Estrada Impeachment December 14, 2000 Transcripts

RESUMPTION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2000

AT 1:58 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE RESUMPTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

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

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

We will be led in prayer for our country, our people, ourselves, by His Honor, Judge Rodolfo G. Biazon.

PRAYER

SEN. BIAZON.

In the book of Habakkuk of the Bible, it is written, and I quote:

“How long, O Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen?

Or Cry out to you. `Violence!’ but you do not save?

Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong?

Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife and conflict abounds.

Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails.

The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.”

Almighty God.

Our country is in trying times.

Confusion abounds and restlessness is among us.

Just as Habakkuk cried out to You, we pray for Your guidance in this Crisis.

We ask for truth in testimonies and wisdom in our judgments.

We seek patience from our people and peace in our nation.

And finally, we pray for righteousness from our leaders and prosperity for our country.

Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated. The Sergeant at Arms will now make the proclamation.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE JOURNAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the Impeachment Court on Monday, December 11, 2000 and consider the same as approved.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Judge Sotto.

MR. DAZA. Your Honor, if I may, may we enter our appearance. The same appearance for the Defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later, please. This is still the approval of the Journal. You may now proceed, Honorable Sotto.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later. Later.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. May I be allowed to point out and just for clarification ask a question on the Journal, particularly on page 119 all the way to 120, and this is a comment of the Presiding Officer concerning the questions of Senator Cayetano. I would like to be clarified on the statement that you were about to say because in the records of the Journal, you did not finish your statement. This is in relation to some documents that Senator Cayetano presented and was asking for a marking. And then you were quoted to have said, “It is to be adopted by the prosecution?” It was a question. And then, “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….” I would like to be clarified on the propriety of this and whether there is a continuing statement that the Presiding Officer said that was not recorded or you would like to clarify.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have the page, Your Honor?

SEN. SOTTO. Page 120–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t have page 120 here.

SEN. SOTTO. –of the December 7 to 8 Journal. I understand this was deferred, Mr. Chief Justice, or was this approved already? This was deferred.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a statement here that it was approved.

SEN. SOTTO. It was approved already?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was approved already. In any case, perhaps you could just make some kind of a reservation to take this up either tomorrow or the day after–

SEN. SOTTO. Thank you then, Mr. Chief Justice. I would like to be allowed….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –considering that even the Chair doesn’t have a copy of the Journal of the 7th of December.

SEN. SOTTO. I am sorry, Your Honor, only because yesterday, I brought it up to the attention of the Chief Justice and some members of the Senate. I wanted to be clarified on this and I even asked the Majority Leader whether this has been approved already. And I understand–I was told that the Journals were deferred. So I was waiting for a time when the Journal will be approved to ask about it. So…..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It turned out to have been approved already. But in any case, if it is only for clarification-

SEN. SOTTO. Yes. Therefore…..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –it can be done at any time despite the approval of the Journal.

SEN. SOTTO. Therefore I will take it up with the Presiding Officer at some other time. We want to be clarified on this point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, and then we will have to include that in the agenda for the next scheduled trial.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request the Secretariat to consider the observations made so it can be incorporated as an item in the agenda.

Call the case now, Mr. Secretary.

THE SECRETARY. In the matter of impeachment……

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, we still have a pending incident, the matter of the approval of the minutes. There was a request for the approval–rather, not the minutes–of the Journal of 11.

Is there any objection from the Court? [Silence] The Chair hears none; so the motion is approved. The Journal of 11 December is hereby approved.

The Secretary will now please call the case.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

SEN. TATAD. Mr. Chief Justice, may I invite the parties to this Impeachment Trial to now enter their appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are directed to enter anew their appearances.

REP. ARROYO. Same appearances for the Prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. NARVASA. Same appearances for the Defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

We shall now have the–if you recall, we agreed that the first item in the calendar for this afternoon will be the consideration of the pending incident regarding the matter of the issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum bearing the marginal note of the Chief Justice.

The issues to be resolved, as earlier announced, are the following: whether there was, in fact, proper notice of the application for that subpoena to the Defense; and secondly, whether Republic Act No. 1405 is applicable to the instant case which, by the way, was made the basis for the refusal of the person subpoenaed to produce the documents. However, the documents are already with the Secretary of the Senate.

Since these were the issues raised by the Defense, the Court will first hear the Defense and conformably, again, with the agreement, the Defense will have 15 minutes and the Prosecution, in turn, will have also 15 minutes.

Atty. Narvasa.

MR. NARVASA. May it please, Your Honors.

I beg to point out in the first place that the issues which have just been stated by the Honorable Chief Justice are not necessarily the issues that we would like to bring out.

Your Honors will recall that we also wanted to bring out the issue of the materiality of the evidence sought to be obtained, either by discovery or in some other way. That is why, if Your Honors please, in our opposition to the deposition of the Branch Manager, Equitable Bank, and subpoena duces tecum dated 6 December 2000 which we filed earlier today, this afternoon, you will notice that there are several grounds.

You will also notice, Your Honor, that there is no discussion regarding the applicability of the Bank Secrecy Law since we feel that this does not concern us, but concerns principally the bank itself. And we feel that it is the bank that should make the corresponding response.

So, with the permission of Your Honors, I would like to commence my discussion of the matter at hand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has a copy of that been furnished Counsel for the Prosecution?

MR. NARVASA. Yes, if Your Honors please, and I understand that copies have been furnished to the individual members of this Honorable Tribunal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At what time was it filed?

MR. NARVASA. Well, I must apologize for the fact that it was filed only maybe about thirty minutes ago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is why the Chair does not even have a copy of the document.

MR. NARVASA. I apologize for that. But you see, Your Honor, we were working on this….I was working on it during the time that we were having a session yesterday when Mr. Chavit Singson and some other witness was deposing before this honorable Body. I had no other time to otherwise finalize the opposition.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. NARVASA. There are several grounds, as you will notice, Your Honor, which we advanced in our opposition. The first is that, concerning depositions of the Manager of the BPI as well as the Manager of Equitable PCI.

Your Honors will recall that on the same day, December 7, depositions were attempted to be taken at the instance of the Prosecutors of the managers of two banks-BPI and Equitable PCI. Your Honors will also recall that we protested against the taking of these depositions because the records clearly show that no notice was ever given to us seasonably for the taking of those depositions.

The taking of the deposition with regard to the Manager of the BPI succeeded. So the deposition was taken, and Your Honor will recall, certain documents were requested by this Body. The other attempt at the deposition-taking in respect of the Equitable PCI did not succeed.

In any event, what we are saying is, that in respect of the deposition-taking in BPI, that deposition procedure is null and void for want of notice to the defense. It is a violation of the right of due process. And therefore justice requires that what was done at that time be undone.

More fundamental, insofar as we are concerned, is the second ground that we advanced in opposing the deposition-taking as well as the subpoena duces tecum. Section 2 of Rule 23, if Your Honors please, governing the taking of depositions reads as follows, and I am quoting:

Scope of Examination. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court as provided by Section 16 or 18 of this rule, any opponent may be examined regarding any matter not privileged, which is relevant subject of the pending action. I stress that.

While it is true that the deposition may be used or a mode of discovery may be used to discover practically any fact under the sun, there is that general requisite that the fact sought to be obtained, that the fact sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject of the pending action and is not privileged. This simply echoes what Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides, which is a general requisite for evidence of every kind, whether to be presented at the trial or to be discovered by some mode of discovery. And let me read it again, with your permission;

Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by these Rules.

So it seems clear, Your Honor, that any evidence in order to be admissible, and whether given during the trial or discovered during evidence, must be relevant to the subject of the pending action or must be directed to any pending issue.

Now, how may one know what is the subject of the action and what are the issues? Well, this is important to know. Pardon me, if I am going to some principles which are basic, I know, to the lawyers who are members of the Court, but I go into them so that those who may not be lawyers may understand more clearly what we lawyers talk about.

So, the question is: How may one know what is the subject of a pending action, how may one know what are the issues so that the evidence that may be obtained or will be presented, will be connected to these issues. Well, in civil actions, Your Honors, the issues are known by the pleadings, is it not, Senator Roco? The pleadings, the complaint, the answer, the reply. And how may we know those issues? By reading the complaint, the answer and the reply, we will know what facts are admitted and what facts are denied. So, logically, in respect of those facts which are denied, then issues arise. Of course, if the facts are admitted there are no issues. This is how issues are generated in a civil action.

In criminal action, Your Honor, as you know, there is only one pleading, which is the criminal complaint or the information. And how are issues generated in a criminal action? By the plea of not guilty. The plea of not guilty operates as a denial of each and every allegation of fact in the complaint or information. Thus, by identifying the issues we limit the scope of the trial which would otherwise be interminable and would be meandering all over the place. So every bit of evidence that is presented, every bit of evidence will be admissible only if it goes to prove some issue of fact, as that is determined.

Now, I’d like to tell this honorable Body what the defense did in the matter of identifying the issues. Your Honors, you have copies of our answer plea. And you must have noticed that we went to some trouble to reproduce verbatim the allegations of the complaint constituting the different charges–with particular reference to charge No. 2, with which we are at the moment dealing. I draw attention to what we said that after quoting paragraphs A and B, we close with the statement, “Accused understands that the assets he purportedly failed to include in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999 are the assets specifically mentioned in Annex C of the Complaint.”

I stress that that is the last sentence of that paragraph.

Now, the Prosecution had ample opportunity to oppose or dispute this statement and formulation of the issue in respect of charge No. 2. They could have said, “No, no, no.” Aside from the property in Annex C, other properties may be received in evidence, other properties are material.

We look in vain at the reply of the Prosecution for any dispute or any attempt to qualify that statement of the issue. None. There is none, Your Honor, if you look I invite you to look at the reply. On the contrary, what the prosecutors insisted on was that the Senate should not disregard the annexes, and they insist that the annexes are parts of the complaint. That is what they said in response to our formulation of the issue.

Now, is the evidence that will be produced by the deposition relevant to any issue then? Obviously, the evidence that is sought to be discovered is in respect of transactions and property not included in that allegation concerning charge No. 2, Your Honors, and is not one of those enumerated in Annex C. Then, it is clear that that evidence is non- admissible because it does not go to prove any fact in issue.

Now, equally fundamental insofar as we are concerned, Your Honor is that this impeachment complaint has come to this Honorable Senate because there was verification made of the complaint by one third of the members of Congress. But if what is involved is a fact not alleged in the complaint, as we claimed, then that verification does not include that fact which is not alleged. Therefore, the verification does not concern or does not apply to any fact not alleged in the complaint or information. Therefore, this Honorable Body would have no jurisdiction over any fact not alleged in the complaint because not covered by the verification of one third of the members, which is the root of the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.

Now, am I correct, Your Honor, in my computation that I have only two minutes?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have two minutes.

MR. NARVASA. Two minutes. I therefore urge this Honorable Impeachment Tribunal to affirm these familiar doctrines and rules. And I say they are familiar, they are familiar to all courts, all tribunals, all lawyers, all judges and they are rooted in considerations of fairness and due process.

I just want to draw attention to the fact that there seems to be attempts now to present evidence of other wrongdoing of His Excellency, the President, which are not included in the complaint or information or articles of impeachment, which is why I urge that these rules on materiality be applied in strictness. Otherwise, their evidence would not only be immaterial but would produce unfair prejudice to the respondent.

I close with the reminder that these proceedings that we now have are on public display, as it were, on public view. Everybody is watching, practically everybody is watching this proceedings on television, understandably so .

So, if Your Honors please, I respectfully submit that there is enough warrant to justify favorable action on the prayer of our opposition.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from the Defense? Yes, in the meantime, His Honor, Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, I will be honored if the eminent Chief Justice could answer, just maybe one or two questions. It also adds to your time and it has no limit when I am asking questions.

MR. NARVASA. I will be happy too, to accommodate my friend, Senator Roco, Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Mr. Counsel, I listened very intently as you described that an issue is–the materiality of an issue is determined, of course, by what is controverted by the pleadings in a civil case, or in a criminal case, it becomes material because there is a plea of not guilty. As in fact, our Rules says that if there were no pleadings, such a plea would have been entered anyway.

MR. NARVASA. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. That is how to determine materiality.

MR. NARVASA. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. But relevance, as I understand it, is what has a tendency in reason that connects the charges to, that tries to prove in reason, that tries to support the charges. While, as I listened, it was described very well, you were talking about relevance, what was being described in the end was materiality. But relevance here would it not seem relevant if you get court records, the bank records that show sources of money or where funds are kept? Would that not have a tendency in reason to support whether graft and corruption was committed? Would that therefore not be relevant?

So Mr. Chief Justice, while I see the discussion on materiality, that is not what the Rules says–it is relevance. So how can that not be relevant?

MR. NARVASA. May I answer please.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, please, please.

MR. NARVASA. I am glad you brought that out Senator-Judge Roco. I am sure that you are as familiar as I am with the terms, materiality and relevancy.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. And I think that you are as well aware as I am that there is, in fact, a substantial distinction between what we call materiality and relevance. I did not go into that distinction obviously because I did not want to prolong the discussion. But since you have brought it out, I see the rule in this manner:

Evidence must be presented in order to prove a fact in issue. If evidence is introduced which is not intended to prove a fact in issue, that evidence is immaterial. Now, it may be that evidence is presented to prove a fact in issue but as you pointed out it has no logical tendency in reason to prove that fact in issue, that evidence is irrelevant.

SEN. ROCO. Well, that is correct. But what I was saying is, while the distinguished counsel, the eminent counsel tried to discuss the question of relevance as it got to me, as I understood it, what he proved was the question of materiality, or what he has raised was the question of materiality. And therefore, I am at a loss, while the premise, the major premise was under the Rule on Depositions it must not only be not privileged but relevant. The discussion only indicated that they are supposed to be not material because they are not controverted by the pleadings.

MR. NARVASA. You see, the Rules of Court simply uses the term “relevance”. In both the Rules of Evidence as well as in the Rules on Deposition, relevant to the subject of the pending action, relevant to the issue. But actually, as you know in actual practice, there is that vital distinction really between materiality and irrelevant. Although an objection of irrelevancy covers also the objection of immateriality. These terms as you know, Senator-Judge, having been in practice for a long time, are interchangeable. But, now that you have brought it up, I say that there is, in fact, a distinction. When you say: “relevance”, you may mean materiality or irrelevancy. Depending on the context in which you use the term.

Now, I will repeat what I said. My understanding of the proposition is this. A party wants to present evidence. He will present evidence to prove what? He will say: “I will prove a fact.” But it does not mean that fact is in issue, because that fact is not alleged in the complaint or information. What would the objection be? The objection is that that evidence is immaterial because it is intended to prove a fact not alleged. It is intended to prove a fact which is not in issue.

All right. But suppose the party says: “No, Your Honors, I intend to prove this particular fact, paragraph 3, which has been denied in the answer.” Therefore, on its face prima facie, it would appear that the evidence, is material because it goes to prove a fact that is in issue. But there is no tendency in reason of the evidence intended to be presented to prove that fact in issue. Then what would the objection be? I think, Your Honor, will answer: “The objection is irrelevant.” That’s how the whole thing is.

And I am glad that you gave me the opportunity to make this distinction. And I think that the honorable Senators-Judges, even those who may not had had the experience that we have in court, can now fully understand and appreciate the distinction.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICE. Again with the permission of the prosecution, there is a request for a recognition on the part of His Honor, Judge Cayetano. Probably, while it may be…while the issue really is only an argument on the issues raised between the contending parties, the Presiding Officer will, for the moment, allow participation by the members of the Court adverting, however, to the specific rule in Resolution No. 68 on the Rules on Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the Senate.

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

Will the venerable and esteemed former Chief Justice care to answer some questions?

MR. NARVASA. Gladly, Senator Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sir, you refer to Section 2, Rule 23, on the scope of examination. Meaning, on oral deposition.

MR. NARVASA. Deposition on oral examination.

SEN. CAYETANO. That’s right.

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And you specifically referred to the relevancy of said deposition to the subject matter of any pending action.

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Your Honor. And I said that that is simply a reflection of the general rule which applies to all evidence.

SEN. CAYETANO. That is right. And in relation to the subject matter, we are talking here, am I not, Atty. Narvasa, on the impeachment complaint more specifically Article II on Anti-Graft?

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. That the President allegedly concealed certain properties not otherwise found in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MR. NARVASA. That is correct.

SEN. CAYETANO. And as alleged by the complainant, the properties not alleged is found in Annex C, am I correct?

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. And the reason why your goodself is objecting is because the St. Peter’s Holding Corporation, more specifically, is not included in Annex C, am I correct?

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, former Mr. Chief Justice, you have read our rules that the Rules of Court are applicable whenever it is necessary.MR. NARVASA. No. Whenever appropriate, I think is the…

SEN. CAYETANO. Whenever applicable.

MR. NARVASA. Whenever applicable, yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. And the second sentence, and I would like to emphasize that the Rule of Procedure and Evidence shall be liberally construed.

MR. NARVASA. That is correct. That is in the Rules.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes. Would it not be proper to say that when it will be….by the way, incidentally, Section 2, Rule XXIII, Mr. Narvasa, is a rule on procedure. Am I correct?

MR. NARVASA. Yes, sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. And since our Rule says it must be liberally construed, can we not say that Annex C, although does not include St. Peter’s Holdings, nevertheless, if we construe our Rule in relation to Section 2, Rule XXIII, should also include St. Peter’s Holdings because after all what is being alleged by the complainant is the failure of the President to include certain properties or corporations not listed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MR. NARVASA. May I answer now?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, please.

MR. NARVASA. My view, Mr. distinguished Compañero, is that liberal interpretation does not justify elimination or ignoring a rule. The rule is there. The rule requires that evidence must be material. That is to say, it goes to prove a fact that is in issue. And if it is not, the evidence must be ignored. It must not be admitted. Moreover, this rule requiring materiality of the evidence, in the sense that Senator Roco and I have agreed it should be defined, goes to due process. An accused must be informed of the accusation against him with sufficient precision so that he will be enabled to adequately prepare for his defense.

Now, if you allege certain wrongs against an accused or a defendant, and you want to prove something beyond what you said, that is unfair. Because a defendant should defend himself only against what is alleged. He is not called upon to defend himself against every wrongdoing not alleged. Moreover, as may be added as a final note and as I just pointed out, this may go to the very jurisdiction of this Honorable Impeachment Tribunal itself because a fact that is not included, is not alleged or not stated in the complaint or Articles of Impeachment, will not have been covered by the verification of the once distinguished member of the House constituting one third of its membership–

SEN. CAYETANO. But that is already….

MR. NARVASA. I have not finished yet.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. –and therefore may not be within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Impeachment Court.

SEN. CAYETANO. I need not go to that last point, sir, because that has been ruled. Your Motion to Quash has been ruled and denied by the Presiding Officer. So we need not deal on that.

Now, you have faulted the prosecution for not replying to your Answer in that when you said it is the understanding of the accused. By the way, I note that the defense counsel keeps on using the word “accused” perhaps to convey the idea that this is a criminal proceeding. Well, it is not a criminal proceeding. I think if you study the debate on the rules adopted by the Senate on the Rules of Impeachment Trial, we made it very clear, sir, that this is not a criminal proceeding, and therefore, that is why we included the phrase “the rules of procedure and evidence shall liberally be construed.”

Now, having said that, the failure of the prosecution to controvert your assertion in your Answer that you assumed that what was stated in Annex C are the only properties not listed by the President. Can we not, again, using the Rules of Procedure and Evidence liberally, can we not say that, in fact, the accusation is graft and corruption; ergo, we should at least include this particular St. Peter Holding. Because what then would the esteemed colleague consider the phrase “liberally construed” kung hindi po natin medyo gagamitan ng istriktong application ang Rules of Procedure at Evidence. Eh di hindi na namin inilagay ho iyong “liberally construed.” We understand “liberally construed” and again if you wish to refer to our debate when we debated the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trial chaired by no less than the Majority Leader, maliwanag po iyong inilagay namin na hindi nga ito criminal proceeding kaya nga dapat it must be liberally construed consistent with the debates of the Constitutional Commission that promulgated our Constitution. So, I was wondering, Mr. Chief Justice, and this is my last point….

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. President…..

SEN. CAYETANO. Ano ho ang understanding natin na “liberally construed”?

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. President….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, his honor, Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Parliamentary inquiry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ENRILE. Is this kind of a proceeding subject to the two-minute rule?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a matter of fact, before the start of his honor, the Judge Cayetano, the Chair already adverted to the Rules of the Senate on Impeachment, Resolution No. 68, and when the Chair said so, the Chair had specific reference really to the time limit a member of the tribunal of the court should take the….should participate, and the Rule is also very specific. I was even about to ask whether Atty. Narvasa has become a witness to be interrogated. [Laughter]. But, anyway, as I said, this is only for this afternoon because of the critical issue, and may be allowed.

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

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, may I….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes….

SEN. ENRILE. ….call attention to the fact that the copied U.S. Senate Rule on Impeachment, and therefore, the Riddicks and Jefferson manual is suppletory to our Rules in this proceedings and those rules prohibits colloquy in a proceeding like this, or collocoy (pronounced as such) [Laughter]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Resolution No. 68 is also very specific that in addition, the standing Rules of the Senate shall apply.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I do not think my esteemed colleague, Atty. Narvasa, needs that kind of defense. But let me just say that my colleague from Cagayan has certainly not followed the Rules as well, and I think he should be the last person to call this person’s attention on this matter. But anyway, having said that, I have already asked the last question.

SEN. TATAD. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

SEN. TATAD. Just a small point of privilege. Since I was referred to in the process of referring to the drafting of the Rules, the term “liberally construed” came into the Rules and we asked the question: Shall this term “liberally construed” be liberally construed as well? There is no definition, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Earlier, the Senate President made a reservation. Can we hear from the Senate President.

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

SEN. CAYETANO. I am finished, Mr. Chief Justice. I am just waiting for the….

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. It is just an appeal to our members to kindly, you know, observe the two-minute rule. Because if we do not, then I do not see an end to this proceedings as soon as we should end this nightmare. And so, please, may I just make that plea to….

SEN. CAYETNO. Thank you, Mr. Senate President. But please do not single me out, Mr. Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. We are not singling you out. No, sir.

MR. NARVASA. What is the pleasure of the Chair? Shall I answer or….?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a request on the part of his honor, Judge Cayetano, for an answer.

MR. NARVASA. All right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it very brief, please.

MR. NARVASA. Yes. Whether these proceedings are criminal or not will be determined by the Rules themselves, not by what was heard before. What was stated before during the deliberations should only be a guide if there is a doubt as to the intention when looking at the language itself.

My contention with my view is that looking at all these provisions taken together, those proceedings are undeniably criminal. Anyway, it is something that we can probably debate at some time along the way.

Now, regarding this matter of not opposing. I just want to restate that we in the defense went to a lot of trouble to specify what it is that is exactly charged by the complainants against the President. We went so far as to quote verbatim what it is that is charged. And we said, in respect of this particular charge, and we said, “This is how the President understands the charges.” In language that could not be made any plainer, that is a message to the prosecutors that this is the issue that we have formulated.

Tell us what in your view is the issue?

Now, they had the right to reply, and they did. They had the right to dispute our formulation and statement of the issue; to challenge or seek to qualify. They did not do that. In fact, what they did was to insist that this Honorable Tribunal should not disregard the annexes. Of course, that would include Annex “C”. And that the annexes, Annex “C” included, is a part of the pleading.

SENATOR CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Narvasa.

MR. NARVASA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I would like to direct this question to counsel, please.

Mr. Counsel, it is basic in criminal procedure that after the accused has pleaded, the complaint can no longer be amended in substance. And I am sure there is no debate that what is prohibited directly cannot be allowed indirectly.

Is it the contention of the defense that if the deposition is allowed on St. Peter’s Holdings and related issues, that, in effect, would be an indirect amendment of the substance of the complaint? Is that the contention of the defense?

MR. NARVASA. Most decidedly, Madam Senator.

SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. This is the reason why in 1992, in the case of Teehankee Jr. vs. Madayag, the Supreme Court held:

A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.

Is it the contention of the defense that to allow by deposition the reception of evidence on an issue that is not put squarely or raised squarely by the Articles of Impeachment would constitute a substantial amendment?

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Madam Senator.

SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. It would be a substantial amendment.

Again, I will quote another case decided by the Supreme Court in 1996, Buhat vs. Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court said:

In amending a criminal information, what is primarily guarded against is the impairment of the accused’s right to intelligently know the nature of the charge against him.

Is it the contention of the defense that if evidence during the deposition is taken concerning an issue which is not categorically, explicitly and clearly stated in the Articles of Impeachment, that, in effect, would impair the right of the accused, your client, to intelligently know the nature of the charge against him?

MR. NARVASA. We respectfully submit that that is a correct statement of the doctrine.

SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. And finally, in the case of Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, decided in 1994 by the Supreme Court, the ruling was as follows:

Amendment of the information may also be made even if it may result in altering the nature of the charge so long as it can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.

Is it the contention of the Defense that if we allow evidence by means of deposition to be taken on a matter that is not specifically stated in the Articles of Impeachment or in the complaint, that process would prejudice the rights of the accused, your client?

MR. NARVASA. Definitely so, Madam Senator.

SEN. SANTIAGO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I believe I have stayed within my two minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much. Can we have now the….

Yes, what is the pleasure of Judge Biazon? After this, we will hear the Prosecution.

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

I think there is an agreement in the whole proceedings that indeed this is not just a judicial proceeding alone by nature. It is a political mechanism and that is why sitting as judges are nonlawyers.

Now, as one of the judges, I would like to think aloud because if I am wrong, tell me I am wrong so that I may shift my standards of how I am going to arrive at conclusions.

Mr. Chief Justice and my colleagues, Rules of Court proceedings, rules of evidence are very strict because it is to safeguard the rights of the accused because the accused as accused might lose his property, his liberty or his life and those are basic and fundamental rights of any individual under the Constitution and they are safeguarded. Translating these safeguards in court proceedings, we have the rigid Rules of Court.

But in an impeachment proceeding, the accused does not stand to lose any of these three basic rights. The accused stands to lose the position that he occupies in public and that is not a right. That is a privilege granted by the people and the people have the right to withdraw that privilege and we, the judges, is the mechanism that now should be considered as the safeguards to the right of the people to be governed correctly. And so I would like to believe that no technicalities, although it should be used as a guide for us, be invoked to bar us from access to information that we need to pass a judgment whether this President or any president is governing the people correctly.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

SEN. TATAD. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

SEN. TATAD. May I be allowed to raise a point of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the point of order?

SEN. TATAD. I believe that the Senator-Judges are allowed by the Rules to put questions to witnesses, to counsel of both parties, but not to deliver privilege speeches.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may reply in two sentences.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

SEN. BIAZON. That is not a privilege speech. I think an understanding of what impeachment is all about gets into the heart of the purpose, the nature of what impeachment is all about.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor, but at this stage, the issue has been properly defined and so we should limit ourselves to the issues. We will now hear the Prosecution.

Do you acknowledge having received a copy of the written opposition?

REP. ARROYO. Yes shortly before the session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And are you ready?

REP. ARROYO. No, Mr. Chief Justice. I thought that the issue for this afternoon are only two: one, which is the concern between this Court and the banks involved–whether the banks could defy a subpoena out of this Impeachment Court. That is the first issue taken up yesterday and should be taken up today or rather the other day.

The other one, an incidental issue, is whether the defendants, meaning, the President, was given proper notice.

The matter of whether the banks disobeyed or not, that is a matter between the Court and the banks. We submit that the banks have defied the Court and therefore they should be punished for contempt.

As far as we are concerned, all we want at the moment is that that bag there in the Office of the Senate President be opened under scrutiny of the Senate, the Defense and ourselves. We want to look into there, whether again, the bank had defied this Court. No admission on the part of the Defense. Nothing. There is no admission on either the Defense or the Prosecution or anyone. We want to know the contents. That is our prayer. Nothing. It will not prejudice anyone.

Now as to the notice. To save time because we are under pressure, we have distributed both to the members of the Senate and to the Presiding Justice copies in chronological order of the notices we gave. We started December 2nd. It is now December 14. You wouldn’t believe it, two banks have defied us, only one bank has complied. Equitable PCI Bank defied us. Westmont defied us, I mean defied the Court. Only Bank of PI complied. Now, what is this?

Mr. Chief Justice, we are faced, the Prosecution is faced with a very difficult problem. The trial here is an impeachment. If this were a case of Chief Justice Narvasa suing Joker Arroyo for a piece of land, that is between the two of us, and there are rules that would safeguard both our sides and there are rules where the judge can rule or rather on how to rule on the issue. But this is an impeachment case.

Here is a President elected by 11 million and 22 Senators are charged on whether to remove him. That is the simple issue as that.

Now the issue here is whether the President is committing a continuing offense and which is, that he has a fictitious account.

Now, what we are asking the bank, “if you cannot comply,” they said, “it is against the law, the Bank Secrecy Law to open the accounts without the consent of the depositor.” So we ask the question: Why don’t they ask the depositor if he ever exists? Why is it that they hide behind us? All we are asking for is the identity now of whoever the depositor is. We call you “Jose Velarde”, “Jose Valhalla”. We haven’t succeeded.

Now, we have our expert here in one of the rooms. She will not do anything. She will just take a look at it, perhaps photograph it, seal it again. Then, we will know whether there is a continuing cheating.

Now, Mr. Chief Justice, we are faced with several problems. When we attempted to ask for an ocular inspection of the supposed mansions, the President said, “No.” Why? Because that invades privacy of home, of the abode. But he claims he does not own it. Then why should he complain if somebody’s abode is invaded.

Then we have engaged private lawyers whom we have had since the start of these proceedings on pro-bono. They have been working with us. So we engaged them to continue helping us and they have done a wonderful job. Their wives are complaining whether they are getting fees and which they do not report because they say that the other side is paid expensive fees and they are complaining. But that’s neither here nor there. Fact is that, we were challenged yesterday. Now comes again a challenge to the taking of the deposition. What are we asking for?

Let me quote Chief Justice Narvasa in a leading case of Republic vs. Sandigan, penned by no less than the Chief Justice.

He says:

The objective is as much to give every party the fullest possible information of all the relevant facts before the trial as to obtain evidence for use upon said trial.

Then he proceeds. I am quoting the syllabus:

In line with this principle of according liberal treatment to the deposition discovery mechanism, such mode of discovery, et cetera, may be availed of without leave of court and generally without court intervention.

Now he comes here singing a different tune, contrary to the very decision that he rendered.

Where are we going, Mr. Chief Justice? You gave us a deadline. You said everyday we must produce evidence. How can we produce evidence if we are not given, if we cannot avail of the compulsory processes of subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, of deposition, when we are only availing of modes of discovery? We are not yet getting evidence. They can always oppose whatever evidence we have. And, certainly, we are talking here of an impeachment, something that the public understands, not we lawyers only understand.

Whether the President of the Philippines committed a wrongdoing, whether these banks are now being used laundering money of the President, whether these banks have shielded the President, these are the issues. Because, if the President is doing that, he cannot stay here one minute because then he is committing a continuing violation. That is all that we are asking for, Mr. Chief Justice, a fair shake, a sporting chance to prove. We haven’t gone any headway. Not much. We have the evidence. We do not have access to this evidence, but we know that somewhere there, it’s there. We can see it. But we have to get it and we need the help of this Court. Otherwise, we cannot go very far in this and we will be scolded if we cannot produce evidence.

On the question, Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished members of the Court, about whether our courts or whether the complaint has been phrased, framed properly, at another time we will answer that. We are not prepared to answer that because we came here only on two questions of proper notice and of 1405. This was given to us only shortly before the hearing. But let me quote, Mr. Chief Justice. Do they really have notice? This is not yet an argument but since my time is not yet up, I might as well use it.

You see, does the President have notice about what we want? Of course, he has in the Complaint for two weeks, three weeks.

Question: Can he now plead and say that there is no due process because he has not been informed? He has denied it in the papers. This morning, if anybody reads in the papers, he says, “That is not my account but Valhalla.” Then whose account is it?

And I will quote the very learned Senator Santiago when she says in Procedural Due Process, the first edition of page 320 of her book.

“The formula for procedural due process consists of the following: Notice reasonably calculated to apprise intended parties of the pendency of the action.”

He had that how many weeks ago. He knew it. There is no need to…. The hardest person…. Mahirap daw gisingin iyong gising. That is the situation now.

So, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Court, give us a break. We would beg now that we see what is inside that bag, because our contention is that that account is the account of the President of the Philippines.

Now, the documents there will prove –not now–we would’nt ask the Defense now to admit anything. No admission, nothing, but in aid of our…to be able to gather evidence that’s part of the discovery process, please give it to us because we need it. Otherwise, we cannot prove our case. That is what we need and there are modes–we are asking for the compulsory process. We are asking for the modes of discovery and those aids so that we can proceed. We cannot be strict about this. This is a case involving no less than the President of the Philippines.

If the very Rules–the Rules of the Senate–every Rule is thrown against us, how do we proceed? We haven’t gone–I said we have only gotten one bank, Bank of PI. Two banks have stonewalled. How do we now proceed?

We have here an expert to see that–the documents. So please give us a chance to see what we have to see because this proceeding can be cut short perhaps. We don’t have to waste our time here. If we can get one, that would convict the President. We’re sitting down here forever, everyday, we might yet get the President.

So, give us a break, Mr. Chief Justice, and members of the Court because we need assistance; we need that the compulsory processes could be availed of and the modes of discovery could be availed of.

That is all, Mr. Chief Justice.

Thank you, members of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING JUSTICE. You would not make any reservation to put in writing a written opposition?

REP. ARROYO. We will. Thank you very much for reminding us, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now make a ruling.

When this particular issue was brought up last Monday, it was made very, very clear that insofar as the issue of the proper notice is concerned, the Defense was not precluded from raising issues related to notice, among which would be an objection to the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum.

Under the Rules of Court, the party affected may move to quash the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum or the subpoena itself as issued, on several grounds, among which, the matter of privilege; second, materiality and relevancy of the documents sought to be presented. The issue therefore of materiality and relevance is a paramount importance even in the matter of the request for and the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. Everybody was informed of what is the meaning of materiality and relevancy. And under the Rules of the Senate, you have a very specific rule there, that the Presiding Justice can make a ruling on the matter of materiality, relevancy, admissibility of evidence.

Materiality has something to do with proof of what is alleged. And I would like to bring to the attention of the Defense and the Prosecution that when we had the preliminary conference on the 6th of December, and we determined what would be the issues, the parties agreed that insofar as Article II is concerned, this is the issue, and I quote: “Whether on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the President could be guilty of graft and corruption.” Therefore, any application for subpoena duces tecum or production of documents must be material to the facts alleged therein and to be proven in order to establish whether or not the President could be guilty of graft and corruption.

*

I think this is the meat of the issue now, the materiality of what is to be produced. I am sure that the Impeachment Court and the Presiding Officer will not stop anyone from producing evidence related to the ultimate facts alleged in the Articles of Impeachment. Because this Court, I guarantee you, will also be looking for the truth.

Appeal is made to the fact that the Rules of Court should be treated liberally. That is correct, but it does not mean that the Rules of Court must be disregarded.

And so, in the meantime, the Chair will require the parties to submit their written memoranda within 48 hours on this issue, after which the matter shall be deemed submitted for the resolution of the Impeachment Court. So ordered.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT [Sen. Pimentel]. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Because of the urgency of the situation, would it be possible to reduce the 48 hours to 24 hours, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it 18 hours, as a matter of fact.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen hours, You can argue this tomorrow or deem it submitted. We will give you a choice. Upon the submission of your written memoranda, the incidence shall be deemed submitted for resolution by the Impeachment Court.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, without in any way impairing the authority of that order, would this Court consider our request that this Court, with its inherent powers, I said for so long as it will not prejudice the President or the defense, that we now just look at that sealed bag?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was also an agreement earlier that that will be opened only upon a ruling on the issue. Anyway, there is nothing to fear about that. You agreed already that the main objective for the sealing of these documents to be signed by representatives of the parties is to preserve the integrity of the document, and its integrity is already preserved because it is now in the safekeeping of the Secretary of the Senate.

REP. ARROYO. We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we will now proceed to the trial proper. The honorable Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, we are now ready to continue with the presentation of witnesses. When we last suspended, Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson was on the stand. The Prosecution may now wish to continue the direct examination of the same witness under the same oath.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, the first witness was on the witness stand, her testimony was suspended merely because of failure of the marking. We are now ready to present her, and after her then the Governor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You refer to Maria Carmencita Itchon?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Bring to the witness stand said witness for the continuation of her testimony. Where is the witness?

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we are having her paged now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Let somebody fetch her.

(There was a long pause.) Are you now ready, Prosecutor Baterina?

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. We are now ready to….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have copies of the exhibits, as marked, been distributed to the honorable members of the Impeachment Court?

REP. BATERINA. They are being distributed, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So whenever you make any reference to an exhibit, to a paper, indicate the exhibit number for the guidance of the members of the Court as well as of the Presiding Officer and the Senate President.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. May I proceed, Your Honors?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. BATERINA. Madam Witness, when we discontinued your testimony yesterday, you were bringing out documents with you. I show you Exhibits “OO” to “CCC.” May I have the original of the xeroxed document? May I just look for the original, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. You can have the time. Who is in possession of the originals of the exhibits now–the Secretary of the Tribunal?

REP. BATERINA.. I show you Exhibit “OO” to Exhibit “CCC.” Tell us whether these documents are the same ones that you brought out yesterday? A xerox copy of the original.

The Witness is going over the xerox copies which are marked as Exhibit “OO” to Exhibit “CCC”, Your Honors.

Tell us whether these are the xerox copies of what you brought out yesterday.

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What are these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Ito po iyong mga cellphone bills ng telepono ni Mrs. Ricaforte, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Will you read into the records the company that issued these cellphone bills?

MS. ITCHON. Smart Communications, Incorporated, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell the honorable Court to what dates do these cellphone bills correspond to chronologically?

MS. ITCHON. Bill period ending July 1, 1999; bill period ending August 1, 1999; bill period ending August 31, 1999; bill period September 30, 1999…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Slowly, please, so that everything can be taken down in stenographic notes.

MR. DAZA. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what is the pleasure of Attorney Daza?

MR. DAZA. The documents are the best evidence of their contents. These are telephone bills; it has the name of the company from where the bill comes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be for you, but insofar as the honorable members of the Tribunal and as well as the Presiding Officer is concerned, that may not be. The witness is just trying to make the details on the exhibits.

So, the observation is merely noted since there seems to be no objection.

MR. DAZA. Well, Your Honor please, we understood that the copies given to the members of the Senate contained the exhibits…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, but then copies have been given to the members of the Senate. Remember that these are taken in stenographic notes; nothing would appear in the stenographic notes unless the witness will be given an opportunity to consider what are the entries and what these entries are and what these documents are.

MR. DAZA. We are only trying to help save the time of the Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless, of course, the Prosecution would want to take the advice.

REP. BATERINA. May we hear the offer to save time for the honorable Judges. I would not object to any proposal to save the time. If they would accept the documents, then why not, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. DAZA. What we were saying is that the telephone company, the paying company, the dates covered by the bills, I mean, these are matters of common understanding to the members of the Senate and Counsel. And if the thrust of the question is just to read the contents of these into the record, it would, in our view, be just a loss of valuable time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the two gentlemen, may we hear from the honorable Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice, you have already ruled on this point. To save time, I would suggest that counsel already accept the ruling and stop and listen to the testimony being presented. That will save time.

MR. DAZA. The Prosecutor requested that if we have an offer to make, he might agree. Well, I wish that the distinguished Senator would leave the conduct of the trial more to the counsel. I know that the distinguished Senator is a learned lawyer, but…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Indeed, the advice is well-taken to save time. But if the two of you can stipulate on the facts now, you can do so.

MR. DAZA. Yes, we can stipulate that the best evidence of the contents of the telephone bills which have been marked as exhibits are the documents themselves.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the stipulation of whether he will accept the documents, that is the kind of stipulation that may be entered into.

MR. DAZA. Yes, we are willing to stipulate that these telephone bills are the telephone bills mentioned in the testimony. What is there to stipulate?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There you are, Prosecutor Baterina.

REP. BATERINA. The point that we would want to make is just to come out with some preliminary statement, some preliminary testimony so that when one reads the transcript, Your Honor, they can now go directly to the different documents that have been marked. But if we do not put into the records this particular point that we are going to establish, then anybody, in the future, will not be able to discern what we are talking about here, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the message of the Presiding Officer. The preliminary questions may be asked. Any objection thereto would be overruled.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May I just make this observation that Exh. “OO” all the way up to Exh. “CCC” refer to statements of account and all of these statements of account emanate from one service provider that is Smart. So maybe, you know, those items can be admitted by the Prosecution and…

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honor. There is a reason for the preliminary statement.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The only difference would be the amounts apparently.

REP. BATERINA. No, Your Honor. Give us about 10 minutes and then we’ll come out connect it, under the rule that we can connect it up later, Your Honor. Please give us time to show the materiality.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you for that and you may now proceed.

REP. BATERINA. These documents are how many in number?

MS. ITCHON. Fifteen, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And they correspond to what dates or what months?

MS. ITCHON. Bill period ending July 1, 1999 to bill period ending August 31, 2000, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And who keeps these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you keep these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Kasi po, ako po iyong accountant, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Of what?

MS. ITCHON. Sa Fontainbleau, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And did you ever go to the hearing of the Senate during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on the jueteng issue?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And did you bring these documents to the Senate?

MS. ITCHON. No, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. But did you look for these documents later on?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Who asked you to look for these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Pagkatapos ko pong mag-testify doon sa Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing, tinanong po ako ni Atty. Pablito Sanidad to–hanapin ko daw kung may mga calls daw po kami–calls si Mrs. Ricaforte sa mga taong nabanggit, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And did you look for these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And who are these people whom he says have calls or were called?

MS. ITCHON. Sa Malacañang po, kay Mayor Jinggoy Estrada or Jingle Bells; kay Atty. Edward Serapio; kay Gov. Singson, at saka kay Mr. Bong Pineda, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And when you were able to locate these documents–

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. –did you…what did you do with that, with these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Pinag-aralan ko po, Your Honor, iyong mga statements of account po niya.

REP. BATERINA. And what was the result of your study of these documents, from document “OO” to “CCC”?

MS. ITCHON. Nakita ko po na mayroong nga po siyang maraming tawag sa mga taong nabanggit, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What did you do therefore?

MS. ITCHON. Nag-prepare po ako ng list para sa mga tawag na ito, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Who again instructed you to make the list?

MS. ITCHON. Atty. Pablito Sanidad, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Did you really make the list?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where is the list that you made?

The witness takes out a list which has already been marked as Exh. “JJJ”, Your Honors.

And we are now asking that…and a copy of the same have been distributed to the distinguised judges, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer has a copy.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “JJJ”.

REP. BATERINA. “JJJ”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

REP. BATERINA. Now, in accordance with your–the study that you made, can you point out in summary, how many calls were made to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. ITCHON. Twenty-one times, po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How many?

MS. ITCHON. Twenty-one times, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about Malacañang?

MS. ITCHON. Twenty times, po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What is the number that was called in Malacañang if you know?

MS. ITCHON. It’s 7368855 and 7368858, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How do you know these numbers?

MS. ITCHON. Kasi po, mayroon po kaming mga files sa office, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Did you verify that?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And how many calls were made to Malacanang from that particular phone?

MS. ITCHON. Twenty-one times, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What date was the first call?

MS. ITCHON. Noong May 25, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What time of the day?

MS. ITCHON. At 12:42 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what particular place was called?

MS. ITCHON. Sa presidential residence, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Counsel, for us to be properly guided, would the witness be made to refer to a particular document which is the subject matter of the answer?

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honor.

What particular part of the exhibits from “JJJ”, will you look into the exhibits that you have brought out, submitted to the distinguished Members of the Senate and find out from Exhibit “OO” to Exhibit “CCC” so that they will know where and when was the call, the first call made?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please read slowly.

REP. BATERINA. The original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So that we can leaf through the pages with us.

REP. BATERINA. And indicate also the page so that the distinguished members of the Senate will know.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the exhibit number.

REP. BATERINA. The exhibit number, she speaks of Exhibit No. “OO”, Your honor, and page No. 5 which is Exhibit “OO-O”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “OO-“?

REP. BATERINA. “OO-4”, Your Honor. And this is page 5 of the Exhibit “OO”, Your Honor. About 10 from the bottom.

What’s the “PR” there that you indicated?

MS. ITCHON. It’s presidential residence, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How do you know that that is presidential residence?

MS. ITCHON. Tsinek ko po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And where was the call coming from?

MS. ITCHON. Manila, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what was the number…the two numbers that you mentioned, what is the number that was called?

MS. ITCHON. 7368855, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And for how long was the call made?

MS. ITCHON. One minute, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And then what was the next number…what was the next date when the call was made for the call to the presidential residence?

The witness, Your Honor, is referring to Exhibit “RR” and she refers to an annotation at the left margin, “PR”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Of what exhibit?

REP. BATERINA. Which is Exhibit “RR-3”, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “RR-3”.

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honor.

What timewas the call made?

MS. ITCHON. 9:10 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. 9:10?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And where was the call coming from?

MS. ITCHON. Quezon City, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what number of the two numbers that you indicated was called?

MS. ITCHON. It is 7368855, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of Honorable Baterina, her Honor, Judge Coseteng, would like to ask some questions.

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

I would just like to ask who the owner of the phone actually is, because earlier I think it was mentioned that it was the phone of Mrs. Ricaforte.

REP. BATERINA. Is the lady Judge asking your humble servant, Your Honor?

SEN. COSETENG. Yes.

REP. BATERINA. That was explained during the first day that she came over, Your Honor, that it was Mrs. Ricaforte’s phone but it is in the name of the witness, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. So, whose phone is it, in fact? Because earlier we were supposed to be looking at calls made from the phone of Mrs. Ricaforte. However, the Smart billing, Mr. Chief Justice, shows that it is the phone of Ma. Carmencita Itchon.

REP. BATERINA. That is true, Your Honor. And I was about to go to that, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Okay. I just wanted to know.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Your Honor.

That was the time that…yesterday when we asked the witness to call the phone number, Your Honor, that is now billed in this detailed billing, because if the phone were called, it would have made a….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it come from the witness.

MR. DAZA. The Prosecution, Your Honor, is already testifying.

REP. BATERINA. No, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. We would prefer to hear from the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The attention of the Prosecution has just been invited that it should not make any statement of fact which is sought to be elicited from the witness here. You better ask the witness.

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If you want to have a dovetailing of a previous testimony with what you are going to ask now.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you, Your Honor.

Madam witness, the phone statement of account is in the name of Fontainbleau. Do you remember that?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. But under the address of Fontainbleau is the name “Ma. Carmencita Itchon.” Who is the “Ma. Carmencita Itchon” referred to there, if you know?

MS. ITCHON. Ako po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How come that…why is it that the name Ma. Carmencita Itchon who is you, who you are, is named there and then you stated a while ago that these are the bills of Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. ITCHON. Kasi po noong bumili po kami ng cellphone, iyon pong number na naka-assign sa akin kinuha po ni Mrs. Ricaforte at iyon naka-assign na number po sa kanya ay napunta sa akin, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Is there any proof? Can you prove that from the bills that phone number was the one, or the phone on which the billings are made is the one used by Mrs. Ricaforte? Or that phone which is now represented by these calls is the same phone that was assigned to Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. ITCHON. Puwede po nating I-dial iyong number po niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can we dial again the number, Your Honor?

MR. DAZA. Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have the cellphone?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the objection?

MR. DAZA. Your Honor, this has already been answered yesterday. If the Court will recall, she was asked the same question and she was asked to dial yesterday allegedly a number of Mrs. Ricaforte. This is repetitious, Your honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. This time the question is directed on the number indicated in the exhibit. I don’t think there is an objectionable ground for the question.

MR. DAZA. My understanding, Your Honor, was that it was a number, she was asked why she knew that the number is Mrs. Ricaforte and then she is now asked to dial the same number that was dialed yesterday. That is why I was objecting because it has been answered, repetitious. But I submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. The witness may answer.

REP. BATERINA. Can you dial the number again? What are you dialing–the number you are dialing?

MS. ITCHON. It is 09189021847, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would both counsel approach the witness to find out the correctness of the numbers being dialed?

REP. BATERINA. Can we ask that she places it on the microphone, Your Honor, and may we ask the electronic managers to make stronger the volume of the phone here?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What are you referring to?

REP. BATERINA. If I volunteer any statement, the other counsel will object because that would be a testimony….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you want now what the answer on the other end is?

REP. BATERINA. That would be right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Could it be audible even with the use of the microphone?

REP. BATERINA. I hope that if they make the volume louder it can tell us the name, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We cannot hear.

MR. DAZA. This was the same number, Your Honor, that was dialed yesterday, and this was the same result.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We do not know.

REP. BATERINA. But if you dial…if you have a cellphone here and you dial it, I think a name…an electronic voice will….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All manifestations are merely noted.

REP. BATERINA. May we ask that one of the distinguished judges tries to find out or whoever has a cellphone and call up the number, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I do not think a member of the Court could be a witness at this time.

REP. BATERINA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Try to explore all possible ways allowable under the Rules of Court. But do not use anyone of the judges.

The honorable Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. With the indulgence of the counsel.

Mr. Chief Justice, may we know the purpose of why it has to be dialed and the voice mail should be aired to identify the owner of the phone or who is using the phone?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you ready to divulge the purpose of the question?

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honor. That if the numbers dialed, a voice recording will say that: “Hi! This is Yolly. Please state your message and we will get back to you.”

SEN. SOTTO. It is to establish the person using the telephone number, is that right?

REP. BATERINA. Of course. The voice, Your Honor, will also show that that is the voice of Yolly Ricaforte which is recorded.

SEN. SOTTO. We might as well just rely on what the witness is saying and that is, place it on the record. That is easier to do because you give me the number, I can change that name in five minutes or ten minutes and I can put in another voice mail there. It is so easy to change that.

REP. BATERINA. That is true, Your Honor. But right now….

SEN. SOTTO. So that is why, we will just…it is easier and we will save time if we will just say that that is the phone of Yolly Ricaforte, according to the witness, and let us go on instead of playing with the telephone in Court, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The suggestion is well-taken and–

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –the prosecutor may now proceed along the suggested scheme.

REP. BATERINA. I will now proceed to another question. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago for some questions.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Prosecutor, on a question of law. The parole evidence rule provides: “When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be within the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.” The bill is one such written agreement. The bill says, the cellphone is owned by Carmencita Itchon and under the parole evidence rule, apparently, any verbal or oral evidence contrary to what is indicated in the document is not acceptable. This seems to be the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Inciong vs. Court of Appeals decided in 1996 where the Supreme Court ruled:

The parole evidence rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. For the parole evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form or be signed by both parties.

And the Supreme Court went on to say:

As a general rule, bills–

–I will emphasize the word “bills”–

As a general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parole or extrinsic evidence.

Could you please comment on this legal point?

REP. BATERINA. May I just ask the Lady Senator, Mr. Chief Justice, if–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are allowed.

REP. BATERINA. –the lady Senator is saying that the parole evidence rule should apply here?

SENATOR SANTIAGO. No. I am citing the rule plus the decision of the Supreme Court.

REP. BATERINA. Yes.

SENATOR SANTIAGO. And I would like to be enlightened on why you think this decision does not apply to your particular case.

REP. BATERINA. The parole evidence rule, Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, does not apply here because we are not trying to vary any provision of the contract between Smart and apparently the lady with whom… or with Fontainbleu because Fontainbleu is the subscriber. We are just establishing the use of the phone. Who used the phone?

SENATOR SANTIAGO. Perhaps you were not listening to me. You and I said that this 1996 case has a particular provision which seems to be applicable…I am not referring to the contract between Smart and Carmencita Itchon, I am referring to the bills that you have presented in evidence which is denominated “Statement of Account” and which specifically carries the name of Maria Carmencita Itchon.

I am asking you if you think that the Supreme Court ruling in 1996 in the case of Inciong Jr. vs. Court of Appeals does or does not apply to the instant proceedings. If we just read the rule as it is, your answer would be perfectly acceptable.

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honor.

SENATOR SANTIAGO. But in 1996, the Supreme Court said:

For the parole evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form or be signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills, et cetera, are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parole or extrinsic evidence.

REP. BATERINA. That is true, Your Honor. The parole evidence rule does not apply here.

SENATOR SANTIAGO. The ruling is that the parole evidence rule applies. That is why I would like to have your comment. I would like to know how you reconciled this decision of the Supreme Court with what you are seeking to attempt to do this afternoon. You are seeking to show that although the bill on its very face, and is admitted by yourself, carries the name “Maria Carmencita Itchon”, nonetheless, the statement of account is not for her but for Ricarforte.

REP. BATERINA. Because what we are establishing here before the Senate is the use of the phone–is the use of the phone.

SENATOR SANTIAGO. May I just read this decision of the Supreme Court and then I believe I have believe my point. It is already in the Record. Then it can, therefore, be considered by the Court at the proper time.

This is what the Supreme Court said in the case of Inciong Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 1996:

The parole evidence rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document.

In other words, the Supreme Court seems to be saying we can apply the parole evidence rule even to private documents. And then goes on to say:

For the parole evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form or be signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills–

–I kept emphasizing the word “bills” because this is a bill. This is a statement of account.

–bills, notes and other instrument of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parole or extrinsic evidence.

REP. BATERINA. We are not trying to vary the statement, the contents of the document, Mr. Chief Justice. We are just trying to establish that somehow, the object of that particular billing has been used. The object is the telephone unit itself. We are just trying to establish that that telephone unit was used by somebody else. So it does not vary any contents of the billing but that these particular calls were emanating from somebody else not the lady named there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Counsel, would it not be possible that at this time when Ms. Itchon is dialing that number, it is indeed the voice of Ms. Yoly Ricaforte who is answering but the previous billings could not have been hers. Is that not at all possible?

REP. BATERINA. It could be possible, Mr. Senate President. It is even possible that it was just made yesterday. But what I was just trying to tell is that if you dial the number, it would say that way and that is a prima facie case that it is being used by the person who made that electronic recording.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what is the pleasure of His Honor, Judge Enrile?

SEN. ENRILE. I have a problem, Mr. Chief Justice, because I do not think we have established that the voice recording at the other end of the line called has been established to be that of Ricaforte so that the question is not properly laid. The basis is not properly laid so that this line of questioning would be premature and improper at this stage of the questioning of the witness because we do not know whether the voice of Ricaforte is the voice recorded at the other end of the telephone that was called. There is no proof of that yet. We are just guessing.

REP. BATERINA. That would be the next question, Your Honor. That would be the next question if the witness would recognize the voice of Yolanda Ricaforte because she worked with Yolanda Ricaforte and that would have been the next question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed with the next question.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I hate to intervene. But as agreed, we are supposed to take a break at 3:45. May I now move for the 15-minute agreed break.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Before we do that, the Chair recognizes Her Honor, Judge Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Just a point of order. I would like to offer a motion as allowed under Rule XVII of our Impeachment Rules. I have observed in the past hearings, Mr. Chief Justice, that many of our colleague-senators including myself, have been propounding questions to the witnesses for more than two minutes. And I believe in Rule XVII, it stated very clearly because I remember during the Committee on Rules, I had supported that the Senator-Judges would seek clarificatory questions to each witness for two minutes and I believe that in the past days, we have been almost religiously violating this rule.I would like to seek enlightenment on this issue whether this rule will be liberally implemented or whether we would abide by the two-minute per Senator-Judge per witness, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule will have to be strictly enforced and the Chair would leave it really to the members of the Court to abide with the rules they promulgated as the Senate.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The main problem, however, with the Presiding Officer is this. He cannot keep track of the minutes. So I suggested earlier to our Senate President that perhaps we should have a timekeeper. The clock there is not very, very clear to me. I do not have my eyes at the back so I cannot see what is here. So, anyway, I think we will have a timekeeper.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

In the meantime, therefore, the Chair would declare a suspension of the trial for …we will make it 20 minutes this time because we spent a lot of hours on a very, very important issue. So we will resume at exactly 4:15 p.m.

(It was 3:55 p.m.)

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:18 P.M.

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

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The hearing is resumed.

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Baterina.

REP. BATERINA. May I now ask questions on the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

REP. BATERINA. You dialed a number and did you hear what was stated or what was said or what was the sound?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Do you know what was said?

MS. ITCHON. It says: “Hi, this is Yolly. Please leave your message and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you. Bye.”

REP. BATERINA. Do you know whose voice was that?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Whose recording was that?

MS. ITCHON. Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you know that that is the recorded voice of Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. ITCHON. Noon pong prinogram po kasi niya ‘yon, nakaharap po ako. At saka alam na alam ko po iyong boses niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. For emphasis, how long have you been together–you and Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. ITCHON. From the time na nag-report po siya, April 16, 1999 up to the last day na nakita ko po siya sa office noong August 31, 2000, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Now, in your study that Atty. Sanidad requested you to do, can you tell the honorable Court how many times in these particular bills was the call made to Malacanang or the presidential residence?

MS. ITCHON. It’s twenty-one times, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell us when was the first call made?

MS. ITCHON. It was May 25, 1999.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers, Your Honors, to Exhibit “JJJ-13”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Triple “J”.

REP. BATERINA. Yes, Your Honors. And the reference is made to the entry–fifth from the last entry, Your Honor.

When was this made, if you know?

MS. ITCHON. May 25, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. At what time?

MS. ITCHON. At 12:42 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what number of the two numbers that you stated?

MS. ITCHON. 736-88-55, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What was the next call?

MS. ITCHON. Noon pong September 3, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 736-88-55, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What time was it that the call was made?

MS. ITCHON. 9:10 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The Witness refers to Exhibit “JJJ-10”, Your Honors, and it is so indicated in the exhibit, the first indication of which can be read as “Presidential residence,” which is about seventh line from the top.

What was the next call to the presidential residence?

MS. ITCHON. Noon pong September 6, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What was the telephone number that was called?

MS. ITCHON. 736-88-55, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And when was it called?

MS. ITCHON. At 7:19 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what was the next?

MS. ITCHON. On September 6, 1999.

REP. BATERINA. The Witness refers to three consecutive lines on “JJJ-10”, Your Honors, and they are so marked in the exhibit or so indicated in the exhibit.

What was the date when that call was made?

MS. ITCHON. September 9, 1999.

REP. BATERINA. That was the fifth one.

MS. ITCHON. Yes.

REP. BATERINA. And the sixtht one?

MS. ITCHON. September 10, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what time of the day was the call made?

MS. ITCHON. 2:41 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was used?

MS. ITCHON. 736-88-55, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The Witness refers to an entry, Your Honors, Exhibit “JJJ-10” which comes after the words “Governor Singson”, after the fifth call.

And what was the sixth call?

MS. ITCHON. On September 30, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what time was it when the call was made?

MS. ITCHON. 4:05 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what telephone number was called?

MS. ITCHON. 736-88-55, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the eighth call?

MS. ITCHON. On September 30, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 736-88-55, Your honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what time of the day was the call made?

MS. ITCHON. 4:15 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The Witness refers to the last and penultimate entries on Exhibit “JJJ-10”, Your Honors.

When was the ninth call made?

MS. ITCHON. On October 2, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The Witness refers to the entry “presidential residence” at about the middle of Exhibit “JJJ-9”, Your Honor.

And when was the call made? What time of the day was the call made?

MS. ITCHON. 9:05 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 736-88-55, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the next call, the tenth call?

MS. ITCHON. On October 2, 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what time of the day was that called?

MS. ITCHON. At 9:07 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7368858, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers, Your Honor, to the next line after–the first indication of–the first after or the line, the two lines at about the middle of the page.

And then what was the next call, the 11th one?

MS. ITCHON. On October 4, 1999 at 4:27 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to a succeeding call denominated as “Presidential residence” which is three items moved from the last call at about three–one-two-three–lines removed from the last or the 10th call, which is the 11th call.

The 12th call?

MS. ITCHON. On October 19, 1999 at around 2:12 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to Exh. “JJJ-9” at the third line from the bottom, Your Honor.

And what was the 13th call?

MS. ITCHON. On October 19, 1999 at 2:16 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was called?

MS. ITCHON. 7368858, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the 14th call?

Witness goes to Exh. “JJJ-7”.

The 14th call was a call to what telephone number?

MS. ITCHON. 7368855, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. At what time of the day was the call made?

MS. ITCHON. 3:40 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to 6th from the bottom, the line 6th from the bottom of Exh. “JJJ-7”.

The 15th call, when was that made?

MS. ITCHON. On December 13, 1999, Your Honor, at 4:06 p.m.,

REP. BATERINA. The witness goes to Exh.”JJJ-6” and the witness refers to the third line, the third entry in that exhibit,Your Honor.

What was the 16th call?

MS. ITCHON. On February 10, 2000, Your Honor, at 10:22 a.m.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called?

MS. ITCHON. 7368855, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to the third line, the third entry on Exh. “JJJ-4”, Your Honors.

And what was the 17th call, when was it made?

MS. ITCHON. On March 16, 2000 at 5:10 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to that entry, Your Honors, in Exh. “JJJ-3” at about 7th line of the same exhibit.

What about the 18th call?

MS. ITCHON. On March 18, 2000 at 6:22 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7368855, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The next one?

MS. ITCHON. On March 20, 2000 at 9:20 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7368855, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Witness indicates two successive lines, two lines removed from…three lines removed from the 17th call.

What about the 20th call?

MS. ITCHON. On April 14, 2000 at 8:52 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was called?

MS. ITCHON. 7368855, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness is referring, Your Honor, to Exh. “JJJ-2” at about the middle of the entries thereof.

What about the last call, you said 21?

MS. ITCHON. Yes.

REP. BATERINA. What about the last call?

MS. ITCHON. On April 18, 2000 at 11:32 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7368855, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you know that these numbers are numbers that are found or were found in the presidential residence?

MS. ITCHON. Mayroon po kaming record sa office, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Were there entries or what about the entries in Exhibit “OO” to “CCC”, did you also make a study as to the calls to the brother of Bong Pineda?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How many calls were there?

MS. ITCHON. Two times, po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell us when this first call was made?

MS. ITCHON. On July 31, 2000 at 10:14 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness is referring to Exhibit “JJJ”, the first page, which is at the penultimate entry of Exhibit “JJJ”.

What about the second?

MS. ITCHON. On July 31, 2000 at 11:15 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What numbers were called up or what number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7227366, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. That’s for the first call. What about the second call?

MS. ITCHON. 7227366, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. In your study, were there calls to what other persons?

MS. ITCHON. Kay Mayor Jinggoy Estrada or Jingle Bells, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How many calls were made to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. ITCHON. Twenty-two calls, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell the Honorable Court what was the first call?

MS. ITCHON. On August 16, 1999 at 1:30 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to Exhibit “JJJ-11″, Your Honors. And the witness is pointing to the entry at about the middle of the page.

What was the time of the call?

MS. ITCHON. At 1:30 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what was the number called?

MS. ITCHON. 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the next call?

MS. ITCHON. On August 16, 1999 at 4:57 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Witness refers to the second call as the one immediately following the first call, Your Honor.

What about the third one?

MS. ITCHON. On August 31, 1999 at 10:00 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called?

MS. ITCHON. 7244736, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And the witness refers to the same exhibit, Your Honor, at about the 7th line from below.

What about the next call?

MS. ITCHON. On August 31, 1999 at 12:53 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. By the way, how many telephone numbers do you know and which you used in your research of the telephone numbers of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

The witness is going over the document, Exhibit “JJJ”, Your Honors.

MS. ITCHON. Dalawa po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What are the numbers that were called? Could that correspond to the telephone of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. ITCHON. It’s 0917-5260217 and 7244736, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. In the first call, what telephone was used?

MS. ITCHON. Cellphone, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. But what number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. It’s 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what was the second one?

MS. ITCHON. 09175260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What exhibit this correspond?

MS. ITCHON. Exhibit “JJJ-11″, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Are there other calls in Exhibit “JJJ-11″?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Which one? The third one?

MS. ITCHON. The third, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth calls to Mayor Jinggoy, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. To shorten the enumeration, Your honor, may I ask that the distinguished Members of the Senate just look at the page.

What about the 7th call?

MS. ITCHON. It was made on September 15, 1999 at 11:50 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And where is this found?

MS. ITCHON. On Exhibit “JJJ-10″, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to Exhibit “JJJ-10″ at about the middle of the page.

What was the next call?

MS. ITCHON. On September 15, 1999 at 11:53 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7244736, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Then, what was the 8th one? The 9th one?

MS. ITCHON. On September 15, 1999 at 1:06 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what page is that found?

MS. ITCHON. On Exhibit “JJJ-10″, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. At about the middle of the page after the series of entries, Your Honor, marked as “Mayor Jinggoy Estrada.” There are four of them.

What about the 11th call?

MS. ITCHON. On September 30, 1999 at 10:38 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7244736, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What kind of a telephone is that, if you know?

MS. ITCHON. Landline phone, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what about the 12th call?

MS. ITCHON. On September 30, 1999 at 12:58 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7244736, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What kind of telephone is that?

MS. ITCHON. Landline phone, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And who was being called up?

MS. ITCHON. Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the 13th call?

MS. ITCHON. On September 30, 1999 at 1:57 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell the honorable Court what kind of telephone was this?

MS. ITCHON. It’s a cellphone unit, Your Honor, number.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to the different calls made on Exhibit “JJJ-10″, Your Honors.

What about the 14th call?

MS. ITCHON. On November 15, 1999 at 12:09 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7244736, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what kind of phone was used or was called up?

MS. ITCHON. Landline phone, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the next one?

MS. ITCHON. November 15, 1999 at 2:26 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 7244736, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What kind of phone is that?

MS. ITCHON. Landline phone, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the 17th call?

MS. ITCHON. On November 15, 1999 at 3:05 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What kind of telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. It’s 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And the 18th call?

MS. ITCHON. On November 15, 1999 at 4:11 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Whose telephone was called up?

MS. ITCHON. Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the 19th call?

MS. ITCHON. On January 3, 2000, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness turned to Exhibit “JJJ-5″, Your Honors.

What call was made? Where was the call made?

MS. ITCHON. On telephone No. 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And whose telephone number was that, if you know?

MS. ITCHON. Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the 20th call?

MS. ITCHON. On January 4, 2000 at 12:48 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to the two entries, first and second entries, Your Honors, on Exhibit “JJJ-5.”

What is the other party whose telephone number you asked to find out as one being called? Excuse me, Your Honor. I will reform. What other telephone numbers of Mayor Estrada were called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When was that called up?

MS. ITCHON. On March 31, 2000, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what was the next one?

MS. ITCHON. On March 31, 2000, at 3:19 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what number called up the telephone number?

MS. ITCHON. 0917-5260217.

REP. BATERINA. No. What telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0917-5260217, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Whose number was that?

MS. ITCHON. Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Is there any other call to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MS. ITCHON. Wala na po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What other telephone numbers were you asked to look, to find out whether such number were called or was called?

MS. ITCHON. Iyon pong kay Atty. Edward Serapio, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Did you find out whether the telephone number of Atty. Serapio was called up?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. From where did you get the telephone number of Atty. Serapio?

MS. ITCHON. Kay Governor Singson po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Can you tell us when was the first call to Atty. Serapio?

MS. ITCHON. On March 23, 2000, at 11:18 a.m., Your Honor, ay, p.m.

REP. BATERINA. What telephone number is that of Atty. Serapio?

MS. ITCHON. 0918-9012071, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to an entry at about six lines removed from the foot of the exhibit. What was the second call to Atty. Serapio?

MS. ITCHON. On March 24, 2000, at 1:54 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0918-9012071, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Do you know whose number is that?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Whose number was that?

MS. ITCHON. Atty. Edward Serapio, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Who gave you that number?

MS. ITCHON. Hiningi ko po kay Governor Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. When is the third call made to Atty. Serapio?

MS. ITCHON. April 3, 2000, at 4:59 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0918-9012071, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The witness refers to Exhibit “JJJ-2” at about the third line, the third entry of Exhibit “JJJ-2”. When was the next or the fourth time that Atty. Serapio was called up?

MS. ITCHON. On April 12, 2000, at 2:55 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0918-9012071, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What time was that again?

MS. ITCHON. 2:55 p.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. The next one. When was that?

MS. ITCHON. On April 13, 2000, at 2:59 a.m.

REP. BATERINA. And what number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0918-9012071, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about the sixth call to Atty. Serapio?

MS. ITCHON. On April 14, 2000, at 11:35 a.m., Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Then, what telephone number was called up?

MS. ITCHON. 0918-9012071, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Are there any entries there which you made that would indicate that the phone of Atty. Serapio was called up?

MS. ITCHON. Wala na po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Who else did you find out who was called there?

MS. ITCHON. Iyon pong mga calls po niya kay Governor Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How many calls were there for Governor Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Madami po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How many, if you know?

MS. ITCHON. It’s 211, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. 211. Where are these calls indicated? What exhibit? Please tell the Honorable Court.

MS. ITCHON. On Exhibit “JJJ”, Exhibit “JJJ-1”, on Exhibit “JJJ-2”, on Exhibit “JJJ-3”, on Exhibit “JJJ-4”, Exhibit “JJJ-5”, Exhibit “JJJ-6”, Exhibit No. “JJJ-7”, Exhibit “JJJ-8”, Exhibit “JJJ-9”, Exhibit “JJJ-10”, Exhibit “JJJ-11”, Exhibit “JJJ-12, and Exhibit “JJJ-13”, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. All these entries, where did you extract them?

MS. ITCHON. Galing po dito po sa statement of account ni Mrs. Ricaforte.

REP. BATERINA. Which are what exhibits?

MS. ITCHON. Exhibit “RR”, Exhibit “OO”, Exhibit “PP”, Exhibit “QQ”, Exhibit “SS”, Exhibit “TT”, Exhibit “UU”, Exhibit “VV”, Exhibit “WW”, Exhibit “XX”, Exhibit “YY”, Exhibit “ZZ” and Exhibit “AAA”, Exhibit “BBB” and Exhibit “CCC”, your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. By the way, Madam Witness, you stated that under the address of Fontainbleau is the name “Maria Carmencita Itchon”. Do you have other statements of account that would indicate as billings for the other cellphone that you got from Smart which is 0918-9021847? Do you have a statement of accounts on that?

MS. ITCHON. Wala na po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What about another phone? What was that phone that you used a while ago?

MS. ITCHON. Iyong nakapangalan po kay Mrs. Ricaforte with cellphone No. 0918-9021849, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Do you have also statements of account?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where are they?

MS. ITCHON. It is with me, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Please bring them out.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has these been marked already, Prosecutor Baterina?

REP. BATERINA. I would just like to have them brought out, Your Honor. They are not marked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not marked.

REP. BATERINA. But in view of the manifestation a while ago, I would just like to reserve the marking and probably present them later on by another witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, it can be testified to by another witness.

REP. BATERINA. And have them deposited them with the Secretary General.

MR. DAZA. Whatever is the pleasure of the distinguished prosecutor, we will accommodate.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

REP. BATERINA. May I sue for a two-minute recess, your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Suspended for two minutes. Granted.

The witness may be excused for two minutes to be accompanied by our lady page.

It was 4:48 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:54 P.M.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is resumed.

REP. BATERINA. The other counsel is not yet in Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why, you have the–

REP. BATERINA. Counsel Daza.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –Atty. Daza and the assisting counsel, so you may proceed.

REP. BATERINA. May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please.

REP. BATERINA. Madam Witness, yesterday, you said that you had been an employee of Fontainbleau. Are you still an employee of Fontainbleau?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi na po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And you said that Fontainbleau was supposed to open a casino at Clark, as a preliminary question. Did you also say that?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Did that casino open?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po siya nakapagbukas, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why?

MS. ITCHON. Nung hindi po makakuha ng lisensiya ang Fontainbleau to operate a casino, Your Honor, sinabi po ni Governor Singson na i-turn over po naming lahat ng properties ng Fontainbleau sa Fontana Group po led by Mr. Atong Ang.

REP. BATERINA. And what happened after Fontainbleau was not able to open the casino? What happened to the employees?

MS. ITCHON. Iyon pong mga employees sa Pampanga, Your Honor, na-terminate po sila. Ang natira is ako lang at saka si Mrs. Ricaforte dito sa Manila.

REP. BATERINA. And what did you do? When was that when the termination of the employees were made?

MS. ITCHON. Noong July 1999, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What actually happened?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we are now constrained to interpose an objection to these questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground?

MR. FLAMINIANO. They have not been part of the offer of testimony and they are not material to the offer made.

REP. BATERINA. We will connect it in two or three questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a preliminary question then. Is it the preliminary question, Prosecutor Baterina?

REP. BATERINA. It is part of the offer, also, Your Honor, under No. 3. And may I read for the record so that our colleague in the Defense will be able to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To refresh the memory of counsel.

REP. BATERINA. Yes. On the third purpose, we said that Mrs. Yolly Ricaforte was the auditor of President Estrada, both for Fontainbleau and for jueteng collections.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the objection is overruled. Witness may answer.

REP. BATERINA. The answer has to be propounded again, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can propound the question again.

REP. BATERINA. The question will be propounded again.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes to save time.

REP. BATERINA. So what happened to the employees of Fontainbleau?

MS. ITCHON. Yoon pong employees sa Pampanga ay na-terminate. Dito sa Manila, ako lang ho at saka si Mrs. Ricaforte ang natira.

REP. BATERINA. Where did you draw salaries from?

MS. ITCHON. Nung nawala na po iyong Fontainbleau, ang sabi ni Governor Singson kay Mrs. Ricaforte na mag-concentrate na lang po siya as accountant-auditor ni President Estrada sa jueteng collections, Your Honor. At ako ay sinabihan din ni Governor Singson na tulungan si Mrs. Ricaforte sa mga gawain niya.

REP. BATERINA. What particularly are the assistance you were supposed to do for Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. ITCHON. Ako po iyong tumatanggap ng mga deliveries, ng mga jueteng collections for the President, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How do you know that these jueteng collections were for the President?

MS. ITCHON. Sinabi po ni Governor Singson then later on, kinumfirm din ho ni Mrs. Ricaforte, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What else, if you know, why these jueteng collections were for the President?

MS. ITCHON. Kadalasan ho pag nagdadala po si Governor Singson, sa office po siya naghahanda ng pera. Tinutulungan po namin siya, ako at si Emma Lim para magbilang at ilagay po doon sa black bag, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What black bag?

MS. ITCHON. Isa pong bag na ginagamit ni Governor Singson para sa mga pera na dinadala niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where did this money come from?

MS. ITCHON. Galing po sa mga jueteng collections, Your Honor, for the President.

REP. BATERINA. Do you know that a fact?

MS.ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why?

MS. ITCHON. Ako po iyong nagre-receive ng mga collections galing sa jueteng, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Where were you receiving? What place were you…What office? On what area or what… I reform, Your Honor.

Where is your office when you collect jueteng?

MS. ITCHON. Dito po sa office ni Governor Singson, iyong private office po niya, dito sa 2nd Floor LCS Building, San Andres Bukid, Manila, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And you said that you were asked to prepare the bag? Did you say that?

MS. ITCHON. Paki-ulit lang po iyong question.

REP. BATERINA. Did you prepare the bag for what? The bag.

MS. ITCHON. Para ilagay po iyong mga pera na binibilang namin na dinadala ni Governor Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. What happened to that bag that you prepared?

MS. ITCHON. Dinadala po ni Governor Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How?

MS. ITCHON. Pag galing po sa office, dinadala po niya iyong bag na may laman na pera papuntang Malacanang, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. How do you know that he takes the bag to Malacanang?

MS. ITCHON. Sinasabi po niya na pupunta siya sa Malacanang at dadalhin lang iyong pera kay Presidente, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Do you know that the governor of Ilocos Sur, Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why do you know that?

MS. ITCHON. Kasama po ako noon at that time, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Do you know that he identified certain ledgers or “listahan”?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Do you have any knowledge, do you have personal knowledge of these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Ako po iyong nag-receive noong mga faxed documents ni Mrs. Ricaforte, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Why, where was Mrs. Ricaforte when she faxed these documents?

MS. ITCHON. Nasa bahay po niya, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And where were you at that time that you received these documents.?

MS. ITCHON. Nasa office po, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. By what contrivance was this document or how did you receive this document?

MS. ITCHON. Pinadala po niya through fax, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. And what happened?

MS. ITCHON. Sabi po ni Governor Singson, noong na-gather ko po iyong mga documents na iyon, “I-xerox mo” sabi po niya. Pagkatapos po noon, binigay ko sa kanya iyong xerox at saka iyong ifi-nax na document, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. Then what happened next?

MS. ITCHON. Binigay ko po kay Governor Singson, Your Honor.

REP. BATERINA. That would be all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

Are you going to cross examine? (The Presiding Officer is asking Mr. Daza).

MR. DAZA. Well, Your Honor, I am prepared to cross examine, except that when I get to the documents, the voluminous documents copies of which we just receive today, I may, I have to ask for a deferment of that portion. I am ready to cross examine on some other points, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed now on other points.

MR. DAZA. If the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are the other documents which should be the subject of your further cross examination?

MR. DAZA. The exhibits, the summary, and the telephone bills copies of which we received only this afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think these are in the possession of the prosecution which were identified to by the witness and therefore available now.

MR. DAZA. Yes. In fact, they were made available to us about half-an-hour before the trial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now continue with your cross examination.

MR. DAZA. But I will ask questions in the meantime on other points.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. DAZA. If it pleases the Court.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

MR. DAZA. Your Honor, may I request for a one-minute time to just put on the mobile microphone?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. Put it very well so we could also hear.

What is that noise? It might interrupt us in the further proceedings. Is that an interruption from outside the court? (The noise is a feedback of the mobile microphone). Can a technician help, Atty. Daza?

MR. DAZA. Yes. If it pleases the Court.

It was 5:04 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 5:05 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

MR. DAZA. Natatandaan ko po na….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We cannot hear you, Atty. Daza. We cannot hear you. Try again your mobile microphone.

MR. DAZA. Napansin ko po na ang inyong mga sagot sa mga katatanungan ng Kagalang-galang na Tagausig ay sa wikang Tagalog o wikang Pilipino. Kaya’t ako’y magtatanong sa inyo sa wikang Pilipino/Tagalog. Kayo Ilokana, ako Bisaya, siguro po naman ay magkakaintindihan tayo.

Ang inyo pong apelyido sa pagkadalaga nang inyong banggitin ay Ancheta, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Sapagkat ang inyong ama ay si Dr. Susano Ancheta, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kayo ngayon ay Mrs. Itchon?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Sapagkat ang inyong Mister ay si Nonong Itchon; kung tawagin, palayaw si Nonong, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ano po ang–iyon po ay palayaw, Nonong–ano ho naman ang tunay na pangalan, katumbas ng palayaw na Nonong?

MS. ITCHON. Joseph Nathan Itchon, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA: Sabi po ninyo kayo Accountant?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. CPA kayo, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi lang kayo Accountant kundi Certified Public Accountant, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Meron po ba kayong kapatid na ang pangalan ay Marilou?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi po ba si Marilou ay ang maybahay, mabutihing maybahay ni Board Member Jerry Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MS. ITCHON. At si Jerry Singson naman ay kapatid ni Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kung ganon, iyong kapatid ni Gov. Singson, si Jerry, ay bale bayaw ninyo, brother-in-law, tama po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ilan po kayong magkakapatid?

MS. ITCHON. Twelve po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ibigay po ninyo ang mga pangalan.

MS. ITCHON. Ang panganay po namin ay si Marilou Singson, Ma. Theresa Ballesteros, Lawrence Ancheta, Marife Ancheta, Arnaldo Ancheta, Mari Len Ancheta, Ancheta Datuin, Mary Ann Kubol, Robert Ancheta, Mary Rose Ancheta, ako po, si Priscilla Ancheta at saka si Dr. Bernadette Ancheta, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Lahat po ba kayong labindalawang magkakapatid buhay?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Meron ba kayong kapatid na lalaking yumao na, ibig sabihin ay namatay na, na ikinasal o naging mister ng isang kapatid ni Gov. Chavit Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Meron po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Sino ho ang pangalan?

MS. ITCHON. Yon Lawrence Ancheta po, Larry Ancheta, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At sino po naman ang naging maybahay na kapatid ni Gov. Singson, ano po ang pangalan?

MS. ITCHON. Si Jeremy Singson po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Meron din po ba kayong kapatid na babae doon sa inyong mga pangalang ibinigay, na naging maybahay din ng isang kapatid ni Chavit Singson? Meron, hindi po ba, iyong si Jerry?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kung ganoon, ang dalawa ninyong kapatid ay napangasawa rin ang dalawang kapatid ni Gov. Singson, tama po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA: Malapit po ang relasyon ng inyong pamilya at ang pamilya ni Chavit Singson, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Malapit na malapit, sapagkat hindi lamang isa kundi dalawang magkapatid ikinasal sa dalawang kapatid ni Gov. Singson, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kayo ho ba ay nagkaroon ng pagkakataong mamasukan sa Philippine National Bank?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At kayo’y nagretiro sa Philippine National Bank?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Iyon ang panahon na kayo ay naghanap ng bagong trabaho sapagkat nagretiro na kayo sa PNB?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Iyon ang pagkakataon na kayo ay nag-a-apply sa Bureau of Internal Revenue, na ang sabi ninyo, sa inyong salaysay, tinulungan kayo ni Governor Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi po kayo natuloy makapasok sa BIR sa kabila ng tulong ni Governor Singson sapagkat inanyayahan kayo ni Governor Singson na doon na kayo magtrabaho sa kaniya?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Talaga pong malaki ang pagmamalasakit sa inyo, ano, ni Governor Singson sapagkat talagang ibig kayong tulungan makakuha ng hanapbuhay.

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor, kasi noong una ang usapan po namin ay temporary lang po ako, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Pero bagamat ang usapan temporary, naging regular employee na kayo ni Governor Singson, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Ako po ang may gusto noon, Your Honor, hindi po si Governor Singson.

MR. DAZA. Ang ibig ninyong sabihin, kayo na rin sa inyong sarili ang humiling na “Huwag na munang temporary, gusto ko nang maging permanenteng empleyado ninyo,” iyon ang sabi ninyo kay Governor Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Sabi ninyo, naging accountant kayo ni Governor Singson at ito ay sa kompanya ng Fontainbleau?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Pebrero ng taong 1999 nang kayo ay magtrabaho bilang accountant ng Fontainbleau?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At ang sabi ninyo, pagkatapos ng dalawang buwan dumating naman si Mrs. Yoly Ricaforte sa inyong kumpanya?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kayo po bang dalawa ni Mrs. Ricaforte ay sumasahod noong kayo ay namamasukan sa isang kumpanya lamang?

Sinong nagpapasuweldo po sa inyo?

MS. ITCHON. Noong una po, iyong Fontainbleau po.

MR. DAZA. Pagkatapos?

MS. ITCHON. Galing po sa jueteng collections for the President, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ah, sa jueteng collections. Papaano naman si Mrs. Ricaforte? Noong siya ay pumasok, hindi ba’t sumuweldo siya ng perang galing kay Governor Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Iyon pong perang sinuweldo namin sa Fontainbleau galing din po sa jueteng collections, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ah, ganoon. Kung ganoon, ang pera ng Fontainbleau nanggaling sa jueteng collections?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Alam na alam ninyo ito sapagkat kayo ang accountant ng Fontainbleau?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kayo po ay isang Certified Public Accountant gaya ng sabi ninyo, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Noong kayo ay maging CPA o Certified Public Accountant, nanumpa kayo bilang isang propesyonal, isang oath of office na kinailangan ng PRC, ng Professional Regulatory Commission. Sinasabi roon, “I, so and so, having become a CPA pledge to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws….” hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ngayon, alam po ninyo na ang jueteng ay illegal, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Labag sa batas, hindi ho ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kayo po ba ay nagsumbong sa pulis o sa sinumang may kapangyarihan na itong kumpanyang ito, ang Fontainbleau, na ang nangangasiwa, ang nagpapalakad, si Governor Singson, ay sangkot, ang gawain ay jueteng collections lamang? Mayroon po ba kayong sinumbungang awtoridad?

MS. ITCHON. Wala po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kung ganoon, lumabag kayo sa sinumpaan ninyo bilang CPA, na kayo ay tutupad sa mga batas ng Pilipinas, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi ninyo tinupad?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor, kasi ang tingin ko naman, hindi naman ako involved doon sa operations. Hindi po kami nag-ooperate ng jueteng, Your Honor. Ang involvement ko lang is, tumatanggap lang ho ako kung ano ho iyong dumarating na deliveries po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi po ba sabi ninyo kanina, maraming beses, ang sabi ninyo collection ng jueteng ang inyong trabaho? Hindi ninyo sinabi na tumatanggap lamang? Hindi po ba kanina ang salitang ginamit ninyo “collection”?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Mayroon po ba kayong resibong ibinibigay sa sino mang tao na kinokolektahan ninyo ng pera sa jueteng?

MS. ITCHON. Wala po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi po ba bilang CPA, alam ninyo na ang anomang koleksiyon ng pera sa isang kompanya ay kailangang may resibo?

MS. ITCHON. Papaano po kami hihingi ng resibo, Your Honor, eh, ang hinihingi po namin ay galing sa jueteng.

.MR. DAZA. Sapagkat ilegal, hindi po ba, kaya hindi kayo makapagbigay ng resibo?

MS. ITCHON. Opo.

MR. DAZA. At alam ninyo na ang hindi rin pagbibigay ng resibo ng koleksiyon ay hindi legal sapagkat regulasyon ng BIR–anomang perang pumasok, kailangan may resibo at irehistro ang resibo. Hindi po ba totoo iyon?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Noong kayo ay namamasukan sa Fontainbleau, mayroon po ba kayong nakilalang Amerikano na ang pangalan ay Ralph Goullard?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Itong si Ralph Goullard, hindi po ba ito ay bayaw ni Governor Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Gaano katagal ninyong nakilala si Mr. Goullard?

MS. ITCHON. Nakikita ko na po siya noon, Your Honor. Pero nanggaling po kasi siya sa States, so nagkikita-kita lang po kami noon, noong time ng Fontainbleau, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Sa panahon nagkikita-kita kayo, hindi kayo nag-uusap ni Mr. Guollard?

MS. ITCHON. Nag-uusap din, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Siyempre, ikinukuwento sa inyo ni Mr. Goullard kung saan siya nanggaling, saan siya nagtrabaho bago siya napunta ng Pilipinas, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Wala po kaming chance na mag-usap noon, Your Honor. Kasi pag pumupunta kami ng Pampanga, trabaho ho ang ginagawa namin, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kaya’t nakikita ninyo si Mr. Goullard, kasi nagtatrabaho rin siya doon sa project?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ano naman ang kaniyang gawain o tungkulin o katungkulan doon sa project ninyo?

MS. ITCHON. Siya po iyong in charge….Vice-President po siya ng Administration, Admin, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ng kumpanya? Ng Fontainbleau?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Okay. Mayroon din siya….Bukod sa kanila, kay Mr. Goullard, mayroon po ba sila–si Mr. Goullard–mga empleyadong sa ilalim ng kaniyang pangangasiwa?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Si Mr. Goullard at ang kaniyang mga empleyado, gaano karami silang lahat, doon sa kaniyang departamento, iyong pangangasiwa o administrasyon?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi ko po alam iyong exact number niya, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. More or less–lima, sampu, labinlima, dalawampu, isangdaan?

MS. ITCHON. Kasi, hindi pa ho naayos iyong setup, iyong organizational setup noon, kung sino po iyong mga empleyado noon. Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Bilang accountant ng kumpanya, hindi ba kayo nangangasiwa sa pagsusuweldo sa mga tao?

MS. ITCHON. Mayroon po kaming ibang accounting office dito po sa Pampanga Office, Your Honor, na ibang may hawak. May chief accountant din po kami doon, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Bilang accountant ng Head Office ng Fontainbleau dito sa Maynila, hindi ba sa inyong pangangasiwa o administrasyon ang operasyon ng accounting office doon sa Pampanga?

MS. ITCHON. Nasa Pampanga po lahat ng records, Your Honor. Kaya nagpupunta kami ni Mrs. Ricaforte doon, para makipag-coordinate lang, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi ninyo ba nakita ang accounting records bilang accountant ng kumpanya, kung ilan ang mga empleyado, sinu-sino ang mga empleyado?

MS. ITCHON. Nasa kanilang iyong mga records, Your Honor, pero hindi ko ho matandaan talaga kung ilan po iyong exact number ng employees namin, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Marami kasing empleyado, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Marami-rami na rin po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Si Mr. Goullard, kung kayo ay nagpupunta sa Pampanga, siya ang Vice-President for Administration. Hindi po ba iyong kaniyang pangangasiwa ay ukol sa kung paano itatayo ang casino, ano ang magiging mistula noong kasinong itatayo, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Eh, ano ang kaniyang gawain bilang Vice-President for Administration?

MS. ITCHON. Bale sila po iyong in charge doon sa mga personnel, Your Honor. At that time, sila iyong nag-i-screen ng mga employees. Sinu-supervise po niya, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ah, nagte-training ng mga tao na bakasakali, kung magbukas n casino, sila, itong mga empleyado, ang tatao sa casino, kung matuloy.

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi po ba iyan ang kaniyang gawain? Sapagkat si Mr. Goullard(?) ay nagkaroon, isang empleyado sa Las Vegas, na ipinadala rito ni Chavit Singson upang sa ganoon siya ang mag-training ng mga taong hahawak o magpapaandar ng casino. Hindi po ba iyon ang totoo?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po iyon totoo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ano po ang totoo?

MS. ITCHON. Matagal na po silang nandito sa Pilipinas, Your Honor, nasa Vigan sila. Ang pagkakaalam ko ay nasa Vigan na po sila. Mayroon hong hinayr si Governor Singson, iyong mga dumating na expats na nag-train sa mga tao, pero later on, bumalik din sila, kasi hindi nga natuloy iyong casino.

MR. DAZA. Mayroon ba kayong nakikilalang Regina Lim?

MS. ITCHON. Mayroon po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi po ba si Regina Lim ay anak ni Governor Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Natatandaan ba ninyo, noong kayo ay nagsalaysay noong unang araw, bagamat hindi minarkahan iyong articles of incorporation, sabi ninyo ay kilala ninyo ang mga incorporators.

Hindi po ba si Regina Lim ay isa sa mga incorporators?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. So, ang nabubuong larawan nitong Fontainbleau, ang vice president for operations ay bayaw ni Governor Singson, kayong malapit na malapit kay Governor Singson, kayo ang accountant ng head office sa Maynila, at pagkatapos naman si Regina Lim, isang anak, isa sa mga incorporators ng Fontainbleau. Tama po ba iyon?

MS. ITCHON. Tama po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kung ganoon, talagang itong kumpanya, ang may hawak ay ang pamilya o mga kamag-anak ni Governor Singson. Tama po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Kami po ang mga representatives ni Governor Singson, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any further question?

MR. DAZA. Ibig ko lamang liwanagin iyong kaninang sinabi ninyo na hindi nakakuha ng permit ang Fontainbleau.

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Tatanungin ko kayo dito sa telephone bills at saka iyong summary na ginawa ninyo. Tatanungin ko kayo mamaya tungkol dito sa mga telephone bills at lahat-lahat.

Alam ninyo bilang accountant na iyong permit para sa casino ay manggagaling sa Pagcor, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At ang Pagcor ay isang opisina na bahagi ng pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. At alam ninyo na ang pinakamataas na opisyal ng pamahalaan ng Pilipinas ay si Presidente Estrada, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kayo ang gumawa nitong summary na Exhibit…Triple “J” ba ito? Hindi ko mabasa itong…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will you identify the Exhibit number.

MS. ITCHON. “JJJ.”

REP. DAZA. Triple “J”. “JJJ”. At ang mga entrada rito ay hinango ninyo dito sa mga telephone bills, Exhibit “OOO”, et cetera. Tama po ba iyon?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Napakinabangan ninyo iyong inyong kagalingan bilang accountant sa paggawa ng abstract, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Itong mga tawag dito sa telephone bills, Exhibit “OOO”, et cetera, wala namang nakalagay ditong pangalan ng taong tinawagan. Numero lamang ang nakalagay, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi naman nakalagay sa telephone bills na ito ang taong kinausap ng taong tumawag, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Nakinig po ba kayo doon sa usapan kaya sabi ninyo si Mrs. Ricaforte kausap si Gov. Singson, kausap ang isang tao sa presidential residence, nakinig po ba kayo?

MS. ITCHON. Noon pong tumawag po siya sa Malacañang, sinenyasan po niya ako. Sabi niya: “Huwag kang maingay kasi hindi ko marinig, tatawagan ko lang si Malou kay Presidente.” So, napakinggan ko po kasi iisa ho iyong kuarto namin. Sabi po niya: “Malou,” sabi niya, “pinapatawag na ba ako ni Presidente?” Iyon po ang naging ano ko, Your Honor. Tapos, everytime naman ho na tumawag siya kay Mayor Jinggoy, nasa office po siya kasi yong mga oras na iyon nag-aantay po siya na pick up-in ho yong mga collections ng jueteng. Ganoon din po ang nangyayari pag ginagamit po niya kasi ang cellphone sabi niya sa akin, “Huwag kang maingay, tatawagan ko lang si Jingle Bells.”

Tapos yon ho namang kay Mr. Bong Pineda, that time nag-aantay din po siyang magpick-up ng pera, collection sa jueteng, nagkataon po iyong mga numbers na nasa kaniya hindi ho niya matawagan. So, tinawag po niya si Emma Lim na kasama rin ho niya, isa sa mga nagpi-pick up din ng mga collection ng jueteng. Sabi niya: “Emma, akin na nga iyong ibang numbers ni Bong Pineda,” sabi po niya, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Itong Exh. “JJJ”, e, kung bibilangin ko itong mga tawag rito–sa presidential residence, diumano kay Atty. Serapio, siguro po kalkulo ko nito mga 200 ito, e, hindi po ba? Daan-daan ito kung pagsusumahin natin iyong number of calls, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ibig ninyong sabihin, e, doon sa 200 humigit- kumulang na tumawag si Mrs. Ricaforte sa mga numerong ito, nandoon kayo sa tabi niya?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi naman po sa lahat ng oras, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ibig sabihin, e, kung nagkakataon lang paminsan-minsan nandoon kayo?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Dito sa Exh. “JJ”, sa mabilisang tingin, mabilisang basa, hindi po ba 95% ng tawag dito kay Gov. Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Nobenta y’singko?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Kayo po ba ‘y tumawag na sa Malacañang? Nagkaroon na kayong karanasang tumawag sa Malacañang iyong mga numerong sinasabi ninyo sa presidential residence?

MS. ITCHON. Sinubukan ko pong i-dial iyan, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. May sumagot?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ang sumagot operator, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Ah, tinanong ko po–”PMS ho ba ito?” sabi ko. Ang sabi po niya is, “Hindi ho, presidential residence.”

MR. DAZA. Okey, ang sumagot operator?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi sumasagot ang Presidente kailanman sa inyong tawag?

MS. ITCHON. (Witness laughing) Hindi po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Siempre, hindi sumasagot. Kaya’t sabi ninyo doon sa ilang mga pagkakataong tumawag si Mrs. Ricaforte sa presidential residence, ang narinig ninyo ang kausap iyong isang babaing ang pangalan “Malou.”

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Hindi ang Presidente?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Napansin ko po na madalas sinasabi ninyo, sampu noong nauna sa inyo, si Emma Lim, na nagtratrabaho kayo, nangungulekta kayo ng jueteng money para kay Presidente, di ba?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Pero ito, e, hindi ang Presidente may sabi sa inyo na mangulekta kayo ng pera?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ito’y sapagkat sinabi sa inyo ni Gov. Singson?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Itong Exhibit “OO” lahat ano, tinitingnan ko ang telephone bill. Isang halimbawa itong isang telephone bill, isang Exhibit “OO”, ang tawag po rito, e, siguro mga 300, hindi po ba kung e-estimate natin?

MS. ITCHON. Maari po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. O, mga 300? Pero dito sa summary ninyo, Exh. “JJ”, ang in-abstract nyo–hindi ko–ako po ay CPA rin pero hindi ko alam ang “abstract” sa Tagalog–in-abstract ninyo ay mga 20 tawag lamang?

REP. BATERINA. Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is ground of the objection?

REP. BATERINA. Misleading, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why?

REP. BATERINA. Not only 20 times.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just explain why it is misleading?

REP. BATERINA. Misleading because it’s not true that…not only 20 times. But much more than 20 times.

MR. DAZA. I am showing the documents to the witness and…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may clarify, may answer.

MR. DAZA. Well, to obviate his objection…

Bilangin po ninyo dito sa abstract ng Exhibit “JJ” yong telepono, yong dami ng telepono na hinango ninyo dito sa Exhibit “OO”, bilangin po ninyo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only Exhibit “OO”?

MR. DAZA. The witness said that she abstracted on Exhibit “JJ” for the month of October which is Exhibit “OO”, the number of calls.

REP. BATERINA. That is why we objected, Your Honor. Because it’s the other way around. She abstracted the entries in “JJ” from “OO” to “CC C”.

MR. DAZA. That’s what I said. That is what I hope…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As corrected.

MR. DAZA. Exhibit “JJ”, dito po, itinuturo ko sa inyo, tingnan ninyong mabuti. Ito po, kinuha ninyo itong mga tawag na ito o in-abstract ninyo galing dito sa bill, Exhibit “OO” for October, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Sabi ninyo kanina, itong lahat na tawag dito sa buwang ito, itong Exhibit “OO”, for the month of October, mga 300. Hindi po ba ang dami?

MS. ITCHON. Maaari po, Your Honor.

MR. DAZA. Ngayon, ang tanong ko sa inyo, doon sa 300 tawag na nasa Exhibit “OO”, ang isinama lamang ninyo mga 20 lamang na nandito sa Exhibit “JJ-9″, hindi po ba?

MS. ITCHON. Opo, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing further?

MR. DAZA. Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Redirect?

The honorable Judge Cayetano for some questions.

SEN. CAYETANO. With the permission of the Chief Justice on clarificatory questions.

Mrs. Itchon, kanina ho sinabi ninyo na…

MR. DAZA. Your Honor, I am sorry to interrupt but the Court, I heard, made a query to the distinguished Prosecutor if he has redirect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But you know there was an interruption and the Chair recognized the Senator.

MR. DAZA. All right.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Sana huwag po nating bawasan yon sa two minutes ko.

Mrs. Itchon, kanina sinabi ninyo na si Jingle Bells ay si Mayor Jinggoy. Tama ho ba yon?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sino ang nagbigay ng pangalang Jingle Bells?

MS. ITCHON. Sinabi po ni Mrs. Ricaforte na ang code name ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada ay Jingle Bells po, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. May kilala ho ba kayong Madam Auring?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sino ho yon?

MS. ITCHON. Yon po ang code name ni Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Noong pumunta kayo sa Malacanang na kasama si Mrs. Ricaforte, nabanggit yata ninyo yong araw ano?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ano ba yon, June 15 ba yon o something?

MS. ITCHON. June 15, 1999, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Bakit kayo nakakasiguro na iyon ang date na pumunta kayo sa Malacanang?

MS. ITCHON. Kasi po yong araw po na yon ay birthday po ng kapatid ni Governor Singson, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Redirect. Excuse me, the honorable Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago for some questions.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Ginang witness, sinabi mo na alam mo na itong mga pangalan na nilista mo ang siyang kausap ni Mrs. Ricaforte dahil katabi ka niya. Dahil may sinabi ka kanina, kamo: “Hindi ko naman alam kong sino ang kausap niya sa lahat ng tinatawagan niya dahil kung minsan hindi naman niya ako katabi.” Kaya ibig sabihin, nalalaman mo kung sino ang kausap niya sa panahong nakatabi ka niya. Tama kaya yon?

MS. ITCHON. Pag kasama ko po siya sa loob ng kuwarto ng office po namin, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Ano ang distansiya ng lamesa ninyong dalawa? Nasa loob ba kayong pareho ng isang kuwarto?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Kaninong kuwarto iyon?

MS. ITCHON. Office po ni Governor Singson, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Ilang lamesa lahat doon sa kuwartong yong?

MS. ITCHON. Tatlong lamesa lang po, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Sinong mga may-ari o gumagamit ng tatlong lamesang iyon?

MS. ITCHON. Noong una po, ay yong isang office table, sa akin. Tapos yong isang office table po kay Governor Singson. At saka isang round table po sa gitna. Noong dumating po si Mrs. Ricaforte, ako pa rin ho ang nag-occupy noong isang office table. Tapos iyong isang office table po in-occupy ni Mrs. Ricaforte iyong nakaano ho kay Governor Singson. So, si Governor Singson doon na lang po siya sa gitna, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Naaalala mo kahapon tinanong ka, “ilang lamesa sa kuwarto ni Governor Singson.” Kamo, “tatlo. Isa sa kanya, isa sa akin at isang round table para sa mga bisita.” Bakit hindi mo idinagdag ang pangalan ni Mrs. Ricaforte kahapon?

MS. ITCHON. Ang tinanong po sa akin kahapon is, noong bago po dumating si Mrs. Ricaforte, if I remember right, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I don’t think so but I will not appeal to the record anymore. Ganito na lang ang itatanong ko sa iyo: Gaano kalayo ang lamesa mo sa lamesa ni Mrs. Ricaforte? Can you give us an approximation of the distance, like how many feet or how many meters?

MS. ITCHON. Siguro dito hanggang diyan po sa table, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. At gaano kalaki ang kuwarto ni Governor Singson?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we have the measurement first.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Yes, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The distance indicated by the witness from her to what object?

MS. ITCHON. Mga four meters lang, ho.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. If the parties are willing to stipulate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties can agree on the distance.

MS. ITCHON. Mga approximately four meters, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately four meters. That is the answer of the witness. You don’t have to measure. The witness had said approximately four meters.

SEN. SANTIAGO. Approximately four meters. Sa distansiyang iyon, maririnig mo kung sino ang kausap niya o maririnig mo ang sinasabi niya sa telepono?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO. Napakatalas ng tenga mo. Kaya, you must be one of those rare-gifted people who can hear at that distance. But let me ask another question.

Ugali mo ba na nakikinig ka sa telepono ng ibang tao?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor, kaya lang kapag ganoon po kasi sinesenyasan niya ako na huwag maingay kasi may tinatawagan po siya, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. At bawat sinabi niya o nagsesenyas siyang huwag kang maingay, dinadagdag niya kaagad kung sino ang kausap niya?

MS. ITCHON. Before na tumawag siya, Your Honor, sinasabi po niya kung sino ang tinatawagan niya.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Ah, okay, naiintindihan ko na ngayon. Pareho kayong nag-oopisina, mayroong kalayuan na apat na metro ang lamesa ninyo; bawat may tinatawagan si Mrs. Ricaforte, sinasabi muna niya sa iyo kung sino ang kausap niya. Parang ganoon ang sinasabi mo, eh.

MS. ITCHON. Hindi naman po sa lahat, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Ah, hindi lahat.

MS. ITCHON. Kapag ganoong alam niyang importanteng tao po ang kausap niya at ayaw niyang maistorbo, kino-call-an po niya ako ng atensiyon, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Basta importanteng tao, kaagad sasabihin niya sa iyo.

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. May usapan ba kayong magiging ganoon ang SOP ninyo?

MS. ITCHON. Wala naman po, Your Honor, kaya lang kapag ganoong panahon kasi, gusto niyang marinig mabuti yong kausap niya.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. At ikaw naman, pag may kausap kang importanteng tao, sinasabi mo naman din ba sa kanya?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi naman po, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Si Governor Singson, kapag may kausap siyang importanteng tao, sinasabi rin ba niya sa iyo o kay Mrs. Ricaforte?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi naman po, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Unilateral lamang pala kay Mrs. Ricaforte. Sa kanya lang palang ugali iyon?

MS. ITCHON. Iyon po ang ginawa niya, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. That is all with this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

I notice that the clock still indicates two minutes. Something must be wrong with our timepieces here, both in front and at my back.

Yes, the distinguished Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Our timekeeper.

SEN. GUINGONA.Ms. Witness, sinabi mo na nadinig mo iyong tawag kay Malou sa Presidential residence. Totoo ba iyon?

MS. ITCHON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Sino ba itong si Malou?

MS. ITCHON. Ang pagkasabi po sa akin ni Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte ay sekretarya po siya ni Presidente Estrada, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Alam mo ba ang full name nitong Malou?

MS. ITCHON. Hindi po, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Bakit nasa Presidential residence siya, kung alam mo?

MS. ITCHON. Alam ko po secretary po siya ni Presidente, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you. Less than one minute, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have now the redirect, if any, from the Prosecutor.

REP. BATERINA. We don’t have any redirect questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The witness may now be excused then. Thank you, Madam witness.

REP. BATERINA. Mr. Chief Justice, we are terminating the testimony of the witness. We will no longer recall her to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She is already excused. And any recall should be the subject of the appropriate and proper application therefor.

The Majority Leader.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I move for a 15-minute break.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The break is granted consistent with the previous agreement. Fifteen minutes break.

It was 5:39 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 5:57 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise.

The Honorable Hilario G. Davide Jr., Chief Justice, and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., Senate President.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is resumed. The Prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness is Gov. Luis C. Singson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness. This is continuation of the direct testimony of Governor Singson.

Mr. Witness, you will continue your testimony on direct examination under the same oath. The examining counsel.

MR. NARVASA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. If you don’t mind.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Narvasa.

MR. NARVASA. My colleague, Atty. Mendoza, appears to have been somewhat delayed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He will be the cross-examining counsel.

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, which is why I…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who was the designated Assisting Counsel for the Defense for this witness?

MR. NARVASA. Also, Mr. Flaminiano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza is coming in already.

MR. NARVASA. Oh, yes. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel may now proceed. Where is the examining counsel?

MR. MARCELO. Magsisimula na po ulit akong magtanong.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. I have come into possession of a copy of a letter addressed to the Hon. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, President of the Senate, by Speaker Arnulfo P. Fuentebella dated 14 December 2000 to which is enclosed a copy of a legal opinion of the Legal Counsel of the House of Representatives and which expresses the view that the Prosecutors of the House of Representatives are not authorized to appoint private prosecutors.

The letter of Speaker Fuentebella states, among others, as follows, and I quote: “Let it be known that the House of Representatives has not authorized the appointment of the private prosecutors.”

In light of this, Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to reiterate our apprehensions we made in yesterday’s hearing regarding the personality of the examining counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was that communication officially received by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate?

MR. MENDOZA. I beg your pardon?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was it received officially?

MR. MENDOZA. I do not know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we inquire from the Secretary of the Senate.

THE SENATE SECRETARY (ATTY. BARBO). No, Your Honor. We did not receive any copy of that letter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So it has not been officially communicated yet. But is the Prosecution aware of that letter?

REP. ARROYO. We were faxed a copy from some of our colleagues in the House but officially, we have not been informed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are the parties ready to argue on that issue since there is a manifestation of Counsel for the Defense of the existence of the document and that you have a fax copy thereof?

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, this is a simple letter of the Speaker of the House to the President of the Senate which simply says that this is the legal opinion of the counsel of the House. It doesn’t matter. It has no effect on us. It is just an opinion of the counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any reply?

MR. MENDOZA. However, I would call attention simply to the fact, Mr. Chief Justice, and members of the Senate, that the letter of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the President of the Senate to which the opinion is enclosed states explicitly, and I quote: “Let it be known that the House of Representatives has not authorized the appointment of the private prosecutors.” That is not my conclusion. That is a statement of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I think….

REP. ARROYO. –the Speaker of the House is not the House of Representatives.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime then, the Chair will have to make this ruling.

It does not appear that the letter was officially filed with the Secretary of the Senate or the Impeachment Court. It appears that what is provided for, even assuming that the document exists, is merely an opinion of the counsel of the House of Representatives.

In the meantime therefore, the private prosecutor is allowed to continue the conduct of the direct examination, subject, again, to the continuing objection on the part of the other party–meaning the Defense–on the legality of the appearance of a private prosecutor and more than that, of a private prosecutor conducting the direct examination. That objection remains on record and shall be deemed as a continuing objection to the conduct of any examination of a witness for the prosecution made by a private prosecutor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senate President.THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Just to complete the records of the issue that we are discussing.

Sometime this afternoon, this representation actually received a letter from the Speaker of the House dated 14 December year 2000, which states very briefly, Mr. Chief Justice, with your permission. It says here–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President is allowed to read into the records the communication.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT.

Dear Mr. President:

We are respectfully transmitting to the Senate the attached legal opinion of the Chief Legal Counsel of the House of Representatives regarding the appointment of private prosecutors by the House prosecuting panel.

Let it be known that the House of Representatives has not authorized the appointment of the private prosecutors. We hope that the attached legal opinion can serve to further clarify the matter.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

ARNULFO P. FUENTEBELLA”

And the letter has four annexes, Mr. Chief Justice. Just for the record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, indeed, the Senate President had received a copy of that letter/communication this afternoon?

SEN. PIMENTEL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, would it help and would it be in order for the Senate to inquire with the House if they are willing to communicate to us in a resolution what their actual position on this issue is so that we don’t keep it hanging?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will you be–Is the query directed to the Presiding Officer or to the Senate President?

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime, the honorable Judge Roco is recognized.

SEN. ROCO. The Majority Leader says, would it be appropriate or would it be proper.

It seems to me, Mr. Chief Justice, as a member of the Senate of the Impeachment Court, we follow our Rules. We respect the Rules of the House of Representatives. They follow their Rules and they act accordingly. Except that it happens that this is an Impeachment Court and we do have Rules and the Rules as of right now states that the Prosecutors can have counsel.

In fact, Mr. Chief Justice, when the Rules Committee were discussing this, the original draft of the Majority Leader recommended a departure from the American practice. The original draft proposed to this Impeachment Court or to the Senate limited counsel to respondent. But this was modified by the Rules Committee on my motion and it was approved eventually. So that counsel for all parties were then granted. And that is how it stands. It may be inappropriate, Mr. Chief Justice, to ask our co-equal, half of the legislative body, to interpret our Rules in the same way that we will not interpret their Rules. It’s the mutual respect given to each Chamber.

For the record, Mr. Chief Justice, I did call Speaker Fuentebella and inquired on exactly what his frame of mind was, and he said we just wanted to put on the record the legal opinion sent to him by the Legal Counsel of the House. And maybe we can have it noted, Mr. Chief Justice, for now. And in the meantime, to save time, proceed with the presentation of the direct testimony.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, thank you very much.

We just heard the statement from the distinguished Prosecutor Arroyo that the Speaker is not the House. I do recall that when the motion to quash was being argued, the same statement was made by the Defense. But we decided that the action of the Speaker, Villar in this case, in transmitting the Articles of Impeachment without any action of the House was sufficient to be treated as action of the House.

Now, with respect to our Rules concerning the participation of counsel, I confirmed the statement of our distinguished colleague, Senator-Judge Roco, that it was upon his intervention that we included in our Rules the participation of counsel even for the Prosecution subject to the supervision of the panel of prosecutors. But the confident observation of our distinguished colleague at that time was that private counsel would simply assist, not really take the principal burden of prosecuting the case for the House of Representatives.

That is my recollection, Mr. Chief Justice, that is why I inquired into the appropriateness of inquiring with the House leadership, in view of this document which we cannot ignore, whether they are, in fact, willing to communicate to us the same position in a resolution that would be treated by all as action of the House.

Thank you very much.

SEN. ROCO. The House of Representatives, Mr. Chief Justice, will know what to do without our inquiry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you for that.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Arroyo is recognized.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, Article XIII of the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trial reads:

“Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard upon an impeachment; Provided, That counsel for the prosecutors shall be under the control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives.” This is the exact wording of the authority the Senate has given the Prosecutors.

The House Prosecutors were elected by the House. But the moment we appeared here, we are under the jurisdiction of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. That is why we think of ourselves as not even the equal of the senators although they are colleagues of the other House. Why? Because we are here as counsel.

Now, here is a situation where the President would like the Senate to give too much value to an opinion of a counsel of the House. Imagine, can the Senate Counsel tell the Senate President that this is the opinion and the Senate President will tell the House or the Senate that this is the opinion? If the President of the Senate communicates to the House of Representatives and say that this is the opinion of the Senate Counsel, that, to us, does not amount to anything. If it is the action of the Senate in plenary, then we will respect it. But if it is the action only….In fact, this is not a resolution or an action of the House in plenary.

We were elected in plenary, only the House in plenary can remove us or diminish our authority. True, the House Rules did not give us the power to appoint, or is silent rather, on whether we could retain private prosecutors. But the Senate Rules grant us that power. The reason for this is quite simple, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was there a pending motion to reconsider the ruling of the Chair?

REP. ARROYO. None, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is why I don’t think we have to go any further. There was already a ruling of the Chair. But the Chair would like to add, in view of the statement of the Senate President, since the communication from the Speaker of the House of Representatives was received by the Senate President, the transmittal letter of which, or rather a portion of which was even read into the Record, that letter is now deemed noted and should be considered as part of the Journal of the Trials proceedings for this afternoon.

The Chair reiterates its ruling that the witness can be examined by the private prosecutors, provided, however, that the objections raised by the defense shall remain to be a continuing objection. And insofar as the position of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is concerned, whether he was speaking for the House or not, that is a matter between the House of Representatives and the panel of Prosecutors.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President.THE SENATE PRESIDENT Just for the record, I have instructed the Secretary of the Impeachment Court to place the letter of Speaker Fuentebella and the annexes of that letter into the files of the Impeachment Court, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And further, as to the intent of the Senate when it discussed and promulgated Resoultion No. 68 in the presence of the private prosecutors, I think the Senate Secretary should provide the judges, the Presiding Officer, the Senate President with the copy of the Journal of the proceedings when that resolution was taken and deliberated upon by the Senate sitting as a Senate.

The honorable Judge Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, please allow me to express my conformity post facto and my humble support for the ruling recently expressed by the Chief Justice on two grounds. The first ground is that, in effect, the Senate is being asked to take official cognizance of an opinion, a legal opinion written by somebody named Leonardo V. Palictes III. As a Senator Judge I have to enter into the Record that I do not have any personal or official knowledge of the existence of this creature and, therefore, I do not consider myself bound by his legal opinion. I do not consider it either earth-shaking or life-changing.

The second ground is this–the sentence from the Speaker reads: “Let it be known that the House of Representatives has not authorized the appointment of the private prosecutors.” Still, the Speaker does not indicate whether the House of Representatives has prohibited the appointment of private prosecutors. So it may well be that the House has not authorized the appointment but neither has it prohibited the appointment. These are the two grounds.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Atty. Marcelo, you may now continue the direct examination of the witness.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, kahapon po ay nabanggit ninyo na si Yolanda Ricaforte ang auditor na ibinigay ni Pangulo para sa jueteng collections. Kailan po ba siya naging auditor ng Pangulong Estrada para sa jueteng collections?

GOV. SINGSON. Sa record po namin, Your Honor, April. Sometime in April, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong taon?

GOV. SINGSON. 1999, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Eh, bago po mag-Abril 1999, sino naman po ang auditor ni Pangulong Estrada?

GOV. SINGSON. Wala po, Your Honor.Pero noong dumating si Yolly, siya na ang auditor….Iyong mga records namin from November hanggang natapos siyang nag-audit, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. So, kanino pong empleyado itong si Yolly Ricaforte?

GOV. SINGSON. President Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At pakipaliwanag mo nga, bakit mo sinasabing empleyado siya ng Pangulo?

GOV. SINGSON. Pinakilala po sa akin ni Pangulong Estrada sa Malacanang, Your Honor, at sinabi niya na siya na ang katulong ko sa opisina.

MR. MARCELO. Saan ka naman po niya dapat tulungan?

GOV. SINGSON. Sa jueteng, Your Honor, at sa casino.

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong casino iyon?

GOV. SINGSON. Casino sa Fontainbleau, Your Honor, na ipinagawa sa amin. Uupa sana kami roon, pero natuloy. Hindi lang umupa kundi nabili iyong buong Fontana na naging kay Presidente rin lahat iyon, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bago po naging auditor, na-appoint na auditor ni Pangulong Estrada itong si Yolly Ricaforte, ano po bang relasyon, kung mayroon man, kayo kay Gng. Ricaforte?

MR. SINGSON. Wala po, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bago po roon sa pagka-appoint niyang auditor, mayroon ba kayong relasyon sa kaniyang asawa na si Undersecretary Orestes Ricaforte?

MR. SINGSON. Nauna pong nakilala ko si Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honors, may we request that we be furnished again with a copy of the ledger for the months of August 1999 up to August this year. This has been marked as Exhibit “C”, “C-1”, to “C-12”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In whose possession are these exhibits?

MR. MARCELO. I think it is with the Secretary of the Senate, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary of the Senate is directed to hand over the exhibits to the Counsel.

MR. MARCELO. For the record, Your Honor, I am confirming that the ledger previously marked as Exhibit “C”, “C-1” to “C-12” were handed to this representation. Up to “C-12”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, mayroon po dito sa ledger na minarkahang “C-1” na isang entrada, at babasahin ko po. “Goma C, ABD.1.500.” Minarkahan ito na “C-1-C”.

Pakipaliwanag nga po kung ano ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Chief PNP cash advance, one million five hundred, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang ibig po bang sabihin nito ay nakatanggap iyong Chief PNP ng cash advance na one million five hundred thousand?

MR. SINGSON. May kumuha po sa opisina, Your Honor. Iyong dating mga kumukuha.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon pong susunod na entrada na minarkahan na na Exhibit “C-1-D” at nagsasabing “new Goma CABD 1.500.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong new Chief PNP cash advance, one million five hundred.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na entrada ay minarkahan na “C-1-E”, at babasahin ko po: “Goma 1.500.” Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Chief PNP, one million five hundred, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang ibig po ba ninyong sabihin ay nakatanggap iyong chief PNP ng perang ito?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi po, Your Honor. May kumukuha rin sa opisina, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyong susunod na entrada ay “new Goma” at may nakatapat na bilang na “1.500”, at ito ay namarkahang Exhibit “C-1-F”. Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. New chief PNP, one million five hundred, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang ibig po bang sabihin nito ay may natanggap na pera iyong new PNP chief?

MR. SINGSON. May kumukuha po sa opisina, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At para kanino raw po ito, kung alam ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi po ay new chief PNP, Your Honor, at saka iyong mga nasa baba. Iyong dati nang kumukuha, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entry ay babasahin ko: “AS 11:30 AM 258-5000”. Ito po ay minarkahan na “C-1-G”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Asiong Salonga, 11:30 a.m. 258, ako po iyon, Your Honor. Five million ang napunta kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pakipaliwanag ninyo nga po kung ano ang ibig sabihin noong mga binanggit ninyo.

MR. SINGSON. Ito pong lahat iyong mga ipinakukuha sa akin ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, na every fifteen days na five million na galing sa jueteng.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po iyong nakalagay na “11:30 AM”? Ano ang ibig sabihin noon?

MR. SINGSON. Umaga, Your Honor, 11:30 a.m.

MR. MARCELO. At ano po uli ang ibig sabihin ng “AS”?

MR. SINGSON. Asiong Salonga, President Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay payroll expenses. “.250 Exhibit C-1-H.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Expenses po sa opisina, Your Honor, two hundred fifty thousand.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay “JIMPOL 2.000”, at ito ay may markang Exhibit “C-1-I”. Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Secretary Jimmy Policarpio, P2 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang ibig po bang sabihin nito’y nakatanggap si Secretary Policarpio ng P2 million?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor, kinu-confirm ko palagi iyan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanino po ninyo kinu-confirm?

MR. SINGSON. Kay Secretary Jimmy Policarpio at umo-oo naman siya, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kung alam po ninyo, puwede po bang sabihin ninyo kung para saan ito pong binibigay na pera buwan-buwan kay Secretary Policarpio?

MR. SINGSON. Ang pagkasabi po niya ginagamit daw sa media, Your Honor. Iyon ang palaging rason, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sinabi n’yo po ay “niya”, sino po si “niya”?

MR. SINGSON. Ni Jimmy Policarpio, Your Honor, Secretary Jimmy Policarpio.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na intrada ay minarkahan na “C-1-J” at babasahan ko po: “Total Expenses P13.250” ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Total expenses iyong buwan na ito, Your Honor, P13.250 million.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na intrada ay “Total for September P30.591” ito po ay minarkahan na “C-1-A”, ano po ba ang ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. September 1 to 15, ang total collection iyong buwan na iyon, Your Honor, P15.494 million.

MR. MARCELO. Ang binabanggit ko po ay iyong intrada na “Total for September P30.591” na minarkahan po na Exh. “C-1-K”.

MR. SINGSON. Total for the month of September, P30.591 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po ay ang intrada na “Expenses P13.250”, ito po ay minarkahan na Exh. “C-1-L”, ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ah, ima-minus po diyan iyong expenses, Your Honor, sa buwan na iyan, P13.250 million.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon po’y may nakalagay po ditong subtotal P17.341 ay ito po ay minarkahan na “C-1-M”, ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Subtotal P17.341 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na intrada ay “Total to date P17.341” minarkahan po na Exh. “C-1-N”, ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Total na iyong pera ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, P17.341 million. Ito na po iyong bagong listahan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Napansin ko po na pareho po iyong numero o bilang na nasa tapat ng “Subtotal” na minarkahan na “C-1-M” at saka iyong “Total to date” “C-1-N”, paki paliwanag nga po bakit pareho po iyong intrada ng numero?

MR. SINGSON. Ang nilalagay “Subtotal”, Your Honor, kung mayrong mina-minus pa o wala, so wala nang mina-minus ganoon din po ang “Total to date”.

MR. MARCELO. Ito po bang P17.341 ang net total po for the month of September?

MR. SINGSON. Oho, oho, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. E, kung alam nyo po saan po napunta itong net total po na P17.341 million na galing sa jueteng collection?

MR. SINGSON. Ito na po iyong bagong listahan, Your Honor. Ito na dineposito lahat ni Yolanda Ricaforte sa bagong account, dahil iyong time na ito, Your Honor, si Yolanda Ricaforte na ang nagdedeposito lahat ng collection ng jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Saan pong account niya dinedeposito?

MR. SINGSON. Sa Equitable Bank, Your Honor, dahil iyon ang utos ni Presidente–sa Equitable Bank namin i-deposito.

MR. MARCELO. Kung alam nyo po bakit po pinili ni Presidente Estrada iyong Equitable Bank?

MR. SINGSON. Tinanong ko rin po, Your Honor, sabi niya, “Iyon ang kaibigan natin.”

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta po tayo sa Exhibit “C-2” ang una…

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, before he proceeds to Exhibit “C”…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Can we ask counsel for both parties if they cannot stipulate that, you know, the wording of the entries relative to payroll expenses, “JimPol,” “Total Expenses,” “Subtotal,” “Total to date” are similar in practically all the–not only similar but the same–in practically all of the remaining exhibits. Can we not stipulate that the meaning is the one that has already been testified to by counsel?

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, since I am appearing here under the control and supervision of the House Prosecutors, I would like to ask for a moment to confer with the House Prosecutors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted.

Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Well, counsel is asking for authorization. But I would suggest that the stipulation be modified. That if the witness were testified in regard this matters, he would give the same testimony. In other words, if the witness were asked to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Up to Exhibit C-12.

MR. MENDOZA. If the witness were asked what the meaning of “JimPol” was, the meaning would be Secretary… And that is the way he would have testified. We are not stipulating that “JimPol” means Secretary Policarpio. Only that if the witness were asked that question, he would have answered in that way.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the same way. In like manner, that in the succeeding documents, the letters ” A. S.” would be answered in the same way as was answered in the previous document?

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think, the parties can easily do that. For instance, the explanation of “subtotal expenses”, or “total for a particular period”, you can stipulate that in the succeeding documents, the answer of the witness would be practically the same as the answer in the previous documents. You have laid enough basis for the stipulation on the succeeding documents.

MR. MARCELO. As I have stated, Your Honor, I still have to confer with the House Prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you have been given time to confer. As a matter of fact, the best way to have stipulation here would be to submit your stipulation of facts on the basis of Exhibits “C”, “C-1″ to “C-12″ already. At least from “C-3″ because “C-1″ and “C-2″ had already been properly taken into account with the answers of the witness being practically the same insofar as certain similar entries are concerned. MR. MARCELO. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Marcelo.

MR. MARCELO. I had already conferred with the House Prosecutors. Puede po bang pagbigyan po kami ng pagkakataon namang makipagusap doon po sa mga abogado po ng Defense?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Defense?

MR. MARCELO. Opo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Very well. The Court would really highly appreciate that. Because if you can do so, we will be able to save about four hours alone on a testimony of the witness from “C-2″ to “C-12″. You may confer with the adverse counsel. Would you permit the Senate President and the Presiding Officer to join you so you could probably arrive at some kind of basis for stipulation? You can approach the bench.

REP. APOSTOL. We will approach the bench, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. MARCELO. We are more or less agreed. We are just adding some more items here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. There are many items on which you can agree upon.

MR. MARCELO. Permission to approach the bench, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. And you would be much welcome.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 6:44 P.M.,

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

Atty. Marcelo? You may now proceed, Atty. Marcelo. Make the announcement on what happened during the very, very brief conference before the bench.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, during the conference, we have agreed that we will make stipulations as to the entries contained in the ledger already marked as Exhibits “C” to “C-12″, and that it was agreed that questions touching on the ledger will be asked later on after the stipulations. So, I will now proceed to the other questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, collateral questions may be asked after the stipulations shall have been made. So you may be able to proceed now to some other matters relevant and material to Article I on which the witness had been called.

MR. MARCELO. I will ask just one question, Your Honor, regarding the ledger. Just one question which will be the jump-off point for my next questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may. And after that, we will recognize the honorable Judge Biazon.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, dito po sa ledger na minarkahan po na Exhibits “C”, “C-1″ hanggang “C-12″ ay nakalagay po sa bawat pahina po, sa dulo niya, sa gawing kanan, at ito po’y minarkahan na “C-26″, “C-1-N”, “C-2-L”, “C-3-O”, “C-4-M”, C-5-K”, “C-6-K”, “C-7-K”, “C-8-K”, “C-9-K”.

Ito pong mga binanggit ko pong ito, ito po ba iyong mga net balance bawat buwan po nung jueteng collections?

MR. SINGSON. Total to date iyong balance, Your Honor. Pero yong koleksiyon ng bawat buwan ay dito po sa “C-22″.

MR. MARCELO. Ang tinatanong ko po ay iyong net balance.

MR. SINGSON. Net balance, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos pong tanggalin iyong lahat po ng expenses at saka tax.

MR. SINGSON. Bawat buwan, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go over the documents, especially the exhibit numbers indicated by counsel.

MR. MARCELO. Ang tinutukoy ko po ay iyon pong lahat na nagsasabi na total to date.

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor. Iyong buwan na iyon, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ito po iyong mga balanse po ng… net balance po. Bawat buwan po.

MR. SINGSON. Net balance bawat buwan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon pong jueteng collections.

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po, Your Honor. Bawat buwan.

MR. MARCELO. Pakisabi nga po dito kung ano pong nangyayari dito po sa mga net collections sa dulo ng bawat buwan, magmula po ng Agosto 1999 hanggang Hulyo ng taon po na ito.

MR. SINGSON. Ito po, lahat po ito, nung ti-nake over ni Yolly Ricaforte at pinapakita rin sa akin, Your Honor, ay dinideposito lahat sa Equitable Bank. Tapos dito na po naipon iyong pinalipat ni Pangulong Estrada na P200 million na total, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanino pong account dinideposito sa Equitable Bank?

MR. SINGSON. Kay Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Doon po sa nalagay po sa Equitable Bank ay kasama po doon iyong sinabi po ninyo kahapon na P123 million?

MR. SINGSON. Kasama na po, Your Honor. Iyon ang accounting lahat noong sa Fontainbleau at saka mga tseke na binigay ko, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Alam ninyo po ba kung ano ang nangyari dito po sa lahat-lahat po nito na idiniposito na galing po sa jueteng koleksiyon?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong balance po na dalawang beses pong sinabi ni Pangulong Estrada na ilipat iyong mga balanse kay Atty. Policarpio. Noong una pong sinabi sa Malacañang, kaming apat nina Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor. Tapos, pangalawa, sinabi sa akin at sinabi ko rin kay Ricaforte uli na i-transfer na iyong balanse kay Atty. Serapio.

MR. MARCELO. May sinabi po kayo kaninang Atty. Policarpio. Sino po ba iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Serapio, Atty. Serapio, Atty. Ed Serapio.

MR. MARCELO. At pagkasabi po na dapat po na ilipat ni Yolanda Ricaforte iyong P200 million kay Atty. Serapio, alam n’yo po ba ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor, dahil kinumpirma sa akin ni Yolanda Ricaforte at kinumpirma rin ni Atty. Ed Serapio.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang kinumpirma sa inyo?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong P200 million na nailipat, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanino po ulit?

MR. SINGSON. Kay Atty. Ed Serapio.

MR. MARCELO. At pakisabi naman po ang dahilan bakit po inilipat iyong P200 million kay Atty. Serapio?

MR. SINGSON. Utos po ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, na ilipat na kay Atty. Serapio iyong balanse na P200 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang inilipat ulit kay Atty. Serapio, magkano po?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong P200 million na koleksiyon sa jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ba si Atty. Serapio?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po ang pinaka-trusted ni Pangulong Estrada na abogado, Your Honor. Gabi-gabi sa Malacañang at matagal ko na pong kilala, Your Honor. Nakakasama ko rin sa Malacañang pag gabi, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pakisabi nga po kung alam n’yo kung ano ang mga trabahong ginagawa niya para kay Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Siya po iyong gumagawa noong mga foundation. Lahat ng mga ari-arian ni Pangulong Estrada, siya po ang namamahala lahat, Your Honor, at saka kasama ko rin po na nagkakasino si Ed Serapio.

MR. MARCELO. At sino naman po ang nagpakilala sa inyo kay Ed Serapio?

MR. SINGSON. Si Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor. Sa Malacañang ko nakilala.

MR. MARCELO. Napansin ko po itong ledger na minarkahan na Exhibit “C”, “C-1” to “C-12” ay nagtapos po ng Agosto akinse nitong taon na ito. Pakisabi nga po kung bakit po hanggang doon lamang ang date po nito?

MR. SINGSON. Pawala na po ang jueteng noon, Your Honor, dahil pinalilipat na ni Pangulong Estrada sa Bingo 2-Balls. Pero bago nalipat doon, Pick 2 muna. Kinausap pa ni Pangulong Estrada kami nina Dante Tan at saka Bong Pineda, Your Honor, sa Boracay na bagong bahay ni Pangulong Estrada sa New Manila.

MR. MARCELO. Sinabi n’yo po na nagkita-kita kayo doon nila Dante Tan, Bong Pineda at si Presidente doon sa Boracay sa New Manila. Pakiulit na nga po ano po iyong pinag-usapan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Nag-umpisa po sa Malacañang, Your Honor, kami lang tatlo nina Presidente at saka sila Dante Tan. Tapos pinasunod kami sa Boracay ng gabi, sa New Manila, sa Boracay na bahay niya. Noong nandoon na kami, Your Honor, napag-usapan na iyong Pick 2 dahil sabi ni Pangulong Estrada, “Ilipat na natin sa bingo itong jueteng para may semblance of legality.” So napag-usapan po namin doon iyong jueteng pero ‘kako, “Mas maganda siguro kung nandito si Bong.” “Oo, tawagin mo si Bong.” So tinawagan ko si Bong, nagkataon nasa Pampanga, at “matagal ako”, sabi niya, dahil nasa Pampanga. “Di bale, antayin ka namin.” So mahigit isang oras hinintay po namin doon at tinanong ko kung alam niya iyong lugar, iyong New Manila. “A, iyong bago, alam ko na iyan, napunta na ako riyan,” sabi niya, Your Honor. So nagkita-kita kami roon, pinag-usapan iyong Pick 2.

MR. MARCELO. Pakiulit na nga po, ano po’ng pinag-usapan tungkol sa Pick 2?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong jueteng, Your Honor, ililipat na sa Pick 2.

MR. MARCELO. So iyong jueteng po ililipat na sa Pick 2?

MR. SINGSON. Ililipat sa Pick 2 so sabi ni….

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos pong pag-usapan na ililipat iyong jueteng sa Pick 2?

MR. SINGSON. Noong nakausap namin si Bong Pineda, Your Honor, sabi niya, “Susubukan natin, pero baka hindi maintindihan ng tao dahil ang bingo Pick 2 ay 1 to 75 numbers, hahatiin, baka mahirap.” So hindi rin nagtagal, Your Honor, tapos tinawagan ako ni Pangulong Estrada na ililipat na lang sa Bingo 2-Balls, kopyahin na lang eksakto iyong jueteng.

MR. MARCELO. Kailan po kayo sinabihan ni Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Sinabihan ako, Your Honor, noong ililipat na sa Bingo 2-Balls noong mga patapos na itong… mga August siguro, Your Honor. Bago umalis papuntang America, pangalawang beses na sinabi sa akin na Bingo 2-Balls na natin ililipat.

MR. MARCELO. Natatandaan ninyo po ba, kailangan itong sabi ninyo po, pangalawang beses na sinabihan kayo?

MR. SINGSON. Natatandaan ko po, Your Honor, dahil paalis din ako sa Malaysia noon, paalis din ang Pangulong Estrada, tinawagan ako sa Vigan at dumating ako roon, September 5. At sinabi sa akin na sa pangalawa na. Alam ko na, Your Honor, pero sinabi niya ulit na, “Ilipat na natin sa Bingo 2-Balls, si Atong na ang mamamahala.” “Mas maganda”, ‘kako dahil si Atong ang nakakaalam itong jueteng. So iyon na po ang usapan namin. Tinawagan din ako ni Atong sa Malacañang noon.

MR. MARCELO. At sino po itong si Atong?

MR. SINGSON. Atong Ang, Your Honor, iyon ang isang pinakamalapit na kasamahan ni Pangulong Estrada. Bagamat nag-away sila noon, nakabalik na dahil iyong Fontainbleau at Fontana, katulong siya roon sa pagkuha. Iyong Fontana, napunta rin kay Pangulong Estrada, nakatulong din si Atong Ang doon, kaya nakabalik uli si Atong Ang at ibinigay ni Presidente sa kanya iyong Jai-Alai. Napalakas ni Atong Ang iyong Jai-Alai. At madalas din pong ipatawag sa Malacañang si Alice Reyes noon. So, doon po ililipat iyong Bingo 2-Balls. “Si Atong na lang ang mamamahala.”, sabi niya. So, ‘kako, “Mas maganda.”

MR. MARCELO. Sinabi po ninyo na sinabihan po kayo noong September 5. Ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos po ng September 5?

MR. SINGSON. Nagpunta na sa America si Presidente, Your Honor. Kinabukasan, nagpunta rin ako sa Sabah, Malaysia. At noong nandoon ako, tumawag si Atong Ang.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang pinag-usapan ninyo nung tinawagan kayo ni Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi niya, “Kailangang tapusin natin ito, pare, dahil darating na si Presidente. Kailangang matapos natin ito.” So, “Maganda.”, ‘kako. “Pero, ireserba mo lang ang Ilocos Sur.”

MR. MARCELO. At ano naman po ang naging tugon ni Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi niya, “Oo”. Pero kinabukasan, tumawag at sabi niya, “Iyong kalahati ng Ilocos Sur, ibinigay ko sa kapatid mo.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang naging reaksyon ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. ‘Kako, “Sa akin mo ibigay para maayos ko iyong hindi namin pagkakaintindihan na kagagawan mo.” ‘Kako.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sabi ni Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. So ang sabi niya, tatawag uli. Tumawag uli kinabukasan. “Hindi na puwede, dahil utos ni Presidente”, sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos noon?

MR. SINGSON. So ‘kako, “Hintayin na lang natin si Pangulong Estrada para kausapin ko.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sabi ni Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi niya ay, “Hindi, kailangang mapadali ito.” So bago ako nakauwi at bago nakarating si Presidente, tumawag iyong anak ko na…

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sinabi sa inyo ng anak ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi ng anak ko na ibinigay ni Atong Ang sa kalaban ko, iyong tinalo ko sa pulitika na pagka-gobernador doon ibinigay. “E ba’t naman nagkaganoon?”, ‘kako. Tinawagan ko uli si Atong Ang. “E utos ni Presidente,” sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos po noon, ano ang nangyari? Pagkatapos po ng usapan na iyan?

MR. SINGSON. So noong umuwi si Presidente ng Wednesday, Your Honor, tandang-tanda ko iyon dahil nga nagkakagulo na. Umuwi rin ako ng Thursday. So the following day, kinausap ko ang Pangulong Estrada.

MR. MARCELO. At ano naman po ang pinag-usapan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. ‘Kako sa kanya, “Bakit naman ganoon, ibinigay sa kalaban ko?” Ang sabi ni Presidente, “Kasi wala na akong pakialam doon, Pagcor,” sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sagot naman ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Alam ko na na niloloko ako noon. Na iyong sagot niyang iyon, niloloko na ako, Your Honor. So, ‘kako, “Hindi dahil sa pera, hindi dahil sa Bingo 2-Balls, nakakahiya naman kung ibigay sa kalaban ko dahil tinalo ko ngang pagka-gobernador iyon.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang tugon ni Presidente, noong sinabi ninyo iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi ni Presidente, “Hindi. Pare, talagang hindi na ako nakikialam diyan.” So sabi ko, kung ganoon na dahil lang diyan, ‘kako, ay mapapahiya na ako diyan. “Kung dahil lang diyan, kung bibitawan mo ako, bibitaw na rin ako sa iyo,” ‘kako.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang naging tugon ni Presidente nung sinabi ninyo po iyan?

MR. SINGSON. So hindi umimik, nag-antayan kami, tapos, iyon na. Doon na natapos, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Nag-antayan po kayo. Ipaliwanag ninyo nga po iyan.

MR. SINGSON. Sa telepono, Your Honor, hinihintay ko…wala ng sagot. So ibinaba ko na iyong telepono.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkababa po ninyo ng telepono, ano po ang nangyari, kung meron man?

MR. SINGSON. Nag-isip na ako noon, Your Honor. Kinausap ko na iyong abogado ko at nagpa-draft ako ng affidavit dahil alam ko na magagalit na sa akin si Presidente dahil alam niya na marami akong alam. So, delikado na ito, ‘kako sa loob ko. Nagpagawa ako ng affidavit, draft ng affidavit.

MR. MARCELO. At pagkatapos po noon, ano po ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Tinawagan ko na si Ricaforte, Your Honor, iyong araw ding iyon at tinanong ko kung… Dahil hinanap ko na iyong mga listahan, wala sa akin, hindi ko mahanap iyong original. So tinawagan ko si Yolanda Ricaforte.

MR. MARCELO. At nakontak ninyo naman po si Yolanda Ricaforte?

MR. SINGSON. Oo, nakontak. Tapos, sabi niya, “Yoly, nasa iyo pa ba iyong mga listahan?” kako. “Oo. Pupunta na ba ako sa Malacanang?”, sabi niya. “Hindi. Huwag. I-fax mo muna sa akin lahat iyong mga dokumento para pareho tayo. Pagkatinanong ako, pareho tayong may masabi.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sagot naman niya?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi niya, “Oo”. Ifi-nax naman lahat, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At noon pong ifi-nax, kayo po ang nag-receive ng mga pina-fax po?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi na, Your Honor. Si Menchu Itchon ang tumanggap lahat.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos pong makuha po iyong fax po noong ledger, ano po ang nangyari kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Noong natapos na lahat iyong… nai-fax na lahat, sinabi sa akin ni Menchu na kumpleto na, binalikan ko iyong affidavit ko dahil ang opisina noong abogado, Your Honor, doon lang sa itaas ng opisina ko. So sinabi ko na i-finalize na iyon at kinuha ko na iyong affidavit ko at pinirmahan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ito pong kinukuwento ninyong ito ay lahat po ay nangyari noong September 14, ito pong taon na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanina po, sinabi ninyo na ang kausap ninyo ay si Yoly Ricaforte. Paano naman po ninyo natiyak na si Yoly Ricaforte iyong kausap ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Kilalang-kilala ko po ang boses, Your Honor, at saka iyong telepono niya nasa opisina, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pakisabi nyo nga po kung bakit po kayo gumawa ng affidavit na ito noon pong September 14 nitong taon na ito?

MR.SINGSON. Ginawa ko po iyon, Your Honor, dahil alam ko na delikado na ang buhay ko noon so ipinagawa ko iyon. In case na may mangyari sa akin, mayroong maiiwanan at alam nila kung sino ang pagbibintangan.

MR. MARCELO. Bakit naman po nyo nasabi na delikado po ang buhay nyo?

MR. SINGSON. Dahil alam ni Presidente na marami akong alam na mga kalokohan na ginagawa nila, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos naman po na nagawa ninyo ang affidavit na ito, ano po ang nangyari kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Pagkatapos noon, Your Honor, sinabi sa akin ng abogado ko na talagang mahirap lumaban sa Presidente dahil hawak niya ang Senado, hawak niya ang Kongreso. Para mong inuumpog ang ulo mo sa pader. Kako naman, ngayon mayroon akong ebidensiya. Kung hindi ako lalabas, wala nang makakaalam ng ginagawa niya, wala nang makakaalam kung gaano kasama itong gobyernong ito, wala nang makakaalam kung gaanong ka-corrupt si Presidente.

MR. MARCELO. At pagkatapos nyo bang mag-usap ng abogado nyo, ano po ang nangyari kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Pagkatapos noon, sabi pa ng abogado ko, “Huwag ka nang lumaban dahil popular pa si Presidente Erap. Nagpapagod ka lang. So nag-isip din ako at naghanda lang. Pero kinausap ko rin si Jinggoy, si Mayor Jinggoy, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At ano naman po ang napag-usapan ninyo ni Mayor Jinggoy Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi ko kay Jinggoy, “Jinggoy, naaalala mo ba noong kauupo lang ng Tatay mo, P130 million kaagad iyong nadala ko sa inyo, sa pamilya ninyo?” kako. “Oo”. “Iyong jueteng alam mo iyan dahil involved ka diyan. Napupunta rin lahat sa Tatay mo. Bakit naman ibinigay sa kalaban ko iyong Bingo 2-Balls?”

MR. MARCELO. Ano po naman ang tugon ni Jinggoy?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi niya, “Ako ang bahala”. Pero wala ring nangyari, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos nyo pong makausap si Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, ano po ba ang nangyari kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Pagkatapos noon, kinausap ko rin si JV, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po si JV?

MR. SINGSON. JV, anak din ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari sa pag-uusap ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Ganoon din. In-explain ko rin sa kanya na pareho rin na ang gusto ko lang, pahintuin ang Bingo 2-Balls doon o ibigay na lang sa iba. Huwag na lang sa kalaban ko dahil mapapahiya ako. At kung uuwi ako, pahihintuin ko rin eh. Tatamaan din ang Tatay ninyo, kako. Ayaw ko ng gulo. So ako, uuwi na lang sa probinsiya, hindi na ako makikialam sa Malacanang, tutulong pa rin ako sa inyo. Iyon ang sabi ko, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sabi ni JV Ejercito?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi ni JV, “Huwag, huwag kang lumabas at ako ang bahala.” So ganoon din, Your Honor, walang nangyari. So kinausap ko rin si….. Una si Jinggoy tapos si…. Secretary…

MR. MARCELO. Si JV po? Pagkatapos ho….

MR. SINGSON. Hindi. Hindi. Si Jinggoy, tapos si Secretary Ronnie Zamora muna, tapos si Jinggoy. Ganoon lahat, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong “ganoon lahat?” Ano po ang ibig ninyong sabihin?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon din ang sinabi ko, na hindi na ako makikialam sa Malacañang.

MR. SINGSON. Gusto ko lang mahinto iyon dahil kung pahihintuin ko, tatamaan din ang Presidente. Ganon lahat ang sabi. Pati si Secretary Zamora, “‘Huwag delikado ito,” sabi niya. Nakita niya ang mga ipinakita kong mga dokumento. So kinausap ko rin si Secretary Angara sa Batangas, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO: Mabalik po tayo sa pagkausap nyo po kay Secretary Zamora. Ano po naman ang nangyari pagkatapos kayong mag-usap?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi niya, “‘Huwag kang lumabas. Akong bahala dahil delikado ito” sabi niya. Pero wala ring nangyari, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Tapos nabanggit po nyo na nag-usap kayo ni Secretary Angara. Ano po ang nangyari sa pag-uusap ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Noong nagpunta ako sa Batangas, pinakita ko sa kanya iyong mga ledger, mga dokumento. Eh, ang sabi niya, “grabe ito. ‘Huwag kang lumabas, Pare. Akong bahala, ayusin ko ito dahil pati kaming mga Cabinet members maapektuhan.” Pero,” kako, “mabuti kung maayos mo. Pero decided na ako kasi nag-aantay iyong mga mayors ko.” ‘kako “Huwag, Pare. Kakausapin ko kaagad si Presidente,” ang sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos niyo pong mag-usap ni Secretary Angara?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi nIya, kinausap niya si Presidente. Tapos nagkita kami sa Philippine Plaza. Sabi niya, “nakausap ko na si Presidente. At noong una kong kinausap, sinabi ko na nag-usap kami ni Chavit, may problema. Kung malaman ng diyaryo iyan, delikado.” Noong una. Tapos, sabi niya nagalit daw si Presidente. “Sinong tinakot niya?” sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ang nagsabi ng “Sinong tinakot niya?”

MR. SINGSON. Si Presidente, Your Honor. Sabi niya kay Secretary Angara, “Sinong tinakot niya?”

MR. MARCELO. At ayon po sa kuwento ni Secretary Angara, ano po naman ang nangyari pagkatapos sabihin ni Presidente?

MR. SINGSON. Bago umalis si Secretary Angara, “Alis na ako, Mr. President, pero nakita ko iyong dala ni Chavit na mga dokumento, eh, impeachable.” So, parang natauhan daw si Presidente, Your Honor. “But anyway, Mr. President, kausapin ko si Chavit. Konti lang naman ang gusto, eh. Ibigay na sa iba iyong Bingo-2 Balls doon o pahintuin niyo para hindi na siya mapahiya.”

So, nagkita kami ni Secretary Angara, una sa Philippine Plaza. Iyon ang kuwento sa akin. Nagkita uli kami sa New World Hotel.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari sa New World?

MR. SINGSON. Sinabi niya na, “Pagtiisan mo na hanggang katapusan. Bigyan mo ako hanggang katapusan, maaayos ko na.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong sinabi naman niyo kay Secretary Angara?

MR. SINGSON. Ikako, “Pero iyong mga mayors ko panay ang tawag.” At parating sila noon. May national convention ang mga mayors. So, anytime uuwi na ako at talagang decided na ako,” ‘kako. “Huwag, akong bahala. Nag-give in daw si Presidente, ayaw lang umu-o dahil siyempre ayaw mapahiya. Presidente, eh.”

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ang nagsabi sa inyo niyan?

MR. SINGSON. Si Secretary Angara.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sabi niyo?

MR. SINGSON. So, wala ring nangyari noon. Ang huling nakipag-usap sa akin, Your Honor, si Mark Jimenez. “Pare, huwag na. Huwag ka ng lumabas. Akong bahala, ayusin ko ito.” So, “Salamat” kako, “pero pauwi na ako dahil nandito iyong mga mayors.” “Hindi, antayin mo ako ng gabi. Tawagan kita.”

MR. MARCELO. Saan po kayo nag-usap ni …..

MR. SINGSON. Sa bahay n’ya, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po?

MR. SINGSON. Sa bahay n’ya sa Forbes.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po?

MR. SINGSON. Sa Forbes.

MR. MARCELO. Sa Forbes Park po?

MR. SINGSON. Sa Forbes Park po.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos po ng pag-uusap niyo ni Mr. Mark Jimenez, ano po ang nangyari, kung meron man?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi n’ya, antayin ko ang tawag niya ng–that was October 3–”Antayin mo ang tawag ko at mag-uusap kami.” So mga bandang alas 9:00 ng gabi, tinawagan n’ya ako, si Mark Jimenez, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po naman ang napag-usapan niyo?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi niya, “Nakausap ko na si President kasama si General Lacson, Secretary Zamora, kaming apat, at ang desisyon, eh, lie low ka lang daw at kukunin ka rin sa Malacañang.” ‘Kako, “Maraming salamat, Mark, dahil decided na ako, dahil nandito iyong mga mayors ko, kausap ko ngayon at uuwi na kami sa probinsiya,” ‘kako.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang naging tugon sa inyo ni Mr. Mark Jimenez?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi ni Mark Jimenez, “Talaga bang hindi ka na mapigil?” “Hindi na,” ‘kako, “maraming salamat.” So, doon na po nagtapos ang usapan namin.

MR. MARCELO. Paano po kayo nag-usap?

MR. SINGSON. Sa telepono, Your Honor. So, mga alas 11:00 ng gabi, umuwi na kaming mga mayors ko. Galing kami sa….mahigit dalawampu ang mga mayors, 22 yata kung hindi ako nagkamali. Lumabas kami sa Holiday Inn, nagkahiwalay kami noon. At sa kadiliman ng San Marcelino, hinarang na ako ng tatlong kotse, dalawang mobile patrol at saka isang pulang kotse.

MR. MARCELO. Pakisabi nga po kung ano ang nangyari noong hinarang kayo?

MR. SINGSON. Tatlong kotse–dalawang mobile at saka isang red car–at isang motorsiklo, naka-armalite po silang lahat na nakalabas ang mga baril nila at pinalalabas ako.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang naging reaction naman ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Mabuti na lang, at that time, kausap ko ang isang mayor sa telepono, tinawagan ko agad sila. “Emergency” wika ko, punta kaagad dito sa San Marcelino, tawagin mo ang lahat ng mayors. Nagtakbuhan naman at hindi nagtagal dumating lahat iyong mga mayors ko doon sa San Marcelino.

MR. MARCELO. Noong dumating po sila, ano ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi ako bumaba. At noong marami na sila, binuksan ko iyong kotse ko, Your Honor. Mabuti na lang at bulletproof iyong sasakyan ko. So, noong binuksan ko, tinanong ko kung anong violation.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sagot sa inyo?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi niya ay may tumawag daw na anonymous caller at mayroon akong blinker. Sino, wika ko? Hindi ko naman ginagamit ang blinker ko. At saka maliit iyong blinker, nasa loob ng kotse.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ang nagsabi sa inyo na gumagamit kayo ng blinker kaya kayo hinarang?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong pinaka-head nila, Your Honor, na nakasibilyan. Sinabi ko, hindi ko naman ginagamit iyong blinker. Ang sabi niya, “Maski na, mere possession is violation.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong sagot naman ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Wika ko, kung bawal pala iyon, di hulihin ninyo lahat ang nasa tindahan.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sabi niya?

MR. SINGSON. Wala silang maisagot. Kung anong kaso, wika ko, tiketan ninyo kami para makauwi kami. Dahil bakit ninyo pinara dito sa kadiliman ng kalye, wika ko.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sabi nila?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi nila, “Punta tayo sa Crame.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang naging sagot ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Wika ko, ayaw ko sa Crame, may presinto rito sa United Nations malapit. Doon na lang tayo sa presinto.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos noon?

MR. SINGSON. So, nagpunta kami sa presinto. Marami na pong media noon–mga telebisyon, mga radyo. Itinatanong kung bakit ako ginaganoon.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang naging sagot ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Wika ko, mayroon kasi akong ilalabas na kalokohan nila Presidente. At dito pa man, humihingi na ako ng dispensa sa mga pamilya niya. Sa gusto at ayaw ko, talagang tatamaan iyong mga pamilya niya, sabi ko, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanina po, sinabi ninyo na hinarang kayo, tapos, sabi ninyo, ayaw ninyong lumabas doon sa inyong sasakyan. Bakit po ayaw ninyong lumabas sa sasakyan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Nakalabas po lahat iyong armalite nila, eh. Mahahaba lahat ang dala, Your Honor. At noong pumarada sa harap ko ay naka-armalite yata, naglabasan. Hindi naman iyong driver ang pinapara, eh. Doon sa side ko nagpuntahan lahat.

MR. MARCELO. So, ano po ang naiisip ninyo noon?

MR. SINGSON. Alam ko na na may masamang gagawin, Your Honor. Mukhang papatayin tayo rito, wika ko nga sa driver. Huwag kang lumabas, wika ko. Ini-lock ko lang iyong kotse.

MR. MARCELO. Sabi ninyo po kanina, pagkatapos noon pumunta kayo doon sa police station at na-interview kayo ng media. At ito po ay nangyari noong October 3, itong taon na ito. Ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos ng insidente na ito noong October 3, itong taon na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Noong lumabas na sa diyaryo, Your Honor, sila naman ngayon ang tumatawag sa akin. Sunud-sunod. Unang-una….

MR. MARCELO. Sinu-sino po?

MR. SINGSON. Si JV, panay ang tawag sa bahay, kung maaari ayusin na lang ang lahat. Wika ko, hindi na puwede dahil nakalabas na ako, eh. So, mahirap na. Tawag nang tawag. At tinawagan iyong anak ko. Sabi niya nakausap daw ang Daddy niya at gusto akong makausap. Noong hindi ko sinasagot, halos dalawang minuto tumatawag si JV sa anak ko, na nagagalit na raw ang tatay niya kung bakit hindi ako nagre-return call.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po iyong Tatay na sinasabi ni JV?

MR. SINGSON. Si Presidente, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino nga po itong JV na ito?

MR. SINGSON. JV, iyong anak ni Presidente, Your Honor.

MR. MARCLEO. Ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos noon?

MR. SINGSON. Tumawag iyong anak niya at tinawagan iyong anak ko. Sabi ng anak ko, pakitawagan mo raw ang Presidente dahil pinagagalitan na si JV. So, tinawagan ko si Presidente.

MR. MARCELO. So, ano po ang nangyari noong tinawagan ninyo si Presidente?

MR. SINGSON. Sabi niya, “Kasi, pare, noong nag-usap tayo ay magulo ang isip ko, at saka hindi ko naasikaso masyado. Alam mo naman ang problema natin, ang Abu Sayaff at saka ang problema ko kay First Lady. Mabuti pa ayusin natin lahat ito, pare, ” sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang naging sagot ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Wika ko, gusto ko rin, pero palagay ko ay huli na dahil nakalabas na ako, eh.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sabi naman niya?

MR. SINGSON. Ayusin ninyo iyan, kaunti lang iyan. So, naputol ang pag-uusap namin, Your Honor. Nagpatawag uli.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari nang nagpatawag uli?

MR. SINGSON. Gusto ko, wika ko, pero nakakahiya na yata dahil lumabas na ako. So, pangatlo, sila naman ang tumawag sa akin, si Presidente. Una, iyong security niya, tapos kami na ang tatawag ang sabi. So tinawagan din ako. So puro ganoon ho ang usapan namin. At ang sumunod, si Atong Ang, panay na ang tawag sa akin.

MR. MARCELO. Mga ilang beses pong tumawag sa inyo si Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Siguro, 20 beses tumawag, Your Honor. Maya-maya tumatawag.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sinasabi ni Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Ang bait niya. Ang sabi: “Pare, ayusin natin ito. Gusto kang makausap ni Presidente.” “Paano nating aayusin ito, iyong P130 million kinuha ninyo?” “Hindi, hindi, aayusin iyan, pare. Aayusin natin lahat iyan.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong naging sagot ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Wika ko, mahirap na yatang usapan iyan. So, ganoon po, nakikiusap na aregluhin na ang lahat, babayaran na nila iyong P130 million. Ibibigay pa lahat iyong Bingo 2 Balls na gusto ko. “Kung gusto mo, pahintuin ko lahat ang Bingo 2 Balls. Kung gusto mo kunin mo naman maski anong probinsiya”. Wika ko, talagang gusto ko rin, pero too late na.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po nga ang kausap ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Si Atong Ang, Your Honor. Tapos, sumunod tumawag sina….Marami na pong tumawag. Si Secretary Lim, pumunta rin sa bahay, dalawa o tatlong beses, kasama si Congressman Asistio, si Governor Lito Henares at….

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sinabi sa inyo ni Secretary Lim, si Congressman Asistio at Governor Lito Henares ?

MR. SINGSON. Noong una, kinakausap ako na ayusin na lahat. So, wika ko, talagang hindi na puwede. Gusto ko rin, pero hindi na puwede. “Hindi, ganito na lang. Ibintang na lahat kay Atong at i-save natin ang Presidente.”

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sabi ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Mahirap yata ‘yan, wika ko. So–Kung may magandang rason, payag ako, wika ko, iyong hindi naman ako mapapahiya.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sabi nila?

MR. SINGSON. Balik uli kay President, balik uli sa bahay. Sabi ni….pangatlo na yata. Pagbalik ni Secretary Lim, “Pare, may go-signal na kay Presidente. Ibintang na lahat kay Atong Ang. I-save natin ang Presidente.”

MR. MARCELO. For the record, Your Honor, the witness made a sign with the….I’ll describe it as a thumbs-down. Is that a correct….May we ask the Defense to confirm if that is a correct description of the gesture done by the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Defense?

MR. FLAMINIANO. We did not see quite accurately what he did, whether it was thumbs-down or whatever.

MR. SINGSON. Thumbs-down, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. May we ask the witness to repeat the gesture so that the Defense can see it.

MR. SINGSON. Thumbs-down, Your Honor. “May go-signal si Presidente. Ibintang na lang kay Atong Ang at kami na ang bahala kay Atong Ang,” ang sabi po ni Secretary Lim.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sabi ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Eh, wika ko, masyadong late na. Gusto ko, pero kung may magandang rason, puwede. So isip sila nang isip ng rason. Wala namang magandang rason na.

MR. MARCELO. So, ano po ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. So, ang huling tumawag po sa akin si Jinggoy Estrada noong….Una po, nagpunta ako kay Cardinal Sin. Iniwanan ko iyong mga affidavit ko, mga ebidensiya. Kasi, nakipag-appointment ako kay Cardinal Sin ng Monday. Kaya, wika ko, iyong press conference ko ay Monday. So, tinawagan ako kay Cardinal Sin ng Linggo. Linggo na lang, ang sabi nila. Pumunta ako.

MR. MARCELO. Pumunta po kayo?

MR. SINGSON. Pumunta ako at iniwan ko iyong mga affidavit, mga ebidensiya. Ang hiningi ko lang sa kaniya, pagdarasal para lumabas ang katotohanan. Hindi ko hiningi ang tulong niya, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano naman po ang sinabi sa inyo ni Cardinal Sin, kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Noong nakita lahat iyong mga ebidensiya, sabi niya: ”Don’t be afraid to tell the truth. We will pray for you. God will be with you.” Iyon lang po ang sabi.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos po nitong pakikipag-usap ninyo kay Cardinal Sin, ano ang nangyari kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Gabi po iyon. Noong bandang gabi, panay na ang tawag ni Jinggoy naman at ang dami nang taong pinapunta. At gusto niya akong makausap sa personal. Wika ko, “Too late na, Jinggoy, dahil bukas na iyong press conference ko”. “Hindi, gusto kitang makausap, pare nang personal.”

MR. MARCELO. So, ano po iyong nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Nagpilit pumunta sa bahay. Alas dose ng Linggo hanggang alas tres ng madaling-araw ng Lunes. Nakikiusap na ibintang na lahat-lahat kay Atong. Iligtas na ang Presidente. So, wika ko, “Jinggoy, wala na. Talagang wala na akong magagawa.” At hanggang alas tres po nakikipag-usap sa akin. Wika ko kay Jinggoy: “Jinggoy, mabuti pa ay umuwi ka na lang. I-deny mo na lang na lahat, tapos ay murahin mo na lang ako pagkatapos.

So, ang sabi niya, “Talaga bang hindi na puwede?” “Wala na, too late na,” wika ko.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po naman ang sabi ni Jinggoy sa inyo?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sabi niya, “Pati ba naman ako ay idadamay mo?”

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sabi ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. “O, sige, hindi ko babanggitin ang pangalan mo,” wika ko.

MR. MARCELO. Ang sabi po ninyo ay nakipag-usap kayo kay Cardinal Sin. Kailan po, anong date ito, kung natatandaan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. October 8, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyong kay Jinggoy Estrada, itong huling ikinuwento ninyo, kailan po nangyari iyan?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon din, October 8, Your Honor, alas dose ng gabi. Dahil 9:00 iyong press conference ko.

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong buwan iyong press conference ninyo? Nine po ng ano?

MR. SINGSON. October.

MR. MARCELO. Nito pong taong ito?

MR. SINGSON. Itong taong ito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At pagkatapos ng pakikipag-usap ninyo kay Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, ano po ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Tumuloy na po ako sa press conference ko,Your Honor, kinabukasan sa Club Filipino.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, sinabi ninyo na itinuloy ninyo ang press con ninyo sa Club Filipino. Ano po ba ang sinabi ninyo sa press con ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Inilabas ko na po iyong dalawang affidavit ko roon, Your Honor, at mayroon akong binasang statement ko roon. Iyon po, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Puwede po bang sabihin ninyo kung bakit ninyo ginawa itong press con na ito noong October 9 this year sa Club Filipino?

MR. SINGSON. Para formal na i-denounce ang mga kalokohan ng Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta po ako sa ibang topic naman.

Kanina po ay binanggit ninyo ang isang bahay sa New Manila na ang tawag ay “Boracay”. Bakit po ba tinawag na “Boracay” ito?

MR. MENDOZA. Objection, if Your Honors please. The question is immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We could hardly hear you.

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

MR. MARCELO. May we ask why the question is immaterial?

MR. MENDOZA. Counsel should show why it is material rather than us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think it is the Counsel for the Prosecution who should demonstrate the materiality of the question.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, the witness already testified that they met at Boracay and that during that meeting, there was a discussion between the witness, the President, Mr. Dante Tan, and Mr. Bong Pineda about jueteng, Your Honor. These are follow-up questions, Your Honor, because we want to show that the meeting really happened, Your Honor.

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

MR. SINGSON. Iyon pong Boracay, Your Honor, sa New Manila, iyon po ang huling paborito ni Pangulong Estrada na bahay niya. Noong pinuntahan ko, malaki po iyon, Your Honor, dalawa ang entrance. Pagpasok sa isang entrance, may malaking cabana at saka may swimming pool na nakapaligid ang puting buhangin, kaya tinawag na Boracay.

MR. MARCELO. Bakit ninyo sinabing kay Presidente ito?

MR. SINGSON. Sinabi po niya sa akin, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Binanggit ninyo kahapon iyong accounting sa Fontainbleau. Kung hindi ako nagkakamali ay tinanong yata kayo ni Senator-Judge Biazon. Ano po ba itong Fontainbleau?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po ang ipinatayo sa aming casino ni Pangulong Estrada. Pagkatapos ay nalipat na Fontana. Uupa sana kami roon, pero natuloy na nabili ring lahat. At kay Presidente ring lahat iyon. Nakapangalan sa mga abugado niya at sa kaibigan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sinabi ninyo na itong Fontainbleau ay kay Presidente rin. Bakit po ninyo sinabi ito?

MR. MENDOZA. Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection. What is the objection?

MR. MENDOZA. It is immaterial. For what purpose is the ownership of Fontainbleau? That is not alleged in this Article I.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, may we ask for a reconsideration. We will show with the follow-up questions why this line of questioning is material, Your Honor. We are willing to have the next questions and answers stricken off the record if it is not shown within the next four questions that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean, this is just preliminary?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection may be overruled. The witness may answer the question on the promise and the assurance of Counsel that it is merely preliminary.

MR. MARCELO. Tutuloy na po ako doon. Bakit niyo po–bakit po kailangan po kayong mag-accounting sa Fontainbleau?

MR. SINGSON. Dahil po iyong paglipat ng pera, Your Honor. Iyong accounting ng Fontainbleau, iyong accounting para ilipat na kay Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor. Pero yong Fontainbleau, ang nakapangalan doon sa Fontainbleau, Your Honor, ay sila Jaime Dechavez na malapit kay Presidente at saka sila Sosing Pineda, Your Honor, kaklase ni Presidente.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang koneksiyon po noong accounting at saka doon sa perang inilipat kay Yolly Ricaforte?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po iyong noong pinalipat iyon, Your Honor, nagbigay ako ng tseke at…

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong tseke ito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong galing kay Gatchalian, Your Honor, at saka iyong tseke sa Fontainbleau.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po itong tseke sa Fontainbleau?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong P34 million na hindi na na-encash dahil nga napunta na kay Presidente yong Fontana, so hindi na namin iki-nas iyon, tinurn-over ko lang sa accounting, Your Honor, plus yong P70 million na kay Gatchalian, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po itong tseke na P34 million? Bakit po kayo binigyan nito?

MR. SINGSON. Dahil pinautang namin, Your Honor, at pinagpaalam ko kay Presidente na umuutang si Gatchalian ng P62 million pero binigyan ako ng postdated check for three months na P70 million. So kikita si Pangulong Estrada roon ng P8 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Uulitin ko po. Bakit po kayo binigyan ng tseke na P34 million na patungkol po doon sa accounting sa Fontainbleau?

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the ground?

MR. MENDOZA. I just want to make it clear that all of these questions pertain to Charge No. I, so that we would not be arguing on materiality. Because I do not really see the relevancy of this question but to assure that no immaterial question is presented in regard–but is taken into account in regard other Articles, it should be clear that this witness is being presented and all testimony of the witness is being taken insofar as Article 1 is concerned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the clear understanding during the Preliminary conference. The witness would be presented first as a witness for Article I and then later on, he may be called to testify as a witness for Article II. So all questions now should be related only to Article I. And if there is any question trying to elicit a fact which is not connected with Article I, that question may be objected to and the Chair may sustain the objection.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So try to limit your questions to prove exactly the agreement that we had, that it should first be on Article I.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po ba nanggaling yong perang ginamit sa Fontainbleau at kailangan po kayong mag-accounting?

MR. SINGSON. Ah, nanggagaling po lahat sa jueteng, Your Honor, yong sa Fontainbleau, dahil kay Presidente nga yon kaya nag-accounting kami roon, Your Honor, dahil nga kay Presidente yon, pera rin ni Pangulong Estrada yong jueteng, Your Honor. Kaya nuong umpisa, 70% si Presidente roon; 25% supposed to be ang akin, 5% din po si Butch Tenorio, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino ba ang nag-utos sa iyo na mag-accounting ka dito sa mga expenses sa Fontainbleau?

MR. SINGSON. Si Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. (To Atty. Marcelo) Your assisting counsel may come close to you, so that you will not be returning back and forth.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ba si Jaime Dechavez?

MR. SINGSON. Jaime Dechavez, Your Honor, mabait na tao iyon, Your Honor, pero malapit din na kaibigan ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino naman po itong si Jesus Pineda?

MR. SINGSON. Jesus Pineda, Your Honor, yong kaklase ni Presidente, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. May itatanong po ako sa inyo na palagay ko po napaka-importante na tanong. Sinabi po ninyo na ang Presidente ay tumatanggap ng malaking halaga mula sa jueteng operation, sinabi po rin nyo na ang jueteng operation ay pinapahinto ni Presidente para bigyan daan ang Bingo 2 Balls. Bakit naman po pahihintuin ng Presidente and jueteng at magpapalaro ng Bingo 2 Balls?

MR. SINGSON. Dahil mas malaki po ang kikitain ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, sa Bingo 2 Balls. Dahil sa jueteng 3% lang, sa Bingo 2 Balls 23%, at pareho rin, Your Honor, na illegal dahil sa private account lahat ni Atong papasok. iyong 23%. So instead of P30 to P35 million a month, ang kikitain niya sa Bingo 2-Balls ay P1.5 billion. Iyon yong projection ni Atong Ang sa Blue Ribbon Committee, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pakibigay nga po n’yo sa amin yong detalye nitong 23% nang amin pong maintindihan?

MR. SINGSON. Kung ipapahintulot po sana ng Senado, ilalabas po sana natin sa screen para maexplain kong mabuti, Your Honor.

Kung papayag po kayo.

MR. MARCELO. Paki-describe ninyo na lang po yong 23%.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just answer the question on what is the 23%?

MR. SINGSON. Twenty-three percent, Your Honor, yon ang net. Yong 3% sa jueteng, Your Honor, net na kinukuha na para sa Pangulong Estrada. Yong 23%, net din yon na kukunin sa mga operators; 77% maiiwan sa mga operators; 23% net para kay Pangulong Estrada doon sa Prominent. At araw-araw na collection, doon pinapasok lahat ang collection ng bingo, Your Honor..

MR. MARCELO. Mayroon po akong ipapakita sa inyo na comparative graph. Pakisabi nga po kung ito po ay ipinapakita na tama ang inyong sinasabi?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who prepared the comparative graph?

MR. MARCELO. That will be the follow-up question, Your Honor.

MR. FLAMINIANO. MR. Chief Justice, unless the proper basis is laid for the identification of this comparative table, we have to make an objection for lack of basis, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will have to sustain the objection. That was precisely the point of the Chair before it was shown to the witness. Lay the basis.

MR. MARCELO. May ipapakita po ako sa inyong isang chart. Sino po ba ang gumawa nito?

MR. FLAMINIANO. The same objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled.

MR. SINGSON. Ipinagawa ko po ito, Your Honor. In case na kakailanganin dito sa kaso, ipinagawa ko po ito, Your Honor. Dahil yong protection money na nanggagaling sa jueteng ay 3% lang. So ang kikitain ni Pangulong Estrada rito, P30 million. Dito sa Bingo 2-Balls, 23% neto pupunta kay Pangulong Estrada through iyong dummy corporation niya, Your Honor, kay Atong Ang, Prominent. At nakalagay dito lahat ng binigyan niya. Mayroon Far East Bank, pangalan ng Secretarya niya at account number at saka branch N. Domingo San Juan. Doon sa malapit sa opisina ni Atong Ang, Your Honor.

So mas marami po ang mapupunta kay Pangulong Estrada rito, Your Honor. Ang sinabi ni Atong Ang sa Blue Ribbon Committee, minimum of P50 million ang kikitain a day or P1.5 billion a month. So maski na sundin natin iyong gusto ni Atong Ang doon, ang breakdown po iyong 23%, 5% sa Prominent, kay President Estrada rin, 6% sa Presidential Social Fund. Dito lang, Your Honor, sa P1.5 billion, P75 million ang kikitain ni Pangulong Estrada at saka P90 million. So a total of P165 million a month. Plus kikitain pa ni Pangulong Estrada rito, lahat yong mga initial collection, yong franchise fee na mahigit sa P100 million ang nakuha, pero P70 million ang idinekler ni Atong Ang, kaniya rin ito, Your Honor. So mas malaki na di-hamak ang kikitain ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. FLAMIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. We do not recall having been furnished with a copy of that document in violation of our pre-trial agreements. We also move for the striking out of the entire testimony of the witness mentioning this document because they are matters of opinion and not a statement of facts of the personal knowledge of the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness just said that he caused the preparation of the document. If you believe that it is a matter of opinion, that could be the subject of the cross-examination.

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

MR. MARCELO. Napansin ko po na ito ay mukha pong computer printout. Paano po ba itong ginawa?

MR. SINGSON. Sa computer, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. May we just have a copy in the meanwhile?

MR. MARCELO. Pardon?

MR. MENDOZA. May we have a copy, if Your Honors please. So we can follow the questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, would you kindly cause reproductions of the document. Not only one but for all of us here. But before doing that, does the Prosecution intend to have it marked as an exhibit?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don’t you proceed to have it marked before it is being distributed.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, we will proceed to that, Your Honor.

May we ask that this graph be marked as Exhibit “KKK.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honors, I would like to apologize to the defense counsel for not being ready to come up with the copies of these exhibits, Your Honor. It is really my inadvertence, Your Honor. I forgot about it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yesterday, we had that warning already that the parties should prepare with the documents for premarking so the other party cannot also be caught by surprise.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, we ask for a suspension of the proceeding so that we can have these copied.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is already 7:36 in the evening.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, in view of this development, I move to suspend this trial until two o’clock in the afternoon tomorrow, Friday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before approving it, the document should be kept in the custody of the Secretary of the Senate before it is being marked. Put it in a sealed envelope and the reproduction would be done only an hour before the resumption of the hearing tomorrow.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, may we ask for a reconsideration. May we ask for the copying after this session. Of course, with the presence of the opposing counsel, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. The photocopying then may be done immediately after the suspension of the hearing in the presence of representatives of both sides. Thereafter, the original as marked, with a reproduction should be kept inside a sealed envelope and the reproduced copy may be reproduced further to have sufficient number of copies for distribution.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, just another before we adjourn. There was an agreement to have stipulations, Your Honor. May we agree with the Defense Counsel, for the record, on when we are going to meet tomorrow for this stipulation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can agree after the session.

MR. MARCELO. Thank you very much, Your Honors.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The hearing is suspended until two o’clock tomorrow afternoon.

It was 7:38 p.m.