Estrada Impeachment December 8, 2000 Transcript

December 8, 2000

At 2:02 p.m., the Honorable Chief Justice, Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Presiding Officer, called the resumption of the impeachment trial to order.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS (MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ). Please all rise. I announce the arrival of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

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

We will be led in prayer by the Honorable Senator-Judge Raul Roco.

PRAYER

SEN. ROCO. Lord, as we walk down this impeachment road, please lead us to cool waters and bright sunshine.

Remind us that all public officers, not just the President or the Vice President but all of us, public officers and employees, must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives. That these duties are constant and continuing even when we cannot be seen on TV or heard on radio or watched by assemblies of our people petitioning for redress of their grievances.

Remind us, Lord, as senators that while we differ in training, education, profession or avocation, we all have the same duty to diligently study the issues, reflect on the public will and heed the voice of our conscience.

O Lord, whatever be the end of this trial, bless the Filipino people with the gift of cleansing. Help our people build a just and humane society, not just for friends but for all. Then help us establish a government that promotes the common good and not private benefit nor partisan goals.

All these, we ask in your name O Lord.

Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms shall make the proclamation.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The secretary will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

THE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO BARBO). In the matter of Impeachment Against His Excellency, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001 2000 for Bribery, Graft and Corrupt Practices, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). The Chief Justice, may I request that the parties to this impeachment trial be directed to enter their appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Parties are directed to enter their appearance.

REP. APOSTOL. For the prosecutors, Mr. Chief Justice and Your Honors, the same appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the defense.

MR. DAZA. Your Honor, for the defense, the same appearances as yesterday. In addition to the lawyers who have appeared yesterday, Atty. Sigfrid Fortun, will also appear for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the Majority Leader, before the trial proper, the Chair would like to make these rulings on some pleadings to make official record the preliminary conference order with the change of the date thereon which was inadvertently stated as 7 December. It should be 6 December.

Second, to note the reactions to recommendations to ensure speedy and orderly trial filed by the Honorable Senator-Judge Raul S. Roco on 4 December 2000, to note the comments to recommendation to ensure speedy and orderly trial filed by the Honorable Senator Judge Loren Legarda Leviste on 6 December.

And finally, to deny with finality the motion for reconsideration to the Presiding Officer’s ruling denying the movants motion to file intervention pleadings and an opposition to the entry of appearances of the House of Representatives Prosecution Panel and the legal counsels representing the Philippine President filed on December 4, 2000 by Atty. Malabanan.

Basic issues having been passed and no new substantial arguments having been raised, the denial, as I said, would be final. No further pleadings on the matter shall be entertained.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we’re ready to resume the presentation of witnesses. Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte was on the witness stand when we suspended. The prosecution may wish to call her back at this time under the same oath or call another witness if they so please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about the first witness, General Lastimoso?

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, our witness was General Lastimoso. It’s for redirect examination. The only reason why witness Yolanda Ricaforte was put on the witness stand is merely on the production of the document per our request that the document which we requested should be deposited with the secretary general of this chamber.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But she is ready.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the first witness is also ready?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will first terminate with the testimony of the first witness. Call back to the witness stand General Lastimoso.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, before we call our witness, may we announce now our witnesses to comply with our agreement.

The following are the witnesses for the prosecution on Article I Yolanda Ricaforte, Anton D. Prieto, Emma Lim, Menchu Itchon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the name again, please?

REP. APOSTOL. Menchu Itchon, Betty Bagsit, Wilfredo Vergara, Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Raul de Guzman, Edward Serapio, George Go, Danilo Reyes, Mila Reforma, the custodians/persons in charge of ABS CBN, DZRH and other radio and TV stations who can identify and authenticate recordings of President Estrada’s interview. Governor Luis C. Singson, probably Senator John Osmeña and Senator Tessie Aquino Oreta and others.

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

We are now ready with our first witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about the others? You cannot mention the names of the others?

REP. APOSTOL. Well, anyway, we have three days to submit to this body the names of the witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. So, you can now proceed with the first witness for the redirect examination unless there are other further questions for cross.

REP. LIBARIOS. Before we call on our witness, Mr. Chief Justice, the defense, yesterday, committed to present to this body an original copy of an alleged memorandum issued by our witness, Gen. Lastimoso.

May I inquire from the defense if the said document is now available?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun, are you ready to respond?

MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, we have certified machine copy of the same document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show it to Prosecutor Libarios.

MR. FORTUN. For the record, Your Honor, we are present¬ing to Prosecutor Libarios a certified xerox copy of a memorandum from the witness dated July 27, 1998. The document which the prosecution had marked I’m sorry which the defense had marked yesterday as our Exhibit “2″ and a letter dated August 3, 1998 from the witness ad¬dressed to President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, through Acting Chairman of the National Police Commission, Ronaldo Puno, in respect of his compliance with the verbal instruction of the President on the matter of eradicating illegal gambling all over the country, including jueteng.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you not be marking the certified true copy since you marked yesterday as Exhibit “2″ a plain copy so we can have an orderly proceeding?

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor, we are, in addition, going to distribute to the Honorable Senator Judges copies of the materials which we had requested to be certified today. We ask, Your Honor, that the certified copy of the July 31st 1998 Memorandum of the witness, in respect to his compliance with the verbal instruction of President Estrada to eradicate jueteng and other illegal gambling activities throughout the country, be substituted with the Exhibit “2″ which we had marked yesterday, and in addition the July 27, 1998 Memoranda from the PNP Director for Operations, Police Chief Superintendent Miguel G. Coronel, be marked as our Exhibit “3″ and that the letter of the witness to President Estrada dated August 3, 1998, on the same matter, be marked as our Exhibit “4″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let them be so marked according¬ly.

You will now have two Exhibits “2″.

MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice, we are asking for the substitution of the plain copy which we marked yesterday with a certified copy which we have on hand today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the first, the one marked yesterday is considered withdrawn?

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor. And we request that the substitution include the submarkings as well.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so done.

The secretary of the Impeachment Court is requested to do the marking or anyone in his stead.

Where is the witness now?

REP. LIBARIOS. The prosecution is now calling to the witness stand General Roberto Lastimoso.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the witness be produced back to the witness stand.

Where is General Lastimoso? You can take the witness stand now, General Lastimoso. You are advised that you are still under the same oath.

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Honorable Libarios, you may now proceed.

REP. LIBARIOS. With the kind permission of this Honorable Impeachment Court.

MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice, please, with the permission of…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what’s the pleasure of Atty. Fortun?

MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, in light of the materials that we had marked this afternoon, may I just request that I be allowed to ask a few questions to enable the witness to identify them as well.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only for the new documents…

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor, only for that isolated purpose.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …this afternoon.?

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted.

MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor.

May I also inform the senator-judges that we had inadvertently machine-copied a document which excludes the letter of the witness to the President, which is dated August 3. What you have with you, Your Honors, is only the memorandum of July 27.

We will now ask one of our staff to reproduce Exhibit “4,” which is the letter of the witness to the President dated August 3, 1998, for the senator-judges’ consumption. May I be allowed to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Honorable Judges, Exhibit “3″ will be the letter dated 27 July 1998, a memorandum, ano.

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then Exhibit “4″ is the letter of the witness dated 3 August 1998.

MR. FORTUN. To the President, Joseph Ejercito…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. 1998?

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.

May I be allowed to proceed, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.

MR. FORTUN. General Lastimoso, I had marked this afternoon Exhibit “3″ which is a memoranda dated July 27, 1998 ostensibly issued by a certain Miguel G. Coronel, Police Chief Superintendent, on the matter of continuing conduct of illegal gambling all over the country, as well as another letter ostensibly made by a certain Roberto Lastimoso, Police Director, Acting Chief, PNP, dated August 3, 1998 addressed to President Joseph E. Estrada.

I ask you, sir, if you could take a look at this document which I will now hand to you and tell us whether you can identify the existence of this document, sir, particularly Exhibits “3″ and “4”.

(At this juncture Mr. Lastimoso examined the documents).

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any further question, Atty. Fortun?

MR. FORTUN. I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the answer of the witness? We were not able to hear the answer.

MR. FORTUN. Okay. Perhaps I will just ask the witness again, Mr. Chief Justice.

Will you tell us whether you recognize these documents which I’ve just shown you?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I do.

MR. FORTUN. You recognize the signature of Miguel G. Coronel, Police Chief Superintendent?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I recognize.

MR. FORTUN. Why do you know that this is his signature?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Because he is the chief of operations during my time and he sends report to me.

MR. FORTUN. In respect of the August 3, 1998 letter, Exhibit “4″, will you tell us whether you recognize the signature above the printed name of Roberto Lastimoso?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I recognize that.

MR. FORTUN. Will you tell us whose signature that is, sir?

MR. LASTIMOSO. That’s my signature.

MR. FORTUN. Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Redirect?

REP. LIBARIOS. With the kind permission of the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, on cross examination yesterday, the defense presented to you a copy of an alleged memorandum which you issued, the subject matter of which is “The Continuing Conduct of Illegal Gambling All Over the Country” which you allegedly called for a rackdown on illegal gambling.

I am presenting to you a certified copy of this memorandum. I’m asking you now to kindly examine this document and inform us if you issued that document.

MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I issued this document.

REP. LIBARIOS. Can you recall when did you issue that particular document?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the document not dated?

REP. LIBARIOS. It is dated, Your Honor.

MR. LASTIMOSO. As dated, July 31, 1998.

REP. LIBARIOS. Yesterday, General Lastimoso, you also testified that you were called by the President to a meeting in Malacañang. And during that meeting Governor Singson was present. And let me quote from particularly Page 108 of the transcript in yesterday’s proceedings.

“Ang sabi po ni Presidente sa akin, “Oh, kilala mo naman si Gov. Singson.” And I said, “Yes, sir, I know him already.” “Oh, tulungan mo siya, siya ang mamahala ngayon sa jueteng dito sa Luzon. Tulungan mo siya at mag coordinate kayong dalawa.”

Now my question is, which came first, the issuance of your memorandum against jueteng operations or the instruction given to you by the President in Malacañang in connection with jueteng operations?

MR. MENDOZA. All right, Your Honors please, before the witness answers, may we recall that the witness clarified that statement on cross examination so that if the premise of the question is earlier statement, that would be an inappropriate premise.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We could hardly hear you, can you use the…

MR. MENDOZA. Your Honors please, I recall that on cross examination, the witness clarified that answer on direct examination. And so if the question now is predicated solely on his answer on direct examination, that would be an inappropriate premise for the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection seems to be in order. You have to lay the basis.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the manifestation, Your Honor, is a little bit misleading. The transcript, particularly Page 125 of the testimony of General Lastimoso during the cross examination, particularly referred to discussion on jueteng, Your Honor. In fact, there was a question asked by the counsel for the defense, “And you presumed, therefore, that it was a matter relating to jueteng.”

The answer of General Lastimoso as found under Page 125, “It was… We were talking about jueteng.” So the answer on cross examination, Your Honor, of the witness did not in any manner diminish the answer he made on direct examination. So the manifestation, Your Honor, is not in order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the objection to mean that there was no proper basis for that question. If it is to confront the witness at a testimony in cross examination probably inconsistent with the testimony on direct examination, then the proper basis should first be laid.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor, please, with all due respect, we have laid the proper foundation. We presented first the witness with a copy of the memorandum. Then secondly, we confronted the witness with a testimony on direct examination. And what we’re asking the witness now is, which of the two incidents came first? The second incident was brought out, Your Honor, on cross examination. So with all due respect, Your Honor, we feel that this can be a proper subject of the redirect examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just to avoid further argument, are you referring to be the inconsistent statement, the statement on Page 125?

REP. LIBARIOS. No, there is no inconsistent statement, Your Honor. As I have pointed out, the first question referred to the issuance of an alleged memorandum by our witness dated July 31, 1998. Our next question to our witness refers now to the testimony on his direct examination where he mentioned that he had a meeting with the President. Now, what we are trying to clarify, Your Honor, is only the date. Which came first, the alleged issuance of a memorandum by him to crack down on jueteng, or the instruction given by the President to him in Malacañang?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As now clarified, Mr. Defense Witness, the objection is overruled. The witness may answer.

REP. LIBARIOS. So, Mr. Witness, which came first, the issuance of your memorandum directing a campaign against jueteng, or the meeting in Malacañang where the President instructed you to help and coordinate with Governor Singson in the jueteng operations?

MR. LASTIMOSO. The memorandum came first, this is July 31.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not yet very clear in the record what document is that and what is the exhibit number.

REP. LIBARIOS. The memorandum, Your Honor, refers to Exhibit “2″ for the defense and we are also adopting, Your Honor, the same memorandum as part of the evidence for the prosecution as Exhibit “D”, Your Honor, Exhibit “D”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mark Exhibit “2″ as Exhibit “D”, as a common exhibit.

REP. LIBARIOS. This refers to a memorandum allegedly issued by or issued actually by witness Roberto Lastimoso addressed to PNP officers to conduct a campaign against illegal gambling.

May I now proceed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

REP. LIBARIOS. In the meantime, we just reserve the marking.

Mr. Witness, earlier, the defense presented to you another document dated August 3, 1998. And for clarity, this document is the same document marked by the defense as Exhibit “4”. This document allegedly refers to a letter which you sent to the President and reporting to him your continuous anti-illegal gambling operations nationwide. And you made a report of your initial accomplishments on illegal gambling drive?

I am, once again, presenting to you, Mr. Witness, Gen. Lastimoso, the said document and would you kindly tell us which came first, this document showing that you reported to the President your accomplishments on illegal gambling and the meeting with the President wherein he instructed you to coordinate and help Governor Singson in the illegal gambling operations.

MR. LASTIMOSO. This letter was ahead of the meeting that took place in Malacañang.

REP. LIBARIOS. May we then request, Mr. Chief Justice, that as stated earlier, this document dated July 31, 1998 be marked as Exhibit “D”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exhibit “E”.

REP. LIBARIOS. “D”, Your Honor, because earlier, I just…. “D”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “D”. What about your original Exhibit “D” which is Exhibit “2”?

REP. LIBARIOS. This is the one, Your Honor, because we just reserved the proper marking after the testimony of the witness in connection with the second document.

And the date July 31, 1998 be marked as “D-1”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the marking be done.

REP. LIBARIOS. We further request, Mr. Chief Justice, that this document, marked as Exhibit “4” by the defense, be likewise marked as Exhibit “E” for the prosecution, and the date, August 3, 1998 be marked as Exhibit “E-1”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let them be marked accordingly as Exhibits “E” and “E-1”.

REP. LIBARIOS. That is all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No recross?

Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, just a request for documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. The exhibits, I don’t know how they are numbered, do refer to a memorandum of April 5.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. I think this is….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s the memorandum of 31 July 1998.

SEN. ROCO. But July 27, it is dated.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, 27. Twenty-seven?

SEN. ROCO. They refer to annexes-Annexes “C”, “D”, “A”, and “B” under number 3.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The July 27 document is Exhibit “3”.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Exhibit “3” has a reference to memorandum of April 5, 1998, Annex “C”; then a memorandum from SILG, March 19, 1998, Annex “D”. And then, on number 3 of the memorandum, it says: “IT- CON-DO(?) prepared for PJEE through acting chairman, Napolcom, Annexes “A” and “B”.” If counsel may have these annexes, just for my appreciation, Mr. Chief Justice, I will appreciate copies of them. Because since they are part, they’re referred to by the exhibit, I guess we may be entitled — for those who are interested, they may be entitled to the annexes. Yes, the memo …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. Only because the first two dates, Mr. Chief Justice, he was not yet president. Then Number 3 refers to the time when President Estrada was already president. So if they’re available, I’ll appreciate getting a copy; if not, I’ll wait for it for Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any response from the counsels?

MR. MENDOZA. I was going to ask permission whether… The rules are not quite clear whether I may recross or it should be Atty. Fortun also, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The rules were very clear – only one will …

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, I will try, but although the rules only speak of direct and cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So recross should still be Atty. Fortun, if there is any.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, yes, Your Honor, Atty. Fortun will …

SEN. ROCO. Just in reference to my request of documents, Mr. Chief Justice …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. … just the request for documents if I can just have an answer on my request for documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still a pending query. Who will respond to the query?

SEN. ROCO. Whoever, whoever.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun.

SEN. ROCO. It’s a document of the defense.

MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. No, I just requested for documents because they do refer to annexes. I just would appreciate copies since they are referred to by the document, I guess when you present one part, you must present all other copies. I just would want copies of Annex “A”. I see Senator- Judge Enrile, also nodding his head. The Annex “C” of July 27, the Annex “D” of July 27 and under your Number 3, the Annexes “A” and “B”, referring to the letters to President Estrada.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have now these annexes?

MR. FORTUN. We do not have them this afternoon, Your Honor, but we will exert best efforts to produce them on Monday.

SEN. ROCO. Monday, fine, fine, so long as the witness will still be available then, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, considering that there are annexes to the documents promised to be brought on Monday, the witness is directed to come back on Monday for some additional questions on the basis of the annexes.

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

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, the Honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. I would like to ask a clarificatory question to the witness.

May I refer to the transcript on Page 125 where, Mr. Witness, this is your answer to Mr. Fortun’s question.

“Lastimoso. The word he said, was: ‘Tulungan at mag-coordinate kayong dalawa.’

Mr. Fortun. I see. And that was all that he had said?

Mr. Lastimoso. Yes.

Mr. Fortun. And you presumed therefore that it was a matter relating to jueteng?

Mr. Lastimoso. It was … We were talking about jueteng.”

My question, Mr. Lastimoso. Noong sinabi mong “We”, sino ‘yon? Sino kami iyong “we”?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Tatlo po kami doon sa loob. Si Presidente, si Governor Singson at saka ako. Kami pong tatlo iyong “we”.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, noong sinabi mong “we were talking about jueteng,” you were talking about the President, Mr. Singson and yourself?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Tatlo po kaming nag-uusap, Mr. Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO. Kayong tatlo?

MR. LASTIMOSO. Kami hong tatlo.

SEN. CAYETANO. Salamat ho.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No other questions from the senators-judges? There being none, as subject to the reservation, the witness is excused.

MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, may I be allowed to conduct recross examination on this witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Recross? Yes, you may proceed for the recross.

MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, in light of the need for us to examine Annex “C” as requested by Senator-Judge Roco and Annex “D” of our Exhibit “3” which we undertook to produce by Monday, may we defer our recross examination for Monday as well?

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor, please. We would like to register our partial objection to the request for postponement of the recross examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ground.

REP. LIBARIOS. We feel, Your Honor, that they have already submitted the two documents or three documents, so if they have questions on the redirect pertaining to these documents which are already available, then they should proceed with the recross examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will cross the bridge when we come to the matter upon the submission of the annexes.

REP. LIBARIOS. Okay. That’s all.

MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. LIBARIOS. In the meantime, Your Honor, we also request that we be furnished with copies of the documents requested by Senator Roco.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Fortun is directed to do so.

MR. FORTUN. We will comply, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the witness is excused for the moment.

MR. LASTIMOSO. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But you have to return at two o’clock in the afternoon of Monday.

Next witness.

REP. APOSTOL. May we call Anton Prieto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about Ricaforte?

REP. APOSTOL. Later, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later. But she is available?

REP. APOSTOL. I have not checked if she’s around.

But I think hopefully, she is available.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call Anton Prieto.

REP. APOSTOL. She is available, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She is. So you don’t intend to have her since she started yesterday already, so you will have an orderly record for the proceedings?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We just called her for purposes of identifying the documents which we requested and to be left with the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. What was issued was a subpoena duces tecum and testificandum.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We requested for a subpoena duces tecum, and witness Ricaforte was called only to the witness stand for purposes of identifying the documents which we requested, because we requested this body that those documents be left with this body. So we were not really, Your Honor, on starting with the direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now produce Anton Prieto.

Take the witness stand.

The secretary of the Impeachment Court shall now administer the oath on the witness.

THE SECRETARY. Do you, Anton Prieto, swear that the evidence you shall give in this case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. PRIETO. I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat.

And qualify the witness, Honorable Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, will you please state your name?

MR. PRIETO. I am Antonio D. Prieto. Ako po ay tubong Quezon. Ipinanganak po sa Lungsod ng Naga. Lumaki sa Lungsod ng Naga. Ako po ay nagtapos ng kolehiyo sa Lungsod ng Naga. Ako po ngayon ay nanunungkulan bilang Presidential Assistant for Bicol Affairs, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Are you of legal age?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor, I am.

REP. APOSTOL. Your exact address?

MR. PRIETO. I am residing, Your Honor, at Concepcion Pequeña, City of Naga.

REP. APOSTOL. They have no number of…

MR. PRIETO. No number. It’s only Zone 1, Your Honor. No number, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Are you married?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor, I am.

REP. APOSTOL. We are offering this witness, Your Honor, to prove that Anton Prieto, this witness, on various occasions gave various amounts to Governor Singson as protection money from jueteng operations.

We are also offering this witness to prove that said amounts given by Anton Prieto to Governor Singson were intended as protection money for President Estrada. He is also offering to prove that President Estrada is guilty of bribery, violation of P.D. 46 and other related laws.

We are offering this witness to prove such other facts relevant and material to the allegations constituting the grounds for impeachment. Further, we’ll try to qualify that this witness is a hostile witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As to the further qualification, the court cannot yet admit that, not until in the course of the proceeding, in the course of the testimony, it will be established that indeed the witness is a hostile witness.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

You stated a while ago that you are a presidential assistant for Bicol Affairs, Mr. Prieto?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Who appointed you?

MR. PRIETO. His Excellency, President Joseph Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Do you remember when you were appointed?

MR. PRIETO. It was on July 1, 1998, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. His Excellency, President Estrada is the same President Estrada which is now the subject of an impeachment proceeding before this body?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Honor Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Witness, on October 21, 2000 before the Senate hearings in aid of legislation in the so called Blue Ribbon Committee, you testified among other things:

“Q How long have you known the President?

“A Mula po, Your Honor, nuong siya po ay Senador, Your Honor.”

You affirm this statement that you know …

MR. PRIETO. Totoo po, iyun, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Again, On the same hearing on 21 October 2000, before the Blue Ribbon Committee of this body, you stated and testified among other things:

“Q But you are a supporter of Erap Estrada?

A Yes, Your Honor.”

You affirm that statement?

MR. PRIETO. I affirm, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. May I request that the witness be advised not to answer immediately and to give us an opportunity to object, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness should take note of the observation of counsel, he being himself a lawyer.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, sir.

REP. APOSTOL. During the Senate hearings prior to these impeachment proceedings, you were also implicated in receiving a portion of the proceeds coming from illegal numbers game known as jueteng, were you not?

MR. PRIETO. I beg your pardon?

REP. APOSTOL. Were you implicated in that Senate hearing as being involved in jueteng?

MR. MENDOZA. We object. The question is leading.

REP. APOSTOL. I’m just referring to a Senate hearing, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, precisely.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Referring to what?

REP. APOSTOL. A Senate hearing conducted by this body, the Blue Ribbon Committee, and I am just referring to it. How can that be leading? But anyway, I will reform to satisfy counsel for the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please reform.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, during the Senate hearings, prior to these impeachment proceedings, you were implicated in receiving a portion of the proceeds coming from jueteng, were you not?

MR. MENDOZA. Compañero, you would refer, that is not even … I should not be raising any objection in behalf of the witness, but the witness is being asked to respond to a conclusion that is drawn by counsel from the records of the Senate hearing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is a lawyer, he should know how to answer the question.

MR. PRIETO. I’m not a lawyer, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, you are not a lawyer.

MR. PRIETO. I am not, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought you were a lawyer.

MR. PRIETO. No, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. He is a presidential assistant, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But anyway, can you understand the question?

MR. PRIETO. Can I again hear the question, Your Honor?

REP. APOSTOL. During the Senate hearing, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing, you were implicated as having received jueteng money, were you not?

MR. PRIETO. I was included by Governor Singson, that’s true, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. And what was your answer?

MR. PRIETO. My answer is, I totally denied all the allegations, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, during the same Blue Ribbon Committee hearing, a ledger or a listing or listahan ng mga tumatanggap ng jueteng was presented and there was the name there “Anton” as testified to by Governor Singson. Is it not that you are the same “Anton” as testified to by Governor Singson in that ledger?

MR. PRIETO. Can I answer it?

MR. MENDOZA. Go ahead.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Answer it.

VOICE. Answer.

MR. PRIETO. According to Governor Singson, Your Honor, he was clearly stating the name “Anton” as Anton D. Prieto. He also informed, mentioned about my position. According to him, he is referring to me, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. You also testified before that Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on 21 October 2000, and you testified among other things:

SEN. GUINGONA. Ikaw ba ay involved in any way sa jueteng operations?

MR. PRIETO. Hindi po, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Hindi ka involved?

MR. PRIETO. Hindi po, Your Honor.”

SEN. GUINGONA. Kahit sa Bicol, hindi ka involved?

MR. PRIETO. Hindi po, Your Honor.”

Do you affirm this statement?

MR. MENDOZA. We object, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the ground?

MR. MENDOZA. It’s leading, Your Honor. The witness is being read questions and answers previously asked and he is just asked to confirm them. There cannot be any more leading question than that.

REP. APOSTOL. What leading question, Your Honor?

MR. MENDOZA. Kasi he’s not supposed to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled but not probably for the ground that it is leading.

REP. APOSTOL. Overruled.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled, overruled.

MR. MENDOZA. A witness is supposed to answer …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But for an orderly proceeding, may we suggest to Prosecutor Apostol that, for the benefit of the judges here, since you are confronting the witness of an alleged transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings in that committee, that the transcript should be produced so we’ll also be able to know how to resolve or determine more accurately, objections.

(Senator Enrile was raising his hand.)

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor…

MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator Judge Enrile…

MR. MENDOZA. Sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … with the permission of counsel for the defense.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, the tendency of the question is to impugn or impeach the witness. Is the witness already declared an unwilling witness or a hostile witness, or a witness who is an adverse party? There has been no indication yet that the witness qualifies as a hostile witness or an unwilling witness or an adverse party witness. And the tendency of the questions are all in the form of crossing actually the witness, confronting the witness with documents. I think it’s improper as far as the rules of evidence are concerned.

REP. APOSTOL. May I be allowed to answer? I am laying the predicate to declare this witness as a hostile witness. Without that, how can I declare this witness request for declaration of this witness as a hostile witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is why nobody can prevent the declaration of witness as a hostile witness and the court will make the necessary ruling. But you should first lay the appropriate predicate or basis therefor.

REP. APOSTOL. That’s it, Your Honor. That is what I am doing. Now, that will be our last question before we make the manifestation.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. May I first recognize Senator Enrile to finish his manifestation, if any.

MR. MENDOZA. Sorry.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to read Section 12 of Rule 132, “Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs D and E of Section 10, the party producing a witness …” the prosecution in this case, “… is not allowed to impeach his credibility,” the credibility of the witnesss. “A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest and justified reluctance to testify or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.” I don’t think this witness misled the prosecution in calling him to the witness stand, neither is he unjustifiably reluctant to testify. In fact, he answers questions with alacrity and there is no indication that he is an adverse witness. And so, there has been no declaration by the court yet that he is an unwilling or hostile witness and, therefore, leading questions or questions in the form of impugning the credibility of this witness is not proper. And I think, as a judge, I would not accept this kind of this line of examination.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, what I am trying to do is lay the foundation of the predicate to declare this witness as an adverse witness. And I am just saying and asking him to affirm his testimony before this honorable body, the committee or the Blue Ribbon Committee.

SEN. ENRILE. Then, Mr. Chief Justice, I must respectfully state that the gentleman, the prosecution, is not laying the predicate. There are ways to establish whether a witness is indeed an unwilling witness or a hostile witness and I think the question has not done that. Any lawyer trained in trial would know that the predicate has not been laid.

REP. APOSTOL. May I answer again?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Lay the proper predicate.

REP. APOSTOL. That is what I am doing, Your Honor, trying to lay the predicate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an earlier observation by the Chair that if you have to go into the proceedings before a committee of the Senate, it would be appropriate that the members of the Impeachment Tribunal should be given a copy of the transcript. So, as you go along, each one in the Impeachment Court will be in a position to find out whether the reading has been accurate or not.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have the transcript of the stenographic notes of the testimony of the witness?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, I have it here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you be willing to have it reproduced and distributed to the judges before you move any further?

REP. APOSTOL. Of course, Your Honor. This is actually the records of this body.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The interest of the Chair is only for a more orderly and proper proceeding.

So…

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?

MR. MENDOZA. I hope you will forgive my persistence, but we are just starting and perhaps, the manner questions are raised is going to be a precedent for future witnesses also.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If a…

MR. MENDOZA. I’m sorry, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator.

SEN. ENRILE. As far as this judge is concerned, there has been no indication that the witness is an unwilling witness. He has been answering questions. In fact, he was called to the witness stand by the prosecution. He has answered questions responsively and with alacrity. He has denied the questions of the witness. The hostility of the witness is not shown yet. His unwillingness to testify has not been shown yet and definitely, he is not an adverse party. So therefore, posing questions to him in the form of cross-examination which are leading questions, would be entirely improper under the rules.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you request for a suspension of…?

MR. MENDOZA. May I just continue with what I was going to say?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, if direct examination will be conducted in the manner the prosecution has started to do so, all the questions would be leading. Because what the prosecution does is, he reads from the questions propounded in the Blue Ribbon Committee and then reads the answer of the witness and simply ask the witness whether he confirms the truth of that answer. That is a very leading question, if Your Honor, please.

Now, if the question is propounded only to determine whether he really made that statement, but not the truth of that statement, then maybe it can be allowed but that would be a waste of time. The rule, if Your Honor please, that when direct examination is conducted, and for that matter cross examination, it must be by question and answer. In the same way that that rule is evaded by presenting an affidavit, and so would it be if you simply read from the transcript and then read the answer and ask the witness to confirm. It would be a very leading question. Why should not counsel ask the same question and then let the witness answer? Otherwise, this would mean simply a reproduction of the questions and answers in the Blue Ribbon Committee and we would all be just looking at the transcript.

So, if Your Honors please, I beg to raise an objection to questions such as these on the ground that they are leading questions.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ENRILE. May I just… just to finish this point, Section 10 says, “A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party…” the prosecution in this case, “desires is a leading question.” It is not allowed except on cross examination, and you cannot cross/examine a witness presented by the presenting party on direct examination except on preliminary matters. So surely the questions of the distinguished prosecutor are not on preliminary matters. And then when there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf mute, surely the witness is not all of these things. How can we now allow leading questions in the form of cross examination from this witness when that witness is the witness of the prosecution and there’s no showing that he is an unwilling witness or a hostile witness, or an adverse party witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The position taken by the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile is well taken. but we would like to hear from the majority leader, in the meantime.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask for a few minute-suspension?

SEN. ROCO. Before that,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. …so that we can occupy the time while we are on break.

Mr. Chief Justice, at the preliminary conference I precisely called attention to the possibility of judicial notice insofar as the records of the Senate are concerned. Because then it need not be proven, and we don’t even have to reproduce it. I am just trying to facilitate and hasten the procedure, Mr. President. If we must get the records, we should be able to have judicial notice over our own records. It is our records. And then, let’s give him one copy and everybody a copy so that during the break we can then produce the copies and if all the parties will accept the possibility of judicial notice just as to the existence of the record, I am not referring to the content.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, before, the majority leader…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, excuse me, ha. Let the Honorable Senator Roco finish first.

SEN. ROCO. Yeah. That is all, Mr. Chief Justice. I am just calling attention to the possibility of hastening. We are just acknowledging that these are official records. As to whether they are admissible, as to whether the contents are reliable is up to the debate of the counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the message that the Chair wanted to telegraph, actually.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So there is a pending motion now to suspend. We should…

REP. APOSTOL. Before the suspension, may I be allowed to answer?

MR. DAZA. Your Honor, before the suspension, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Defensor Santiago?

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. President, I think it might be profitable if we drew a distinction between what is an adverse witness and what is a hostile witness. I will have to read from the book Trial Techniques, Fifth Edition by Professor Mauet which was published in 2000.

“An adverse witness is any witness who because of his position as a party or because he has special relationships to a party, will be presumed to give testimony detrimental to the other party. When you do call a witness that is adverse, you have a witness outside of your control. Because of this, you are per`mitted to examine the witness as if on cross-examination so you can control the witness by leading him.”

And then Professor Mauet tells us what is a hostile witness in contradistinction to an adverse witness.

“A hostile witness is one who surprises you and unexpectedly turns against you during his testimony at trial. When a witness becomes hostile, the same rules as those on adverse witnesses apply. You may examine that witness as if on cross-examination since leading questions are necessary to develop the witnesses’ testimony”. Unless there is a question on whether this witness is either an adverse witness or hostile witness; whether he occupies either status, counsel would be justified in posing leading questions to him. And, in any event, considering the short period of time that this witness has been testifying, leading questions could still be justifiable on the ground that they are preliminary.

I believe on this basis, it may not be necessary to go into recess.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Let’s go back to the question.

REP. APOSTOL. So, may I be allowed now to answer? I’ll just adopt the statement of the honorable senator. That I am always right in trying to prove that this witness is a hostile witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a motion to suspend. The Chair declares a suspension of the trial for 10 minutes.

SUSPENSION

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:06 P.M.

AT 3:13 P.M, THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WAS RESUMED.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS…..Please all rise. I announce the arrival of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is resumed.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I extend the recess.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. May we extend the period of the recess because my colleagues are not here yet, I’ll call them. I’m the only one left here in the prosecution panel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

REP. ARROYO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will wait.

REP. ARROYO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Motu proprio, the Chair declares another five minutes suspension so you can talk informally.

(THE SESSION WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:16 P.M.)

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

AT 3:29 P.M., THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who was the last who had the floor? So, we will recognize the Honorable Senator Biazon.

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

It seems that if rulings are made and it is contested by any of the judges, we will go forever having to settle controversies.

Now, may I refer ourselves to Rule VI. I would call attention to the second paragraph. I probably would skip the first sentences because it is procedural in how to resolve an issue of differences in the opinions of the judges. But may I, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honor, refer to the last or the sentences, and I read:

“Upon all questions, the vote shall be taken in accordance with the standing rules of the Senate.”

And may I emphasize the last two sentences:

“The Rules of Court shall apply insofar as they are applicable.”

So, the Rules of Court is invoked only if they are applicable.

And the last sentence, Mr. Chief Justice, is:

“The rules of evidence and procedures shall be liberally construed.”

And I think that the Presiding Officer on the trial will have to really just to facilitate the rulings and render rulings and let anyone to contest that ruling in accordance with the procedure set forth under Rule VI of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment and Trial adopted by the Senate.

That’s all I want to say, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Meaning to say that the Rules of Court shall have suppletory effect. And we are exactly doing that at least up to this stage.

The Honorable Senator Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Just an inquiry, Mr. Chief Justice, on matter of procedure. And may I address myself to the counsel of both parties.

More specifically, Mr. Chief Justice, may in this instance it is the defense may the defense raise an objection to the question being propounded by the prosecution when the witness is not a witness of the defense? And, of course, vice versa. When time comes, you know, this matter may also be raised. So, I just want to find out.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, I think since the witness is not the witness of the defense, as of this stage, then, obviously, the direct examination was conducted by the other party…

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER….and, therefore, the former can interpose the necessary objection.

SEN. CAYETANO. And that will also be true in the reverse. If the defense….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Meaning to say, that the rules of procedure, insofar as they are really very, very important in maintaining order, must be followed.

A witness is presented by the proponent of the witness; the other party will cross examine…

SEN. CAYETANO. Even….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER….and necessarily can tender an objection to any question if founded if the objection is well founded.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you. I just want to make that procedure clear.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will follow the procedure in the presentation of witnesses then.

REP. APOSTOL. So, Your Honor, to allay unnecessary arguments, I will reform my question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, and you can proceed now with the reformed question.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you, Your Honor.

You testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on 21 October 2000, and as stated in the Transcript of the Stenographic Notes dated 21 October, 10:50, on pages eight to nine:

“SENATOR GUINGONA. Ikaw ba’y involved in any way sa jueteng operations? MR. PRIETO. Hindi po, Your Honor.” Is this the question and is this your answer?

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, that is a matter of record. He’s asking the witness only to confirm what is in the record and that is immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, again, for order, ‘no. Do you have a copy now of the transcript?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you not seeking for its marking?

REP. APOSTOL. I will, Your Honor, after…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. That is it because if you have to mark it first and then probably the question, you can already have enough basis for the succeeding questions. Because right now, even the Chair would be unable to follow through if the document is not yet marked in evidence.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you, Your Honor.

May I request now that the transcript of the stenographic notes of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon) and Committee on Justice and Human Rights, dated October 21, 2000, pages 7 and 8 be marked as Exhibits “F” and “F 1″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven and eight. Respectively…

REP. APOSTOL. Respectively. Page 7 be marked as Exhibit “F” and page 8 be marked as Exhibit “F 1″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let them be so marked.

You may now proceed.

MR. MENDOZA. What is the question?

REP. APOSTOL. May I repeat now my question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. During the Committee hearing of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on October 21, 2000 with the Committee on Justice, found in the transcript of the stenographic notes, pages 7 and 8, you testified among other things: “SENATOR GUINGONA. Ikaw ba’y involved in any way sa jueteng operations?

MR. PRIETO. Hindi po, Your Honor.” May I know if that question was asked during that Committee hearing and you gave that answer?

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, that is irrelevant. The best evidence is the transcript. Why is he asking the witness to confirm the transcript?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has to sustain the objection.

REP. APOSTOL. All right. May I now show this transcript of stenographic notes to the witness and tell this honorable court if this is the transcript of the stenographic notes during that Committee hearings?

MR. MENDOZA. But the witness is incompetent. The one who can identify the transcript is the stenographer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is premature. Overruled.

MR. MENDOZA. He did not prepare that transcript.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, will you please look at that stenographic notes marked as Exhibits “F” and “F 1″ and tell this honorable body whether these questions were asked and these answers were given by you?

MR. MENDOZA. I think the question is trying to impugn the integrity of the records of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, the objection is premature yet. The witness is still reading the document.

MR. PRIETO. Will I answer it, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now answer.

MR. PRIETO. This is true, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you mean by true?

MR. PRIETO. The statement made by the prosecution regarding the question asked by Judge Senator Guingona, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Another question.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, I have shown to this honorable body that this witness is the Presidential Assistant for Bicol Affairs, appointed by President Estrada. He has answered some questions before the Blue Ribbon Committee, showing his being adverse and showing his hostility.

May I request now, this witness, in accordance with Section 10, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, be declared as a witness showing his adverse interest.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your main purpose, of course, is to allow you later to ask leading questions?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. We object, Your Honor. If Your Honors please, under Section 12, Paragraph 3, and I quote second paragraph rather, “A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.”

First, he is not unwilling because he was subpoenaed and he has come.

Second: Is he hostile? The first possible basis of a witness being declared hostile is that he has an adverse interest. He has no adverse interest. An adverse interest means an interest adverse to the proceedings or to the interest of the government. The witness has no adverse interest.

And second, unjustified reluctance to testify. He was subpoenaed, he is here; and

Third, his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.

The prosecution precisely has read the transcript of the Blue Ribbon Committee where this witness has testified. How could the prosecution have been misled into asking him to testify? The prosecution knew or should have known of what the witness testified in the Blue Ribbon Committee. As a matter of fact, they have made the transcript as an exhibit. And so the prosecution knew what the witness was going to say. How can the prosecution now claim that the witness is hostile? Or that, I mean, that the witness — that the prosecution has been misled?

We object, if Your Honors please, to the motion to declare this witness a hostile witness.

REP. APOSTOL. May I answer, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. APOSTOL. In this connection, an unwilling or a hostile witness has been defined as “1) a witness who is unwilling to testify, reluctant, reticent, refactory, deceptive, evasive, hostile, adverse or otherwise unfriendly. A party who is thus called as a witness by his adversary is a necessary hostile witness. Further, a very slight unwillingness to answer coupled with a fact that the unwilling witness is a wife or child of the witness is also a hostile witness.” This is cited in Francisco Evidence, Second Edition, 1994.

The instant witness is a special presidential assistant; he is a confidential man of the President; nobody can be appointed as presidential assistant unless he is a very close man to the President. So, by necessity, he is actually an adverse witness.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honors please, if I may reply. Under the theory of the prosecutor, all, nearly all, everybody who has been appointed by the President would be a hostile witness. The assumption is that anyone who was appointed by the President after taking his oath of office becomes loyal, faithful only to the Republic. He takes an oath to the Republic. Then for that matter, if the prosecution will subpoena, let us say, a member of the Supreme Court who was appointed by President Estrada, immediately, he would be considered a hostile witness. I think that is an absurd assumption, if Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that up to this point, there is not enough basis to consider the witness as hostile unless you lay the proper predicate, for instance, indicating that he is in possession of certain facts which you believe are contrary to the testimony given. That may be, but until this time, we cannot.

REP. APOSTOL. May I request for reconsideration, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is denied. You can proceed to lay the proper basis.

MR. MENDOZA. I’m entirely amazed as the persistence of the prosecutor to ask leading questions. We can proceed more expeditiously if there are non-leading questions asked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Cannot the prosecution ask question which should not be questionable on being leading?

REP. ARROYO. May I beg permission to join not on the examination of the witness, but on this issue of hostile witness because, Mr. Chief Justice, this will be a recurring question in this proceeding. So, may I interject something because of the importance of the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may do so.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, Senator Santiago quoted the book, “The Trial Techniques” by Thomas A. – I don’t know how to pronounce this – “Mauet”. It reads, “An adverse witness is any witness who, because of his position as a party or because he has special relationships to a party, will be presumed to give testimony detrimental to other parties. Now, so when a party or a witness has a special relationship to the party, then he meets the qualification of a hostile or an adverse party.

Here is a presidential assistant. He has his appointment is not in the classified civil service. It is not even in the plantilla. He is a special assistant, a one peso a year man. The confidential nature of the relationship between the witness and the President is something special.

So, when the defense says that every official is presumed to be loyal to the Republic rather than to the appointing officer, like the President, it is not true with the witness because the witness does not fall he doesn’t fall under any budgetary item. He is a special assistant, among the many confidential assistants of the President.

So, because of that, his very position, as he said, he is a presidential assistant when he was asked, immediately raises the question of his partiality or impartiality. That is why we feel that, in a situation like this, perhaps this court can relax it because, otherwise, we cannot have anyone here unless we follow strictly the rules of court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not necessarily so, Mr. Counsel. You will notice that, even in the application for the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum and testificandum, this witness is was described as a hostile witness. In all the previous manifestations of Prosecutor Apostol, the witness was described as a hostile witness, not only not just an adverse witness.

If you are going now to make a distinction between hostile witness and adverse witness, the prosecution must clarify its stand.

REP. ARROYO. Well …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is he a hostile witness or is he an adverse witness?

REP. ARROYO. Well …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If he is a hostile witness, the Chair had ruled that there is no sufficient basis yet to declare him as such. If he is an adverse witness, your manifestations indicated already how to establish him as an adverse witness and the Chair will not prohibit or prevent the prosecution from establishing the groundwork or the premises or the predicate …if it is now the position of the prosecution that he should be an adverse witness, not just a hostile witness, contrary to the earlier manifestations of Prosecutor Apostol.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, I apologize, it was a lapses lengua. The two terms … (Talking simultaneously.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, it is not a lapses lengua because the …

REP. ARROYO. It was mine, oo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … the terms were clearly defined by no less than the Honorable Senator Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. ARROYO. Then, may I just proceed?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, may we first recognize Senator Enrile?

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, this matter is very simple to resolve. If the prosecutors would direct a question from that witness, whether he is willing to testify against the President, if he knows of any fact adverse to the President. If he says, “No,” then that is that means that he is an unwilling or a hostile witness but, up to now, the prosecutors have not laid the basis for the hostility or the unwillingness of this witness.

If I were the prosecutor, I’ll ask him pointblank, “Can you testify against this President? He’s your boss.” Gayon lang.

“No, I’m not.”

REP. ARROYO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we recognize first the Honorable Senator Guingona?

SEN. GUINGONA. May we ask the prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

SEN. GUINGONA. Did you not, in addition to your arguments, state that Governor Singson made allegations as to the involvement of the witness insofar as jueteng is concerned?

REP. APOSTOL. There was, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. And did he not repudiate or deny said allegations adverse to his own interest?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. He said, “I’m not involved and I’m …

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. … with Governor Singson.

SEN. GUINGONA. … And does that not sufficiently establish the adverse interest of this witness against the allegations of Governor Chavit Singson?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. In addition to that we are saying that this witness has a special relation with the President. That makes him an adverse witness.

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

REP. APOSTOL. But anyway we will ask the question upon suggestions of Senator Enrile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. That would be one way of putting an end.

REP. APOSTOL. If the defense counsel is willing.

MR. MENDOZA. Go ahead.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, Mr. Prieto, if an evidence is introduced here against the President, will you still testify in favor or against the President?

MR. MENDOZA. I think that is not the question of Senator Enrile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, a member of the Tribunal is allowed to ask the question.

SEN. ENRILE. Undersecretary Prieto, with the permission of the chair, I will ask you this question.

If and if you know a fact that is adverse to the President and since you have taken an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, would you reveal that adverse fact against the President?

MR. PRIETO. I will always tell the truth, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Okay. Thank you.

MR. PRIETO. If the Honorable Chief Justice will allow me to explain further about the allegation of Congressman Arroyo …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. No, no, no. You cannot.

MR. PRIETO. No. My position, Mr. Chief Justice, I am not a one peso plantilla position, Mr. Chief Justice. I am covered by the Civil Service Commission. I am actually receiving, Mr. Chief Justice, Salary Grade 31.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There you are, in light of the answer of the witness to the question of a member of the Impeachment Tribunal, you can proceed with the question and the Chair cannot yet declare that the witness is hostile. He is willing to answer all questions.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. I will ask my questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. Can you inform this body whether or not you have a checking account with the Philippine National Bank Naga City Branch?

MR. PRIETO. I have. My personal commercial account, I have.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, is your checking account, Checking Account No. 00445810682 2? I will repeat. A Checking Account No. 00 445 810682 2?

MR. PRIETO. That’s too long, Your Honor. Can you again …

REP. APOSTOL. May I show the number?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don’t you just show him? Why don’t you just show him the paper indicating the numbers. It’s too long, your enumeration.

A Page of the Impeachment Court may provide a pencil to the witness for him to keep track of the numbers dictated on a piece of paper.

You can now dictate the number to the witness who has the paper and a pencil.

REP. APOSTOL. Number 00 445 810682 2?

MR. PRIETO. Can I repeat, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Read the number.

MR. PRIETO. Is it 00 445 810682 2, is that right?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that correct?

REP. APOSTOL. That is correct.

MR. PRIETO. I am not familiar with my account, Your Honor. But if the Honorable Chief Justice will allow me to call my office just to check the account?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the pleasure now in view of the manifestation of the witness?

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, he answered that he has a checking account with the Naga Branch PNB. I was just asking the question. Perhaps I can ask the next question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed with the next question then.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, is it not a fact that you issued PNB Check No. 00 16119 to Governor Singson on or about the first week of May, 1999 for the amount of P= 1,155,000?

MR. PRIETO. I have never issued any check to Governor Singson, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I just show this …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Check?

REP. APOSTOL. … returned…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. An original or a certified copy?

REP. APOSTOL. An original, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. … Original, Your Honor. Original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You show it to the witness.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, with your indulgence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. The witness is on direct examination. And the one that presented this witness who is a voluntary witness is the prosecution. Is it allowed under the rules that the one presenting a witness on direct examination should impeach his own witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, there is no showing yet of an impeachment. It is just to identify.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, I am not impeaching, I am just showing…

THE PRESIDING. OFFICER. To identify the document.

Would the witness speak louder, please, even if you are talking to the for the record.

MR. PRIETO. This is the first time I saw the document. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record.

MR. PRIETO. This is the first time I saw the document, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. MENDOZA. May I make of record, if Your Honors please, that what has been shown to the witness is not a check.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Use the microphone, please.

MR. MENDOZA. …is that what has been shown to the witness is not a check.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is it?

MR. MENDOZA. But what appears to be a Metrobank deposit slip in the account name of Governor Luis Chavit Singson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation is noted.

MR. MENDOZA. So, very plain that the witness has no participation in the preparation of this document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your observation has been noted already. Was there a pending unanswered question?

REP. APOSTOL. May I request, Your Honor, that we be allowed later on to request for a subpoena duces tecum for the branch manager of PNB Naga, and also the manager of Metrobank Manila.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime you can finish with the testimony of the witness.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, in the meantime I will ask the next question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can probably request for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum later.

REP. APOSTOL. A while ago, the witness said that he is going to call his office to check his account number.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you want to give him time to call the office?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, we would like to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is suspended for three minutes for the witness to call his office.

THE SESSION WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:57.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. In the meantime, we will request the Honorable Prosecutor Apostol to secure reproductions of the document just presented to the witness to be distributed to the Honorable Members of the Impeachment Court.

REP. APOSTOL. We have, Your Honor. And it will show that the return slip will show the checks as issued and as reflected in the return.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah.

REP. APOSTOL. We will… If there will be an order by this Honorable Body the Chief Justice, I will have the checks distributed, I mean, the return slip.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably you can do that much ahead of time. So, when the time comes for the identification of the document, the Honorable Senators-Judges would be ready also to have this viewed in their respective possessions.

INFORMAL CONFERENCE FOLLOWED.

AT 4:08 P.M., THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

The Honorable Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. May I know if the witness will confirm the account number?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you now ready to answer the question after your call?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. My account number with PNB is 00 445 ..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Slowly, please. Slowly, please, so the prosecution will be able to …

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … write down the figures.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor. 00 445 810925 2.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel may now proceed.

REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Your Honor, if on April 7, 1999, you issued a check in the amount of P1,190,000 charged to a Philippine National Bank check?

MR. PRIETO. Issued to whom, Your Honor?

MR. MENDOZA. The second question is ambiguous. You don’t issue a check charged to a bank.

REP. APOSTOL. That’s not charged to a bank. It is a PNB charged to cash.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. PNB?

REP. APOSTOL. PNB check payable to Cash.

MR. MENDOZA. Ah, payable to cash.

REP. APOSTOL. I will show you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the question, as amended.

MR. PRIETO. This is not my check, Your Honor. I’ve never issued this check.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the number of the check?

REP. APOSTOL. This is Check No. 0016105.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. PNB?

REP. APOSTOL. PNB, Naga Branch on Account Number 00445 8106882 2.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Honorable Members of the Senate, that is the second to the last of the sheet of documents of all the sheets. That will be second to the last.

REP. APOSTOL. So, as I manifested before, Your Honor, we will be requesting for a subpoena, subpoena duces tecum to the branch manager of PNB, Naga Branch.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Could you do it later in writing so I will have no difficulty dictating the subpoena now?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, we will do that.

Your Honor, I understand that the witness will not answer in the affirmative of what we want. So, pending the request for issuance of subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, may we be allowed to request for deferment of the examination of this witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime, you will not subject him to cross examination? Not yet?

REP. APOSTOL. Not yet, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you are moving for a suspension of his testimony until after…

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, until and after we can have the subpoena…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … you can have the documents…

REP. APOSTOL. … documents produced before this…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … to be requested later?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). This exhibit…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet marked.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Not yet marked. May we ask that it be marked because I have some very pertinent questions on the face of what is here in front of us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we inquire from the prosecution if it would want the marking of the exhibit as exhibit that particular xerox copy of the PNB check?

REP. APOSTOL. We would like it very much but since the witness has denied the issuance of the check, we would appreciate it very much if the marking the questions be asked when we can bring here the general manager of PNB, Naga Branch and also the production of these checks and further also the general manager of Metrobank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With that assurance, would the Honorable Senator John Osmeña…

REP. APOSTOL. We will assure the senator that…

SEN. JOHN OSMEÑA (J). Mr. Chief Justice, we may be saving ourselves time if I will be allowed to just ask some questions which will, shall we say explain, perhaps the answer of the witness. I do not intend to take substitute for the witness but as a judge, I would like to be enlightened.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You want to ask questions?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). That is correct, Mr…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Subject to the two minutes rule?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Subject to the 30 seconds rule

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes rule.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). Yes, Mr. Justice.

REP. APOSTOL. I cannot object. He is the judge, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, because at any time a member of the Impeachment Court can ask questions subject, of course, to the two minutes rule.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). Mr. Witness, the upper portion of this page shows a marking, apparently a rubber stamp on the face of the check which says “returned check.” Is that not correct?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have a copy of the… of the xerox copy? Would you kindly show it to the witness.

REP. APOSTOL. We have the original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, yeah. Show it please to the witness.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). No. The question here, Mr. Chief Justice, is to the procedure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct but we would request the counsel now to show the document to the witness so the witness would be able to answer intelligently the question.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Honorable Judge Senator.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). Does this not tell you as a businessman that the bank refused to honor this check?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Judge Senator.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). At the lower part of this page, I do not know if you have this document, there is a memorandum. It is I think a reversal of entry issued by the Metrobank to where this check was deposited. And in the reason for return, it says, “signature differs.” It’s not in your check. I do not know if you have a copy of this document.

MR. PRIETO. I have here a copy of the original check.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). I know. I am not referring to the check anymore. I would not expect you to have this document because this document properly should be in the possession of the person who deposited the check. This is a memorandum. This is a document issued by banks to reverse an entry that results from the return of a check that was not honored. This is the character of this memorandum.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Osmeña, are you referring to the document… rather, the xerox copy of the document indicated below the check that was just mentioned?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So what is referred to is a Metrobank document dated April 12, 1999.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So do you have a copy of this, Mr. Counsel for the prosecution?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you kindly show it to the witness too for the witness to be able to answer adequately.

MR. PRIETO. Kaya nga, sir, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). On the extreme right box where it says “reason for the return,” the words “signature differs” is typewritten.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). As a businessman, does this not indicate that the bank against which this check was supposedly drawn has informed the bank to which this check was deposited, that the signature on this check is not the signature of the person who owns the account.

MR. PRIETO. It should be the case, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). That should be the case.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). So in effect the check was a forgery.

MR. PRIETO. I don’t know about this check, Your Honor. This is not my account number, so I cannot really…

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you insist on the marking in the meantime or you will…

SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). I do not know. I do not want to coach the prosecution. It has become a habit of the judges. But I do not want to tell the prosecution what to do. I just wanted to point out that the manager of the bank of PNB would most likely testify to the facts that I have elicited.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we will wait for the production of the document by subpoena duces tecum.

May we now recognize the Honorable Senator Judge Loren Legarda Leviste.

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

Just a very brief point of clarification. May I just propound one question to the witness.

Earlier, I missed to get the whole number of the account number. May I have it again, please, and may I know whether this is the same account number as the xerox copy we are furnished with on the second to the last page of the documents?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Second to the last page of

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Of the documents furnished to us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, yes.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. There is an account number on the left hand side of the check dated April 7.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is referred to is the April 7, 1999 PNB check …

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. May I just know from the witness a copy

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … Naga branch.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. It’s Account No. 00445810682 2.

MR. PRIETO. That is not my account number.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. It is not your account number.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Honorable Judge Senator.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. May I just know whether you’ve had any account in the past by this number if it is not your present account number.

MR. PRIETO. It’s entirely different from my number, Madam Honorable Judge Senator.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. So, you never had such an account.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Honorable Senator Judge.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And it’s the first time that you’ve seen this check.

MR. PRIETO. Yes, this is the first time I saw the check, Honorable Judge Senator.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

REP. APOSTOL. So, if it will not be too much for this body, may we be allowed to have markings of these checks so that

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The marking?

REP. APOSTOL. The marking of these checks and then the return slip coming from Metrobank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

REP. APOSTOL. So, may we request that the check be marked as Exhibit

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are referring to the check of April 7, 1999.

REP. APOSTOL. PNB Check No. 0016105 issued to Cash in the amount of P/ 1,190,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As Exhibit

REP. APOSTOL. As Exhibit “G”. And then

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked by the duly authorized representative or official of the Impeachment Court. Is it the Secretary doing the marking of the exhibits?

THE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. Always initial the markings and the date.

Then, any other document to be marked?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

Metrobank deposit slip savings account in the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, Account No. 0963011682260.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is that in this group of documents?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, it’s

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, just below.

REP. APOSTOL. Will be marked as Exhibit “H”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mark as Exhibit “H”.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, may we request now This is PNB branch Naga. What was deposited was PNB check Naga Branch No. 0016119 in the amount of P/1,155,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just a little while, ha, we’ll have to look for it.

Atty. Navarrete, where is it?

So, that will be Exhibit

REP. APOSTOL. “H”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “H”.

REP. APOSTOL. So, may we request that Metrobank Return Slip for the account I mean, not return slip, deposit slip for the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson under Account No. 0963011682260 covering a deposit of PNB Naga Branch Check No. 0016125 in the amount of P1,155,000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just a little while, we will have to look for it. Atty. Navarrete, where is it? This one?

So that would be Exhibit…..?

REP. APOSTOL. “H”, “H”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “H”.

REP. APOSTOL. So, may we request that Metrobank Return Slip for the account, I mean, not Return Slip, Deposit Slip for the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, under Account No. 0963011682260 covering a deposit of PNB Naga Branch Check No. 0016125 in the amount of P1,179,000. PNB, Your Honor, is the drawee bank..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As Exhibit…..?

REP. APOSTOL. Exhibit “I”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “I”.

REP. APOSTOL. The same as that the drawee bank as Exhibit “H”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?

REP. APOSTOL. May we request that Metro Bank Deposit Slip in the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, Account No. 0963011682260 covering a deposit of drawee bank PNB Naga Branch, Check No. 0016124 in the amount of P857,000, as Exhibit “J”.

May we request, Your Honor, that we pause for a while so we can the secretary is marking.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request for markings is granted. Let the markings be done now.

What’s the pleasure of the honorable Senator Guingona?

Just for a while, with the permission of Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes.

SEN. GUINGONA. While they are marking.

We are having some difficulty in the exhibits, Your Honor please. Perhaps the secretariat could give us a listing, on a daily basis, of the exhibits and the pertinent documents accompanying the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the marking would have been easier if the documents as shown to us, the machine copies of the documents to us, were already arranged in the way that they should be presented there, so we can go page by page. But this time we really have to look for it….

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …. in these many documents. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. While the markings are being made, Mr. Chief Justice, I would just like to ask one or two questions to the witness.

This has something to do with the check already identified and rejected by the witness, which is Account No. 00445810682 2.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are referring to Exhibit “G”?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes.

Mr. Prieto, you said that this is not your check, am I correct?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, the return ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to get a clarification of the answer. Is the answer, “Yes”?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Honorable Judge Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO. It is not your check.

MR. PRIETO. It is not my check.

SEN. CAYETANO. All right. But the Metrobank ….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, it is “Yes, it is not”?

MR. PRIETO. It is not. Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. The Metrobank memorandum states: “For the return of the check, because the signature differs”. Iba daw ang signature dito sa tseke.

Now, noong ipinakita sa iyo ni Prosecutor Apostol, nakita mo ba iyong signature sa tseke?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, honorable Judge Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyan ba ay signature mo o hindi.

MR. PRIETO. Hindi ko nga po account number ‘yon, eh.

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi. Tinatanong ko sa iyo…

MR. PRIETO. Hindi po, hindi po.

SEN. CAYETANO. Have you ever can you please write your signature to us?

MR. PRIETO. I can give you a copy of my license.

SEN. CAYETANO. No, no, right now, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you using a pencil or a ballpen?

MR. PRIETO. Ballpen, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Give him a pencil so it can be done in pencil and in ballpen. Or, if there is a fountain pen, in ink too.

MR. PRIETO. Mr. Chief Justice, I have two signatures. Will I write my two signatures? I am using two signatures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it three.

SEN. CAYETANO. As many signatures that you have, Mr. Chief Justice, because I want to find out what kind of signatures are you using. Kung marami kang Tatlo, o apat, o lima, basta’t ilagay mo lang, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In short, the question is asking you to make some specimens of your signatures.

SEN. CAYETANO. Of the different signatures, Mr. Chief Justice, if ever he uses different signatures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you through, Mr. Witness?

MR. PRIETO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any party requesting for the marking of these specimen signatures now?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes. Can we mark that as… May I have a copy of those signatures?

THE SECRETARY. Mr. Chief Justice, the witness is asking for a blank piece of paper.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Give him a blank sheet of paper so it could easily be read. And if there is any…

REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Chief, if the good senator is already through so I can request also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t think he is through because the witness is asking for a clean sheet of paper for the specimens of his signatures, if he has more than one.

The Chair would request the witness to do it in three columns. The first column in pencil, the second column in ink, the third column in ballpen.

MR. PRIETO. It’s already here, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask the secretary to give me these specimen signatures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The secretary is so directed.

SEN. CAYETANO. Can I have one minute recess, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. Suspended for one minute.

Would the defense want to also view the specimen signatures given?

MR. MENDOZA. We have already done so, Your Honor. We have already seen the specimen signatures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because otherwise, you can just view them together with the members of the court.

(THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 4:33 P.M.)

(THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:34 P.M.)

SEN. CAYETANO. …We can resume now, Mr. Chief Justice, with the permission of …

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed. The Honorable Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Witness, obviously the signature in Exhibit “G”, which is the check, is different from the signatures that you have given us, which later on we will ask these signatures to be marked for purposes of identification. But may I show to you two documents dated November 5, 1998 adressed to Chief Superintendent Marcelo Navarro, signed by Anton G. Prieto; and another one dated May 27, 1999 addressed to the Honorable Ronaldo B. Zamora and signed by Anton D. Prieto.

Dito magkaiba ang pirma mo? So, para sa akin bilang huwes, ay pakisabi lang kung bakit itong official letter mo na nasa letterhead ng Office of the President ng Malacañang ay iba ang signature mo?

Will the secretary please show this document?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The secretary is directed…

(At this juncture, the secretary showed the document to Mr. Prieto.)

SEN. CAYETANO. Later on, Mr. Chief Justice, I will ask this to be marked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. Actually, this is a letter that came from him on the basis of our hearing of the Blue Ribbon and Justice Committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Show the documents to the witness.

MR. PRIETO. This is my signature, Mr. Honorable Chief, Judge Senator.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did I get it correctly that there are two documents referred to? Two documents, Honorable Senator Cayetano?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice and it’s being examined by Mr. Prieto and each document contained dalawang uri ng signatures. Gusto ko lang pong malaman kung iyon ay talagang signature niya at kung bakit sa official letter sa Malacañang letterhead ay iba ang signature niya sa dalawang sulat?

MR. PRIETO. Ah, signature ko po ito.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The two signatures?

SEN. CAYETANO. Iyong dalawa?

MR. PRIETO. Oho.

SEN. CAYETANO. At iyan ay magkaiba, hindi ho ba?

MR. PRIETO. Hindi naman ho kasi ito practically parang initial ko ho kasi, iyong isa but the stroke is the same, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Oo, pero magkaiba?

MR. PRIETO. Eh, kung ako ang titingin pareho lang po ito sa akin, Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. CAYETANO. Anyway, we will have this marked as exhibit later on.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, now? You want it mark now?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it to be adopted by the prosecution? Because if nobody will have it marked and there is a request by a member of the Impeachment Tribunal, it will be marked as an Impeachment Tribunal…

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, we will even go further. We will request this body to order the NBI to examine these so many signatures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think…

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we are trying the respondent there is the Republic of the Philippines and here is one witness who has admitted that he has two signatures. Now he has now four signatures.

MR. MENDOZA. I think that is a very unfair manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can do that, you can do that. And whether he admitted that he had more than one signatures would be reflected in the transcript of the stenographic notes or in the stenographic notes.

MR. MENDOZA. But, Your Honors please, I think…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The testimony was taken by a machine. I think we have a stenotyping machine here around and also by stenographic notes.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. I believe it is very unfair to make conclusions on whether a signature is the same as another.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway…

MR. MENDOZA. Conclusion must be drawn after the judges shall have seen it. But it is not to be manifested as a conclusion by any senator or by any lawyer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, there is a request on the part of the prosecution through Prosecutor Apostol that it will be submitted to the NBI.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, that’s why we are requesting for …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, no. Do it later. Do it later.

REP. APOSTOL. We will put it in writing, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oo.

REP. APOSTOL. In the meantime, may we be allowed to mark these so many signatures of the respondents, this signature be marked as Exhibit “K”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What document is that?

REP. APOSTOL. Specimens containing three kinds of specimen signatures of the witness, Mr. Prieto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What would be the number now of the exhibit?

REP. APOSTOL. “K”, “K”, Prieto.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, “I”.

REP. APOSTOL. “K”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “K”. Do you have an “I” already?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, the one check …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an “I” already? So it is “I”. What about “J”, do you have? I was not able to follow up. So mark it as Exhibit “K”, …

REP. APOSTOL. “K”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … the specimen signatures.

REP. APOSTOL. The specimen signature as written by the witness dated November 5, 1998, a letter directed to Chief Superintendent Marcelo Navarro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it a specimen signature?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. This is admitted by the witness as his signature, as Exhibit “K 1″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought that the specimen signatures were the signatures written by him earlier in open court.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I request for correction? Exhibit the whole paper here is “K 1″, the three kinds of signatures as Exhibit “K”, then the column on the left hand portion left side portion be marked as “K 1″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mark it.

REP. APOSTOL. I am saying “K” because I am a Visayan. (Laughter) The second column be marked as “K 2″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.

REP. APOSTOL. And the third column be marked as Exhibit “K 3″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is so ordered.

REP. APOSTOL. Another signature of the witness, “K 4″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mark it as “K 4″ although a separate paper.

REP. APOSTOL. In a separate paper, Your Honor. And a signature of this witness on a letter which he wrote on November 5, 1998 to Chief Superintendent Marcelo Navarro as Exhibit “K 5″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that the one referred to earlier by the Honorable Senator Cayetano?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.

REP. APOSTOL. And then another signature in a letter written by this witness to Honorable Ronaldo B. Zamora through Honorable Antonio Neri dated May 27, 1999 be marked as “K 5″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mark it. You are only causing the marking of the signature, not the entire document containing the signature?

REP. APOSTOL. The signature.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the signature?

REP. APOSTOL. The entire document as “K 5″ and the signature, “K 5 a”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be done.

SEN. CAYETANO. Can I have my folder, please?

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we have so many more

exhibits to be marked temporarily perhaps and tiring the senators. May I request, while we are marking, that a 5 minutes recess be granted while we are marking?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For purposes of marking?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t think 5 minutes should be enough. We’ll make it 15 minutes.

REP. APOSTOL. Fifteen minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Suspended for 15 minutes.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 4:43 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 5:03 P.M.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. Please all rise. The Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed.

MR. NOGRALES. Your Honor, the prosecution panel is not yet here. May we request a few minutes?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can wait. We can wait.

Have the announced exhibits been marked already accordingly, Atty. Barbo-our Secretary, Secretary Barbo, marked already?

THE SECRETARY. Yes. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there many documents?

THE SECRETARY. Up to Exhibit “J”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only “K”?

THE SECRETARY. “J”.

MR. NOGRALES. They have marked up to Exhibit “R”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “I”.

MR. NOGRALES. “R”. “R”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “R”-which have markings?

MR. NOGRALES. Some of them with submarkings, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All right.

We will make a standing request on the secretary that the following morning, copies of the exhibits, as already marked, be given each member of the Impeachment Court, including the Presiding Justice.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT (SEN. PIMENTEL). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May we also announce to all the lawyers of both parties and also to the members of the Impeachment Court, if they so desire, that the Presiding Officer would want to have a meeting, conference with the lawyers on Monday at 12 o’clock, a luncheon meeting at the Conference Room of the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be reiterated later upon the arrival of the prosecution panel.

SEN. ROCO. While we are waiting also, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. Maybe we can also request all the lawyers, whatever they have to mark, let them be bundled already properly by the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. That would be, as a matter of fact, one of the objectives of another conference, second preliminary conference, so you can already have the exhibits prepared.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, when it comes to…. As a matter of fact, if you will notice, in the preliminary conference draft that I presented, one of the items there will be marking as exhibits. And so, that would be one of the objectives that we must pursue, so we will not be wasting a lot of time on the marking of exhibits here.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. And that should happen in the morning, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The parties can really have these exhibits brought to the Office of the Secretary for purposes of marking, but copies thereof be immediately furnished the adverse counsel. So, in the course of the presentation of the exhibits naming already the number, the other party will be aware of what you are referring to.

SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. With the permission of the Chief Justice, I wish to….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Honorable Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Thank you.

I just wish to raise a point of inquiry, Mr. Chief Justice. I believe that last November 27, the prosecution filed an urgent ex parte motion for the issuance of hold departure orders against Atty. Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte, George Go, Raul de Guzman, Mila Reforma and Danilo Reyes and Betty Bagsit. May I know the status of this?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The action then, at that time, was to defer until after the appropriate pleading shall have been filed by the prosecution for the court to obtain jurisdiction over the prospective witnesses. But I don’t think that until now the prosecution has done so, although I am sure that Bagsit was already issued a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum.

SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. So we are awaiting the documents or the pleadings of the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, for those already issued the corresponding subpoenas. But for the hold departure order, we are still awaiting for the appropriate pleading to be filed.

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

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we will file the appropriate pleading, the latest will be Monday. Because we are afraid that some of those witnesses which — the names which we have submitted a while ago might also leave for abroad.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s why if you really want for the court to act immediately, the appropriate pleadings should also be done seasonably. Otherwise, the blame may be on us when actually it should not be.

REP. APOSTOL. So, Mr. Chief Justice, may I be allowed now, for the records, to mention our marking, conditional marking of exhibits.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted.

REP. APOSTOL. Before the recess, we have Exhibit “K”, “K-5” and “K-5-A”. Then we requested for marking of Exhibit “K-6” which is a letter of the witness Anton D. Prieto to Ronaldo B. Zamora, dated May 27, 1999.

We have requested also the marking of a Metrobank return slip under the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson under Account No. 09630116382260. This is the deposit slip containing the deposit of two checks, Your Honor. The drawee bank is PNB, Naga Branch. The first check is 0016126, in the amount of P674,000. The second check is 0016177127, in the amount of P660 million. Total is P1 million — thousand, P660,000. The total amount of the two checks is P1,334,000.

Return slip — returned deposit slip of Metrobank under Account Number — may I correct myself, it is deposit slip of Metrobank which we requested that it be marked, conditionally marked as Exhibit “M”, under Account No. 0796301162260, in the name of — the depositor is Luis Singson, PNB, Naga Branch. Check No. 0016130, in the amount of P1,278,000. The drawee bank, Your Honor, is PNB.

Now Metrobank deposit slip, may we request that the same be marked as Exhibit “N”, under the account of Luis — Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, Account No. 09630116082260. May I repeat. Account No. 0963011682260. Drawee bank is PNB, Naga , Check No. 00161116 in the amount of 1,925,000.

May we request that Metrobank Deposit Slip be marked as Exhibit “O” in the name of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson. Account No. 0963011682260, Drawee Bank: PNB Naga Branch, Check No. 0016140 in the amount of 1,445,000.

As Exhibit “P”, Metrobank Deposit Slip in the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, Account No. 0963011682260, Drawee Bank: PNB Naga Branch, Check No. 0016142 in the amount of 1,340,000.

Exhibit “Q”: Metrobank Deposit Slip in the name of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, Account No. 0963011682260, Drawee Bank: PNB Naga Branch, Check No. 0016149 in the amount of 1,430,000.

May we request that Metrobank Deposit Slip (conferring with his colleagues) Notice of return check from Metrobank, April 12, 1999 addressed to Luis “Chavit” Singson under Account No. 301168226 0 covering Check No. 0016105, Naga Branch in the amount of 1,190,000. The check referred to previously is Exhibit “G”.

We have marked conditionally our exhibits pending our written request for subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to the branch manager of Naga PNB and also to the Metrobank, the president of Metrobank.

In the meantime, Your Honor, since we moved that we be allowed to continue the examination of this witness, may we move now that the examination of this witness be deferred until we can have the necessary…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will first make a ruling on the marking of exhibits. The marking of the exhibits is granted. And if the same were earlier marked, such markings are now confirmed only conditionally.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Although it is not the appropriate time perhaps to object, but just so that the proceedings may be facilitated, what I notice is that we are going to have a continuance of the examination of this witness so that subpoenas may be issued regarding these documents. If perhaps the witness can be asked whether he would have anything, any knowledge regarding these documents, then we may save time because then there would be no need anymore to subpoena these documents before the examination of the witness would be completed. These documents would be coming from Naga, and so, the proceedings will be delayed only, perhaps, later on, if the witness says, “I have nothing to do with these documents” and the effort would have been entirely unnecessary.

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we are are ready with two more witnesses. So what derailment is the defense counsel talking about?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are ready with two witnesses now?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes. In fact, we will be requesting for a head projector so we can focus also the testimony of the next witness, which is basically more also on checks. We have been talking on checks money.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you referring to witness Ricaforte?

REP. APOSTOL. Emma Lim, then Ricaforte.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Emma Lim.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Emma Lim. Emma Lim.

REP. APOSTOL. So, Your Honor, on the request of the defense counsel, we have in fact, we were forced to request for a continuance because when we confronted this witness with the check, he denied.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the return of the witness will be subject to the issuance of another subpoena because right now, we are not in a position to determine when the documents sought to be produced by a testificandum on the banks in Naga City may be produced here.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, and I promise this body that I will try to be finished with the presentation of our evidence on Article 1 within 10 days.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. The Honorable Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, it is an axiom in evidence that the one presenting a witness is bound by the statement and declarations of the witness. This witness testified that he had nothing to do with the check that was presented to him. And so, therefore, the prosecution is bound by that, unless they want now to subpoena the check to impugn or impeach this witness.

Now, a lawyer who presents a witness, unless he can show that the witness is a hostile or unwilling or an adverse party witness, cannot possibly impeach or impugn his own witness. And so what is the purpose of all of these documents? For purposes of impeachment? For purposes of corroboration? For purposes of establishing admissions?

REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we have been trying very hard to establish this witness as a hostile or adverse witness. But there was objection from Senator Judge Ponce Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. No, no, I am not.

REP. APOSTOL. So we could not have him declared as an adverse witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, I don’t think … Mr. Counsel, I don’t think that is accurate.

SEN. ENRILE. Wait a minute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Insofar as the Chair is concerned, it was precisely the recommendation of the Honorable Senator Enrile which you adopted later on.

SEN. ENRILE. Your Honor, I would like to make exception. I would like to move that the remark of the distinguished gentleman be stricken off the record…

REP. APOSTOL. I agree. I agree.

SEN. ENRILE. … because that is impertinent.

REP. APOSTOL. I agree.

SEN. ENRILE. It’s an impertinent statement. ungentlemanly in a civilized courtroom.

REP. APOSTOL. I agree.

SEN. ENRILE. Now, what I am just saying is, we would like to know what is the purpose of these documents. We are judges. Many of us here are not familiar with the law and the witness was presented by you, the distinguished prosecutor, so you are bound by whatever he says by his declaration, his admissions, his denials you’re bound by it.

REP. APOSTOL. I wish to argue with the comment but I am not used to arguing with the judge. So I just keep my piece.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, there is a request for a deferment?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. If there are no objections from the Court, the deferment may be granted.

REP. APOSTOL. So …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. However, however, the prosecution is requested to solicit as soon as possible the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum so that the witness will not be held in we are not sequestering the witnesses, ‘no?

REP. APOSTOL. No, no, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He can go home?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, he can go home.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So he can go home in the meantime, subject to recall later.

Now, the witness is excused. The prosecution can present the next witness.

REP. APOSTOL. So, Your Honor, before we present our next witness, may we be allowed to put the head projector so that we can project the testimony of our next witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have the exhibits to be identified by the witness?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have you also requested the marking of the exhibits. Would you want a pre marking of the exhibits?

REP. APOSTOL. Well, if it will be not too much asking for this body, we will request for pre marking while we are installing the overhead projector.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, and …

REP. APOSTOL. And we will be requesting for ten minutes, or five minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Another suspension of ten minutes?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you think it would be enough?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, I think so. We’ll work harder.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, and we would be very, very strict in enforcing the time of suspension. We would request the parties to be available upon the resumption after a suspension of five minutes or ten minutes…

REP. APOSTOL. Ten minutes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … so we cannot be waiting for some parties.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Suspended for 15 minutes again.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 5:24 P.M.

RESUMPTION

(THE TRIAL RESUMED AT 5:36 P.M.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …Session is now resumed.

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Baterina.

REP. BATERINA. …ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, may I be allowed, Your Honors, to present the next witness for the prosecution?

My name, Your Honor, is Salacnib Baterina and I am one of the prosecutors from the House of Representatives.

Our next witness, Mr. Chief Justice, is Emma B. Lim. May I ask that she be called to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness and the Secretary shall administer the oath to the witness.

THE SECRETARY. You, Emma Lim, do swear that what 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 me God.

MS. LIM. Yes, I do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may take your seat and, Prosecutor Baterina, qualify your witness.

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Will you state your name, Madam Witness?

MS. LIM. My name is Emma B. Lim.

REP. BATERINA. How old are you?

MS. LIM. 33 years old.

REP. BATERINA. Are you married?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where are you a resident of?

MS. LIM. With permanent residence or resident of Barangay Tale, Bantay, Ilocos Sur.

REP. BATERINA. Are you employed?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, may we request the witness to speak a little louder for us to be able to hear your testimony.

REP. BATERINA. May we offer the testimony of the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. State your offer.

REP. BATERINA. To show the modus operandi of the collection of jueteng money for President Estrada. Also, to give testimony on the identities for whom this jueteng money for President Estrada were collected.

And, also, to give testimony on the jueteng operations and other matters that are relevant thereto.

May I proceed, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, you may now proceed.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. You said that you are employed, who do you work for?

MS. LIM. Governor Luis Chavit Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What do you do for him?

MS. LIM. I am one of his employees, my principal duty is to do to assist in liaisoning overseas contract workers for the province of Ilocos Sur and do errands for Governor Singson, especially for the collection of jueteng money for President Joseph Estrada.

REP. BATERINA. During the period of 1998 to October 2000, where do you report for work?

MS. LIM. Sa office po ni Governor Luis Chavit Singson sa Second Floor, LCS Building, San Andres Bukid, Manila, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The Luis Chavit Singson that you referred, what is he to the Governor of Ilocos Sur?

MS. LIM. Siya po mismo ‘yong Governor ng Ilocos Sur, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Are you aware that Governor Singson testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you say that you are aware of this?

MS. LIM. Kasi nandoon din po ako noon at saka sinabpena (subpoena) rin po ako ng Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Are you aware of his testimony before the Committee?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What do you know on what he testified about?

MS. LIM. Tungkol sa jueteng collections po para kay Presidente Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. May I request the witness…..

REP. BATERINA. Do you have…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA….to kindly give us a second to object if appropriate, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You better just stay there on the place where you are standing now, so you could make a….

REP. BATERINA. May I…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER…timely objection if you have to.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. But I would also like to sit down occasionally.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. The witness is requested to wait a little while after the question is asked so the counsel for the defense may have a reasonable time to tender an objection if there will be any.

REP. BATERINA. May I continue, Your Honors?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. BATERINA. Do you have any personal knowledge or information about the matter that he testified about?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is that that you know personally?

MS. LIM. Tungkol po…

MR. MENDOZA. May I object, if Your Honors please, the question is premised already on what on the testimony of Governor Singson which is not known to everybody.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness the premise had been properly laid already regarding a testimony before a committee concerning which she was supposedly familiar.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes. But then we object also on the ground that whether the witness knows or does not know of the testimony of Governor Singson is irrelevant to these proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, are you making a continuing general objection?

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, if the question would be on that for that purpose, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will just wait for the next question then.

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice, I think that we have already established the basis that she knew… How do you know that the money you collected from these people came from jueteng?

MR. MENDOZA. Well, objection, there is no basis, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

MR. MENDOZA. She never said that money was collected.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained, sustained.

REP. BATERINA. I ask you why is it that you know personally?

MR. MENDOZA. That is precisely the point, Your Honor. So, we see now the difficulty. First, the counsel asked what she knows personally and we are not informed of what facts are supposed to have been within her knowledge she knows….

REP. BATERINA. To shorten it, Your Honor, I’ll reform the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Reform the question.

REP. BATERINA. You stated that you do errands for Governor Luis Chavit Singson, did you not?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What errands were these?

MS. LIM. Iyong pangongolekta po ng jueteng collections po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. From whom? Will you tell the Honorable Court from whom you collected the money from jueteng?

MS. LIM. From Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Mr. Bong Pineda at kay Mr. Anton Prieto, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. You stated that you collected from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, the Mayor Jinggoy Estrada that you stated a while ago, what is he to the son of the President who is Jinggoy Estrada the mayor of San Juan?

MS. LIM. Siya po mismo, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How many times did you go to collect from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. LIM. Three times po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA….Who else did you go to collect from?

MS. LIM. Kay Mr. Bong Pineda po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Who else, if you know?

MS. LIM. Mr. Anton Prieto po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Now, how many times did you go to collect from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that was already answered.

REP. MENDOZA. Already answered.

REP. BATERINA. All right, when was the first time that you went to collect from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. LIM. Sometime in January 2000 po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Then you said that these money were from jueteng. Why do say that the money you were collecting were from jueteng? Do you have personal knowledge of that?

MS. LIM. Sinabi po sa akin ni Gov. Singson, Your Honor, at kinonfirm (confirm) din po ni Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte.

REP. BATERINA. Let us go to the first time that you went to collect from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, when was that?

MS. LIM. Sometime in January 2000, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you not remember the date?

MS. LIM. Middle of January 2000, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Will you describe the circumstance that brought about your going to Mayor Estrada to collect jueteng money?

MS. LIM. Bale tinawagan po ako ni Gov. Singson sa LCS office. Binigay po niya ‘yong number ni Mayor Estrada po. Sinabihan po niya ako na tawagan ko daw po ‘yong office ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada at tanungin kung puwede na po akong pumunta para kunin po ‘yong dapat kong kunin doon.

REP. BATERINA. How did you…? Did you do that? Did you do the orders of Gov. Singson?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor. Pero hindi po ako kaagad pinapunta. ‘Yong nakausap ko, tinawagan ko po muna. At pinatawag po niya ako ulit, sabi po niya, tumawag ako ulit para tanungin muna niya kay Mayor Jinggoy Estrada kung ano’ng oras po ako puwedeng pumunta, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Let’s just leave that for a while.

You stated that you came to know that the money that you were collecting was from jueteng. You stated that this was confirmed by Mrs. Ricaforte and Chavit Singson. Do you know Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you know Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. LIM. Kasi po kasamahan po namin siya sa office, nag re report siya doon na auditor po ni Presidente Estrada sa jueteng collections po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. You said, “office,” what office is that?

MS. LIM. Doon po sa LCS office po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where is the LCS office?

MS. LIM. Sa San Andres Bukid, Manila, po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Now, we go back to the time that you went to collect from Mayor Estrada, where did you go to?

MS. LIM. Pumunta po ako sa munisipyo po ng San Juan, doon po sa second floor po, sa Office of the Mayor, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How did you go or what made you go to the office of the mayor in San Juan?

MS. LIM. Noong nakausap ko po ‘yong secretary po niya, Your Honor, siya po ang nagbigay ng go signal sa akin na pumunta po ako, after lunch po noon. Tapos, ‘yon, pagdating ko nga po doon, mayroon doon sa information sa second floor, pinapasok po niya ako sa Office of the Mayor. Pagdating po doon, nagpakilala po ako doon sa staff, isang staff din po na nag e entertain ng mga bisita doon, sinabi ko po na ‘ako si Emma from the Office of Gov. Singson, may kukunin po ako kay Mayor.’ Ang ginawa po niya, nagbigay po siya ng papel sa akin, pinasulat po niya ang pangalan ko at kung saang office po ako.

REP. BATERINA. …And what happened after you waited?

MS. LIM. Dumating po iyong bodyguard ni Mayor Estrada, Your Honor, tapos noong nakita noong staff na kausap ko, sabi niya, tawag ka ni mayor. Pumasok naman po siya kaagad, paglabas po niya, may dala dala na po siyang nakabalot iyong nakabalot po siya sa magazine, iyong mga pages ng magazine iyong makakapal, naka scotch tape, tapos binigay po niya sa akin.

REP. BATERINA. Do you know what was that that was wrapped which was sealed with a scotch tape?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What was it?

MS. LIM. Cash po iyon worth Pl,000,000.

REP. BATERINA. How did you know that that was cash and that was Pl,000,000?

MS. LIM. Kasi po bago ako pumunta doon sinabi na ni Governor Singson na ang kukunin ko po doon worth Pl,000,000 at saka iyong bodyguard po na nag abot sa akin noong sinabi ko na kung puwede kong bilangin, ang sabi po niya sa akin, “Huwag mo nang bilangin, tama iyan at saka madaming tao.”

REP. BATERINA. Sinong nagsabi niyan? Who asked you that?

MS. LIM. Iyong bodyguard po na nagbigay po sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where did he tell you that?

MS. LIM. Doon po sa office ni mayor, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And when you received the money, what else happened?

MS. LIM. Umuwi na po ako sa office, Your Honor, inuwi ko na po iyong pera.

REP. BATERINA. Where is that office where you went back?

MS. LIM. Doon po sa second floor, LCS Building, San Andres Bukid, Manila, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When you arrived at the LCS Building of the second floor of that office which you went back to, what did you do?

MS. LIM. Itinago ko po sa vault na naka issue po sa akin, Your Honor, pagkatapos tinawagan ko kaagad si Governor Singson at sinabi ko sa kanya na nakuha ko na po iyong pinapa pick up niya kay Mayor Jinggoy Estrada.

REP. BATERINA. Then let us go to the second time that you went to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. When was that?

MS. LIM. Sometime in February 2000, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you remember the date?

MS. LIM. Hindi ko na po matandaan iyong exact date, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And how did it happen that you went to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to collect jueteng money?

MS. LIM. Gaya po noong una, tinawagan na naman po ako ni Governor Singson sa LCS office sa telepono at sinabi po niya na kung puwede tawagan ko na iyong office po ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada para tanungin kung puwede na po akong pumunta, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do?

MS. LIM. Tinawagan ko po ang office ni Mayor Estrada, Your Honor, nakausap ko po doon ang secretary niya, si Josie, at iyon tinanong ko po kung puwede na akong pumunta para pick apin (pick up) po iyong dapat kong pick apin (pick up). Pero pinatawag po ulit ako ni Josie, sabi po niya, “Tumawag ka ulit para tanungin ko muna kay Mayor kung anong oras ka puwedeng pumunta.”

REP. BATERINA. And did you wait in accordance with what Josie told you?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do after that?

MS. LIM. Tumawag po ulit ako at tinanong ko po kung puwede na po akong pumunta, doon po sinabi ni Josie na pupunta po ako after lunch, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And did you go after lunch to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Now, what happened after you arrived at…? Where did you go to Mayor to where the Mayor is?

MS. LIM. Sa munisipyo po sa San Juan, Metro Manila, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And did you arrive at the municipal hall or the municipal building of San Juan on that day on that particular on that day that you said you called up Josie?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What transpired between you and Josie?

MS. LIM. Pagdating po doon ang una po ang pag akyat na naman ho doon sa hagdanan, doon sa may information, iyon sinabi ko na naman po kasi tinanong na naman nila kung saan ako pupunta, sinabi ko sa Office of the Mayor, pagkatapos pinapasok po ako, pagdating doon nagpakilala po ulit ako doon sa receptionist, sinabi ko na nakausap ko na si Josie, may kukunin po ako kay Mayor Estrada.

REP. BATERINA. And what did the receptionist do or say?

MS. LIM. Pumasok po siya ulit sa loob po, sa office ni Mayor, pagkatapos lumabas po si Josie at sinundo po ako ni Josie, pinapasok na po ako sa Office of the Mayor, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what transpired inside the Office of the Mayor?

MS. LIM. Pagpasok ko po, Your Honor, nandoon po si Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. Bumati po ako; nag-good afternoon po ako; ngumiti lang po siya; tapos, iyon, inakay din po ako ni Josie, pinaupo niya po ako doon sa tapat ng table po niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what happened after that?

MS. LIM. Pagkatapos po no’n, pinaghintay po ako sandali ni Josie kasi iyong time po na iyon inuutusan po siya ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada na tawagan po niya si Chairman Binay.

REP. BATERINA. And what else transpired, if you know?

MS. LIM. Pagkatapos po na nagawa ni Josie iyong inuutos ni Mayor, may kinuha po siyang isang shopping bag doon po sa ilalim ng table ni Josie; tapos, pinatong niya sa table niya; tinawag po niya ako, sabi niya bilangin ko na daw po.

REP. BATERINA. And did you count the money?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How much was that?

MS. LIM. One million po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How did you count the money?

MS. LIM. Bundle count lang po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what happened after you counted it?

MS. LIM. Pagkabilang ko po, nakaharap si Josie, ibinalik po namin doon sa shopping bag, tapos inuwi ko na po sa office sana. Kaso no’ng nasa daan na po ako papunta sa opisina, tinawagan po ako ni Mrs. Menchu Itchon. Ang sabi po niya sa akin tumawag daw po si Governor Singson sa kanya at sinabi na kung puwede daanan ko na rin po iyong dapat kong daanan kay Mr. Bong Pineda.

REP. BATERINA. Who is Menchu Itchon?

MS. LIM. Kasamahan ko rin po sa office, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. But let’s go back to the time you were bundle counting the money. Where was the mayor at the time you were bundle counting the money?

MS. LIM. Nandoon po siya, nakaupo po siya sa table niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How far was he when you were counting the money?

MS. LIM. Malapit lang po, Your Honor; nakikita po– nakikita ko po siya, nakikita rin po niya ako.

REP. BATERINA. And then, let’s return to the time that you were called by Ms. Itchon. What’s the name of Ms. Itchon?

MS. LIM. Ang full name po niya ay Maria Carmencita Itchon.

REP. BATERINA. But you stated another name a while ago which is Menchu. Is that correct?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is this “Menchu” to the name you stated as “Maria Carmencita Itchon”?

MS. LIM. Siya po ay iisa po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. So what happened after Maria Carmencita Itchon called you on the telephone?

MS. LIM. Bale ano po bumalik na po kami sa Greenhills. Kasi malapit na po ako noon sa office, bumalik po kami sa Greenhillls, pumunta po kami doon sa bahay ni Mr. Bong Pineda po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. So, what did you do?

MS. LIM. Iyon nga po – pumunta po kami sa bahay ni Mr. Bong Pineda.

REP. BATERINA. Where is the house of Bong Pineda?

MS. LIM. Sa No. 2 Albany Street, Northeast Greenhillls, San Juan, Metro Manila po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do there when you arrived at the house of Bong Pineda at 2nd Albany Street, Northeast Greenhills, Metro Manila?

MS. LIM. Sinalubong po kami ng security guard, Your Honor; nagpakilala po ako; iyon, pinapasok naman po ako; tapos, sinalubong na po ako iyong secretary ni Mr. Bong Pineda – Marty po ang pangalan – at pinapasok na po ako doon sa isang room sa bahay; tapos, pinapasok po niya ako sa room; office po iyon kasi may mga office table saka…

REP. BATERINA. So what happened after you were ushered in to the office in the house of Bong Pineda?

MS. LIM. Umupo po ako sandali kasi pinaupo po ako ni Marty; tapos, maya-maya kaunti, pumasok na po si Mr. Romy Pineda at iyon mayroon po siyang… Tapos, maya-maya ho, pumasok na rin siya sa isang pintuan. Iyong una po akala ko yoon ay bookshelves lang po. Iyon pala, nagulat po ako kasi paghila n’yang gano’n, pintuan pala iyon. Maya-maya, lumabas na po siya, may bitbit na po siya na isang shopping bag na Ferragamo po. Tapos, tinawag na po niya ako; pinatong niya sa table, office table.

REP. BATERINA. What did he do with the bag, the shopping bag which was marked “Ferragamo”?

REP. BATERINA. … Ferragamo?

MS. LIM. Pinakita po niya sa akin, nilabas po niya ‘yong mga ‘yong laman, pina bundle count po niya sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell the Honorable Court what or how much or what was that which he showed to you as the bundles in the Ferragamo bag?

MS. LIM. Cash po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell the Honorable Court how much was the cash that was shown to you inside that Ferragamo bag?

MS. LIM. Hindi po bababa sa five million, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Did you count the money?

MS. LIM. Bundle count lang po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And in your bundle count, how much was the count you’ve made?

MS. LIM. Limang bundles po ng tigwa one million, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Have you ever been to the house of Bong Pineda before that time that you went upon the instruction of Menchu or Carmencita Maria Carmencita Itchon?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When was that when you went to the house of Bong Pineda, before you went at the time that you were instructed by Carmencita Itchon?

MS. LIM. Sometime in January 2000 po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell the Honorable Court what transpired during that time that you went at about January 2000 in the house of Bong Pineda?

MS. LIM. Tinawagan po ako ni Governor Singson sa LCS office at sabi po niya, daanan daw po ako ng driver niya, pupunta daw po kami sa bahay ni Mr. Bong Pineda, Your Honor. Pagkatapos nuon, ‘yon, dinaanan po ako ng driver niya, pumunta po kami doon sa bahay po ni Mr. Bong Pineda sa Greenhills.

REP. BATERINA. Who is this Romy Pineda, as you mentioned? Or is he a man or a woman?

MS. LIM. Man po.

REP. BATERINA. Who is he?

MS. LIM. Kapatid po ni Mr. Bong Pineda, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How do you know that he is the brother of Mr. Bong Pineda?

MS. LIM. Kasi po noong first time na pumunta po ako sa bahay po ni Mr. Bong Pineda sa San Juan, ang hinanap ko po talaga si Mr. Bong Pineda kasi ‘yon naman po ang sabi ni Gob sa akin. Pero sabi po ni Marty, maghintay lang daw po ako sandali kasi darating na po ‘yong kapatid ni Mr. Bong Pineda na si Mr. Romy Pineda, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The Gob that you referred to a while ago, who is the Gob that you referred to?

MS. LIM. Governor Chavit Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Now, we go back to the time that the first time that you were that you went to the house of Mr. Bong Pineda. When you were introduced to Romy Pineda, what transpired after that?

MS. LIM. Noong nagkita na po kami ni Mr. Romy Pineda, Your Honor, ‘yon nga, nagpakilala po ako na ako po si Emma sa office ni Governor Singson. Tapos, nagpakilala rin po siya na siya po si Mr. Romy Pineda. Nakipag shake hands po siya sa akin. Pagkatapos po nuon, binigay na mayroon na po siyang nilabas na shopping bag. Tapos, pinabilang po niya sa akin ‘yong laman po nuon, pina bundle count po niya. Tapos, ‘yon, binigay na po sa akin.

REP. BATERINA. What did you do with the money that he gave you the first time?

MS. LIM. Inuwi ko po sa LCS office sa San Andres Bukid, Manila, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do with the money at the LCS office at Bukid?

MS. LIM. Itinago ko po sa vault na naka assign po sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How much was the money that he gave you the first time?

MS. LIM. Five million po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Let’s go back to the second time that you went to the house of Bong Pineda where you received a five million Ferragamo ah, P5 million in a Ferragamo bag? What did you do after you got the money?

MS. LIM. Inuwi ko na po sa office, sa LCS office, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What did you do in the office with the bag and the money?

MS. LIM. Pagdating ko po sa office, tinago ko na po sa vault na naka assign sa akin, kasama po ‘yong cash na kinuha ko rin po sa office ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What happened also to the first collection that you made from Bong Pineda at about January, January 2000?

MS. LIM. Tinago ko rin po sa vault na naka assign sa akin po, Your Honor. Tapos, pagkatapos noon, dinaan din po ni Governor Singson, at ayon kinuha na po niya sa akin.

REP. BATERINA. Now, you stated that there was a third time or you went to the Office of the Mayor of San Juan three times?

May I withdraw that question, Your Honors?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted, withdrawn.

REP. BATERINA. You stated that you also collected from one Mr. Anton Prieto, did you say that?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Under what circumstance did you know of this person known as Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Ang pagpakilala po niya sa akin sa pag ano po siya iyong jueteng collector ng Bicol, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How did he introduce himself?

MS. LIM. Noong in introduce niya iyong sarili niya, siya daw po ay Usec ng Malacañang noong nagkita po kami.

REP. BATERINA. And did you ever have any dealing with Mr. Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How did that dealing occur?

MS. LIM. Noong time po kasi tumawag po si Mr. Anton Prieto po sa office at hinahanap po niya si Governor Singson. Ako po iyong nakausap niya. Sinabi po niya na may appointment daw po siya kay Governor Singson. Pagkatapos wala naman ho si Governor Singson sa office, ang ginawa ko po tinawagan ko si Governor Singson sa telepono at sinabi ko po na tumawag nga si Usec Anton Prieto, nire remind po niya iyong appointment ninyo sa kaniya. Nagulat si Governor Singson. Sabi niya nakalimutan daw niya. Sabi po sa akin, “Hindi bale tawagan ko na lang siya. Ikaw na lang makipagkita sa kaniya.” Sabi po niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what happened after the Governor said that you would be the one to see or meet Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Tumawag po ulit si Governor Singson, Your Honor. Sabi po niya, “Nakausap ko na siya at tatawag na lang siya diyan. Hintayin mo iyong tawag niya para sabihin niya sa iyo kung saan kayo magkikita at anong oras kayo magkikita.” Sabi po niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what happened?

MS. LIM. Tumawag po sa akin si Mr. Anton Prieto at ini schedule po niya iyong pagkikita po namin. Sinabi po niya sa akin na magkita po kami sa Dusit Hotel Nikko at mga lunchtime po iyon, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And where is this Dusit Hotel Nikko?

MS. LIM. Sa Makati po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And when the fellow on the other end of the phone said that you would meet him at Hotel Dusit, did you follow what he stated?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What did you do?

MS. LIM. Pumunta po ako sa lobby po ng Dusit Hotel Nikko, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do there inside the lobby of the hotel?

MS. LIM. Naglakad lakad po ako, Your Honor, kasi hindi ko naman po siya kilala noong una. Pero noong kuwan siya po ang lumapit sa akin kasi nahalata daw po niya na parang may hinahanap po ako. Siya na po ang lumapit sa akin. Tinanong po niya ako kung ako po si Emma.

REP. BATERINA. If Mr. Anton Prieto were inside the Senate halls and he is around, would you be able to point him?

I withdraw the question, Your Honors, because …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because? What is the reason …

REP. BATERINA. May I just reform my question?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Reform.

REP. BATERINA. If you are shown Mr. Anton Prieto, would you be able to recognize him?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And when Mr. Anton Prieto on that day when you met somebody who asked you whether you are Emma, what transpired between you and that individual, that man who asked you whether your name is Emma?

MS. LIM. Noong nilapitan na po niya ako, tinanong po kung ako po si Emma, nagpakilala po ako “Opo,” sabi ko. Tapos, ‘yon nakipag shake hands din po siya, nagpakilala po siya na siya daw po si Undersecretary Anton Prieto ng Malacanang. Tapos hinila po ‘yong parang dinala po niya ako sa ‘yong… Nilayo po niya ako kunti sa mga tao ‘yong may inabot na po siya sa akin na sealed mailing envelope po ng Dusit Hotel Nikko, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. You said that he gave you “inabutan ka,” you said he gave you an envelope, a sealed envelope marked “Hotel Nikko Dusit,” what did you do with that, with that envelope, sealed envelope?

MS. LIM. Inuwi ko po sa LCS office, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why did you bring it to the LCS office?

MS. LIM. Kasi po ‘yong sealed envelope na ‘yon naka address po kay Governor Chavit Singson at naka marka po siyang “confidential.”

REP. BATERINA. And what happened to that sealed envelope which you brought to that office, on your office?

MS. LIM. Inuwi ko po sa office, tinago ko po sa drawer ko, tapos tinawagan ko po si Governor Chavit Singson at sinabi ko po sa kanya na na meet ko na po si Mr. Anton Prieto at nakuha ko na po ‘yong galing po sa kanya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Today, have you seen Mr. Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is the Mr. Anton Prieto that you saw today to the Anton Prieto that delivered to you that sealed envelope, which is marked “Governor Chavit Singson, personal?” “Confidential.”

MS. LIM. Siya po mismo ‘yong nagbigay po sa akin ng envelope, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where did you see him today?

MS. LIM. Sa T.V. po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And when you called up Governor Singson, what transpired after that?

MS. LIM. Tinanong po sa akin ni Governor Singson kung magkano po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you say and tell Governor Singson?

MS. LIM. Sabi ko po “Hindi ko po alam, sir, kasi ‘yong binigay po niya sa akin naka sealed naman at saka may nakasulat na confidential, kaya hindi ko pa po binubuksan.” ‘Yon ang sabi ko po.

REP. BATERINA. What did Governor Singson say, if any, to you?

MS. LIM. Sabi po niya sa akin “Buksan mo ‘yong buksan mo at tingnan mo kung magkano,” sabi po niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And did you follow what he told you, to open that envelope, that sealed envelope?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do after opening the envelope?

MS. LIM. Sinabi ko po kay Governor Singson ‘yong amount po nung tseke, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did Governor Singson… What did what was the amount in the check?

MS. LIM. One million one hundred ninety thousand, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. As a preliminary question, what is that what bank was the drawee of the check?

MS. LIM. PNB po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What date was the check, if you know.

MS. LIM. April 7, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. For how much?

MS. LIM. One million one hundred ninety thousand, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. May I… If I show you a check the check itself, would you be able to recognize it again?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor

REP. BATERINA. I am showing to you a check, marked as Exhibit “G” for the prosecution, for the panel, for the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER Is that the original check? Is that the check that….

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, that’s the only original check. What is that check that we just showed you to the check that you stated that you extracted from that envelope that was sealed that you got from Mr. Anton Prieto which you described to Governor Singson?

MS. LIM. ‘Yun po mismo, yan po mismo, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice, we are now asking the counsel for the President to compare the check, to inspect the check together with the machine copies of the front side of the check and the obverse side of the check for comparison. May we ask whether the members of the defense has any statement as to the – which is already been marked as Exhibit “G”, whether the check that was presented to them, and the Xeroxed machine copies are faithful reproductions of the front and the obverse side of the original?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer for the respondent on the query?

MR. MENDOZA. We stipulate that Exhibit “G” appears to be a Xerox copy of the check that is now being shown to us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Including the dorsal portion?

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. We are stipulating that the Xerox copy appears to be a copy of what purports to be a check.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are not only stipulating but admitting?

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Your Honor.

Considering – May we ask also that the dorsal portion more particularly the machine copy which is attached to Exhibit “G”, Mr. Chief Justice, that this be marked Exhibit “G-2”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked. The dorsal portion of the original to be compared with the dorsal portion of the machine copy.

REP. BATERINA. May I continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. BATERINA. What did you do with the check?

MS. LIM. Noong nasabi ko na po kay Governor Singson kung magkano po ‘yung amount, Your Honor, sinabihan po niya ako na i-deposit ko na po ‘yung tseke. Pero sinabi ko po kay Governor Singson hindi ko pa puwedeng I-deposit, sir, kasi post-dated sabi ko po, Your Honor, ‘yun.

REP. BATERINA. And what did Governor Singson say?

MS. LIM. Nagalit po siya, Your Honor, kasi sabi po niya magbibigay rin lang ng tseke post-dated pa. Kaya sabi po niya sa akin, “O, sige itago mo na lang muna. I-deposit mo na lang pagdating ng date na ‘ia-ano.

REP. BATERINA. And did you obey the order of Governor Singson?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And thereafter, what did you do with the check if any?

MS. LIM. Noong dumating na po ‘yung date, ‘yung April 7, diniposit(deposit) ko po ‘yung tseke sa savings account ni Governor Singson sa Metrobank Ayala Center branch, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And, afterwards, did you have any – did you see the check again?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When did you see the check again? And under what circumstance did you see the check again?

MS. LIM. Noong April 13, 1999, tinawagan po ako noong isang staff sa new accounts department ng Metrobank, Ayala Center at sinabi po niya na ‘yung tseke pong PNB Naga na diniposit (deposit) ko po sa savings account ni Governor Chavit Singson ay dishonored daw po, Your Honor. Kung puwede pik-apin (pick-up) ko na lang po ‘yung return check.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do?

MS. LIM. Noong nalaman ko po yaon, Your Honor, kinuha ko po iyong tseke sa Metrobank, Ayala Center Branch, at ni relay ko po kay Governor Singson na iyong tsekeng ibinigay sa akin ni Mr. Anton Prieto ay tumalbog po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. You stated that you deposited the check at the Metrobank in Makati, did you have any deposit slip?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where is the deposit slip?

MS. LIM. Nasa akin po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. If you see that deposit slip corresponding to the deposit of Exhibit “G,” will you be able to recognize it?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. May we ask that we show a deposit slip to the … which I … may I withdraw it.

The deposit slip, Your Honors, is already marked as Exhibit “G 1.”

Now, I show you this Exhibit “G 1″ together with the original. Please find out what is that deposit slip to the deposit slip that you used or which was made to deposit the check of Anton Prieto. What can you say as to what that deposit slip is?

MS. LIM. Heto po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you say that that is the deposit slip used to deposit the check that you got from Mr. Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Kasi, ako po mismo nag deposit, Your Honor, at saka iyong mga contents po niya, the same. Iyong mga entries po, the same po doon sa tsekeng tumalbog, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. May we ask, Your Honors, that the defense look over the deposit slip which has been machine copied and the machine copy has already been marked as Exhibit “G 1″ for comparison.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, the defense.

MR. MENDOZA. We stipulate, if Your Honors please, that Exhibit “G 1″ appears to be a xerox copy of the Metrobank … of what purports to be a Metro bank deposit slip.

We would like to make it clear, if Your Honors please, just so that there is no misunderstanding, that when we stipulate that a xerox copy is a copy of the original that is presented, we do not, in any way, admit or suggest an admission of the genuineness and due execution of the original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, later on, for purposes of your cross examination, you will refer to the original.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In which case …

MR. MENDOZA. Because sometimes… I just want to avoid a misunderstanding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. Sometimes, a stipulation on the copy is taken as an admission of the genuineness of the original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it. For purposes of cross examination, the counsel for the prosecution is requested to keep in his custody the original until after the cross examination shall have been terminated.

REP. BATERINA. We will make available the copy, Mr. Chief Justice, to the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. BATERINA. Upon reasonable time for them to request us to show them the original.

May we proceed, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly do so.

REP. BATERINA. Now, you said that the deposit slip that you used to deposit that check given to you by Anton Prieto is Exhibit “G.” I ask you, there are entries, handwritten entries, in the deposit slip. Who made these entries?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. There’s an entry which can be read as “Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson” opposite account name, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the account opposite the account number there is a series of there are serieses of numbers which can be read as 0963011682260, who made these entries?

MS. LIM. Ako rin po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. A check on that box which will be read as “regional check”, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the word or the word “PNB” which is handwritten, who made this particular entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the word “Naga”, who made this particular entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the number 0016105, who made this entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the amount P1,190,000, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. There’s also an amount which is P1,190,000 at the below that entry over the amount, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the words “One million one hundred ninety thousand only”, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. There’s a name which can be read as “Emma”, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is that entry about?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong signature ko po as depositor, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When did you place all these entries?

MS. LIM. Nu’ng ginawa ko po iyong deposit slip, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. There is a note which says… May I ask that I read the original, Your Honor. There is a notation which can be read as: “Note: Returned check signature differs, c/o Mr. Anton Prieto.” Who made this entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why did you make that entry?

MS. LIM. Palatandaan po na itong deposit slip na ito, ito po iyong tseke na dineposit ko na tumalbog galing po kay Mr. Anton Prieto, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Your Honors, the machine copy is black and white. What is now contained here in the slip, for the records, that the “Note: Returned check signature differs, c/o Mr. Anton Prieto” is in red ink, Your Honors.

When the check returned to you, what did you do with it?

MS. LIM. Sinabi ko po kay Governor Singson, Your Honor, na tumalbog po iyong tseke na binigay ni Mr. Anton Prieto.

REP. BATERINA. Do you have any proof to show that the check that came from Mr. Anton Prieto which has already been marked as Exhibit “G” bounced?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is your proof?

MS. LIM. Mayroon po iyong notice iyong galing po ng Metrobank, Ayala, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where is that notice?

MS. LIM. Nandito po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When did you receive the notice?

MS. LIM. Noong April 13, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. May we ask that the defense compare the original with the machine copy which has already been marked as Exhibit “R”, Your Honors.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We stipulate that this Exhibit “G” appears to be a xerox copy of what appears to be a Metrobank document showing the reason for the return of the check.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you.

So after you received that check, where did you place it?

Your Honors, Mr. Chief Justice, in the… May I request that the records be corrected to reflect the true letter of the exhibit. It should have been Exhibit “R” and not Exhibit “G” as was placed as was manifested by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from the defense.

MR. FLAMINIANO. So instead of Exhibit “G”, it should be Exhibit “R”. Subject to that correction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the correction already indicated in the document?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. FLAMINIANO. In the xerox copy.

REP. BATERINA. May I continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.

REP. BATERINA. So we now go to a third time that you went to collect from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. When was that?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Answer.

MS. LIM. Noong March 17, 2000 po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How did it happen that you went to collect from Mayor Estrada?

MS. LIM. Tinawagan po ako ulit ni Governor Singson sa LCS Office, Your Honor. At sinabihan po niya ako na tawagan ko iyong office ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada para tanungin kung puwede ko nang pick up in iyong dapat kong pick up in po doon, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do?

MS. LIM. Tinawagan ko po ulit ang office po niya. Nakausap ko po si Josie, iyong secretary niya. At doon tinanong ko po kung puwede na po akong pumunta pero pinatawag po ulit ako ni Josie at sinabi po niya tumawag daw po ulit ako para tanungin niya muna si Mayor Jinggoy Estrada kung anong oras po ako puwedeng pumunta, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what happened after that?

MS. LIM. Tinawagan ko po ulit si Josie, Your Honor, at doon sinabi na po niya na pumunta po ako ng after lunch para nandoon na po si Mayor Jinggoy, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Did you go after lunch as was told to you by Josie?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what transpired when you went to the municipal hall on that day?

MS. LIM. Pagdating ko po doon, pumunta po ulit ako sa Office of the Mayor at kinausap ko po ulit iyong isang staff po niya doon, iyong receptionist at nagpakilala po ulit ako na sinabi ko po ulit na meron po akong… Ako si Emma, meron po akong kukunin kay Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what transpired after that?

MS. LIM. Pumasok po siya sa loob, sa office ni Mayor Jinggoy, Your Honor. Pagkatapos noon lumabas siya ulit at pinapasok po niya ako sa office, mismo sa office ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what transpired between you and Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. LIM. Pagpasok ko po doon, Your Honor, pinaupo niya ako doon sa tapat po ng table ni Mayor Jinggoy, Your Honor. Pagkatapos

REP. BATERINA. And what happened?

MS. LIM. Pagkatapos po ‘yon, binunot po niya ‘yong wallet niya tapos may kinuha ho siyang papel doon, tapos inabot na po niya sa akin. Ang sabi po niya, “sabihin mo kay Gov., tseke na lang,” sabi po niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did he do when he said “sabihin mo kay Gov. tseke na lang.”

MS. LIM. ‘Yon, umuwi na po ako sa uuwi na po sana ako sa office, Your Honor, pero sinabihan po ako ni Governor Singson na ideposit ko na lang po sa Metrobank ‘yong tseke, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How did Mayor Jinggoy Estrada give you the check?

MS. LIM. ‘Yon nga po, binunot po niya sa wallet po niya at inabot po niya sa akin.

REP. BATERINA. Will you describe the check?

MS. LIM. Personalized check po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you say that it is a personal check, personalized?

MS. LIM. Kasi nandoon po ‘yong picture ni Mayor Estrada sa mismong tseke, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What’s the color of the check?

MS. LIM. Combination po ‘yong pastel color po ‘yon na brown at saka ‘yong creme. Basta hindi po ‘yong maliwanag na creme. Basta combination po ng brown at saka creme, Your Honor. Light.

REP. BATERINA. How much was the amount of the check?

MS. LIM. One million po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do with the check?

MS. LIM. Dineposit ko po sa Metrobank, Ayala

Center branch, sa savings account ni Governor Chavit

Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When did you deposit the check in the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. LIM. Noong March 17, 2000 po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Do you have any proof that you deposited the check of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada into the account of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is your proof?

MS. LIM. Duplicate copy ng deposit slip po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where is the duplicate copy of the deposit slip?

MS. LIM. Nandito po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness is taking out from her envelop a piece of paper, Mr. Chief Justice.

May we request that the defense, the lawyers for the President compare the slip of paper produced by the witness and the machine copy that is delivered to them by Atty. Sanidad for comparison, Your Honors, please.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Well, the xerox copy marked as Exhibit “T” appears to be that’s a xerox copy of what appears to be a Metrobank deposit slip. But, as in our previous manifestation, we do not admit the genuiness and due execution of this document.

REP. BATERINA. May we ask that our compañero distribute the xerox or machine copies of the deposit slip, Mr. Chief Justice to the honorable judges?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted, including the Presiding Officer and the Senate President over here.

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

May I continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may continue.

REP. BATERINA. Where did you deposit the check that you got from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. LIM. Sa savings account po ni Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What bank?

MS. LIM. Metrobank, Ayala Center branch, po, Your

Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How did you deposit that particular check?

MS. LIM. Gumawa po ako ng deposit slip mismo sa Metrobank, Ayala Center branch, po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. In the deposit slip that has already been marked as Exhibit “T”, re marked as Exhibit “T”, Your Honors. Madam Witness, who made the entry which can be read as: “Peso”, a check on the backspace. Who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Pakiulit po iyong tanong, Your Honor?

REP. BATERINA. Who checked that entry on that box corresponding to the word “Peso” on the upper portion?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the numbers 90963011682260, who made these entries?

MS. LIM. Ako din po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the name what are these entries for, the numbers that we have just read?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong savings account number ni Gover¬nor Luis “Chavit” Singson sa Metrobank, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the word, the written name “Gov. Luis Chavit Singson,” who made these entries?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. There is a name of a bank, which can be read as “United Overseas Bank Philippines/San Juan”, what is that?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong bangko nung tsekeng inisyu po ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor, tsaka branch po niya.

REP. BATERINA. Who made the entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about a number which can be read as 000004, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is the significance of the entry, if you know?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong check number, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the amount 1,000,000 and then a check after that? What is that amount?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong amount nung tseke, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And also the amount down under, which is 1,000,000 and a check a little bit after that, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is that amount?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong amount nung tseke, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. There is a number which can be read at the foot, which is “1″, who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is that entry for?

MS. LIM. Iyan po, ibig sabihin po, isang tseke lang po ang dineposit ko, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about a word which can hardly be read but to me it can be read as “Emma”, what is that entry?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong signature ko po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about a date which can be read as “Mar. 17, 2000,” what is that entry?

MS. LIM. Iyan po iyong date of deposit, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. These entries that have been identi¬fied, who made these entries?

MS. LIM. Pakiulit po iyong tanong, Your Honor?

REP. BATERINA. Who made all these entries that I asked you?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. There is another entry which can be read as “from J.E… May I reform, Your Honors?

“From: J.E.” Who made that entry?

MS. LIM. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is the meaning or significance of that entry, if you know?

MS. LIM. From Jinggoy Estrada po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When did you make that entry?

MS. LIM. Nung pagdating ko na po sa office, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, in the original, the ink which wrote “From: J.E.” is in ink. I would just like to manifest that because it is not reflected in the xerox copy neither is it reflected in…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we get a confirmation from the defense whether this is written in ink?

REP. BATERINA. In red ink, in red ink, Your Honors.

MR. FLAMINIANO. There are some red markings here but they seem to have been placed there just recently, judging from the freshness of the ink. (Laughter)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no. The question of the Chair is…

MR. BATERINA. We can have it chemically tested…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a while, for a while, please, for a while. The Chair is only asking whether you are going to affirm that that is written in ink.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor. My observation is that this was freshly written.

MR. BATERINA. We can have that tested, Your Honors, if the distinguished counsel wants it tested.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Both observations noted.

REP. BATERINA. Is that a manifestation by counsel, Your Honors, that it be tested? Is it the intention of counsel to question that marking and that we can test it, Your Honors?

MR. FLAMINIANO. No, no. We don’t have to go that far.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, thank you.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Because there is also a connotation there “JE,” it might even mean “Joker Arroyo.” (Laughter)

REP. BATERINA. The spelling of “Arroyo,” Your Honor, begins with an “A” and not with an “E.”

May I continue, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.

REP. BATERINA. You said that you collected from Anton Prieto, were there other modes of collection from Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Wala… Hindi na po ako nangolekta sa kanya po, Your Honor, pero tumanggap lang po ako ng mga deliveries niya.

REP. BATERINA. When you said you received deliveries, what did you mean? Will you tell the Honorable Court what you mean by “tumanggap ako ng deliveries niya?”

MS. LIM. Kasi po nag-uutos na po siya ng mga messengers po niya na nagde-deliver po ng tseke sa LCS office, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you remember how many instances you received checks delivered to the LCS Building…

MS. LIM. Hindi na…

REP. BATERINA. …from Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Hindi ko na po matandaan, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What were these — and what did these deliveries constitute? Or what form?

MS. LIM. Check po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Check. How many checks did you receive, if you know, if you can remember?

MS. LIM. Hindi ko na po matandaan, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. If we show you… What did you do with the checks that were delivered to you by the messengers of Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Dine-deposit ko po sa account ni Governor Singson sa Metrobank, Your Honor. Pero iyong iba, ibinibigay po namin diretso kay Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. If I show you deposit slips which you made or accomplished, will you be able to find out whether — you can still remember that these were the ones that you used to deposit the checks of Anton Prieto?

MS. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. We are showing to you deposit slips which have been marked as Exhibit “H,” “I,” “J,” “K,” “L,” “M,” “N,” “O,” “P” and “Q.” Please look at the deposit slips together with the xerox copies of these slips and tell us what relations are these deposits slips to the ones that you accomplished in order to deposit the checks of Mr. Anton Prieto.

The deposit slips, Your Honors, have earlier been marked as exhibit before the Honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. These are the originals?

REP. BATERINA. And copies have been distributed to the distinguished senators, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What have been marked are originals or duplicates of the originals?

REP. BATERINA. They are xerox copies but we are holding the originals, Your Honor, in order that at any time, at any resonable time which the defense would like to look on them, it will be available to them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For purposes of requesting the other party for confirmation of the reproduction vis a vis the originals that we presented to the counsel.

(At this juncture, the documents were presented to the witness who examined the same.)

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice, the witness is sorting out the documents. May we ask that she be given time, five minutes so that the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So suspended for five

minutes.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 6:49 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 6:55 P.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed.

The Honorable Baterina.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Just one question more before …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … you finish?

REP. BATERINA. … before we ask for continuance. Because unless THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought one question more and that will be the end of the direct testimony.

REP. BATERINA. There are about …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So how many more exhibits to be testified on by the witness?

REP. BATERINA. There are more pieces of evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have you conferred with the defense regarding your plan to ask for a continuance after one question?

REP. BATERINA. No, Your Honors. But I think that one of the counsel …

May I just ask one question before we stipulate, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You better stipulate now on a continuance.

REP. BATERINA. We ask that we suspend the direct examination until Monday at two o’clock, Your Honors, because we have some more questions that will take us probably for another hour.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection from the defense?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we join the manifestation of the distinguished prosecutor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before so the request will be …

Yes, Senator Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. May I, Your Honor, before the majority floor leader, just for some housekeeping reminders. We have lost about 45 minutes of our time through these different suspensions for the setting up of audio visual aids or getting ready exhibits before it is presented and marked. May I ask that the two counsels, if they are going to do this in the future so we can save time, that audio visual aids be set up prior to the opening of the proceedings and that the exhibits to be presented and marked be prepared so that we do not lose time, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation is well-taken. And the Chair before entertaining the Majority Leader, will make the following announcements: As earlier intimated by the Honorable Senate President, there will be a conference between and among the prosecutors and the defense counsel on Monday at lunch time at the Conference Room of the Senate President, so we can probably take up some further preliminary matters for the purpose of seeing to it that next week, we will be able to adopt a faster system in the presentation of the evidence. So, we would request the lawyers and the prosecutors to please come on time on Monday for the luncheon meeting sponsored by the Senate President.

Secondly, I received a note from the Deputy Secretary for Legislation, Atty. Emma Lirio Reyes, that the concurring opinion of the Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon on the opinion… or rather on the ruling denying the Motion to Quash be made of record and noted. So, the same is noted to be attached to the main opinion together with the other concurring opinions.

Finally, there is the request of the Secretary of the Impeachment Court that both parties be directed to supply the Secretary’s Office 30 sets of documentary exhibits which have, so far, been marked-30 copies-because each one of us here in the Impeachment Court will be given the marked exhibits and also for record purposes.

The request is directed at this stage to the prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Before the Majority Floor Leader is recognized, may I request that our witness be excused.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later.

REP. APOSTOL. Another matter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a while. For a while.

Likewise, the Chair notes, for the record, the concurring opinion of Her Honor, Senator and Judge Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng on the denial of the Motion to Quash.

Yes, Honorable Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. First, may I request that our witness be excused.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. So, she is now excused.

Secondly, we have another witness we are willing to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be presenting another witness?

REP. APOSTOL. No. She is now here. We have requested for a subpoena from this body. May we request now that another subpoena be issued to her or just she be informed…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. No. We will just inform Madam Witness Emma Lim.

REP. APOSTOL. The other witness is Ricaforte.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you please take your seat for a while, because we’ll make some orders for you? Your testimony has not been completed yet. You are to come back under the same pain of a penalty under the subpoena issued to you at two o’clock on Monday, 11 December. So, you have to come back on Monday.

MS. LIM. Yes, sir.

REP. APOSTOL. There’s another witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The other witness to be subpoenaed on you or a voluntary witness?

REP. APOSTOL. No, Your Honor, she was subpoenaed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who was subpoenaed?

REP. APOSTOL. Yolanda Ricaforte, she is around, we have not put her on the witness stand because we are supposed to put her on the witness stand after the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The subpoena addressed to her stands and, therefore, she should come on Monday until her testimony shall have been completed.

REP. APOSTOL. Another witness, Your Honor. General Lastimoso is — the recross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He was already informed earlier and directed to return on Monday.

REP. APOSTOL. For recross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will recognize Senator Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice, I just would like to know if — because of the gravity of the testimony of the witness, Ms. Emma Lim, if there is any manifestation for her to be provided with security by the Court?

REP. APOSTOL. May we be allowed to say something, Your Honors? We will be requesting for immunity.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you mean by that?

REP. APOSTOL. Well, usually a witness of the state, may we request for immunity from prosecution and also, to avail themselves of the witness security.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You should make the proper application.

REP. APOSTOL. We will do that, Your Honor, including that of our other witness, Governor Singson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So what you are doing now is just merely an announcement of what to take but not to request yet.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. In view of the — also manifestation of Senator-Judge Biazon that — may we know how do we solicit security for our witness from this body? (Laughter)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think I am not ready to answer the question. I would rather leave it to the Senate President to …

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. So far, for your information, Congressman Apostol, you can make an application which we will endorse to the proper body so that your witness can be placed under the Witness Protection Program.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, we will do that, Mr. Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER . Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we adjourn this Impeachment Trial until two o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, December 11, 2000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is adjourned until two o’clock on Monday, 11th of December 2000.

THE TRIAL ADJOURNED.

IT WAS 7:05 P.M.