And IDs presented: No. 1. Solid Builders ID No. 19-0108; Second, ET Enterprise, Inc. This again bears the signatures of Mr. Eleuterio Tan.

Exhibit “WWWWW”, these are the two IDs of Eleuterio Tan. The first is ID issued by ET Enterprises, Inc., 137 N. Domingo St., San Juan, Metro Manila. Telephone 717-0332 with the picture of Eleuterio Tan and then below his picture is a typewritten name Eleuterio Tan, accountant, being his position, and bearing his signature. The dorsal portion of this ID is Exhibit “WWWWW-2”, in which the contact person indicated is Conchita Tan. Address: 20 Pilar St., Mandaluyong City.

The second ID, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is Solid Builders Centre, G&C Libertad St., Mandaluyong City. Telephone 531-5126. Again, another picture of Eleuterio Tan, similar to the picture earlier stated. ID No. 19-0108; Signature: E. Tan. Dorsal portion is Exhibit “WWWWW-1”, says, “In case of emergency please notify Conchita Tan.”

I’m sorry. It was “WWWWW-4”. Address: 20 Pilar St., Mandaluyong City.

Next is Exhibit “XXXXX”, Cash Deposit Slip dated August 28, 1998. Name is Eleuterio Tan. Account Number 0561-0446-00. Initial deposit is P1,000.

Exhibit “YYYYY” is the Savings Account Withdrawal Slip. This is a form of Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Blvd. Branch dated August 28, 1998. Account Name is Eleuterio Tan. Account Number 0561-0446-00 in the amount of P40 million and signed by Eleuterio Tan.

Next is Exhibit “ZZZZZ”. This is the application for cashier’s check dated August 28, 1998, Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch. The payee of the cashier’s check applied for is Eleuterio Tan c/o Power Express in the amount of P30,000,000. And the purchaser of the applicant of the cashier’s check is Eleuterio Tan, whose signature appears above the handwritten word or name “Eleuterio Tan” and marked as Exhibit “ZZZZZ 1″.

Next is Exhibit “AAAAAA” Application for cashier’s check dated August 28, 1998, Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch. The payee is also Eleuterio Tan; amount P30,000,000; the applicant or purchaser is also Eleuterio Tan, whose signature appears on top of his name and submarked as Exhibit “AAAAAA 1.”

Next is another application for cashier’s check also with Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch, also dated August 28, 1998. The payee is also Eleuterio Tan; amount P30,000,000; the purchaser or applicant of the cashier’s check is Eleuterio Tan, whose signature appears on top of his name which is submarked as Exhibit “BBBBB 1″.

Next is Exhibit “C…” I may have said “BBBBB.” It should have been “BBBBBB 1″.

Next is Exhibit “CCCCCC”. This is the cashier’s check dated August 28, 1998 issued by Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch, Check No. 13041. Payee Eleuterio Tan; amount P30,000,000. The dorsal portion of this is Exhibit “CCCCCC 1″ and where the submarkings which will be the subject of testimony, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

Next is Exhibit “DDDDDD” also a cashier’s check dated August 28, 1998 for P30,000,000; Check No. 13042, Shaw Boulevard Branch of Land Bank of the Philippines. Payee Eleuterio Tan. The dorsal portion is Exhibit “DDDDDD 1″. Again, there are markings which will be the subject of testimony later on.

Exhibit “EEEEEE” again, a cashier’s check for P30,000,000. This is Check No. 13043 dated August 28, 1998, also issued by Land Bank of the Philippines and payee is also Eleuterio Tan for P30,000,000. Again, Exhibit “EEEEEE 1″ which will be the subject of another testimony.

And then, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, Exhibit “FFFFFF” This is the Account Opening Form of Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch dated August 28, 1998, Account Number 0561 0445 97 named Delia Rajas; Residence address Barangay Corazon de Jesus, San Juan, Metro Manila. And then there are six specimen signatures submarked as Exhibit “FFFFFF 2″. Signature of the approving officer is submarked as “FFFFFF 3″. The dorsal portion of this specimen signature card is marked “FFFFFF 1″, and ID is presented bearing at the middle of this Exhibit “FFFFFF 1″, E.T. Enterprise, Inc., Solid Builders No. 190016. This is also dated August 28, 1998 and bears two signatures of Delia Rajas.

Next is Exhibit “GGGGGG 2″, I am sorry, I withdraw that, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

Exhibit “GGGGGG” and then Exhibit “GGGGGG 1″ is the front portion of Solid Builders Center ID, address is GCC Libertad Street, Mandaluyong City, Telephone No. 531 51 26, Delia Rajas, and then picture appears on top of the name, ID No. 19 0016 and then signature of Delia Rajas below.

Exhibit “GGGGGG 2″ is the dorsal portion of Exhibit “GGGGGG 1″. It says, “In case of emergency, please notify, name: Dolores Rajas; Address: Barangay Corazon, San Juan, Metro Manila.”

And then, Exhibit “GGGGGG 3″, another ID issued by E.T. Enterprises, Inc., 137 N. Domingo St., San Juan, Metro Manila, Telephone No. 717 03 32, Delia Rajas, and then picture appears on top of the name which is similar to the picture appearing on Exhibit “GGGGGG 1″ and her position is account executive. And then, her specimen signature appears below.

And then, Exhibit “GGGGGG 4″, contact person is Dolores Rajas, Barangay Corazon Jesus, San Juan.

And then, next is, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, is Exhibit “HHHHHH”. This is the cash deposit slip, Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch dated August 28, 1998, Delia Rajas, Account No. 0561 0445 90, initial deposit is P1,000.

And then savings account withdrawal slip, Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch, August 28, 1998, Account Name: Delia Rajas, Account No. this is Exhibit “IIIIII”, Account Number is 0561 0445 97, the amount is P50 million. Specimen the signature of depositor Delia Rajas is submarked as “IIIIII 1″.

And then, there is another signature submarked as Exhibit “IIIIII 2″ confirming receipt of the withdrawal.

And then, next, Mr. Chief Justice, is Exhibit…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

REP. MORENO. We have two…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other document you would like to add?

REP. MORENO. Two more.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Two more.

REP. MORENO. Two more documents, Mr. Chief Justice.

Exhibit “LLLLLL” which is the a request for cash transfer. This is for the amount of P38 million.

And then, Exhibit “LLLLLL 2″ the amount of P8 million. The first, Mr. Chief Justice, in the amount of P38 million is submarked as Exhibit “LLLLLL 1″ and second, in the amount of 8 million submarked as “LLLLLL 2″. This was issued by Shaw Boulevard Branch, Land Bank of the Philippines and addressed to their cash centers.

And then, Exhibit “QQQQQQ” dated August 28, 1998. This is addressed to the Manager, Greenhills Branch, signed by Maria Caridad A. Manahan and Lolita M. Almazan of Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch. This is a request for fund transfer in the amount of 46 million in favor of Shaw Boulevard Branch.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun… By the way, the Presiding Officer did not hear any mention of Exhibits “KKKKKK” and “JJJJJJ”. Not included in the agreement?

REP. MORENO. These were earlier agreed to… the DBM documents, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already? Okay, thank you. Atty. Fortun is recognized.

MR. FORTUN (S). Your Honor, we are willing to stipulate on the existence of these documents, only in light of the fact that these are private commercial documents. We are not aware of whether the photos in the IDs of certain individuals named in the various exhibits actually refer to the person whose names appear thereon and the signatures indicated as well. Accordingly, our stipulation is limited only to the matter of its existence and certainly not as regards their genuineness or their veracity.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you say, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr.Chief Justice, I would respect the comment of Atty.Fortun but probably he could agree to stipulate on the authenticity of the other documents, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). Subject to our earlier reservation that we will not be able to stipulate on the matter of the one-to-one correspondence between the photos and the name of the person who’s indicated in the identification cards. And the signatures appearing thereon, we are willing to stipulate on the authenticity of the others.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you be satisfied with that? With those conditions, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, I just wanted to clarify that Atty. Fortun may be referring to Exhibit “SSSSS” which has the two IDs, SSS and University of Negros Occidental (Recoletos) IDs of Alma Alfaro; Exhibit “WWWWW” which are the two IDs of Eleuterio Tan, ET Enterprises and Solid Builders Center; and Exhibit “GGGGGG” which has the two IDs Solid Builders Center and ET Enterprises, Inc. of Delia Rajas. But outside of these three, I take it Mr. Chief Justice, that there is no problem in stipulating the existence, the authenticity and genuineness and signatures of the other documents, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (S). With the qualification, Your Honor, that insofar as the three exhibits just mentioned by Prosecutor Moreno, we are willing to stipulate that these identification cards were those submitted to the Land Bank Office in Shaw Boulevard. We are willing to stipulate on that additionally, and subject, of course, to the exclusion of our knowledge as regards the photographs and the signatures appearing thereon. However, in respect of the other private documents like Exhibit “RRRRR” which relates to a signature card of a certain Alma Alfaro, we can not stipulate as regards the genuineness or the authenticity of the signatures appearing in this signature card as being the signature of Alma Alfaro. And the same thing, Your Honor, goes true with the signature card appearing in Exhibit “VVVVV” of a certain Eleuterio Tan. Again, we will have no basis to stipulate on the six signatures appearing hereon as genuine signatures of a person who purports to be Eleuterio Tan. And the same manifestation goes with the signature card of a lady by the name of Delia Rajas in Exhibit “FFFFF”. Those are the only exclusions to our stipulation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you agree, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. Anyway, we will ask…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Considering the reservations made, you may go forward with your evidence on the matters not covered by the stipulation.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

And in respect of the Land Bank Shaw Boulevard Branch, I also have a summary, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have you shown the summary to the other party?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And were you able to agree on some points there?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, probably, you can read into the records what you have agreed upon.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And later on, we should get the confirmation or affirmation from Atty. Fortun.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

First, is that Alma Alfaro opened Savings Deposit Account, SA No. 0561 0445 38 with the Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard Branch.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun, would you please take the lectern so you can hear exactly what counsel is saying?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. … on August 27, 1998 with an initial deposit of one thousand;

Second, is that Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan opened Savings Deposits Accounts, SA No. 0561 0445 97 and SA No. 0561 0446 00, respectively, with Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard Branch on August 28, 1998, with an initial deposit of P= 1,000 each;

Third, is that on August 27, 1998, the same day that Alma Alfaro opened SA No. 0561 0445 38 with Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch, the amount of 40 million was credited to her SA No. 0561 0445 38 by the Land Bank of the Philippines-Vigan Branch, by means of an interbranch deposit;

Fourthly, on August 28, 1998, the same day that Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan opened SA No. 0561 0445 97 and SA No. 0561 0446 00, respectively, with the Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard Branch, the amounts of P= 50 million and P= 40 million, respectively, were credited to their accounts by means of interbranch credits with Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard Branch;

Fifthly, the amount of P= 90 million in three cashier checks of P= 30 million each, issued in favor of Eleuterio Tan, were deposited at the Westmont Bank Mandaluyong Branch, in Savings Account No. 2011 00772 7;

And lastly, that Alma Alfaro’s SA No. 0561 0445 38 with the Land Bank Shaw Boulevard Branch, was closed on December 3, 1999, without any other transaction other than the 40 million interbranch credit on August 27, 1998, and the withdrawal of the same amount of 40 million on August 28, 1998. Delia Rajas’ SA No. 0561 0445 97 and Eleuterio Tan’s Savings Account No. 0561 0446 00, both with Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard Branch were closed on December 8, 1999 without any other transaction other than those on 28 August 1998 as aforesaid namely, the deposit with an initial deposit of P=1,000.00, the interbranch credit and the purchase of the cashier’s checks.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). We are willing to stipulate on all of those subject to the qualification, Your Honor, that all of these accounts were supposedly opened, closed and subsequently transferred by persons purporting or claiming to be Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With those qualifications, can the parties now put on record the agreements of these facts or the admissions thereon?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So agreed upon subject to the qualifications made by the defense.

MR. FORTUN (S). The defense so stipulates, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, gentlemen.

Do you have some more questions on the witness?

REP. MORENO. No more, Mr. Chief Justice. But we were asked earlier by the branch managers, because they brought with them original copies of these documents and they would want to bring back these original copies to their respective branches, and by mutual agreement, the defense and the prosecution have agreed to allow these branch managers to bring back these original copies with the understanding that the certified true copies would be issued as, in fact, they were and submitted to the Secretary, Clerk of this Court, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are the machine copies of the exhibits clear enough for all to see, such that during the offer of the exhibits only the machine copies may be offered? No longer the original as marked.

MR. FORTUN (S). It is our understanding, Your Honor, that the exhibits which had been marked and which had been distributed to us and to the Senator Judges are exactly those copies which will be offered in exhibits at the appropriate time. They seem to be clear enough. Unless the prosecution would present clear copies, we are satisfied with the manner by which they had been machine reproduced.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the machine reproduced copies would be sufficient already for purposes of the offer of exhibits at the proper time. So we will not compel anymore the witness to come back and turn over the original documents.

REP. MORENO. Except perhaps, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, the Vigan applications for demand draft which will be the subject of testimony later. Because there were changes in these demand draft applications.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see.

REP. MORENO. And also of the demand draft.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But only for these the Land Bank Malacañang and the Land Bank Shaw branches.

So the witness is now excused.

MS. FLORES. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). We would like to put on record that we have no cross examination questions for this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. And I don’t think there is anyone from the Court who would wish to cross examine or rather to ask questions on the witness. If there will be none, the witness is excused.

Next witness, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

We would like to call on Mrs.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Balagot or Almazan or Rodenas?

REP. MORENO. We would like to call on Mrs. Caridad Manahan Rodenas, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Caridad Rodenas. Call the witness.

MR. FORTUN (S). May we know from the prosecution who this is?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Pardon?

MR. FORTUN (S). We made a stipulation, Your Honor, to facilitate identification and description of the documents. But insofar as the lady from Shaw Boulevard Branch of the Land Bank, a certain Mrs. Balagot I’m sorry, Vigan, we would like to cross examine her.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Then we can probably

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Whom would you want to present first, Mrs. Balagot of the Vigan Branch or Mrs. Maria Caridad Rodenas?

REP. MORENO. To give way to the defense for agreeing to the stipulation

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, it should be Balagot first.

REP. MORENO. Mrs. Balagot, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness Mrs. Elizabeth Balagot.

Who will be the examining and assisting examining prosecutors?

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. The examining counsel is Prosecutor Oscar Moreno and the assisting counsel is private prosecutor Joey Tenefrancia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you not tired, Prosecutor Moreno?

And for the defense, who will be the cross examining and assisting cross examining counsel?

MR. FORTUN (S). Same counsel, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The Secretary of the Senate shall now administer the oath on the witness.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left hand on the Holy Bible and answer me.

You, Elizabeth Balagot, do you swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

MS. BALAGOT. I do.

THE SECRETARY. Okay. Sit down.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat, Madam Witness.

Prosecutor Moreno.

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

The Presiding Officer has asked this representation if I am tired. Indeed, but I’m determined to pursue my constitutional duty, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I commend you for that.

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

Mrs. Balagot, can you please

MS. BALAGOT. Sir, Miss po.

REP. MORENO. Ah, I’m sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not go ahead of the witness

REP. MORENO. Miss Maria Elizabeth Balagot, could you please tell this Honorable Court your name and your other personal circumstances?

MS. BALAGOT. I’m Maria Elizabeth Gozo Balagot, Career Executive Service Officer with the rank of VI, of legal age, single, residing formerly at 60 Governor Reyes Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; now residing at San Fernando, La Union.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not just the legal age but the correct age for purposes of the record.

MS. BALAGOT. Sir, I’m 36 years old.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, we’re offering the testimony of Miss Maria Elizabeth Balagot to prove the circumstances under which the 130 million of the 200 million that Land Bank Vigan received from Land Bank Malacañang how the 130 million was disposed of or dealt with, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

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

Miss Balagot, let me now on August 27, 1998, people from or representing authorized by Governor Singson came to you with respect to 170 million check issued on behalf of the province of Ilocos Sur in favor of Governor Singson. Is that correct?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Would you like to tell this Honorable Court what happened with respect to that particular transaction?

MS. BALAGOT. On August 27, 1998, there were two representatives of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, namely: Ms. Maricar Paz and Ms. Marina Atendido, who presented Check No. 97650 amounting to 170 million, payable to Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson in the amount of 170; and this check is signed by the Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Gundran and the Provincial Governor himself, Luis “Chavit” Singson.

Before they came to the Bank, there was a call from the Office of the Provincial Administrator that they will be encashing a check amounting to 170 million. But we informed the Office of the Provincial Administrator that the branch should be informed prior to the withdrawal because the amount involved is 170 million. Then, Ms. Victoria Cu, the Provincial Administrator told me that instead of encashing the check…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Witness, just for a while. The Presiding Officer would like to inquire from the parties – from the prosecutor or the defense – whether they have agreed that the witness will testify in narrative reform, not in question and answer form.

MR. FORTUN (S). No, Your Honor, we have not agreed on that. But perhaps the prosecutor can propound the questions because…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If you will allow, if you will allow a testimony in narrative form, the Presiding Officer would, as a matter of fact, welcome that.

MR. FORTUN (S). Certainly, Your Honor. We will perhaps just rise should there be a need for us to cut her short just to interpose objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, a short break.

You may now proceed, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. And again I’d like to express my thanks to Atty. Fortun.

So anong gusto mo, Tagalog, English or…

MS. BALAGOT. Anything.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Ilocano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She is very fluent and articulate in English.

REP. MORENO. Can you please continue with what you wanted to say.

MS. BALAGOT. So, the Office of the Provincial Administrator instead told Land Bank-Vigan Branch to issue a demand draft payable to Cash for 170 million. But I denied the request since Land Bank, as a policy, never allow encashment or issuance rather of demand draft payable to Cash.

So, there were… Can I continue, Sir?

REP. MORENO. Please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just go ahead. There is no objection.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We will have to request, Your Honor, that the public prosecutor ask questions.

REP. MORENO. Yeah, but if she wants to continue with her statement…

Anyway, so…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may propound some questions.

REP. MORENO. Okay. So, they initially wanted an encashment of the 170 million check and you did not accommodate that because you didn’t have the cash. Is that correct?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then… So, what happened since you could not accommodate the encashment? You mentioned that they asked for the issuance of five demand drafts?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Can you please tell this Honorable Court what a demand draft is. A demand draft is issued by…

MS. BALAGOT. A demand draft is being issued by a bank. It’s an instrument where it’s payable at sight where you can encash it immediately.

REP. MORENO. “At sight” meaning at any time that you want?

MS. BALAGOT. At any time, yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. But comparing a demand draft with a check –because a check you can deposit it with any bank.

MS. BALAGOT. What kind of check, Your Honor?

REP. MORENO. Say, a personal check or a corporate check, a cashier’s check.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor. Cashier’s check or personal check is subject to a clearing period.

REP. MORENO. How about a demand draft?

MS. BALAGOT. That is payable immediately at sight.

REP. MORENO. But can a demand draft be paid by anyone other than the indicated payor in that demand draft?

MS. BALAGOT. In Land Bank, we only issue demand draft to a particular branch where they want it encashed.

REP. MORENO. Okay. So, that’s why I wanted to distinguish between an ordinary check which can be deposited elsewhere, anywhere, any branch, subject to clearing and a demand draft where you have to deliver personally the demand draft to the office indicated in that draft which will be the paying office. Is that correct?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And in regard to the five demand drafts that you said were applied for, who was to be the paying unit or office of these five demand drafts?

MS. BALAGOT. Before the instruction was made verbally by Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, the representatives gave us the instruction that the demand drafts will all be payable to Luis “Chavit” Singson.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And that — these demand drafts would be payable where?

MS. BALAGOT. Cash Department, Makati Branch of Land Bank.

REP. MORENO. And so, did you implement the request for the issuance of five demand drafts all payable to Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, were you able to issue the demand drafts, the five demand drafts all payable to Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Why?

MS. BALAGOT. Because there was a call again instructing the representatives, the two representatives to instead issue the demand draft to the following persons, namely: Delia Rajas, Alma Alfaro, Nuccio Saverio and Eleuterio Tan.

REP. MORENO. Now let me go back to the five demand drafts that were supposed to be issued payable to Luis “Chavit” Singson. What was the total amount of the five demand drafts?

MS. BALAGOT. Total amount is P170 million, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Hundred seventy million. And so, the five demand drafts were — the payees of the five demand drafts were changed. And you were saying, Delia Rajas, Alma Alfaro, Nuccio Saverio, who else?

MS. BALAGOT. Eleuterio Tan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Eleuterio Tan.

What was the amount of the demand draft for Delia Rajas?

MS. BALAGOT. Delia Rajas has two demand drafts.

REP. MORENO. Okay.

MS. BALAGOT. One, number — DD No. 099435, amounting to P30 million. Another demand draft No. 099436, amounting to P20 million for Delia Rajas again. Then another P40 million for Eleuterio Tan, that is 436 — 437 rather. Then another demand draft which is 439, amounting to P40 million to Nuccio Saverio.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And you mentioned that there was to be a demand draft also issued, payable to Alma Alfaro?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Were you able to finally issue that demand draft?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Why?

MS. BALAGOT. There was again an instruction that instead of issuing a demand draft for Alma Alfaro, we will just deposit or the representative will deposit it to a particular account in Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch.

REP. MORENO. In the amount of?

MS. BALAGOT. Forty million, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Forty million. Okay. Now, so were the demand drafts — first, let’s talk about Delia Rajas’ two demand drafts – P30 million and P20 million; Eleuterio Tan, one demand draft for P40 million; Nuccio Saverio, one demand draft for P40 million. Now, as far as Delia Rajas, the two demand drafts and Eleuterio Tan are concerned, were the three demand drafts finally issued?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And that was when?

MS. BALAGOT. On August 27, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. August 27. And then — that was a Thursday if you will recall?

MS. BALAGOT. Thursday, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now the P40 million for Alma Alfaro which was supposed to be covered by a demand draft was not the subject of a demand draft as you have said earlier, because ultimately the P40 million was deposited with Vigan Branch for account of Alma Alfaro, is that correct?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor, but it’s in the account of Shaw Boulevard. It was just transferred from Vigan Branch to Shaw Boulevard Branch.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And when was the deposit made?

MS. BALAGOT. August 27, 1998, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In the morning or in the aftenoon?

MS. BALAGOT. It was actually in the afternoon, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And then August 28, a Friday, were you in your office?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Did you receive any call? What calls, if any, did you receive from anyone, in Manila or elsewhere with respect to the demand drafts that the branch has is¬sued, i.e., Delia Rajas, two demand drafts for 30 and 20 million; Eleuterio Tan, one demand draft for 40 million and Nuccio Saverio, one demand draft for 40 million?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to object for lack of basis.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection overruled. Witness may answer.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And what calls were these?

MS. BALAGOT. On August 28, 1998, we received a call from Westmont Bank Mandaluyong Branch, now UOB, instructing us that Ms. Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan were there to negotiate the demand drafts issued by our branch.

REP. MORENO. Who in Westmont made that call, if you know?

MS. BALAGOT. We cannot remember, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And then what was your reply?

MS. BALAGOT. I informed my accountant who was talking with the other person in Westmont Bank that I can never allow the negotiation of that demand draft in Westmont Bank since the demand draft issued by Vigan Branch is supposed to be negotiated with Cash Department, Makati.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit “XXXX”. This is a demand draft … I am showing to you the original payable to Delia Rajas, 20 million, and Exhibit “XXXX 1″.

Now, can you tell this Honorable Court what the call from Westmont Bank was all about in respect of this check?

MS. BALAGOT. Ms. Delia Rajas wants to deposit the demand draft issued by our branch in Westmont Bank.

REP. MORENO. On Exhibit “XXXX 1″, there are words here written “Delia Rajas” and then with specimen signa¬ture with signature and then “Confirmed with Lawrence L. Lopez”, 11:00 A.M. And then there are numbers unfortu¬nately the numbers are handwritten and the reverse on the reverse side, SA No. 2011 005 63. Could you tell this Honorable Court what, if any, do you know with respect to these writings?

MS. BALAGOT. The Delia Rajas appearing in the upper side of the check appears to be the signature of Ms. Delia Rajas. Now, the deposit being made was confirmed with my branch accountant then, Mr. Lawrence L. Lopez, and in turn Mr. Lopez asked me if they can deposit said check in West¬mont Bank but I denied the request. That is why they have already written the savings account number of their client at the back of the demand draft.

REP. MORENO. Thank you. The same is true with Exhibit “YYYY”, which is the other demand draft for 30 million, also payable to Delia Rajas. And Exhibit “YYYY 1″, the dorsal portion of that demand draft bears essentially the same markings as were contained in Exhibit “XXXX 1″.

Now, with respect to the demand draft in favor of Eleuterio Tan for 40 million, this is Exhibit “ZZZZ”, Your Honors, and the dorsal portion is Exhibit “ZZZZ 1″. There are markings, handwritten and stamped, it says appearing on Exhibit “ZZZZ 1″, could you please tell this Honorable Court what you know, if any, with respect to these markings?

MS. BALAGOT. Again, this check is being deposited to the account of Eleuterio Tan and this was again confirmed with my branch accountant then, Mr. Lopez, but I again denied the negotiation of said check. But the check was already stamped with the prior endorsement of Westmont Bank and since I denied the request, the bank endorsement was cancelled by an authorized signatory appearing to be AVP Emmanuel C. Puno of Westmont Bank.

REP. MORENO. What was again the reason why you denied negotiation of the demand draft, the three demand drafts? Two for Delia Rajas with the total amount of 50 million and one for Eleuterio Tan with an amount of 40 million?

MS. BALAGOT. Your Honor, as I’ve said earlier, the demand draft issued by Land Bank-Vigan Branch should only be negotiated with the Land Bank Cash Department, Makati Branch.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Thank you.

And then so after your discussion with Westmont-Mandaluyong Branch, what happened?

MS. BALAGOT. After the discussion, Your Honor, and I denied the request, the client of Westmont Bank which is Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan went to our Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch.

REP. MORENO. How do you know that they went there, Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan?

MS. BALAGOT. The Branch Cashier of our Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch called us up and told us that somebody is negotiating the demand draft issued by us.

REP. MORENO. Who was this Branch Cashier of your Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch?

MS. BALAGOT. Ms. Kaye Manahan, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then what happened?

MS. BALAGOT. Then I informed I called the Governor on August 28, 1998 and I told the Governor that the demand draft being issued by Vigan Branch is being cancelled by the payees themselves. So, the Governor said and I quote him, “Kung ano ang gusto nila, iyon ang gawin mo.”

REP. MORENO. By saying governor, who is this governor?

MS. BALAGOT. It’s Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson.

REP. MORENO. And so you were advised that the three demand drafts would be cancelled and you had cleared this with Governor Singson, being the purchaser of the demand drafts?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor?

REP. MORENO. And then what happened?

MS. BALAGOT. Then since our Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch doesn’t want to accept also the demand draft, so I instructed them that we have to cancel the demand draft.

REP. MORENO. And was your instruction followed?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. How was your instruction followed?

MS. BALAGOT. I instructed the Branch Cashier, Ms. Kaye Manahan, to stamp the demand draft cancelled and to confiscate it so that there will be no more double payment for that demand draft and, instead, I prepared an interbranch I instructed my staff to prepare an interbranch credit advice and credited the account of Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas for 90 million total.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit “YYYY”. And there is a submarking here, “YYYY-4″, and the words appear “as per advice of Vigan”, and then the name “Kaye Manahan” with signature on top of that name. What relation, if any, does this have, this submarked item with respect to that cancellation that you instructed Ms. Manahan to do?

MS. BALAGOT. Your Honor, since I instructed Ms. Kaye Manahan to be the one to cancel the demand draft and to confiscate it, she included an instruction at the lower portion of the demand draft that she cancelled — she was the one who cancelled the demand draft as per advice of Land Bank-Vigan Branch and she affixed her signature.

REP. MORENO. There are rubber stamped — the word “cancelled” is rubber stamped on the face, across the face of this draft, Delia Rajas, 30 million, Exhibit “YYYY”. Who stamped this word “cancelled”?

MS. BALAGOT. Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And again, Exhibit “ZZZZ”, word “cancelled” is stamped also twice and at the bottom of this exhibit submarked as Exhibit “ZZZZ-4″, words “as per advice of Vigan Branch”, name “Kaye Manahan”, with signature on top likewise appear. Could you tell this Honorable Court what this mean?

MR. FORTUN (S). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). We are willing to stipulate that the witness if asked these questions will respond in the same manner as in the previous checks.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two other cancelled demand drafts.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same stipulation?

REP. MORENO. Very much appreciated…

MR. FORTUN (S). Same stipulation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that okay with you, Prosecutor Moreno?

REP. MORENO. Perfectly fine and we are grateful, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you for that.

So, you have disposed of the remaining two demand drafts.

REP. MORENO. These are for 20 million payable to Delia Rajas and another 40 million payable to Eleuterio Tan.

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

Now, and so the demand drafts were cancelled. But what happened to the 90 million? Fifty million for the — representing the total of the two demand drafts for Delia Rajas and 40 million, the amount of the demand draft for Eleuterio Tan. Was there any transaction that was effected in lieu of the demand drafts that were cancelled?

MS. BALAGOT. After cancellation of the demand draft, we issued an interbranch credit advice crediting the account of Delia Rajas for 50 million which is deposited at Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch and another 40 million for the account of Eleuterio Tan, also deposited with Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch.

REP. MORENO. Now, who told you or who dictate — or how did you come to know of the account numbers of Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas in respect of their accounts with Land Bank-Shaw?

MS. BALAGOT. The Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who particularly in that branch?

MS. BALAGOT. We cannot remember, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And would you know — I withdraw that, Mr. Chief Justice. Now, you mentioned about a call from Governor Singson that you received. How many calls did you receive in respect of these transactions? So, we’re looking at two days, August 27 and August 28.

MS. BALAGOT. In August 27, 1998, there were four calls that the branch made for Governor Singson two landline numbers and one cellular phone number.

In August 28, 1998, there were two calls made by myself to Governor Singson using his landline sorry, using his cellular phone number.

REP. MORENO. Now, let’s go back to August 27. You said there were four calls, would you recall what were these calls? Who made the calls? And who talked to who in the other line?

MS. BALAGOT. On August 27, my executive assistant then, Ms. Dorothy Soberano, was the one making the call in behalf of Ms. Maricar Paz and Ms. Marina Atendido.

REP. MORENO. And they called who?

MS. BALAGOT. Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And would you know what was the discussion in respect of that call?

MS. BALAGOT. We were not listening, Your Honor, but we were informed that the conversation is with regards to the instructions being made by Governor Chavit Singson in reference to the demand draft being applied.

REP. MORENO. Okay, in reference to the demand draft being applied. The first call was was this the the demand drafts payable to cash or demand drafts all payable to Govenor Singson?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, what was then? In regard to that, at what stage? Because the discussion or the period with respect to the issuance of the demand drafts may have been quite long because, initially, they wanted the demand drafts payable to cash, which you declined; demand drafts payable to Governor Singson, which was aborted; and then, the demand drafts payable to Delia Rajas, Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan, etcetera; and then, finally, the interbranch deposit, ‘no.

At what stage of that series of transactions was the first call made?

MS. BALAGOT. When the name of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson was typewritten in the demand draft.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And then, what was the instruction? So, the instruction was?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor. The instruction was to cancel the name of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson in the demand draft and, instead, to issue the demand draft in the name of Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan.

REP. MORENO. And how about the second call? You mentioned there were four calls.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Who made this call and who responded to that call?

MS. BALAGOT. The same thing, Your Honor, my executive assistant was the one calling in behalf of the representatives of Governor Singson.

REP. MORENO. And then?

MS. BALAGOT. Then, again, instead of issuing a demand draft in favor of Alma Alfaro, we were instructed or they were instructed by Governor Singson to deposit the 40 million in the account of Alma Alfaro being maintained with Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch, instead of issuing a demand draft.

REP. MORENO. And then, how about the fourth call?

MS. BALAGOT. The fourth call was the cancellation of the Demand Draft 00938 which is issued in the name of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson.

REP. MORENO. And replaced by what?

MS. BALAGOT. This was actually replaced by the deposit made in the name of Alma Alfaro.

REP. MORENO. So, the 40 million that was supposed to be used to purchase the demand draft payable to Governor Singson was not used to purchase that draft because that was never issued but, instead, was deposited, you were saying.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Deposited to whose account?

MS. BALAGOT. Alma Alfaro’s account, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Maintained with what branch?

MS. BALAGOT. Land Bank Mandaluyong Branch or Shaw Boulevard Branch.

REP. MORENO. And again, although you have answered this earlier, but how did you know or the account number of Alma Alfaro? Who gave you this account number?

MS. BALAGOT. The deposit was made by Ms. Marina Atendido, one of the representatives of Governor Singson. She was the one who prepared the deposit slip, the interbranch deposit accommodation slip and she even paid the service charge of P=100 in depositing that account.

REP. MORENO. Now, going back to because Alma Alfaro, as you’ve said, was able to open an account with Land Bank, were you informed, by the way, that Alma Alfaro was able to open an account with Land Bank-Shaw Blvd. on August 27?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Although you were told of the account number of Alma Alfaro with Land Bank-Shaw Blvd.?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor, because the representative was the one who filled up the deposit slip.

REP. MORENO. Okay. And you said earlier that you had talked to Gov. Singson on August 28, the following day?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Could you tell this Honorable Court what that telephone discussion was about?

MS. BALAGOT. I called the Governor to tell him that somebody from Westmont Bank called and they want the check negotiated in Westmont Bank. And I told him that I cannot grant the request since the demand draft should be payable with Land Bank cash department, and he just said it’s okay with him.

REP. MORENO. And at that time on Novem August 28, was there any other call that you made or to Gov. Singson or that he made to you?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor, there was a second call made by myself to Gov. Singson. And in the second call I was informing him that Ms. Delia Rajas again and Eleuterio Tan is trying to negotiate the check with our Land Bank-Shaw Blvd. Branch, and that they are insisting that they will encash the check with our Shaw Blvd. Branch, and I denied the request. And I told him that if he wants to, I would cancel or I will just inform our Land Bank-Shaw Blvd. Branch, to cancel the demand draft.

REP. MORENO. At that time that August 28, so you were in discussion with Gov. Singson, you had two calls, but were you also in discussion with the Shaw Blvd. Branch, Land Bank?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Miss Manahan never called you on August 28?

MS. BALAGOT. Miss Manahan called my branch accountant then, Mr. Lopez.

REP. MORENO. Okay, but you were informed of what the discussion or discussions were?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And what were these discussions between Ms. Manahan and Mr. Lopez?

MS. BALAGOT. That Ms. Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan Eleuterio Tan is trying to negotiate the demand draft with them, and they were asking if that can be possible, and I told Mr. Lopez that that cannot be possible since the demand draft should be negotiated with Land Bank cash department.

But since Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan were very persistent, they were insisting that they want the check encashed at Land Bank-Shaw Blvd. Branch, so, we instructed the Land Bank-Shaw to just cancel the demand draft in behalf of Vigan Branch.

REP. MORENO. And the demand drafts were payable at sight at Land Bank of the Philippines head office cash department.

So, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas could simply have gone to the head office of Land Bank of the Philippines and encashed these demand drafts. Did you suggest that to Manahan or whoever?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then what happened with your suggestion?

MS. BALAGOT. But the two clients, Ms. Rajas and Eleuterio Tan, find it too risky for them to go to cash department and they really want the check negotiated at Shaw Blvd. Branch.

REP. MORENO. If they had gone to Land Bank head office, cash department, bringing those two three demand drafts for encashment, would they have been required to show their identities?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object, Mr. Chief Justice, the question is hypothetical.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. And then after August 28, was there any other discussion that you had with Governor Singson in respect of this account?

MS. BALAGOT. None, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. That will be all, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination?

Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). With the Honorable Court’s permission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.

MR. FORTUN (S). Ms. Balagot, Good afternoon.

MS. BALAGOT. Good afternoon, sir.

MR. FORTUN (S). I would like to ask you a few questions on the matters subject of your testimony this afternoon and on the documents that you had identified for us.

It would seem to me that you had been connected with Land Bank-Vigan for a significant number of years?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). For how long, Madam?

MS. BALAGOT. From August 3, 1998 to December 31, 2000.

MR. FORTUN (S). And you know Governor Luis Singson personally?

MS. BALAGOT. Not personally actually. He is our client. He is the provincial governor of our place.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see. I gather that you talked to him as you did talk to him on August 28 of 1999?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). I noticed the authorization which was presented by the prosecution had been marked as Exhibit “PPPP”. This is an authorization dated August 27 of 1998. Will you tell us, Ms. Balagot, whether you remember having seen this document at or about the time that this 170 million transaction was going on?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And you identify the signature of the Governor as his?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Ms. Balagot, this authorization identifies a certain Maricar Paz and Marina Atendido purporting themselves to be employees of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Sur. Do you know these two ladies by face?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). You’ve met them personally prior to August 27, 1998?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). They are regular people who transact business with your branch in Vigan?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). You know them, in fact, as employees of Governor Singson.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Accordingly, when this authorization for Ms. Paz and Ms. Atendido were given to you, you had absolutely no qualms about the authority which had been given to them in respect to the 170 million check initially made in favor of Governor Singson.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). You did not call Governor Singson to inquire from him whether this authorization, in fact, exists.

MS. BALAGOT. Your Honor, before the authorization was given to us, there was a verbal instruction.

MR. FORTUN (S). Oh, I see. Thank you.

Will you tell us whether it was Ms. Atendido and Paz who also gave you the names Eleuterio Tan and Alma Alfaro for purposes of the demand drafts?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Were these two ladies also the persons responsible for asking for the cancellation of the demand drafts and their substitution with an interbank accommodation? Is that what you call it, Madam?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). These were the same ladies who asked you to do this.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And these two ladies’ instructions to you to replace the Governor Singson’s check to demand drafts and subsequently the demand drafts to interbank credit accommodations were confirmed subsequently by Governor Singson himself, wasn’t it?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). In fact, you talked to him over the telephone and, therefore, you were certain that these were, in fact, instructions emanating from the Governor himself. Correct, Madam?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor. In August 27, I never talked to the Governor.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see.

MS. BALAGOT. It was only on August 28 that I talked to the Governor. It was a call being made by my executive assistant in behalf of the representatives of the Governor. So, they were the ones talking to the Governor in our office.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see. And from the tenor or from what you had gathered after this executive assistant of yours had spoken to the Governor, would you say that all of these authority to make this demand drafts, cancel them and substitute them thereafter with interbank credit accommodations in the name of Eleuterio Tan and Alma Alfaro were in fact instructions emanating from the Governor himself?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see. What about this person by the name of Alma Alfaro? This name, Madam, also emanate from either Ms. Paz or Ms. Atendido?

MS. BALAGOT. From Ms. Atendido, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). I see. So, allow me to summarize all of these transactions for you.

The matter of the cancellation of the checks, their substitution with demand drafts, and the subsequent replacement of these demand drafts with an interbank credit accommodation were instructions emanating either from Governor Singson himself or from his two assistants, Ms. Paz and Ms. Atendido.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). And the persons who had specifically identified had been identified as the recipient of these checks, namely: Eleuterio Tan, Alma Alfaro and Delia Rajas were names identified either by Ms. Paz or Ms. Atendido or by Governor Singson himself.

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). Will you tell us, Madam, whether you had received any instruction or even heard of the name Charlie “Atong” Ang in any of these instructions in respect of the 170 million in August of 1998?

MS. BALAGOT. None, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). What about the name Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines? Was there any instruction from him or his representatives in respect of this 170 million?

MS. BALAGOT. None, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (S). That is all, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any redirect?

REP. MORENO. Just for a while, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

Ms. Witness, would you know if Governor Singson was taking instructions from Atong Ang or from President Joseph Estrada?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained.

REP. MORENO. You mentioned that you called Governor Singson when the persons named Alma Alfaro and I’m sorry Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan went to the Shaw Boulevard Branch for encashment. Now, question is, what instruction did Governor Singson give?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The same objection, Mr. Chief Justice. It is improper for redirect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same ruling, sustained.

REP. MORENO. Yes. The instruction of Governor Singson, would you know if the instruction was… Governor Singson was in discussion with the Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Objection, on the same ground. And on another ground, it is leading, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection has to be sustained on both grounds.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Let me reform, Your Honor.

On cross examination, you responded that instructions were given by Governor Singson. Now, between Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan, on one hand, and Governor Singson, on the other hand, would you know if they were in discussion between each other?

MR. FLAMINIANO. I think we have to make the same objection, Your Honor. Not covered by the cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer regrets that he has to sustain the objection, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, anyway, let me try to reform.

Mrs. Witness, you said that the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The points during the cross examination were very, very clear. You can only limit your redirect on these points.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, and as far as the instructions because the point on the cross examination was, instructions were made only by Governor Singson.

Would you know if Governor Singson took instructions from somebody else?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The question is leading and has not been taken up on cross, Your Honor. The same objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained on the first ground only.

REP. MORENO. Now, you mentioned that Governor Singson said, “Bahala na kayo,” Is that correct? In relation to the cross examination, what can you say?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Objection, if Your Honor please. That was not taken up on cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained. That was brought up during the direct examination but not in the cross examination, counsel.

REP. MORENO. During the cross-examination, you said that the cancellation of the bank drafts and the issuance of the effective… effecting of the interbranch credit memo were upon the instructions of Governor Singson. Now, these instructions were part of the general instruction of Governor Singson that, “Bahala na kayo”, is that correct?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have the same objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is to be sustained. Not only that it is very leading.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Reform.

REP. MORENO. Now, what did Governor Singson tell you, the instructions that he gave? During cross examination, you said that Governor Singson gave you instructions. What specifically were the words of Governor Singson when he gave you those instructions?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Improper for redirect, Your Honor, and leading.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection has to be overruled this time. There is some connection.

MS. BALAGOT. On August 28, Your Honor, when I confirmed with the Governor that Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan were trying to negotiate the check in Westmont Bank, first, he told us that, “Kung ano iyong gusto, kung ano iyong gusto nung tao, iyon ang gawin.” Iyon daw ang gawin namin.

REP. MORENO. That’s all, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Recross?

MR. FORTUN (S). We have no questions on recross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Any questions from the Members of the Court?

The Honorable Senator Judge Guingona … the Honorable Judge Jaworski.

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

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

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

Ms. Witness, the demand draft was originally supposed to be for Governor Singson, was it not?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And subsequently, there were several phone calls or intervening events, were there not?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And because of these intervening events and phone calls, there were changes made, were there not?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And the demand drafts were then made to Alfaro, I mean, Rajas and Eleuterio Tan — Ms. Rajas and Eleuterio Tan, were they not?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. And then, there were again intervening events because the two persons went to Westmont Bank and not to the main Makati Branch of Land Bank?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Then, later on, after intervening events again and phone calls, these two went to Land Bank, did they not, Mandaluyong Branch?

MS. BALAGOT. That was on the second day, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. They went — Eleuterio Tan and Ms. Rajas went to Land Bank Branch in Mandaluyong?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Can clients — and then, after that, there was an interbank accommodation or transfer because the original cashier’s or demand draft was cancelled?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And subsequently, the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a warning now, Your Honor. You can continue with that last question.

SEN. GUINGONA. Last question. Could we still have opened or could we still have received the transfers without having accounts in the Land Bank-Mandaluyong Branch?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. So, they opened…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the last question, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Struck out second and a half time. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now recognize the Honorable Judge, Senator-Judge Jaworski and then, after that…

SEN. JAWORSKI. I was not raising my hand. I was just…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I’m sorry. It was recorded here.

SEN. JAWORSKI. I reserve it later.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, we will have to call the Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other reservation from the others? You may proceed now, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Ms. Balagot, do you personally know Mr. Ang, Atong Ang?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. You would not know if — are you in a position to know if Governor Singson is receiving any instruction from Mr. Ang?

MS. BALAGOT. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many questions would you ask?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I have no questions, but I rose to ask the help of the Presiding Officer…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. About…?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. … just to make sure that the Senator-Judges are able to stick with the agreement that we only ask clarificatory questions. The questions we ask should simply deal with points covered by the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that that was the agreement yesterday and the Presiding Officer would leave the matter completely to the judges themselves to consider what they have agreed upon. The Chair would not want to make any directive or order to respect any agreement which ought to be respected by those who agreed on the agreements.

The Honorable Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I just want to clarify that the question I raised is a question raised in the cross examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

Any other The Honorable Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Clarificatory question, Mr. Chief Justice. I hope this will not be counted against my time, Mr. Chief Justice, because I’m reading from a transcript…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be counted…

SEN. CAYETANO. … of the Blue Ribbon Committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be counted against you, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. No, no, no. The reason is can you allow me to speak…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. Because we have all copies of the Blue Ribbon Committee Report.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

SEN. CAYETANO. If I read this, it’s only because the witness has no copy. But if I read it, my two minutes will be over. So, the choice, Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But was the witness present during the…

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes. In fact…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did she testify in the Blue Ribbon Committee?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, as a preliminary.

SEN. CAYETANO. To the Blue Ribbon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, yeah.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If she testified before the Blue Ribbon Committee and she will be confronted…

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …. now, the reading would only be preliminary as a basis for the question.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes. That’s why I don’t want that to be counted. Mauubos sigurado ‘yong dalawang minuto ko.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It will not be counted against you, Your Honor. It would only be considered as preliminary to the start of your question.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.

Ms. Balagot, on October 24, 2000, you appeared before the Blue Ribbon Committee. Correct?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, I will read to you a part of the transcript and you let me know if this is a correct or you remember having said this. This was an answer to Senator Flavier’s question.

“SEN. FLAVIER. So, you were presented with a check to, in effect, withdraw 170 million out of that 200 million that was credited to you.

“MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

My question: Do you remember that?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, that time can be counted, my questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We shall now begin the count.

SEN. CAYETANO. “Senator Flavier This should not be counted against me, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not against Senator Flavier.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes. Not against me.

“Of this 170 million, we accounted yesterday for 130 million specifically remitted through three orders but that totals only 130. Can you account for the difference of the 130 and the 170 that you earlier mentioned?

MS. BALAGOT. (Answer) Yes, Your Honor. The 40 million was deposited interbranch deposit in the name of Alma Alfaro.”

My question: Do you remember that?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.

“SEN. FLAVIER. That’s one.

MS. BALAGOT. The 50 million was transferred to an interbranch credit transaction under the name of Delia Rajas.”

Do you remember that?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO.

“SEN. FLAVIER. That’s the second.

MS. BALAGOT. Another 40 million was transferred by way of an interbranch credit advice in the name of Eleuterio Tan.”

Do you remember that?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.

“SEN. FLAVIER. That’s the third.

MS. BALAGOT. And a demand draft amounting to 40 million under the name of Nuncio Saverio was also given to the representative of the governor.”

Do you remember that?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, according to your testimony in the Blue Ribbon Committee, the 50 million of Delia Rajas, the 40 million given to Eleuterio Tan and the 40 million to Alma Alfaro was, in fact, deposited interbranch in the Shaw Boulevard. Correct?

MS. BALAGOT. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No further questions?

The witness is now excused. Thank you, Madam Witness.

MS. BALAGOT. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness for the Prosecution.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor. I just wanted to confirm, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, that the originals of these bank documents will be returned to Ms. Balagot for branch files.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand there was an agreement earlier, Atty. Fortun? Atty. Fortun. There was an agreement before that the originals of the documents for the Land Bank Branch in Malacanang, the DBP documents…

REP. MORENO. Vigan, Vigan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …the Vigan Branch documents and the Shaw Branch documents…

MR. FORTUN (S). We had agreed to that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …would be returned to the witness?

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness, Prosecutor Moreno.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. If you will allow me 15 minutes or even a ten-minute rest.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean you’d be the one to conduct the direct examination of the next witness?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. But we have also sought issuances of subpoenas and, in fact, some of these subpoenas have already been issued. And probably, my senior — Congressman Joker Arroyo would take even 10 minutes, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, in regard to these subpoenas that have been issued so that we can already schedule the taking of the testimony of the pertinent witnesses, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you are requesting for a suspension of the Trial?

REP. MORENO. No, no, Mr. Chief Justice. Just give me the time, ten- minutes to rest for a while. In the meantime, my senior partner…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about your assisting counsel?

REP. MORENO. I’ll be the one to conduct the direct examination, Mr. Chief Justice, in ten minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. I think Prosecutor, Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. …Prosecutor Moreno is really tired. I just want to take advantage of the lull whatever it is ten or fifteen minutes because the Citibank people had been coming here. And I just want to have this marked and identified, perhaps we can stipulate so that we can make use of the five or ten minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And probably, you can have 20 minutes for that.

REP. ARROYO. No, we’ll just have it marked and we can stipulate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But the distribution of the documents.

REP. ARROYO. Oh! It’s all here now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already distributed?

REP. ARROYO. It’s marked already, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see. But the distribution to the Members of the Court; the Members of the Court including the Presiding Officer would need a little time to go over the documents too.

Anyway, it’s very close to the second break, the Majority Leader is recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, our next scheduled break is at 6:45. It’s now 6:38. I move that we suspend the Trial until 7 o’clock.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven o’clock. Yes, because the regular break is 15. There is a request for 10, we’ll make it…

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay then, we will resume at 7 o’clock.

The trial is suspended and to resume at 7 o’clock.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 6:38 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 7:09 P.M.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is now resumed.

The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. ARROYO. We have written proposed stipulations which we have submitted to the defense. And we would just want to know whether they accept this so that we can proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (S). We have just received the proposed stipulations. I must confess that this is the first time that I’ve seen even the supporting documents on the matter. If Prosecutor Arroyo would allow us if we could have till Monday to make a decision on the matter. Right now, my cursory examination of their proposed stipulations would disclose that these relate to an account at Citibank purportedly in the name of the First Lady.

REP. ARROYO. Yes, it’s a deposit of the First Lady from a check issued by Governor Singson.

MR. FORTUN (S). And our impression on the matter is that this is not again part of the Articles of Impeachment. But even as we are unprepared at this time to agree to stipulate with the prosecution, perhaps by Monday, Mr. Chief Justice, we will be in a position to do so. I’m asking for time, essentially.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you say, Prosecutor Arroyo?

REP. ARROYO. We cannot impose on the defense except that… The defense is not caught by surprise, we have stated it very frankly here that this is a check of — one is the check of Governor Singson for P8 million and deposited in the account of the First Lady, Mrs. Loi Ejercito in the Citibank; and another check in the amount of P46.350 million, also issued by Governor Singson, payable to William Gatchalian. So, with these two, then we expect on Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On Monday. But the original copies of these documents are already with the Secretary of the Senate? These have been premarked.

REP. ARROYO. Premarked, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. So, the originals are still with the Secretary? Atty. Barbo.

REP. ARROYO. The markings have been stipulated upon…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, already.

REP. ARROYO. …between defense and the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, it would be by Monday.

MR. FORTUN (S). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. And for which gesture by the prosecution, we express our thanks that we have been given an advance information on this matter for stipulation. We will study the matter and we’ll be prepared for stipulation on Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. ARROYO. Especially since this involves the First Lady so we can understand the position of the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you have any other witness for this evening?

REP. ARROYO. My tired colleague…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It seems to me that Prosecutor Moreno is trying to rest.

REP. ARROYO. He’s rested, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, our next witness prefers very much to testify now…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. MORENO. …because she has been under tremendous pressure, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So…?

REP. MORENO. So, in order to unload her of that burden, Mr Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She has to testify this evening.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness in. Who is the name of the witness?

REP. MORENO. Ms. Kaye Manahan-Rodenas, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mrs. Ma. Caridad Rodenas-Manahan. Manahan?

REP. MORENO. “Manahan” was her maiden family name.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see.

REP. MORENO. She’s now Rodenas. At the time of transactions, Mr. Chief Justice, she was still single.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, Mrs. Maria Caridad Manahan-Rodenas.

Administer the oath on the witness.

You will be the examining counsel?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your assisting counsel?

REP. MORENO. Same – Atty. Joey Tenefrancia, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the cross-examining counsel?

MR. FORTUN (S). Same counsel, Your Honor, as earlier advised.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is the witness?

The Secretary will administer the oath on the witness.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left on the Holy Bible and answer me.

You, Maria Caridad Rodenas, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

MS. RODENAS. I do.

THE SECRETARY. Please sit down.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly take your seat.

Prosecutor Moreno.

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

In addition to the matters stipulated earlier with respect to the Shaw Boulevard Branch of Land Bank of the Philippines, the purpose of our presenting Mrs. Rodenas, purposes, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, are as follows:

The purchase by Eleuterio Tan, this receipt from Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch of three cashier’s checks, each for P30 million or for a total amount of P90 million, all payable to Eleuterio Tan, using the proceeds from the withdrawals made on that day by Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan in the amounts of P50 million and P40 million, respectively, from the Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch which were credited by Land Bank of the Philippines-Vigan Branch.

And also, that Alma Alfaro had wanted to withdraw the entire amount of P40 million on August 27, 1998 which had been deposited, credited to her account in Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch. But the withdrawal could not be allowed because of the sizeable amount and could not be accommodated on that date. Instead, she withdrew the amount of P40 million the following day, entirely in cash.

And also, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, the identities of Mr. Eleuterio Tan, Ms. Alma Alfaro, Ms. Delia Rajas and their dealings, particularly Ms. Alma Alfaro with Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch prior to the opening of the account on August 27, 1998, and the circumstances under which Mr. Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas went to see Mrs. Rodenas on August 28 for the encashment of the demand drafts for P50 million and P40 million, respectively, initially with Westmont and then with Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Boulevard Branch.

Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed with the direct testimony.

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

Madam Witness, can you please tell this Honorable Court your name and your personal circumstances?

MS. RODENAS. Ako po si Maria Caridad Manahan Rodenas. I am thirty-eight years old, married at ako po ay empleyado ng Land Bank.

REP. MORENO. Sabi mo empleyado ka ng Land Bank. Official ka ba ng Land Bank?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ilang taon ka na sa Land Bank?

MS. RODENAS. Ako po ay may sampung taon na sa Land Bank.

REP. MORENO. Sa Shaw Boulevard Branch, ilang taon ka ba doon na detailed?

MS. RODENAS. Ako po ay na-assign ng apat na taon sa Shaw Boulevard Branch, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Where are you assigned now?

MS. RODENAS. Ngayon po, ako po ay sa DOTC branch naka-assign, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In August of 1998, were you assigned with Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch?

MS. RODENAS. Opo, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And prior to that, ilang buwan, ilang taon ka na sa Land Bank- Shaw Boulevard Branch.

MS. RODENAS. Mayroon na pong dalawang taon. Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit “RRRRR”. This is the specimen signature card of your branch, dated August 27, 1998. The account is Alma A. Alfaro. And then, Exhibit “RRRRR-1”, the dorsal portion of this account opening form. Pakisabi nga po sa korte kung ano itong account opening form at iyong laman nito po?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po ay signature card na nilagdaan, finil apan ng isa po naming kliyente.

REP. MORENO. Sino iyong kliyente na iyon?

MS. RODENAS. Base po dito sa signature card, siya po ay si Alma A. Alfaro.

REP. MORENO. Okay. Itong mga specimen signatures dito sa Exhibit “RRRRR”, these are submarked as “RRRRR 2″, may tatlong specimen signatures si Alma Alfaro. Sa kanya ba ito o hindi? Kanino ba itong specimen signatures dito?

MS. RODENAS. Sa kanya po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. How do you know na sa kanya ito?

MS. RODENAS. Dahil siya po mismo ang lumagda dito, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Dito sa column o sa box that reads: “Approved By”, which is submarked as “RRRRR 3″, mayroong pirma dito, kaninong pirma ito?

MS. RODENAS. Initial ko po ito, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ito bang pirma ni Alma Alfaro, napirmahan ba ito in your presence? Sa harap mo?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po’y ginawa niya sa new accounts, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And iyong initial deposit, one thousand, anong ibig sabihin nito?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po iyong one thousand na dineposito niya representing iyong kanyang pag open ng account, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Itong account opening form is dated August 27. Now, can you tell this Honorable Court kung anong mga sirkumstansiya that led to the opening of this account, kung mayroon?

MS. RODENAS. Noong araw pong iyon, August 27, 1998, lumapit po si Alma Alfaro sa akin at nag inquire siya kung paano mag open ng account, savings account, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then anong sabi mo?

MS. RODENAS. Sinabi ko po sa kanya ang procedure ng bangko, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Which is?

MS. RODENAS. Na mag present siya ng IDs at personally siyang mag fill up ng signature card, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, prior to her asking you, kung paano mag open ng account, savings account, kilala mo ba si Alma Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Paano mo siya nakilala prior to that?

MS. RODENAS. Dahil siya po ay isang authorized repre¬sentative ng isang depositor namin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Authorized representative ng isang deposi¬tor.

Anong ibig sabihin ng “authorized representative”?

MS. RODENAS. Na siya po ay representative na gumawa ng transaksiyon in behalf of that depositor, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Anong mga transaksiyon ito?

MS. RODENAS. Withdrawal from savings account, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Withdrawals from savings account. Mayroon ka bang sinabi mong authorized representatives, so mayroong written authorization in favor of Alma Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Paano ba naibigay iyong written authori¬zation, separate or in the withdrawal slips?

MS. RODENAS. Pi fill up an po iyong withdrawal slip. Bale siya ang maglalagda doon sa portion na “authorized representative”.

REP. MORENO. Now, itong mga withdrawals, ilang mga withdrawals na ito prior to August 27 that Alma Alfaro did on behalf of the owner of that other account?

MS. RODENAS. Your Honor, hindi ko po ito masabi dahil sa 1405.

REP. MORENO. Now, Mr. Chief Justice, we had expected that the witness would invoke Republic Act 1405 and this is in relation to the other accounts with Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard Branch. However, we would beg the Honorable Court, given the relationship between the owners of these other accounts in the same branch…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have the answer of the witness. There seems to be no legal justification yet for the Court to compel her to answer.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

So, ilang hindi mo masabi kung ilang withdrawals?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Already answered.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already answered, so sustained.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Aside from the withdrawals, anong mga transactions pa in which itong si Alma Alfaro was authorized by this depositor that you’ve mentioned?

MS. RODENAS. Mayroon pa po siyang ibang transaction katulad ng telegraphic transfer, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Telegraphic transfer. Ano itong telegraphic transfer?

MS. RODENAS. Ito po iyong nagpapadala siya ng pera sa iba’t ibang branches namin sa probinsiya, Your Honor, na hindi pa on line, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Sa ibang branches ng Land Bank all over the country or sa specific places lang?

MS. RODENAS. All over the country, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Na wala pang on line?

MS. RODENAS. Na hindi pa po on line ang branch na iyon, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Dahil doon sa branches na may on line, hindi na telegraphic transfer ang…?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Anong paraan sa pag remit or pag credit ng account doon sa branches which are on line?

MS. RODENAS. Puwede pong…

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial, Your Honor. It’s immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already answered.

REP. MORENO. Now…So, prior to August 27, 1998, gaano katagal up to August 27, 1998 na ginagawa ito ni Alma Alfaro? Nagwi withdraw, nag i effect ng telegraphic transfer?

MS. RODENAS. Matagal tagal na rin po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Can you please try to recall kung anong buwan, kung anong taon nag umpisa itong mga telegraphic transfers, withdrawals that Alma Alfaro did on behalf of somebody else?

MS. RODENAS. Taon 1998 po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Gaano kadalas iyong mga telegraphic transfers? Ito siguro hindi naman covered sa 1405, dahil these are transactions that are not deposits, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, there is no objection.

REP. MORENO. Yes. Sinabi ko lang po para ma remind si Mrs. Rodenas. Mrs. Rodenas.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, gaano kadalas itong telegraphic transfer?

MS. RODENAS. Mga at least three times a week, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Three times a week. At least three times a week. Paano ba iyang three times a week sa isang…Number of remittances iyan or number of days?

MS. RODENAS. Number of days, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then bawat ah sa isang araw, sa mga remittance or remittances, ilan ba iyan, average lang to your best recollection?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Already answered, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled, there was no answer yet.

MS. RODENAS. Iba’t iba pong beses katulad ng mga pitong beses every in one day, iba’t iba po.

REP. MORENO. And then ang pinapadalhan mo are individuals, corporations, banks or iyong ultimate beneficiary noong telegraphic transfer?

MS. RODENAS. Mga individuals, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, iyong mga telegraphic transfers that were done by Alma Alfaro on behalf of another client of Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard, sinong pumipirma noong mga transaction documents?MR. FLAMINIANO. The best evidence would be the documents themselves, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. Merely as a preliminary.

REP. MORENO. Sinong pumipirma ng mga transactions sa telegraphic transfer?

MS. RODENAS. Siya po ang applicant, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Sinong siya?

MS. RODENAS. Si Ms. Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ilang depositor or depositors ba ito in which in the same Land Bank-Shaw Boulevard Branch…?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. MORENO. …without naming…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question…

MR. FLAMINIANO. I’m sorry, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You finish your question.

REP. MORENO. …without naming who for the meantime?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, what is the question now? You’re asking for how many depositors have been represented by Alfaro?

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

MS. RODENAS. Isa lang po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Ilang accounts mayroon itong principal ni Alfaro?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object, Your Honor, for being immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. This time because of the position taken by the witness that she cannot, the objection may be sustained, not because on the ground of it’s being immaterial, but because it might lead to a disclosure of what the witness would not want to disclose.

REP. MORENO. Now, with respect to these withdrawals and these telegraphic transfers, was there anybody else outside of Alma Alfaro na mayroon ding authority from this depositor?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Lack of basis and it assumes a fact that’s inevident, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection has to be sustained. Make a specific referral to a particular fact.

REP. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Maliban kay Alma Alfaro, mayroon pa bang representative dito sa account na nabanggit mo, in which Alfaro is the representative?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have the same objection for immateriality, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. Now, in all of these telegraphic transfer transactions, ano’ng nilalagay ni Alma Alfaro na address niya?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The best evidence would be the document where, normally, the data that counsel talks about is written, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Although the Presiding Officer would be inclined to rule in your favor in that regard, consider the fact that the witness would not want to disclose the name of the depositor.

MR. FLAMINIANO. That’s another objection, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly, but it is not because the best evidence is the document. The prosecutor may find some other way of getting facts without, in any way, directly or indirectly overburdening the witness by eventually disclosing what she does not want to disclose.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. That’s why the question, Mr. Chief Justice, had to do with the telegraphic transfers. Itong sa telegraphic transfers ay nakalagay iyong address noong — dahil pinirmahan ni Alma Alfaro. And ano’ng nakalagay na address, kung mayroon man doon sa transaction documents na iyon?

MR. FLAMINIANO. There is no materiality of whatever would be the address of Ms. Alfaro, Your Honor. It would have no bearing…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer sees the point of the prosecution. The whole trouble is, there is some difficulty on the part of the prosecution to go to that particular point and, therefore, the objection has to be sustained.

REP. MORENO. Sa pagkakilala mo kay Alma Alfaro, ano’ng address niya?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial.

REP. MORENO. No.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. Alma Alfaro, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have established enough already of her knowledge about Alfaro. But you want something really which the Presiding Officer cannot also disclose, but believes that that is your point…

REP. MORENO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …to establish a link. But it seems to the Presiding Officer that your way toward it appears to be at this time very, very meandering and circuitous.

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. Ano’ng relasyon ni Alma Alfaro, if any, with Power Express?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Immaterial, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer.

MR. FLAMINIANO. And may we respectfully move for a reconsideration, Your Honor, on another ground. There is no basis for the question. It assumes that Alfaro is connected with that corporation mentioned.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion for reconsideration, on another ground, is denied.

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

REP. MORENO. Probably the witness may now answer, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since it was denied …

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yeah.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … it’s obvious that the witness has to answer the question.

MS. RODENAS. Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Dito sa Exhibit “RRRRR,” Alma pangalan, Alma A. Alfaro, this is addressed “care of Power Express.” Do you recall now kung ano’ng relasyon ni Alma Alfaro with Power Express?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object, Your Honor, because the witness categorically said that she does not know.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection has to be sustained, the witness had already answered.

REP. MORENO. Now, when there is a basic canon in banking that bank must know its depositors, bank must ascertain the identity of the depositor. Now, what, if any, did you do to observe your duty as a banker?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have to object to this question, Your Honor, because it even tends to impeach his own witness by asking this kind of a question, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you going to impeach your witness?

REP. MORENO. No, no, of course not, Mr. Chief Justice. We just would want to know …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Reform.

REP. MORENO. What action then, Mrs. Rodenas, did you take when the application for the opening of an account was filed in order to identify Mrs. Alma Alfaro, given that as a bank officer, you’re subject to that rule that you must ascertain the identity of the depositor?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We have the same objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. The counsel now is trying to elicit from the witness the steps taken to determine the identity of the witness, although the witness had already identified her before. Probably the prosecution would want to strengthen that identification

MS. RODENAS. Pag may nag o open po ng account sa amin, ito siya po ay ini interview namin. Dito naman po kay Alma Alfaro, noong nag open po siya ng account, since kilala ko na po siya, siya po ay pinag open ko ng account at sinulat niya ho dito ‘yong kanyang pangalan, address at naglagda ho siya.

REP. MORENO. And did you notice itong address, “care of Power Express?”

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And what, if any, is the relationship between this address and the telegraphic transfers?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Objection, Your Honor, because the witness had earlier answered that she does not know the connection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. MORENO. Now, noong August 27, when Alma Alfaro opened the account, she gave you a school ID and an SSS ID. Now, when she opened that account, what, if any, did she tell you regarding that account?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The question is very vague, Mr. Chief Justice, it’s so vague.

REP. MORENO. Now, Mr. Chief Justice …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you kindly …

MR. FLAMINIANO. It’s very vague.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … reform the question, just reform the question?

REP. MORENO. Mayroon bang sinabi si Alma Alfaro when she opened the account na, say, may darating na pera?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The question has no basis, Your Honor, it assumes a fact. There’s no basis for that question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She is asked for a fact. The witness may answer.

MS. RODENAS. Noong nag open po siya ng savings account sa amin, ang sabi po niya sa akin na may inaantay po siyang maiki credit sa account niya, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay. May inaantay from whom and magkano?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi po niya, mayroon siyang interbranch na transaction na maki credit sa account niya.

REP. MORENO. Interbranch. Magkano ‘yon? Sinabi ba niya kung magkano?

MS. RODENAS. Opo, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Magkano?

MS. RODENAS. Forty million, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, ano pa’ng sinabi niya when she opened that account?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi po niya, mag wi withdraw siya the following day, so i prepare ko po ang pera, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Pero noong August 27, mayroon bang after pagkasabi sa iyo ni Alma Alfaro na may inaantay, dumating ba ‘yong inaantay na 40 million?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Leading, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Kung dumating man.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness may answer, because of the additional phrase. (Laughter.)

MS. RODENAS. ‘Yong inaantay niya pong 40 million ay na credit sa account niya on that same day, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Same day which is August 27?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then anong sinabi niya, if any, with regard to that credit of 40 million on August 27?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi po niya na siya po ay mag wi withdraw kinabukasan kaya i prepare ko daw po ang pera, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Okay, so ano’ng ginawa mo regarding doon sa declared intention na mag withdraw the following day?

MS. RODENAS. Ang ginawa ko po ay nag request ako sa cash center namin ng a certain amount covering 40 million, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit “QQQQQQ”. This is fund transfer request.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show the document to the witness.

REP. MORENO. What relations, if any, does this fund transfer request have with your request, with your preparation for the availability of money on August 28?

MS. RODENAS. Ni request ko po ito fund transfer sa aming cash department para ho in preparation sa withdrawal ni Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Mayroong nakasulat dito “Maria Caridad A. Manahan,” and then may initial on top of that name. Sino ba itong Maria Caridad A. Manahan?

MS. RODENAS. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And kanino itong initial na ito on top of that name?

MS. RODENAS. Sa akin po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. ‘Yong ni request mo na 46 million, based doon sa exhibit, dumating ba? Kung dumating.

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Kailan dumating?

MS. RODENAS. Base po dito sa aking request, fund transfer request, August 28, 1998, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, going back doon sa sinabi ni Alma Alfaro na wi withdraw hin niya ang 40 million the following day, ano’ng reaction mo? Kalalagay pa lang ng deposit account that day tapos i wi withdraw the following day? What questions or inquries did you ask, if any, from Ms. Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. Paki ulit, Your Honor?

REP. MORENO. Kung may tinanong ka, dahil ka o open lang niya ng account, August 27, tapos sinabi mag expect ng 40 million, and then noong dumating ang 40 million noong August 27, sinabi kaagad na i wi withdraw. Ano’ng mga tanong, kung mayroon man, that you raised or you asked kay Alma Alfaro, regarding that talagang parang one transaction account lang ito?

MS. RODENAS. Biniro ko po siya na may malaki siyang inaantay na pera, 40 million. ‘Yon lang po, Your Honor. Hindi ko na po tinanong pa’ng iba, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Now, ‘yong cash na 40 million, dumating. Anong oras ba dumating ‘yong cash na 40 million noong August 28, kung dumating man?

MS. RODENAS. Mga hapon na po ‘yon, Your Honor, mga past two in the afternoon, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Si Alma Alfaro, did she go to your branch on August 28?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Leading, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the question?

REP. MORENO. Si Alma Alfaro, pumunta ba sa branch, sa noong kung maalaala mo, August 28?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then ano’ng ginawa niya doon sa branch?

MS. RODENAS. Pumunta po siya n’ong August 28, 1998 sa branch namin para mag-withdraw, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. N’ong pumunta si Alma Alfaro, August 28, may kasama ba siya?

MS. RODENAS. Mayroon pa po siyang ibang kasama, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Sino ‘yong mga ibang kasama ni Alma Alfaro? Who?

MS. RODENAS. Ang mga kasama po niya n’ong araw na ‘yon, August 28, 1998 ay si Eleuterio Tan at Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Bakit mo alam na si Eleuterio Tan at si Delia Rajas ang kasama ni Alma Alfaro?

MS. RODENAS. Sila po ay ipinakilala sa akin ni Alma Alfaro, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, as far as Alma Alfaro was concerned, did she withdraw or what, if any, did she do with respect to the 40 million?

MS. RODENAS. Winidraw po niya n’ong araw na ‘yon ‘yong 40 million, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. In cash?

MS. RODENAS. In cash, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then sinabi mo na in-introduce ni Alma Alfaro ‘yong dalawang kasama niya na si Eleuterio Tan at Delia Rajas, anong nangyari after the introduction?

MS. RODENAS. Ipinakilala po sa akin ni Alma Alfaro si Eleuterio Tan at si Delia Rajas, at sinabi po niya sa akin kung matutulungan ko po ‘yong kanyang mga kasama, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, anong nangyari? Anong tulong?

MS. RODENAS. Mayroon po silang ipine-present na demand drafts na ipinakita sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Sinong sila ito?

MS. RODENAS. Si Eleuterio Tan at si Delia Rajas, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Anong demand drafts ito?

MS. RODENAS. Demand drafts na payable po sa kanila, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then, can you tell this Honorable Court kung ano’ng nangyari?

MS. RODENAS. N’ong ipinakilala po sa akin ni Alma Alfaro si Eleuterio Tan at si Delia Rajas, nagpapa-accommodate po sila ng demand drafts sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. What do you mean accommodate?

MS. RODENAS. Kung puwede ko pong i-encash ‘yong mga demand drafts na dala nila, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, anong ginawa mo? Anong sinabi mo?

MS. RODENAS. Tiningnan ko po ‘yong demand drafts, in-examine ko, at nakita ko po na gusto nilang ipa-encash sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, anong ginawa mo?

MS. RODENAS. ‘Yong mga demand drafts issued by Land Bank-Vigan Branch and the paying unit is Cash Department, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I am showing to you Exhibit “XXXX”. This is draft payable to Delia Rajas, 20 million; Exhibit “YYYY”, another draft, Land Bank, Delia Rajas, 30 million; and then Exhibit “ZZZZ”, payee is Eleuterio Tan, 40 million. Ito ba ‘yong mga demand drafts na sinasabi mo?

MS. RODENAS. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And so, sinabi mo na hindi puwedeng ma-encash, anong sagot nila, anong sabi nila?

MS. RODENAS. Wala pa po akong sinasabing hindi pa puwedeng ma-encash, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. I’m sorry.

So, having shown the draft and with that request-I’m sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors-anong ginawa mo when you saw the drafts and having heard of that request?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi po nila sa akin kung puwede daw silang… kung puwede ko daw i-accommodate ang kanilang mga demand drafts. Meaning to say, kung puwede ko pong i-encash ‘yon sa aming branch.

REP. MORENO. Anong sagot mo?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi ko po, hindi puwede sapagkat hindi po kami ang paying unit n’ong demand drafts at wala rin po akong ganoon kalaking halaga at that time, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then anong sabi nila, kung mayroon man?

MS. RODENAS. They were insistent, Your Honor, na gusto po nilang ipa encash sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And so, anong reaction mo, kung mayroon man?

MS. RODENAS. In explain ko muna po sa kanila kung bakit hindi ko po ma encash ‘yong kanilang mga demand drafts although they were insistent. Ang sabi ko po na hindi po kami ang paying unit. Kung gusto po nila, i deposit na lang nila sa bangko nila, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then anong sumunod doon?

MS. RODENAS. Ayaw po nila. They were insistent, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. So, anong nangyari?

MS. RODENAS. So, ang ginawa ko pong sunod ay tumawag po ako sa Vigan Branch, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Sino sa Vigan Branch ang tinawagan n’yo?

MS. RODENAS. Ang na contact ko po doon ay isang officer of the branch, si Lawrence Lopez na accountant at that time, Your Honor.REP. MORENO. And then, ano ang napag usapan ninyo ni Lawrence?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi ko po sa kanya, nandito po ang mga kliyente ninyo na ayaw umalis, na very insistent at ito ay mga kliyente n’yo. Ano ba ang gagawin natin dito, Your Honor?

REP. MORENO. Ano ang sagot ni Lawrence?

MS. RODENAS. Pina explain n’ya sa akin kung ano ang kahilingan ng mga kliyente nila at sinabi ko naman po, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then ano ang nangyari after that?

MS. RODENAS. Ang sabi n’ya ire refer n’ya muna daw po ito, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. Kanino ire refer?

MS. RODENAS. Sa kanyang manager, Your Honor.

REP. MORENO. And then what happened after that?

MS. RODENAS. Matagal po akong nag antay sa telepono…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Just after she ends her answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The witness may answer the question.

MS. RODENAS. Matagal po akong nag antay sa kanila, Your Honor, at in advise an po ako ni Lawrence Lopez na i cancel na lang po ang demand drafts and then they will credit their accounts, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. If I may intervene as a member of the Court, I noticed, maybe it is because of the long hearing or I noticed I think that we are not getting very far and maybe counsel should ask for a continuance on Monday. He insisted I mean, I think the Chief Justice was even saying we should continue on Monday. I suggest to counsel that he ask for a continuance because, maybe, he is and we are going around in circles, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Presiding Officer appreciates the manifestation of Senator Judge Roco and I hope that the prosecutor may take the cue from the suggestion and probably move a little faster next time. Everybody is probably tired and hungry.

REP. MORENO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask for a continuance for Monday, Mr. Chief Justice, and…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Until Monday then …

REP. MORENO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … at two o’clock.

Before we adjourn, before the Majority Leader would move for an adjournment until Monday, there are some matters in the agenda which should be taken up.

Here are some motions and other pleadings which the Court will now resolve:

First is Request for Admission dated 3 January 2001 Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Rules of Court filed by the Prosecution on 3 January 2001; and, in connection therewith, the Objection to Request for Admission dated 2 January 2001 filed by the defense on 3 January 2001. Both pleadings are noted.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, before the next matter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?

REP. APOSTOL. May I request that the witness be excused.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is excused but advised to return or to come back on Monday at two o’clock for the continuation of the direct testimony and for the completion thereof if there would be any question on cross examination and by Members of the Court.

Thank you, Madam Witness.

MS. RODENAS. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The next would be a letter, undated, addressed to the Presiding Officer, Chief Justice Davide, from parties using the stationery of the Vice President of the Philippines, and stating at the bottom thereof as senders the following:

The Filipino people, the P …capital P, capital M, capital A, capital P Chairperson, then TUCP Chairman, then KAMPI group. The last paragraph of which reads as follows:

This is in Tagalog. I have to read it in the Cebuano way.

“Sa ginawa mong ito, Mr. Chief Justice, tanggapin mo ang aming regalo sa iyo. We, the Filipino people, finds you, Mr. Chief Justice, guilty for the crime of betrayal of public trust.

“Therefore, you are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death, together with your family and relatives.”

The preceding paragraphs would make it appear that I am anti Erap. So, this could… I cannot understand why this should come from the Office of the Vice President.

I do not believe in this and let the public know that I cannot be threatened by anybody. I will perform my duty to the best of my ability even if it will call for the sacrifice of my own life.

The next is a Resolution No. 1, Series 2000, of the Kapihan sa Kidapawan Association, Sugbahan sa Plaza, Osmeña Street, Kidapawan City, entitled:

“A Resolution Requesting Honorable Hilario Davide, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Manila, Philippines, to issue a court order to all government organizations, non government organizations, PO’s and the entire Filipino people to stop making conclusions on the ongoing impeachment trial of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, which would only divide the country and to create a dangerous situation in the future.”

Noted.

The next.

“Motion to Recall Witness Ma. Carmencita Itchon, in accordance with Section 9, Rule l32 of the Rules of Court, filed by the panel of prosecutors, dated 2 January.

The Court would require a comment thereon by the defense within three days.

Next.

“Urgent motion to declare Yolanda Ricaforte as a hostile witness in accordance with Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.”

Filed by the panel of prosecutors dated 2 January 2001.

The defense is required to comment thereon within three days.

Next.

“Urgent Motion to Declare Anton B. Prieto as a hostile witness in accordance with Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.”

Filed by the panel of prosecutors dated 2 January 2001.

The defense is given three days within which to comment thereon.

Then, manifestations filed by the prosecution on 2 January 2001, withdrawing requests for the issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum against the following:

1) Professor Danilo Reyes; 2) Honorable Orlando Mercado; 3) Mr. Raul J. Esteban; and 4) Professor Mila Reforma.

The manifestation is noted. The request for the withdrawal is granted. And since the subpoenaes had, in fact, been issued, the same subpoenaes are recalled.

No. 8. Concurring opinion of the Senate President to the ruling of the Chief Justice on the admission of the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, filed on 2 January, 2001. Noted.

No. 9. Concurring opinion of Sen. Renato L. “Compañero” Cayetano to the Extended Order of the Chief Justice filed on 3 January 2001. Noted.

10. Concurring opinion of the Honorable Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago to the Extended Order of the Chief Justice filed on 04 January 2001. Noted.

11. Manifestations re: Motion to Quash, re: Citibank; re: Motion to Quash, re: Metrobank; and re: Motion to Quash, re: PS Bank, filed by the prosecution on 04 January 2001. The subpoenas duces tecum had, in fact, been issued minus the objected portion. The objections here had reference to a general clause, and that had been deleted in the subpoenas issued by the Presiding Officer.

12. Motion to require Mr. Jaime Dichaves to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt filed by the Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. on 04 January 2000. The motion is noted. Jaime Dichaves is directed to comment thereon within a non-extendible period of five days.

Then, we have the reply to the compliance of House Prosecutor Clavel Asas-Martinez to the Court Order dated 18 December filed by Senator-Judges Teresa Aquino-Oreta, Juan Ponce Enrile, and John Henry R. Osmeña on 04 January 2001. The reply is noted, and the incidence shall be called again on 12 January.

Next, Motion for Issuance of a Protective Order and Opposition to Taking of Deposition. An Opposition thereto had been filed by the prosecution. The defense is directed to file a reply, if any, and the case shall be called again on 12 January.

Then, Urgent Request for Verification of Medical Condition re: Mr. Raul de Guzman. The defense’ comment is supposed to be due today. Has the defense filed the comment thereon?

MR. DAZA. No comment will be filed by the defense, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If not, an extension is granted until Monday.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, no comment will be filed?

MR. DAZA. No comment. We have no intention to file any comment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No comment thereon. So, the matter is deemed submitted for resolution.

There are also the following documents not listed in the agenda for today, but the Presiding Officer will have to consider these now.

1. The prosecution’s urgent manifestation re: motions for production of documents filed last 20 December 2000. These documents were objected… the production of these documents were objected to by the defense because they were supposed to be submitted not to the Secretary but to the House prosecutors at the Tañada Room of the Senate of the Philippines. In this urgent manifestation, the prosecution now agrees to have these documents submitted to the Clerk of the Senate. These are the documents required of Honorable Lilia Bautista, SEC Chairman; the Honorable Artemio Tuquero, DOJ Secretary; the Honorable Alice Reyes, Pagcor Chairman; the Honorable Feliciano Miranda, PNB President; Mr. Ramon Garcia, PSE President; and Emeterio Perez, Reporter and Correspondent, to produce certified true copies of the documents specifically mentioned in the motions therein provided. Insofar, however, as the PNB President is concerned, there seems to be an objection thereto. The request, with the exception of that for the PNB President which is being deferred, that the production should be made to the Secretary of the Senate is granted.

The other document is a letter dated January 5, 2001, signed by Jose Santos, Jr., Corporate Secretary of the RN Development Corporation, requesting an extension until Monday to submit the required documents covered by the subpoena duces tecum because of lack of time to prepare the same. The request is granted.

Finally, there is a Motion to Quash filed by the defense re: the Prosecution’s urgent ex parte request for issuance of subpoena duces tecum dated January 3 concerning certain Bureau of Internal Revenue officers and documents, filed by the defense panel before the Office of the Senate Legal Counsel at 1:34 p.m., this afternoon. The prosecution is directed to file a reply to the opposition, not later than 10 January.

REP. GONZALES. 10, Mr. Chief Justice? 10 January?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. 10 January.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, in relation to that incident, may we request the prosecution not to proceed if a subpoena has already been issued, not to proceed with the production of these documents scheduled as prayed for on January 8 because this matter is now before the Chief Justice. Yes. Well, since you have up to January…

REP. GONZALES. Since this is up to January 19, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor, then, we will suspend what has been mentioned for the moment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s the logical consequence for the requirement of a reply to the opposition.

MR. DAZA. Until the motion is resolved, not just up to January because the prosecution is to file some oppositions or responsive pleading to our motion not later than January 10. But a deferment of the execution of the subpoena to January 10 might render a resolution in our favor moot. So, until the motion is resolved or we might file before that, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may file before that and then the Court will have to act accordingly.

REP. GONZALES. Yes, Your Honor, because these documents may be needed when we present our first witness in Article III.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s why. There’s still a little time yet for Article III. We have to finish Articles I and II.

REP. GONZALES. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you still have plenty of time.

REP. GONZALES. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. We have a witness here in the person of Atty. Ferdinand Sales, the Officer in Charge, Corporate and Partnership Registration Division, Securities and Exchange Commission. May I pray that the said person be directed to appear before this Court on Monday at two o’clock in the afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is he?

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Sales.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other witness?

REP. APOSTOL. He is the only one.

May I be allowed to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. As a member of the Court, can I ask if these are public documents that this gentleman is bringing?

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

SEN. ROCO. No. Yeah. Just from counsel. Can we ask. Is he an employee of the SEC and he is being brought here to bring official documents, is this correct?

REP. APOSTOL. Are you bringing official documents here?

MR. SALES. (Nodding).

REP. APOSTOL. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Official documents from the SEC.

SEN. ROCO. So, maybe, Mr. Chief Justice, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. … it can be if everybody will agree…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is only a testificandum, duces tecum, then you can probably just get certified true copies of the documents.

SEN. ROCO. And then, we can take judicial notice of the matter…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah.

SEN. ROCO. … if it is acceptable to all. Why, we cannot do anything about that. That’s an official document, anyway.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, we have no more time. Perhaps you can come back on Monday.

SEN. ROCO. No. That’s what I’m saying, that we can dispense with him.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime, you can have the certified true copies of the documents. And perhaps, by Monday, you would simply produce the documents, without the witness being compelled to come back on Monday. But if it is wish of the prosecution that he should come back, then we will advise him accordingly.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, we would request that he be asked to come back on Monday together with the documents which he will bring.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Fernando…

REP. APOSTOL. Sales.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sales, you are hereby directed to come back on Monday at 2 o’clock in the afternoon and to bring with you the documents covered by the subpoena duces tecum issued to you. Thank you.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honors, yesterday, Atty. Emilia Padua replied in an affirmative response to a query by Honorable Senator-Judge Revilla on whether Governor Singson wanted the operation of Bingo-2 balls in four provinces in Luzon and that Governor Singson wanted jueteng in these areas. The records will show that Mrs. Padua never talked to Governor Singson and that she is ignorant of the reason why Governor Singson made this expose against President Estrada.

More importantly, nowhere in the record did Governor Singson testify.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, are you testifying on that particular fact or you are only manifesting?

REP. APOSTOL. I’m making a manifestation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, the Chair would rule that that manifestation, being an observation or a comment on the testimony of the witness, would be improper at this stage.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, actually, I’m making a manifestation because this is actually a question asked by a Senator-Judge and I cannot just…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, the proper time for that would be somewhere in time, not now.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. I completely agree with what the Chief Justice has said, but only because Atty. Mendoza once was allowed to make manifestation. And he himself said it doesn’t matter. Let’s also listen to what he has to manifest so long as it is brief. Anyway, it doesn’t matter but pagbigyan na ho natin.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it will not really matter, you could do it on Monday. So perhaps it may matter. It may matter on Monday.

REP. APOSTOL. Then, whatever the pleasure of Mr. Chief Justice, I may be amenable to it. So Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, thank you very much. You may reassess your position on that taking into account the observation already of the Presiding Officer on the matter.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we adjourn, just two small items. Yesterday, the Court ordered witness Emily Padua of Pagcor to return today and turn over some documents to the Court. Perhaps we can ask the Secretary of the Senate to inform us whether this order had been complied with.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. During the break sometime this afternoon with the Senate President making the suggestion, the witness brought only documents which were not certified. And since these documents were brought here upon the request of the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco, the latter wanted certified true copies of the documents. So Atty. Emily Padua was directed to leave the uncertified documents with the clerk or the Secretary for a preliminary study by the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco, and for her, Atty. Padua, to come back on Monday to bring certified copies of the documents.

So, Atty. Barbo, do you have these documents with you?

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor. I have it here now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly turn them over to the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Very gladly, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. This one is for Senator Serge Osmena, the feasibility study.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Also.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. One small item, Mr. Chief Justice, before we adjourn, I move that we approve the Journal of the Court of Wednesday, January 3, 2001 which was circulated earlier among the members.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection to the motion for the approval of the minutes of January 3…

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Three.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Three. There being none, the motion is approved. The Journal of the proceedings of the Court, 3 January 2001, is approved.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Well, I move that this impeachment trial stand in adjournment until two o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, January 8, 2001.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? There being none, the impeachment trial shall stand adjourned until two o’clock of Monday, January 8, 2001.

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:16 P.M.