Estrada Impeachment December 15, 2000 Transcripts

December 15, 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 P. LOPEZ). Please all rise for the arrival of the Senator-Judges.

The Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice, and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now resumed.

His Honor, Senator Judge Renato “Compañero” Cayetano, will lead us in prayer.

SEN. CAYETANO. Tayo po ay tumungo at manalangin. Ito po ay bahagi ng prayer ni Jonah sa ating Panginoon nang siya ay nasa loob ng isang malaking isda for three days and three nights, and I quote:

“In my distress I cried to the Lord and He answered me. From the depths of the grave I called for help and You listened to me, and You listened to my cry. (Jonah, Chapter II, Verse 17).”

In the name of Your Beloved Son Jesus, we pray that You hear our cry; that Your Holy Spirit shall rest upon us; the spirit of wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong; the spirit of courage to decide what is right to ensure that justice is done.

We pray as Your spirit dwells within us that you open our eyes and hearts in arriving at the truth in this impeachment trial.

We pray that no words spoken here and elsewhere shall cloud our vision of the truth, a testimony to Your words that the truth shall set us free.

Finally, we pray that the upright shall dwell in our government; that men and women blameless and complete in Your sight shall remain in these positions of authority but the wicked and corrupt shall be culled off from the government; and that those who betray the public trust shall be rooted out from it.

All these we ask in the name of Your Son Jesus Christ.

Amen.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the Impeachment Court of Tuesday, 12 December 2000, and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? (Silence.)

There being none, the motion is approved.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, Senator Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago, wishes to be recognized for a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Her Honor, Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago is recognized.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I respectfully request the permission of this court to make a manifestation, for the record.

This morning, a group of some 40 people staged a rally in front of my house, at 29 Maalindog Street, U.P. Village, Quezon City. They arrived in a vehicle and, armed with bullhorns, engaged in loud, discordant and angry chanting. They even banged on my gate and threw objects against it. As far as I could make out, they were trying to force and intimidate me, as a Senator Judge, to render a vote of conviction in this impeachment trial.

In the morning, I report for work at my Quezon City office and thereafter, I make it a point to go home so I could eat lunch with my two daughters who are both four years old. This morning, because of the sudden and hate filled noises of the rallyists, the little girls were so shocked that they dropped their toys, ran to me and burst into tears. Even my househelp, who are hardworking girls from the provinces grew frightened and confused. I am sure that my neighbors at Maalindog Street were similarly upset.

Under our Constitution, the freedoms of speech and of assembly are not absolute, they have certain limitations. For example, the freedom of assembly yields to the right of the state to require a rally permit. Apparently, when confronted by representatives of the barangay council in my neighborhood, the rallyists failed to produce such a rally permit.

I respectfully submit that a partisan rally in front of the house of a Senator Judge violates the Constitution and the Rules of Court, as follows:

1) Such a rally constitutes indirect contempt of court which is defined, among others, as “Any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.”;

2) Such a rally provides lawful ground for a petition for injunction possibly with the Supreme Court, because it constitutes symbolic abuse and intimidation against an officer of the court in the discharge of her official duties;

3) Such a rally constitutes a public nuisance that should be abated, because peaceful neighborhoods are entitled to the protection of the principle recognized in law of the sanctity of the home;

4) Such a rally violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it is most obtrusive and destructive when directed at residents of public subdivisions like me as compared to residents of private and exclusive subdivisions which are gated and whose entry is manned by armed guards.

For myself, I can easily ignore this act of intimidation which are so contemptuous of the rule of law; so savage in its world view and so triumphalistic about its campaign to promote hatred and division in our national society. But, I respectfully submit that it is unjust to inflict the hatred of psychologically disturbed people on innocent young children in the very bosom of their own homes.

This is my respectful manifestation for the record, without prejudice to further legal action afforded by law to me, and all other Senator Judges which I shall study in order that there will be no repetition of this pathetic incident.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

The Chair would suggest the possibility of holding an executive session among the members of the Impeachment Court, precisely to consider these very serious actions reported by way of a manifestation.

So, the Court itself, in the exercise of its own constitutional prerogative may be able to defend its own dignity and the respect due its member.

So, may we now proceed? Majority Floor Leader.

There is here in the agenda indicated as clarification at pages 119 and 120 of the Journal of the Senate Impeachment Court of December 7 and 9 as a consequence of the matter raised yesterday by His Honor, Senator Judge Sotto. This is supposed to be a clarification to be made by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer would request for a resetting of the consideration of this until Monday. He would like to see first he didn’t have the time to the Journals of December 7 and 8, with the permission of His Honor, Judge Sotto.

The Secretary will please call the case before the court.

THE SENATE 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.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I invite the parties to this impeachment trial to enter their appearances, each side indicating its examining and assisting counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. The parties should do so as announced.

REP. APOSTOL. The same appearance, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, for the prosecution.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, the same appearance for the defense, the cross examining counsel will be Mr. Estelito P. Mendoza, and this representation will be the assisting counsel, Your Honor.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no announcement on the part of the prosecution in respect to the examining counsel and the assisting counsel. Does the Chair understand that the examining counsel yesterday and the assisting counsel yesterday would be the same?

REP. APOSTOL. As far as the witness Governor Luis Singson is concerned.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And he will be called back to the stand now.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. The others we will announce who will be the examining counsel and who will be the assisting counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And said witness is ready for the continuation of the direct examination.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Bring the witness in.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. … before we bring the witness, we have here matters of stipulation. We will show it to the defense counsel. If they agree, then…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought… The Chair thought that you were able to meet and to agree on the witness stipulation of facts.

MR. MENDOZA. We were able to meet, Your Honor, and I have proposed a very simple stipulation to the prosecution. I gave a copy of this to Atty. Marcelo but he said he would have to consult with the panel of prosecutors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Atty. Marcelo?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, as is. We are acceptable with this proposal.

MR. MENDOZA. Acceptable.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you read into the record the accepted stipulation?

MR. MENDOZA. May I read it?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In addition to its filing officially with the Senate Secretary.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honors. Well, it’s not signed but I’ll read it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just read it. Anyway, the other party had accepted it.

MR. MENDOZA. The prosecution…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It would now bind the parties.

MR. MENDOZA. I’m sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. The stipulation reads as follows, Your Honors:

“The prosecution and defense panels have agreed to stipulate that if asked Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson will testify that the following names, initials or symbols appearing in Exhibits “C”, “C 1″ to “C 12″, inclusive with submarkings have the following meanings:

NAME initial or symbol;

AS Asiong Salonga;

GOMA Chief, Philippine National

Police;

NEW GOMA The New Chief of the

Philippine National Police;

JIMPOL Secretary Jimmy Policarpio;

GOMA, C.Adv. – Cash Advance of Chief,

Philippine National Police

New GOMA, C.Adv. – Cash Advance of the New

Chief, Philippine National

Police.

258 – Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson”.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we confirm and we agree.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, gentlemen. That will shorten …

MR. MENDOZA. We will give a copy to the Secretary of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … by several hours the direct testimony. We commend the counsel for the efforts exerted to arrive at a stipulation.

REP. APOSTOL. We will now call our witness.

SEN. ROCO. Just a question, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. As I understand it, if the stipulation says that when — if counsel asks the governor what AS means, they will say Asiong Salonga. But as I understand it, the testimony also said, Asiong Salonga as far as he is concerned, as far as the witness is concerned, refers to President Estrada.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was clarified earlier, in the previous testimony.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. So, but the stipulation does not contain that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t think it was necessary. Because there were testimony to the effect that AS is Asiong Salonga and that represents the President. That was testified to.

SEN. ROCO. Okay. So long as it is understood in that light, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, we will call now our witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call the witness.

You may now proceed, Atty. Marcelo.

MR. MARCELO. With the permission of the Honorable Court. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, pupunta na po tayo doon sa Exhibit “C-2”. Dito po ay may mga entrada at katulad po ng dati ay hihingin ko ang inyong paliwanag dito sa mga entradang ito. Dito po sa Exhibit “C-2” ay mayroon pong entrada na nakalagay — 10-29 AS 258 5.000 C-2-D. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ten twenty-nine, buwan po ito, Your Honor; President Estrada; ako po ito, Your Honor, at saka five million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ibig po bang sabihin nito ay natanggap po ni President Estrada iyong five million noon pong October 29?

MR. SINGSON. Ako po mismo ang nagbigay, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request the witness to answer a little louder.

MR. SINGSON. Ako po mismo ang nagbigay, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon pong susunod na entrada ay 10 14, AS 258, 5000, C-2-E. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ah, date po ito, Your Honor, noong fourteen at saka President Estrada, ako po ang nagbigay, Your Honor, five million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang ibinigay ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong pera po, Your Honor, na galing sa jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Magkano po?

MR. SINGSON. Five million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanino po ninyo ibinigay?

MR. SINGSON. Kay Presidente Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon pong, mayroon pong susunod ulit na entrada na 10/06 MA/AS at MAL. .200 at minarkahan po na Exhibit “C-2-F”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Na care of ito kay Presidente, Your Honor Malou yata ito, Your Honor, Malacañang, Malou, 200,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang ibig sabihin noong sinasabi n’yong 200,000?

MR. SINGSON. A, napunta kay Malou, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ba si Malou?

MR. SINGSON. Secretary ni Presidente, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon pong susunod na entrada ay 10/06 JIMPOL, 2.000, ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. ‘Yong date po ito, 6, Your Honor, Secretary Jimmy Policarpio, two million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Nag testigo po kayo na pag lumalabas po ‘yong entradang ito, ibig sabihin po, eh, tumanggap po noong nakalagay na noong katapat na halaga ng pera mula sa operations si Secretary Policarpio. At ito pong entrada na ito ay lumalabas po doon po sa mga susunod na mga exhibits, ito po ‘yong exhibit bukod po dito sa Exhibit “C 2 G,” sa Exhibit “C 3 J,” Exhibit “C 4,” Exhibit “C 5 F,” Exhibit “C 6 F,” Exhibit “C 7 F,” Exhibit “C 8 F,” Exhibit “C 9 F,” Exhibit “C 10 G,” Exhibit “C 11 F,” at Exhibit “C 12 E.” Iyon po bang dating ibinigay ninyong paliwanag dito sa entradang ito tungkol kay Secretary Policarpio ay parehas din po ang ibig sabihin sa mga nabanggit ko na mga minarkahang exhibit?

MR. SINGSON. Pareho po, Your Honor. Pero may nagbago po rito, ‘yong two million four hundred, nagpadagdag po noon si Secretary Policarpio, Your Honor, nagpadagdag ng four hundred, so naging two million four hundred ‘yong sumunod na buwan.

MR. MARCELO. Kailan po nagsimula ‘yon?

MR. SINGSON. November 8, Your Honor. Secretary Jimmy Policarpio, two million four hundred, Your Honor, nagpadagdag. At itinanong ko rin kay Presidente kung okay ito. Nagpaalam daw dahil marami raw binibigyan na media. Pero noong panahon na ‘yon, Your Honor, ang balita, eh, nagtatayo ng bahay.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, I’m using my own xerox copy of the original marked, Your Honor. May I request the original from the secretary of the Senate so that I can use it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your request is granted. The secretary should produce the original. Would you want it to be in the possession of the witness or in your own custody?

MR. MARCELO. My preference is to give it to the witness, Your Honor.

For the record, Your Honor, the Exhibit “C,” “C 1″ to “C 12″ was handed to this representation, and I am now handing it, these exhibits, Your Honor, to the witness.

Mr. Witness, mayroon po ditong entrada na “C 1 J,” ang nakalagay po ay total expenses at may nakatapat po na numero na 13.250. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyan po ‘yong total expenses, Your Honor, na thirteen million two hundred fifty thousand, Your Honor, itong buwan na ito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano pong buwan ‘yan?

MR. SINGSON. September, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. ‘Yong susunod po na entrada ay minarkahan po na “C 1 K,” total for September, 30.591. Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Eto po ‘yong collection ‘yong buwan na ‘yan, Your Honor, September, thirty million five hundred ninety one. Total collection po ng jueteng ito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. ‘Yon pong susunod na entrada ay minarkahan po na “C 1 L”, at babasahin ko po: Expenses, 13.250. Ano po ang ibig sabihin n’yan?

MR. SINGSON. Eto po naimenos po rito ‘yong expenses, Your Honor, thirteen million two hundred fifty thousand ang expenses, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. I would like to apologize, Your Honor. I think I have asked these questions before.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nobody objected to, anyway.

VOICE. For emphasis.

MR. MARCELO. So we will go now to “C 2 H.” Total expenses, 12.430. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Total expenses, Your Honor. Twelve million, four hundred thirty thousand, Your Honor, ang total expenses noong October, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyong susunod po na entrada ay minarkahan po na “C-2-I.” Total for October, 32.151. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po iyong collection ng jueteng, Your Honor, noong October. Total collection, Your Honor, 32,151,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. The next entry was marked as “C-2-J.” Babasahin ko po, expenses, 12.430. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po iyong expenses — minus expenses, Your Honor, iyong buwan na iyan, 12,430,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. The next entry ho ay minarkahan na “C-2-K.” Ito po ay babasahin ko, subtotal, 19.721. Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po iyong subtotal, Your Honor, 19,720,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyong susunod pong entrada ay minarkahan po na “C-2-L” at nakalagay po ay total todate, 19.721. Ano po ang ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po iyong — wala na pong gastos doon kaya total todate, 19,721,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Napansin ko po na iyong amount o iyong halaga na nakalagay po sa tapat noong subtotal at saka total todate ay parehas po. Paki-paliwanag nga po ito.

MR. SINGSON. Wala na pong sumunod, Your Honor, kaya pareho sila ng resulta, Your Honor, amount.

MR. MARCELO. At saan po napunta itong collection po mula sa operators na 19,721,000?

MR. SINGSON. Ito na po iyong dine-deposito ni Yolly Ricaforte, Your Honor, sa Equitable Bank, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta po tayo sa Exhibit “C-3.” Dito po sa Exhibit “-3″ ay mayroon pong entrada na minarkahan na “C-3-C” at ang nakalagay po ay 11/30, at may nakasulat pong laptop comp/prin, then mayroon pong nakalagay na .105,850. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po iyong laptop computer with printer, Your Honor, 105,850, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po ginamit iyan, kung alam n’yo?

MR. SINGSON. Sa mga jueteng din po, Your Honor, itong ginagamit ni Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po niya ginagamit?

MR. SINGSON. Sa opisina po, Your Honor. Ginagamit namin ito sa jueteng.

MR. MARCELO. Paano po ang paggamit niyan?

MR. SINGSON. Pagka nalinis na po lahat iyong kwenta, pagka after every end of the month, nag-aantay pa kami ng mga one week or two weeks dahil kung minsan tumatalbog iyong mga tseke, kung minsan hindi dumarating iyong mga collection. Bago mag-akinse uli, doon lang isinasara, Your Honor, pero nakahanda na po lahat ito. Pagka finalized na, at saka nililipat sa computer.

MR. MARCELO. Ito po, mayroon pong nakalagay dito na 11/30, two Starex, 800 at 258, 1.600 at minarkahan po ito na “C-3-D.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Dalawang Starex po binili namin. Iyong isa kay Yolly, isa sa opisina, Your Honor. One million six hundred, Your Honor, dalawang Starex.

MR. MARCELO. Para po sa dalawang Starex po iyong halaga na iyan?

MR. SINGSON. Para may service sa opisina, Your Honor. Para rin sa lahat ito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At nagkakahalaga po ito ng — itong dalawa po?

MR. SINGSON. One million six hundred.

MR. MARCELO. Para po sa dalawang Starex?

MR. SINGSON. Para sa dalawang Starex, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay 11/30 AS 258 12 P.M. P.G. At ang nakatapat pong numero ay 5.000. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. November 30, Your Honor, President Estrada. Ako po mismo ang nagbigay, Your Honor, 12:00 p.m. ng tanghali doon po sa P. Guevarra, Your Honor at 5 million.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang ibinigay ninyo kay Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong collection ng jueteng, Your Honor, na parte noong ibinibigay naming madalas sa kanya na cash, binigay ko po sa P. Guevarra, Your Honor, iyong protection money.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po sa P. Gueverra n’yo ibinigay kay President ito?

MR. SINGSON. Sa bahay po n’ya sa P. Guevarra, Your Honor, sa San Juan.

MR. MARCELO. Nang ibinigay n’yo po ito, sino po ang nanduduon kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Ms. Guia Gomez, Your Honor, saka si JV, Your Honor, iyong anak nila.

MR. MARCELO. Kung alam n’yo po, pakisabi nga po kung sino po ang nakatira sa bahay na iyan sa P. Guevarra?

MR. SINGSON. Si Guia Gomez, Your Honor, saka si JV na anak ni Presidente, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ba si Guia Gomez, kung alam n’yo?

MR. SINGSON. Isa po sa pinakamamahal ng Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At kanino na nga pong bahay iyan na tinitirhan nila Mrs. Guia Gomez at ni JV Ejercito?

MR. SINGSON. Bahay po ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Paano naman po n’yo nalaman?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po ang sinabi, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ang nagsabi sa inyo?

MR. SINGSON. Si Presidente po, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. What’s the objection?

MR. MENDOZA. The ownership of the house is irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already answered.

MR. MENDOZA. May I request the witness not to answer as promptly as he has been doing, Your Honor, to give us an opportunity to stand and…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is advised to take a little time to allow the other party to take the appropriate move. You may now continue, counsel.

MR. MARCELO. Ito po ay may nakalagay din po na entrada “11/30, Payroll Expenses, .240.” Minarkahan po itong “C-3-F.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po iyong payroll nung November, Your Honor, 240,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Mayroon po dito na nakalagay na “11th,” pagkatapos may nakasulat “Goma/258.” Ito po ay may nakasulat po na “bilang” pagkatapos “1.500 C-3-G.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Chief PNP, Your Honor, care of sa akin, Your Honor, 1.5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At mayroon po bang nakatanggap ng pera?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong mga dati nang kumukuha, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. May ganito pong entrada sa — I withdraw that question, Your Honor. Ang susunod pong entrada ay “11 New Goma/258 1.500.” Minarkahan po na “C-3-H.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong bagong Chief, PNP, Your Honor, na care of din sa akin dito, Your Honor, 1.5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ang nakatanggap ng pera?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong mga dati nang kumukuha sa upisina, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod ko pong babasahin ay iyong entrada na “total expenses, 17.345,850,” at minarkahan po na Exhibit “C-3-K.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Total expenses nung November, Your Honor, 17,345,850, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon pong susunod na hihingin kong ipaliwanag ninyo ay ang entradang “Total for November, 32,275,000.” Ito po ay minarkahan na “C-3-L.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. Total collection po ng November, Your Honor, 32,275,000, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I propose an additional stipulation to save time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is that?

MR. MENDOZA. We could stipulate that the amount appearing opposite the item “Total Expenses,” represents the total of all the amounts listed immediately above it, and all the — it saves a lot of time on the first item.

Second item, we can also stipulate that the witness also will answer when he says, for example, “Total for November.” Immediately above that item is usually November 1 to 15, November 16 to 30. And that the amount opposite the name, total for November is only the sum of the amounts immediately above it, and so on. Similarly, and that the item, the amount opposite the term expenses represents the expenses for that particular period and, therefore, there is a subtotal and total todate. Actually, the descriptions are self-explanatory and we can stipulate that the witness, if asked these questions, will make a similar answer as to all of these items.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Marcelo.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor, subject to the approval of the House prosecutors, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can confer with the panel.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

And secondly, Your Honor, maybe we’d like to ask for the opportunity, together with the defense counsel, of course, to explain the stipulations to the witness so that he understands what are the stipulations, so that he will not repeat it, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. I think you do not have to — the witness need not be a party to this stipulation. But Compañero, I mean, prosecutor can of course ask the witness if the court allows.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. I think it’s a very simple matter. It simply means that if the witness will testify, he will testify in like manner as he did in the previous documents on the basis of what appears there. Meaning, the document speaks for itself. He will testify exactly what is written there.

You may confer with the panel.

MR. MARCELO. May we ask for a recess, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. But we don’t have to get out of the room.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER DECLARED A RECESS AT 2:35 P.M.

AT 2:37 P.M., THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED.

MR. MARCELO. Kung papahintulutan po, ta Tagalugin ko na po at nang medyo magkaintindihan po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When it is addressed to the Chair, would you kindly speak in English. I am a Cebuano. For purposes of the record, I think the questions to the witness may be in Tagalog.

MR. MARCELO. The additional stipulation will be for the subsequent entries where it reads: “Total expenses 17.345,850.” All these entries will mean that these are the monthly total expenses, that the amount are in millions.

MR. MENDOZA. Wait. We can do it one by one, if Your Honors please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, do it one by one.

MR. MENDOZA. First we can stipulate that the witness has clarified these figures to mean millions. So that, for example, it says 1.600, it means one million six hundred thousand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the easier way will be that the figures represented there are in thousand pesos.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So if it is 1.500, it means one million five hundred thousand.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just like in the budgetting process.

MR. MENDOZA. The second, if I may propose Second proposal is that the amount opposite the words “total expenses” represents, according to the witness, the amounts immediately above it, starting usually, for example, for “C3 A”, starting from laptop comp/prin, etcetera.

MR. MARCELO. We agree, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record that the counsel for the prosecution agrees.

MR. MENDOZA. The next item is that in all of these… For example in “C 3″ under the … opposite the words “Total for November” there is an amount. The witness would say that is the amount representing the expenses for November 1 to 15 and November 16 to 30 which are the amounts appearing immediately above the amount opposite the words “Total for November.”

MR. MARCELO. I think this is for total collections.

MR. MENDOZA. For November.

MR. MARCELO. Yes. Like for C 3, that represents the total jueteng collections for the month of November 1999.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, that is what is actually the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you agree as qualified.

MR. MENDOZA. There is really no modification, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only a little explanation.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Other matters.

MR. MARCELO. Then for expenses… Then the same meaning as total expenses.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, expenses for that month, that the witness will say the amounts opposite the word “expenses” represents the expenses for the month of November.

MR. MARCELO. I agree.

MR. MENDOZA. And then immediately…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On record, agree.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honors.

MR. MENDOZA. Immediately after the word “expense”, the word which appears is “subtotal” and there is an amount there. The amount opposite the word “subtotal” would represent the amount, the difference, but… the amount resulting, rather, by deducting the total for November and then the item “expenses.”

MR. MARCELO. We agree, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. And then..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record it is agreed upon.

MR. MENDOZA. The last line reads “total todate 14,929,150.” I do not quite remember what this is supposed to represent. Maybe it …

MR. MARCELO. It has the same meaning as subtotal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ha?

MR. MARCELO. It has the same meaning as subtotal.

MR. MENDOZA. The same meaning as subtotal, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Agreed.

MR. MENDOZA. And that in all of the following exhibits the witness would have answered similarly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you agree, Atty. Marcelo and the panel of prosecutors?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor, from Exhibit “C 3″ up to all the subsequent…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “C 1″.

MR. MARCELO. “C 3″, Your Honor, up to “C 12″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sige, exactly.

MR. MENDOZA. We agree, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much again for your very commendable efforts.

You may now proceed, Atty. Marcelo.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, there is an entry here that reads 11/15 AS258A4, column, P.M. 5.000. Minarkahan po ito na “C 3 I”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. November 15, Your Honor, kay Presidente, care of sa akin, 4:00 P.M. ng hapon, 5 million, Your Honor, iyong binigay ko kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanina po ay napagkasunduan namin na hindi na po kayo tatanungin kung ano ang ibig sabihin at ang napagkasunduan po na ang magiging kahulugan nitong “total todate”, ay iyong dati n’yo nang sinabi. Ibig mong sabihin ang natira pong pera galing sa gross jueteng collection para sa buwan na ito ay para sa buwan ng Nobyembre, 1999 ay 14,929,150. Ano po …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What exhibit number are you referring to?

MR. MARCELO. Exhibit ito po ay minarkahan na na Exhibit “C 3 O”. Ano po ang nangyari sa perang ito?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po iyong tuwing katapus … Ah, wala na pong running balance, Your Honor, dinedeposito kaagad ni Yolanda Ricaforte ito, Your Honor, sa bangko, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanino pong account?

MR. SINGSON. Sa account ni Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta naman po tayo sa Exhibit “C 4″. ito po ay may entrada na 12/31. Nakalagay po ay “staff 13th month .180″, minarkahan po ng Exhibit “C 4 C”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Ang 13th month pay, Your Honor, 180,000.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na entry ay minarkahan po na Exhibit “C 4 D” at babasahin ko po. Ito po ay “12/31 Payroll expenses .240″. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon pong payroll nung December 31, Your Honor, 240,000.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na entrada ay “12/TV and cash (media)/ iyon pong slash ay nakasulat po sa lapis at may nakasulat din po sa lapis na number, 258, pagkatapos po “.380″, minarkahan po ito na Exibit “C 4 E”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyon po iyong mga napamigay na TV at cash sa media sa mga probinsiya, Your Honor, 380,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay “12/30 A.S./258 5.000″. Minarkahan po ito na Exhibit “C 4 F”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. December 30, Your Honor, President, ako po rin ang nagbigay, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ibig n’yo pong sabihin ay nagbigay po kayo ng 5 million kay Presidente?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor, iyong mga jueteng collec¬tions, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay “12 04 A.S./258 5000″ at ito po ay minarkahan na Exhibit “C 4 G”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. December 4, Your Honor, binigay ko kay President, ako po ang nagbigay, parte po nuong protection money, Your Honor, na galing sa 5 million, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza?

MR. MENDOZA. May I propose one other stipulation. That as to those amounts opposite the word or the initials “A.S.” either with 258 or without 258, the witness will testify that those amounts were given to President Estrada and are jueteng collections.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you agree to the proposed stipulation that that would be the answer of the witness?

MR. MARCELO. May we qualify it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the qualification?

MR. MARCELO. May we propose an addition.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The qualification would be … ?

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, this representation, Your Honor, is under the control and supervision of the House prosecutors, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you confer with the House prosecutors.

The proposal is practically the same as in the previous matters.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, the House prosecutors have decided not to agree with the stipulation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you have the stand of the panel of prosecutors. The offer then is rejected.

MR. MENDOZA. Apparently, I was not persuasive enough, Your Honors.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You try again next time.

Counsel may proceed.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta po tayo dito sa Exhibit “C 4 N”. At kanina nga po kasama po ito sa stipulation na ang ibig sabihin po nito ay ang natirang pera para sa buwan ng Disyembre Year 1999 ay 17,230,000. Ano po ba ang nangyari dito sa pera na ito na 17,230,000?

MR. SINGSON. A, diniposito po rin ni Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta na po tayo sa Exhibit “C 5″. Mayroon po dito na entrada na 1/31/00 PAYROLL/EXP. 0.240 at minarkahan po na Exhibit “C 5 C”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong payroll po, Your Honor, iyong 240,000. Iyong pangalawa pa po, iyong 5 million.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay babasahin ko po: 1/31/00 AS at PR, 5.000, at minarkahan po ito na Exhibit “C 5 D”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Presidente, Your Honor, naibigay sa Presidential Residence, five million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ba itong Presidential Residence?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong tinitirhan po ni Pangulong Estrada sa Malacañang, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At sino po ang nagbigay sa Pangulo?

MR. SINGSON. Ako po ang nagbigay, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay babasahin ko: 1/15/00 AS at PR, 5.000. Minarkahan po ito na dati na Exhibit “C 5 E”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. January 15, Your Honor, Presidente at naibigay ko din sa Presidential Residence, five million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Naibigay ninyo po ito sa Presidente?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor, naibigay ko po ito.

Parte po lahat ito iyong mga protection money na binibigay kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bababa na po kaagad tayo doon sa total todate. At katulad po noong kangina, na kapag ang ibig sabihin po nito ay sa dulo po ng buwan ng Enero ay may naiwanan po na mula po sa koleksyon sa jueteng, may naiwanan po na 17,650,000, at ito po ay minarkahan na Exhibit “C 5 K”. Ano po ba ang nangyari sa perang ito?

MR. SINGSON. Binangko rin po ni Yolly Ricaforte, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta na po tayo sa Exhibit “C 6″. Mayroon na naman po ditong lumabas na entrada na 2/1 19 PAYROLL/EXP. 0.240, at minarkahan na po ito na Exhibit “C 6 C”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. February 1 to 19 Payroll expenses, 240,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay may nakalagay po na 2/ at ang letters po na katapat ay AS/258. Mayroon pong bilang na katapat na 5.000, at minarkahan po ito na Exhibit “C 6 D”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. February. Kay Presidente, Your Honor. Ako po ang nagbigay, Your Honor. Parte ito ng protection money, Your Honor, na galing sa jueteng, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay 2/17/00 AS/258 5.000. Dati na po itong minarkahan na Exhibit “C 6 E”, ano po bang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. February 17, Your Honor, kay Presidente ko binigay ito, Your Honor, parte noong koleksyon ng protection money, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ito po sa ang huli pong numero na nakalagay doon sa katapat ng total todate, ay 11,660,000. Ito po iyong natira doon sa collection sa buwan ng Pebrero, ito pong taon na ito. Ano po ba ang nangyari dito sa pera na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Binibigay ko po lahat kay Yolly Ricaforte, Your Honor, para ideposito sa bangko, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na Exhibit na ating titingnan ay ang Exhibit “C 7″. Ito po ang pahina ng ledger para po sa March, itong taon na ito. Ang una pong entrada ay minarkahan na po na Exhibit “C 7 C” at babasahin ko po, 3/15 31 PAYROLL/EXP. 0.230. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. March 15 to 31, Your Honor, payroll expenses, 230,000, parte po ito ng suweldo na galing din po sa koleksyon sa jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pakitingnan nga po iyong susunod na entrada. Ito po ay babasahin ko, 3/16/00 AS/258 5000. Minarkahan na po ito ng Exhibit “C 7 D”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. March 16, Your Honor, kay Presidente rin, ako rin po ang nagbigay, Your Honor, 5 million, Your Honor, na galing din po sa protection money ng jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos mo nito ay mayroon po akong ipapakita sa inyo na entrada. Ito po minarkahan na ng Exhibit “C 7 F”, at babasahin ko po. 4/3/00 AS 258 5000, ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. April 3, Your Honor, kay Presidente. Ako po ang nagbigay, Your Honor, parte rin ng protection money na galing sa jueteng, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At ito pong nakalagay po sa dulo na total todate ay 9,970,000, ito po iyong natirang koleksyon galing po sa mga jueteng operators. Ano po bang nangyari dito sa perang ito?

MR. SINGSON. Na kay Yolanda Ricaforte rin, Your Honor, binabangko raw niya ito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta na po tayo sa Exhibit “C 8″. Katulad po nang dati ang unang entrada ay tungkol po sa payroll. Ang entrada pong ito ay babasahin ko, 4/1 30 PAYROLL/EXP. 0.225, previously marked as Exhibit “C 8 C”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. April 1 to 30, Your Honor, payroll expenses, 250,000, galing din po sa jueteng, Your Honor 225,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po na entrada ay babasahin ko. 4/14/00 AS/258. At katapat po nito ang numerong 5.000. Minarkahan na po ito na Exhibit “C 8 D”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. April 14, Your Honor, kay Presidente ko binigay, parte rin ng protection money na galing sa jueteng, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay sa tingin ko po ay parang parehas. Ito po ay minarkahan po ng Exhibit “C 8 E”. At babasahin ko po. 4/14/00 AS/258. Ano po bang ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. April 14 din, Your Honor, Presidente, ako rin ang nagbigay, Your Honor, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanino po ninyo binigay?

MR. SINGSON. Galing din sa…

MR. MARCELO. Kanino ninyo po ibinigay?

MR. SINGSON. Kay Presidente, Your Honor, galing din po sa protection money, na galing sa jueteng.

MR. MARCELO. Ito pong Exhibit “C 8″ ay kaugnay ng buwan ng Abril, ito pong taon na ito. At sa dulo po nitong exhibit na ito ay may nakasulat na total to date, 2.075. Ang ibig sabihin po nito, ayon po sa aming stipulasyon ay ito po ay nagsasabi na may natirang 2,075,000 mula po sa jueteng collection sa buwan ng Abril, itong taon na ito. Ano po ba ang nangyari sa perang ito?

MR. SINGSON. Ganoon din po, Your Honor, binibigay ko lahat kay Ricaforte para ideposito sa bangko, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta na po tayo sa Exhibit “C 9.” Ito po ay para sa buwan ng Mayo nitong taon na ito. Mayroon po dito ang unang entrada po sa gawing kanan ay minarkahan na Exhibit “C 9 C” at babasahin ko po “5/1.31 PAYROLL/EXP. 0.300.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. May 1 to 31, Your Honor, payroll expenses, 300,000, Your Honor. Galing din sa jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay minarkahan na po na Exhibit “C 9 D” at babasahin ko po, 5/31 AS/258, 5000. Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. May 31, Your Honor, binigay ko rin kay Presidente na galing din sa protection money ng jueteng, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. ‘Yong pong susunod na entrada ay 5/13. Uulitin ko po. ‘Yon pong susunod na entrada ay 5/13 AS/258 5000, Exhibit “C 9 E.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. May 13, Your Honor, binigay ko rin kay Presidente, galing din sa protection money ng jueteng, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At ito na nga po. Ito pong minarkahan po na dating Exhibit “C 9 K” na babasahin ko po total to date, 2 million, ito po ‘yong natira sa collection nitong buwan ng Mayo. Ano po ang nangyari sa dalawang milyon na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Ganoon din, Your Honor, binibigay ko kay Yolanda Ricaforte para ideposito sa bangko, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod po natin na exhibit ay Exhibit “C 10.” Ito po ay para sa buwan ng Hunyo nitong taon na ito. Ang una pong entrada ay 6/30 Media C/02580.500. Ito po ay minarkahan na Exhibit “C 10 C.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. June 30, Your Honor, media, binigay po sa akin para sa media, Your Honor, 500,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay 6/30 PAYROLL/EXP. at may katapat po itong bilang 0.0. I withdraw that, Your Honor, 0.200. Minarkahan po ito na Exhibit “C 10 D”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. June 30, Payroll Expenses, 200,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Babasahin ko po ang susunod na entrada. Ito po ay 6/30 AS/258 at ang katapat po na numero ay 3.300. Minarkahan na po ito na Exhibit “C 10 E.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. June 30, Your Honor, binigay ko rin kay Presidente, Your Honor, three million three hundred, Your Honor, parte rin ng protection money galing sa jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Mayroon pong susunod na entrada at akin pong babasahin, 6/15 AS/258. May katapat po ito na bilang na 5.000 at minarkahan na po ito na Exhibit “C 10 F.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. June 15. Ako rin ang nagbigay kay Presidente, Your Honor, parte rin ng koleksyon sa jueteng na protection money, 5 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ito pong huling entrada dito po ay total todate 00 kamukha po ito noong entrada rin na sub total 00. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. Wala nang nai bangko, nagastos lahat, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. The entry that I was referring to, Your Honor, was previously marked as Exhibit “C 10 K.”

Pupunta na po tayo sa Exhibit “C 11″ na tumutukoy po doon sa pahina ng ledger para po sa buwan ng Hulyo itong taon na ito. At dito po ay mayroon pong unang entrada sa gawing kanan. Babasahin ko po. ‘Yong una pong entrada na mga numero ay sulat kamay “8 12 AS/258.” At ang nakatapat pong bilang ay 3.600.

MR. SINGSON. Ah, August 12, Your Honor. Ako rin ang nagbigay kay Presidente, Your Honor, 3.600 million, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ito po ay minarkahan na po ng Exhibit “C 11 C”. Ang susunod po ay iyon pong entrada na minarkahan na po ng “C 11 D” “7/31 PAYROLL/EXP. 0.250.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. July 31, Payroll Expenses, Your Honor, 250,000.

MR. MARCELO. Ang susunod pong entrada ay “7/14 AS/258.” At ang entrada pong nakatapat ay 2.650. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. July 14, Your Honor, ako rin po ang nagbigay kay Pangulong Estrada, parte ng koleksiyon ng jueteng na protection money, 2,650,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pupunta na po tayo sa huling pahina ng ledger. Ito po ay minarkahan ng Exhibit “C 12″. Patungkol po ito sa buwan ng Agosto nitong taon na ito. Dito po sa gawing kanan ay may entrada po na 8/31 Payroll. Ang nakatapat po na numero ay 0 250 “C 12 C”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. August 31 Payroll Expenses ng jueteng operations, Your Honor, 250,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang sumunod pong entrada ay 8/16 AS/258 3.050. Minarkahan na po ito ng Exhibit “C 12 D”. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?

MR. SINGSON. August 16, Your Honor. Ako rin ang nagbigay kay Pangulong Estrada, parte rin ng koleksiyon ng jueteng kasama sa dati kong dinadala na protection money, three million fifty, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang huli pong entrada dito sa Exhibit “C 12 J” ito po ay sa gawing kanan at babasahin ko po. “Total todate minus 0.250.” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. Naibigay na rin po kay Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Paki ulit na nga po iyong explanation ninyo?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder please.

MR. MARCELO. Paki ulit na nga po ninyo kung ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nitong “total todate negative 0.250,” Exhibit “C 12 J”?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po, Your Honor, itong last ito po iyong wala nang koleksiyon, Your Honor, so nag withdraw si Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor, dito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Winidraw po niya iyong 250,000?

MR. SINGSON. Pang payroll, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po naman niya winidraw?

MR. SINGSON. Sa bangko, Your Honor, iyong mga dinideposit niyang pera galing sa jueteng, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing more?

MR. MARCELO. There are additional questions, Your Honor, in the ledger.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Continue.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, napansin ko po dito sa Exhibit “C 5″ na may lumitaw na naman pong mga pangalan ng mga probinsiya. Dati po ay magmula po sa Exhibit “C” hanggang Exhibit “C 4″ ay para pong code words nung lumitaw doon sa gawing kaliwang bahagi nitong ledger. Pakisabi na nga po ano ang dahilan, kung alam n’yo, bakit po naging pangalan naman ng probinsiya ang lumitaw magmula po sa ledger na minarkahan pong Exhibit “C-5” hanggang Exhibit “C-12”?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong umpisa po naglagay si Ricaforte ng mga code names, Your Honor; dito po binalik na po sa dati dahil nahihirapan po si Pangulong Estrada sa mga pangalan, Your Honor. So, binalik na rin po sa dati iyong mga pangalan.

MR. MARCELO. Kung alam n’yo po, pakisabi na po bakit n’ya pinabalik po doon sa pangalan ng probinsiya.

MR. SINGSON. Para maintindihan po niya mabuti, Your Honor, dahil nalillito kung minsan sa pag-check niya, Your Honor, pagka pinapakita namin sa kanya, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bakit n’yo po nalaman na iyan ang dahilan?

MR. SINGSON. Sinabi po sa akin, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pakitingnan n’yo nga po ulit itong ledger na minarkahan na po na Exhibit “C,” Exhibit “C-1” to Exhibit “C-12.” Mapapansin n’yo po na sa bandang kanan ng pahinang ito ay may mga naka-staple na adding machine tapes. Tumistigo po kayo noong unang araw na sinu-supervise at tsine-check n’yo ang mga ledgers na minarkahan na po na Exhibit “C,” Exhibit “C-1” to Exhibit “C-12.” Noon po bang tsine-check ninyo itong mga pahina ng ledger na ito buwan-buwan eh tsine-check n’yo rin ho itong mga adding machine tapes na kagaya nito?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong total na lang po, Your Honor, ang tsine-check ko. Pagka na-intrega na lahat kay Yolly, pagka na-finalize na ni Yolly — depende po, Your Honor, kung minsan sa katapusan nag-aantay kami ng tatlo o limang araw o sobra pa — pagka nai-final na lahat, eh iyong total na lang ang tinitingnan ko, Your Honor. At saka iyon ang napupunta kay Presidente Estrada.

MR. MARCELO. Eh iyon pong tungkol doon sa mga adding machine tapes naka-staple diyan, tinitingnan n’yo rin po ba iyan?

MR. SINGSON. Tinitingnan ko din po, Your Honor. Pero iyong total — lalo na iyong total, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bumalik po tayo ulit sa pangungulekta ninyo para kay Presidente Estrada ng protection money mula sa mga jueteng operators. Papaano na nga po ba kayo nangungulekta o paano nakakarating sa inyo ang protection money galing sa mga operators para kay Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Kung minsan, Your Honor, kinukuha ko sa mga opisina nila o kaya dinadala naman sa opisina ko, Your Honor, o kaya sa mga bahay nila, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Napagkasunduan na nga po kangina at sinabi n’yo rin po nu’ng nakaraan po kayong magtestigo na ang ibig pong sabihin ng “A.S.” ay “Asiong Salonga.” Sino po ba ang nagbigay nito, ng code name na ito sa kanya?

MR. SINGSON. Ako po, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bumalik po tayo doon sa Exhibit “HH” para po sa buwan ng Pebrero noon pong nakaraang taon. Noon pong a-trese po ng Disyembre ay tinanong po kayo ni Senator-Judge Biazon tungkol sa 4 million na nakalagay po dito na ayon sa inyo binigay n’yo kay Pangulong Estrada, ito po ay minarkahan na Exhibit “HH-15.”

MR. SINGSON. Ito po, Your Honor, iyong may nahingi ako na repair ng Capitol Building at pinirmahan niya, Your Honor, iyong request ko. Pero kadalasan ang mga pinipirmahan ni Presidente saka lang ire-release kung tatawag uli si Presidente kay Secretary Ben Diokno. So, nu’ng matagal na walang release, napirmahan na niya, eh nu’ng pinalo (follow)-up ko sa kanya ang sabi niya “Ang dami mong kikitain diyan ah,” sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang sagot ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Eh ‘kako, “Hindi naman,” ‘kako. “Puwede bang makabalato?” sabi niya.

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ang nagsabi sa inyo na puwedeng makabalato?

MR. SINGSON. Si Presidente Estrada, Your Honor. Eh nakatawa lang, eh “Oo,” ‘kako. So, iyong pera niya na 34, Your Honor, binigay ko ‘yong 4 million, kaya nadagdagan ng 4 million.

Kaya ang total collection ng jueteng nandito, Your Honor, ito lang ang naidagdag na private, Your Honor, dahil binigay ko ‘yong 4 million noon na… Kasi nagpapanalo ako ng mahjong noon, Your Honor, so binigay ko ang 4 million.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. I would like I’m not going to ask to strike out but I would like to take note the I would like to request the court to take note that this has nothing to do with jueteng.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, we are…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be recorded.

MR. MARCELO. At bakit naman po kayo pumayag na magbigay noong 4 million?

MR. SINGSON. Para mapadali po ‘yong release noong ‘yong pinirmahan niya na 20 million, Your Honor, dahil matagal ko na inaantay.

So, noong ibigay ko ‘yong 4 million, tinawagan niya si Secretary Diokno at hindi nagtagal na release naman ‘yong 20 million, Your Honor, na pinang repair ko sa capitol.

MR. MARCELO. Tinistigohan mo rin noong 13 ng Disyembre na pinabigyan ng Pangulong Estrada ng tig i isang milyon sina si Senador Hukom Tessie Oreta at John Osmeña. Paano po ba niyo ibinigay ito, tseke o cash?

MR. MENDOZA. Objection, Your Honor, as the witness has said, this has nothing to do with jueteng. And Article I is limited to jueteng money.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair also recalls that when that matter was taken up two days ago, there was an objection, the Chair…

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … the Chair made a ruling that that matter is immaterial and, therefore, sustained the objection.

MR. MARCELO. We’ll accept the ruling of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. MARCELO. … of the Honorable Presiding Officer, Your Honor.

Noon pong 13 ng Disyembre, tinawag po ni Senator Judge Enrile ang inyong pansin tungkol sa mga entrada, diyan po sa ledger na tinanong ko po kayo dahil diumano po may mga mali dito at sinabihan po niya kayo na rebisahin ninyo uli ito, “tingnan niyo, maraming pong error ito.” Nagawa po ba niyo ang pagrebisa ng ledger na ito na minarkahan pong Exhibit “EE” to “MM,” nagawa po ba niyo iyong pagribisa?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor, at i tsinek na naming lahat, mayroon ngang error dito, Your Honor, dahil ito po ‘yong mga ‘yong original pero in audit po ni Yolanda Ricaforte na ito, Your Honor, at sinabi nga niya noon na may diperensya. Kaya kung ito total mo lahat, Your Honor, lahat ng mali dito eh abono pa ako ng 650,000, Your Honor.

So, sumobra po ‘yong naibigay ko kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor. Maski ano’ng gawin mo rito, Your Honor, tinotal na nila, sumobra po ng 650,000.

MR. MARCELO. So, lahat po noong nakolekta niyo na naibigay niyo po?

MR. SINGSON. Naibigay ko po kay Pangulong Estrada, through Yolanda Ricaforte, at nalugi nga po ako rito eh, 650,000, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Tinanong din po kayo ni Senator Judge Enrile tungkol sa inilagay sinabi niyo sa affidavit niyo, ‘yon pong affidavit niyo na may petsang September 14, 2000 na, and I quote: “I normally collected about 32 to 35 million a month,” from jueteng operators at sinabi po niya na i compare niyo daw ito sa monthly collection na nakalagay diyan sa ledger na sa ledger dahil hindi daw po puwedeng pareho tama ang mga figures dito. Sumagot po kayo na parehong and I quote: “Parehong totoo, Your Honor.” Pakipaliwanag nga po itong sagot ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Itong affidavit ko, noong pinagawa ko, Your Honor, pina draft ko noon, wala pa ‘yong ledger. So, ang tanda ko po, 32 to 35 million. Kadalasan po rito 32 million eh ‘yong mga koleksyon, Your Honor. So, about sabi ko, ‘about.’ At hindi naman eksakto. Ibig sabihin ‘yong “about”, kako, hindi eksakto. ‘Yon po ang ibig kong sabihin doon.

Kaya tama po ‘yong affidavit ko. At saka tama pa rin po itong ledger dahil ito ang original eh. Hindi ko naman puwedeng palitan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Mayroon po bang mga buwan na medyo malapit lapit po diyan ‘yong collection? Diyan sa binanggit niyo pong bilang na 32 million.

MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please, I think the ledger already here is the best evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

MR. MARCELO. We will accept that, Your Honor.

Considering that there are really there are many months, where the total collection were about 32 million.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That can be the subject matter of a memorandum later on or a summation of the case for the prosecution.

MR. MARCELO. Puwede po bang ituon ninyo ang inyong pansin dito po sa Exhibit “KK” at dito po sa entrada na Exhibit “KK 8″.

MR. SINGSON. Ito po, tama po ito, mali lang ‘yong buwan na binigay, Your Honor. Total for June, supposed to be total for May. Pero pareho po lahat ‘yong figure. So, nagkamali lang po ‘yong nag transfer dito sa computer. Wala pong diperensiya ito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bakit po kaya nagkamali, kung alam niyo?

MR. SINGSON. Lahat ng tao nagkakamali, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, can I have a five minute break to confer with my assisting lawyers to find out whether I have asked all the questions on the ledger marked as Exhibits “EE” to “MM”, and Exhibit “C” to Exhibit “C 12″, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time do you need?

MR. MARCELO. Just a few minutes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.

Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Flavier.

SEN. FLAVIER. Para po huwag masayang ang panahon, puwede po bang magtanong habang sila’y nagpupulong?

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

SEN. FLAVIER. Mr. Governor, ako lang po ay namamangha na sa kabila ng napakahaba ninyong pagsasama ng Presidente Estrada at sa kalautan ng inyong pagkakaibigan ay nagdesisyon kayo na ibulgar ang tungkol sa jueteng dito sa bansa at pati ang pagdawit sa Presidente na ayon sa inyo, ay ini intregahan ninyo ng pera buwan buwan. Ano po ang naging motibasyon ninyo, ang dahilan kung bakit niyo ginawa ang desisyong ‘yang ibulgar na ito sa ating bansa? Puwede po bang ipaliwanag lang ninyo para maunawaan ko?

MR. SINGSON. No’ng umpisa po, ayaw ko po sana, Your Honor, dahil kaibigan ko nga. Pero kako, napaka simple ‘yong hinihingi ko. So, ang dami ko pong kinausap. Kako, napaka simpleng bagay, bakit naman di maayos. Ayaw ko nga lumaban, eh. Eh, kung simpleng bagay hindi maayos ayos, kako, kagustuhan na siguro ng Diyos ito. So, nag umpisa po roon, Your Honor.

Tapos, noong pinapatay na ako, doon na ako although decided na ako, Your Honor, doon ko na napadali. Dahil noong kinakausap ako, Your Honor, na huwag nang lumabas, eh, ‘kako, mawawalan ako ng mukha, ‘kako. Alam kong papatayin din ako, mas mabuti na ‘yong mamatay na may mukha kaysa mapatay nila na walang mukha.

SEN. FLAVIER. Sa madali’t sabi, ‘yong tangka sa buhay niyo, isa. Pangalawa, ‘yong tungkol sa operasyon ng jueteng sa Ilocos Sur. At noon pong isang araw, narinig ko rin ang tungkol sa Republic Act 7171. Ito po bang tatlong ito ang siyang nag udyok sa inyo upang gawin ang ginagawa niyo ngayon?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi naman po lahat ‘yon, Your Honor. Naidagdag na lang ‘yon, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. I see. Marami pong salamat.

MR. SINGSON. Nadagdag na lang, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Her Honor, Senator Judge Leviste.

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

Governor Singson, clarificatory questions lang po. Nabanggit ninyo sa inyong testimonya na ang perang pinagtayo ng casino sa Fontana, sa korporasyon na Fountainbleau, ay galing sa pera ng jueteng, di ba ho?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Magkano ang total na pera na sabi niyo galing sa jueteng ang binigay sa Fountainbleau Corporation para magtayo ng casino sa Pampanga?

MR. SINGSON. Ang nagastos po namin doon, Your Honor, mga 64 to 65 million, Your Honor. Uupa lang sana kami roon. Tapos no’ng hindi natuloy, naayos din lahat pero iba na ang pangalan. Dahil uupa lang sana kami roon. Tapos, noong hindi natuloy, naayos din lahat pero iba na’ng pangalan. Dahil uupa lang sana kami roon, ang nangyari, nabili ‘yong the whole resort at napunta rin kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

At alam ko ‘yon, Your Honor, dahil sinabi sa akin, dahil ang share namin kinuha rin, Your Honor. Noong natayo na ‘yong casino, nakapangalan na ngayon sa mga abogado niya, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Kung ang pondong ‘yon po ay galing sa jueteng, mapapakita mo ba sa inyong ledger po o listahan na tinatawag ni Ms. Ricaforte ang perang pinanggalingan nito dahil hindi ko po napansin na mayroong mga deductions or expenses na Fontainbleau?

MR. SINGSON. ‘Yong total nung mga accounting nuon, Your Honor, nandoon sa mula noong umpisa, ‘yong collection ng jueteng nang November hanggang dito sa 123 million, Your Honor, July 1999.

Noong sinabmit ko ‘yon sa Pangulo, itong buong ito, ‘yong naiwan, Your Honor, ito na ‘yong in audit ni Yolly. Pero ang buong collection nito, ‘yon po ang nagamit namin at naisauli din ‘yong iba; tapos, binigay ko ngang tseke kay Yolly Ricaforte, Your Honor. ‘Yong 34 na hindi naisauli, binigay ko rin dahil iba na ang accounting nuon, Your Honor, dahil nabili na ang buong Fontana.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Hindi lang po maliwanag sa akin, uulitin ko po. Ibig sabihin ba ay hindi nakalista sa expenses dito at ‘yong pondo na sa ilalim ng bawat pahina ng ledger ay ‘yong balanse ng buwan na ‘yon at sinasabi ninyo, ‘yong dinideposito sa bangko na mga tutal na bawat buwan, doon kinukuha o doon ninyo kinuha ‘yong sinabi ninyong 60 million na nilagay ninyo sa Fontainbleau.

MR. SINGSON. Ganito po ‘yon, Your Honor. Tinatago ko lahat sa bangko ‘yon, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. ‘Yong natitira sa bawat buwan?

MR. SINGSON. Natitira bawat bigay ko kay Pangulong Estrada at binibigay ko rin kila sa Fontainbleau, Your Honor. ‘Yon ang ginastos nila.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. So, nanggaling nga po sa mga natitira sa bawat buwan kaya wala sa ledger dito?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Mayroon ba kayong mga ebidensiya na mga tseke na bumalik sa inyo sa mga tsekeng in issue ninyo sa Fontainbleau amounting to 60 million?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon po, Your Honor, kompleto po ‘yong accounting nuon.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Ah, maari po ninyong ipakita ‘yon?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Uh huh. And these are payable to Fontainbleau or payable in cash?

MR. SINGSON. Karamihan payable in cash, Your Honor, pero nandoon naman lahat na mga naideposito sa account ng Fontainbleau, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. So, ‘yong 60 million ay mayroon kayong returned checks na maaari ninyong ipakita at ‘yan ay mapupruweba ninyo na diniposito sa account ng Fontainbleau para ipatayo ang casino sa Fontana?

MR. SINGSON. Kompleto po ‘yon, Your Honor, ang accounting.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Huling katanungan po. Sinasabi po ninyo, itong casinong itatayo ay kay Pangulong Estrada pero hindi pa po nagbukas, ‘no, dahil nagkaroon ng problema. Medyo ako’y nako confuse lang po dito dahil, siguro, kung ang Pangulo ang may ari ng casino, siguro po ay makuha nila or ninyo, kayong mga front daw ni Pangulo, ang permit para sa casino.

Bakit po hindi nakapagkuha ng lisensya o permit sa Pagcor kung ito po ay kay Pangulong Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Ah, may usapan na po kami noon nila Chairman Alice Reyes, Your Honor, pinapaynalize (finalize) na lang namin. Okay na kay Chairman Reyes at bumabalik na nga po ako roon. Kaya lang, hindi nga natuloy dahil nag interes din ang Fontana. Nagkagulo lang noon kaya hindi naituloy na na issue.

Noong nagkagulo, Your Honor, hininto namin; tapos, inayos na ni Atong Ang. Doon na napunta kay Pangulong Estrada kaya doon po napalapit uli si Atong Ang, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Witness; thank you, Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The Her Honor, Senator Judge Coseteng.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

SEN. COSETENG. Just a few questions for Governor Singson concerning his September 25 affidavit, if I may read a part of it.

Ginoong Gobernador, sa inyong affidavit, sinabi ninyo ang mga sumusunod: (Reading)

“Notwithstanding that, Mr. Charlie “Atong” Ang told me the President wanted 130 million because they needed the money very badly. After the release of 200 million, I gave 130 million to Mr. Charlie “Atong” Ang.

“Together with Mr. Charlie “Atong” Ang and the 130 million in cash, we went to the house of President Estrada at Polk Street, North Greehills, San Juan, Metro Manila. When we arrived at the corner, near the house of President Estrada, Mr. Ang told me that there were plenty of people in the house of President Estrada. Mr. Ang told me that he will go ahead first and I will follow after a few minutes.”

‘Yon ho bang 130 million na cash dala dala ninyo na po noong araw na ‘yon?

MR. MARCELO. Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the ground?

MR. MARCELO. That is this question refers to the charges under Article II, Your Honor. We’re still under Article I.

SEN. COSETENG. Because it concerns the affidavit, so…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That can be reserved for Article 2.

SEN. COSETENG. Okay. That’s all, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The reservation is recorded and the question will be repeated when the Court will take up Article 2.

The Honorable Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Witness, I will refer to Exhibit “C”, the so called ledger for the period August ’99 to August 2000, Exhibit “C” with its submarkings.

This particular file of document shows that at least from August 1999 a new item appears under the expenses column. This new item one of these new items is so called “Payroll Expenses” and I noticed that in Exhibit “C” and its submarked documents these payroll expenses run to about 200,000 to about 250,000 per month.

In connection with this entry, may I please know what were the monthly salaries of the following:

Your accountant, Carmencita Itchon, President Estrada’s alleged accountant, Yolanda Ricaforte, and another witness, a third one, who has already testified, what seems to be your clerk a person who seems to be your clerk or technical assistant, Emma Lim. May I know what their respective salaries were please?

MR. SINGSON. Si Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor, ang namamahala sa payroll, Your Honor. ‘Yon lang po ang hinihingi sa mayroon siyang ipinapakita sa akin, Your Honor, ‘yong payroll sa opisina na ang namamahala, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. You mean to say that you do not have any knowledge of how much the salaries were of the persons listed in your payroll, even of people so obviously intricately involved with this illegal operation such as your own personal accountant and the President’s alleged accountant. Do you mean to say that you don’t know what salaries they were receiving?

MR. SINGSON. Si Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor, ay 80,000.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Per month?

MR. SINGSON. Per month. Forty thousand yata kay Ms. Itchon. Hindi ko masyadong ma ano ‘yong payroll nila dahil tuwing sinasabi sa akin ‘yong total lang, Your Honor. Hindi ko na pinakikialaman ‘yong ano nila, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. So, you have no clear recollection of how much their monthly salaries were except that Ricaforte apparently received more or less 80,000 a month.

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Itchon, maybe 40,000 a month. Although I remember that when Ricaforte testified at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing, she testified that Itchon was getting a salary higher than hers, referring to Ricaforte.

But, anyway, I imagine that Ricaforte will be called to the stand again.

So, we have Ricaforte about 80,000; Itchon maybe 40,000. And how much were you getting for your own salary a month?

MR. SINGSON. Ako, Your Honor?

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Yes, please.

MR. SINGSON. Wala po, Your Honor. ‘Yong mga tax kinukuha ko, Your Honor. May tax. Pinagpaalam ko kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Do you mean to say that you were paying yourself a salary but in this ledger you indicated it under the cognomen or under the name or code of “tax”.

MR. SINGSON. Hindi lahat, Your Honor. Mayroon lang portion noon na hiningi ko kay Presidente, Your Honor. Kung nasa ledger, nag umpisa ng February, Your Honor, February, March, April, May, June, July. ‘Yon lang, Your Honor. Tapos wala na, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. You are correct.

MR. SINGSON. Ah, mayroon pa dito sa August, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. You are correct. The first time the item “Tax” appears, I am referring to Exhibit “EE” and its submarked documents, more particularly I am referring to Exhibit “HH” that is for the period of February 1999, for the first time the item “Tax” appears and it is signified to have been in the amount of 400,000. Do you mean to say that for February 1999, you received for yourself a salary of 400,000.

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I see.

MR. SINGSON. ‘Yon ang hiningi ko kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, dahil nga marami siyang mga pinababayaran kung minsan, Your Honor. Kung minsan, nagkakamali rin ako rito ng… Kasi, nangyayari, Your Honor, mayroon siyang pinababayaran kung minsan, nakakalimutan ko namang i charge.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. No, I am sorry, but I am not referring to that, Mr. Witness. I am referring to your own personal salary, in the same way that Mrs. Ricaforte had a salary that she could bring home; Itchon had a salary; Lim had a salary. How much was the salary you were paying to yourself?

MR. SINGSON. Wala, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. You were not receiving any money at all?

MR. SINGSON. Wala, Your Honor. Dito nga, kaya pinag paalam ko kay Presidente, eh.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. May I know, therefore, why you worked so hard and earned so much money when you were not earning anything for yourself or your family?

MR. SINGSON. Ang sinabi ko noon, Your Honor, basta ibigay lang ‘yong release ng mga 7171 namin, kontento na ako roon dahil magagawa na namin lahat ang gusto namin, Your Honor, sa probinsiya dahil matagal na naming hinihintay ‘yon. ‘Yon po ang usapan namin ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor. Noong una nga, nagbibigay siya. “Pero di na bale, ‘yon na lang 7171. Kung i release mo ‘yon, eh kontento na kami roon.” Dahil marami po ‘yon, Your Honor, at marami kaming project doon na hinihintay, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, for lack of time, although this would have been a point that goes directly to the credibility of the witness and deserves further pursuit by some other parties, let me just enter for the record, the witness has just testified that he never received anything notwithstanding the entry of payroll expenses in his own so called ledger and notwithstanding that these ledgers, particularly Exhibit “C” which covers the period November ’98 to July 1999 indicates that the operation that this witness controlled and managed amounted to no less than 107 million and he did not receive a single peso.

And then, under Exhibit “EE” covering the period August ’99 to March 2000, the running total ran for as high as 20 million in a particular month, and yet this witness did not receive a single peso.

That is all with this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

What is now the …Yes, Honorable Judge Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Governor Singson…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After this, we will recognize counsel for the prosecution.

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

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

SEN. CAYETANO. Ang sabi n’yo, at ito’y nakalagay sa ledger, na si Anton Prieto ang namamahala sa jueteng sa Bicol, tama ho ba ‘yon?

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. At si Bong Pineda po ay saan ho siya namamahala?

MR. SINGSON. Siya rin ang nagkokolekta sa iba ibang probinsiya, Your Honor. Pangasinan, Isabela, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Batangas, Rizal, Bataan, Cavite. ‘Yon pong maalaala ko, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Doon ho sa testimony ni Emma Lim dito ay sinabi niya na si Mayor Jinggoy Estrada ay nango ay kinokolektahan niya ng supposedly, sabi niya, also ng jueteng money. At ang sabi ho niya ay kayo raw ang nagpapakolekta. Saan ho ba nanggagaling ‘yong kung totoo ‘yong sinasabi ni Emma Lim saan ho nanggagaling ‘yong kinokolekta ni Mayor Jinggoy? Alam ko ho sa San Juan, wala naman kaming jueteng diyan, eh.

MR. SINGSON. Sa ano po, Your Honor, sa Bulacan, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Papaano ho nangyari at sa Bulacan siya napapunta samantalang tiga San Juan po siya?

MR. SINGSON. Siya po ang in charge noong koleksyon sa Bulacan, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Papaano ho siya naging in charge sa Bulacan?

MR. SINGSON. Dahil supposed to be three million ang quota roon, Your Honor. Ang binibigay na napupunta kay Pangulong Estrada, two million, Your Honor. So, mayroon din isang million para kay Jinggoy doon. Siya na ang nangungolekta at siya na ang nagbibigay sa akin ng one million every 15 days, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Kung alam n’yo, sino ho ba ang nag appoint sa kanya o nagsabi na si Mayor Jinggoy Estrada na ang mamamahala sa Bulacan?

MR. SINGSON. Noong nag usap kami, Your Honor, kako problema ‘yong Bulacan dahil kung…

SEN. CAYETANO. Sinong “kami”? Sino ho ‘yong “kami”?

MR. SINGSON. … Kami ni Mayor Jinggoy, Your Honor.

SEN, CAYETANO. Okay.

MR. SINGSON. At ‘kako, problema ko iyong Bulacan at mas maganda siguro si Bong na para hindi problema ‘kako. Eh, una sinabi ko kay Presidente. So sabi ni Presidente, “Huwag na, ibigay mo na lang kay kausapin mo na lang mabuti dahil wala namang ibang hanapbuhay si Jessie Viceo kundi jueteng,” Your Honor.

So, sinabi ko rin kay Jinggoy at problema iyong Bulacan, ‘kako, kung minsan nadi delay ang pagbayad. “Hindi, ako na ang bahala roon,” sabi ni Jinggoy, Your Honor. So mula noon siya na ang namahala, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Natatandaan ba ho n’yo, more or less, buwan o taon kung kailan nagsimulang mangolekta si Mayor Jinggoy Estrada sa Bulacan, kung natatandaan ny’o?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi ko na matandaan kung kailan nag umpisa, Your Honor. Pero, madalas po, Your Honor, at ilang beses din akong nakakuha sa kanya, Your Honor, at saka mga ibang empleyado ko, hindi lang si Emma ang kumukuha roon, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sino pa, sino pang empleyado, kung mayroong kumukuha?

MR. SINGSON. Kung minsan, Your Honor, iyong secretary ko sekretaryo o kaya iyong security, Your Honor. Ako, Your Honor, kinukuha ko rin sa opisina niya o kaya sa bahay niya, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Bumalik naman tayo kay Mrs. Ricaforte.

Sabi mo, siya ang auditor ni Pangulong Erap dito sa jueteng. Papaano mo naman nalaman na siya nga ang auditor? Sino ang nagsabi sa iyo?

MR. SINGSON. Ah, si Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, ipinakilala sa akin sa Malacañang at, “Siya na ang katulong mo,” Sabi niya, Your Honor, “sa jueteng,” Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Bakit naman nasabi ni Pangulong Erap iyon, wala ba siyang tiwala sa iyo, ganoon ba iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Siguro ho, Your Honor. Mas gusto ko naman po na ibigay, Your Honor, para may kasama ako, Your Honor, dahil di lang naman ito ang trabaho ko. Kaya nagustuhan ko na rin noong ibinigay sa akin, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Napansin ko nga iyon Governor, na simula yata nang magtrabaho sa iyo si magtrabaho bilang auditor si Ricaforte ay nagkaroon ng tinatawag na parang calculator ‘no, na naka staple dito.

Iyon ho ba sino ang gumawa ng calculator na mga numero doon na naka staple?

MR.SINGSON. Si Yolanda Ricaforte, Your Honor, ipinapakita na lang sa akin, Your Honor. Dahil nga dito sa una, iyong in audit niya noon ay may mali, so naiwan na ito. Siya ang nag umpisa rito, Your Honor, siya ang nag umpisa rito. Mayroon nang nilalagay buwan buwan na accounting, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Maraming salamat po, Governor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, just one small point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. This is neither direct nor cross, just a clarificatory question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Ginoong Gobernador, sinabi po ny’o na sa Bulacan, ang quota, tatlong milyon; dalawang milyon para kay Pangulo, isang milyon para kay Jinggoy, kaya binibigyan kayo ni Jinggoy ng isang milyon. Iyon po ang hindi ko maintindihan, gusto lang kung puwede lang linawin. Dahil kung si Jinggoy ang tumatanggap ng isang milyon, bakit siya ang nagbibigay sa inyo ng isang milyon?

MR. SINGSON. Every fifteen days, Your Honor, iyong one million, every fifteen days or a total of two million ang ibinibigay sa akin, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Para sa Pangulo?

MR. SINGSON. Para sa Pangulo, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. So para ibigay sa Tatay niya, kailangang idaan sa inyo?

MR.SINGSON. Hindi alam ng tatay niya, Your Honor. Ah, hindi alam, ipinaglihim ko na lang, Your Honor, dahil ayaw ni Presidente na makialam iyong mga anak. Kaya mula noong sinabi noong umpisa, Your Honor, wala na silang pangalan doon. Eh, kung hindi ko naman ipaglihim sa tatay nila, magagalit naman iyong mga anak. So, ipinaglihim ko sa tatay, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader again, if there is any motion for suspension, na according to our agreement?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. As agreed, Mr. Chief Justice, I move for a 20 minute break.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It being already 3:42 in the afternoon. Break for 20 minutes.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:42 P.M.

AT 4:05 P.M., THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed. Atty. Marcelo.

MR. MARCELO. With the permission of the Honorable Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. MARCELO. Noon pong Disyembre 13 ay noon po kayo unang nagtestigo, sinabi n’yo po na nagpatulong kayo kay Atong Ang sa pangongolekta ng protection money galing sa jueteng operators.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. May I invite your attention to the fact that the defense is still not around.

MR. MARCELO. I’m sorry, Your Honor. I didn’t notice also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought you wanted to proceed without the defense. Give him a chance. (Laughter) You have to repeat the question, ha.

MR. MARCELO. I was reading my notes, eh.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The defense is available already, Atty. Marcelo. You may continue.

MR. MARCELO. Ang una ko pong tanong ay — noon pong tumestigo kayo dito nuong 13 ng Disyembre ay sinabi n’yo po na pinautang si William Gatchalian ni Presidente Estrada ng 62 million mula po doon sa natirang jueteng collections. Ano po ba ang katibayan n’yo na pinautang nga po si William Gatchalian?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon po akong tseke, Your Honor, na parte iyong binigay ko sa kanya, 62 million, at pinalitan niya ng P70 million na postdated check for three months, Your Honor, at binigay ko rin kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, ang kinita. Kumita po si Pangulong Estrada roon ng walong milyon, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Nasaan po ‘yong tsekeng sinasabi n’yong katibayan n’yo?

MR. SINGSON. Dito po, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have you already caused a reproduction of this document now, Atty. Marcelo?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And distributed copies thereof to the Senators-Judges?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor. Copies of this check were distributed last December 13.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, you may now proceed. And marked as exhibit what earlier?

MR. MARCELO. “GGG”, Your Honor.

For the record, Your Honor, the wit…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Confront the witness on the original document so it would also be available to the defense.

MR. MARCELO. For the record, Your Honor, the witness handed to me a check previously marked as Exhibit “GGG”, Your Honor. And I read: “Pay to the order of William Gatchalian.” The figure reads: “P46,350,000″. And this is the amount in words: Forty six million, three hundred fifty thousand.

Mr. Witness, there is a signature…

MR. MENDOZA. Ah, excuse me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …on the,…

MR. MENDOZA. Excuse me. If Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Mr. Counsel, Atty. Mendoza. I may just have overlooked but I will appreciate if counsel will inform previous testimony regarding this check which would show that this has linkage to jueteng?

MR. MARCELO. This is on the TSN for December 13, Page 224 to 225.

MR. MENDOZA. No, I think counsel can just say without referring. I’ll take his word for it. You can just state what, in substance, the alleged linkage was.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly accommodate the request.

MR. MARCELO. And I quote:

“SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Isa pong clarification lamang. Itong sa Exhibit “MM”, specifically “MM-15″, I think ‘yong nasa huli, P123 million. Tama po ba ito, Governor?

“MR. SINGSON. Tama po, Your Honor.

“SEN. BIAZON. All right, ito po ba’y na-kanino ngayon?

“MR. SINGSON. Nalipat ko na kay Yolly Ricaforte. Dito natapos ‘yong listahan ko, Your Honor, na pinalipat ni Pangulong Estrada kay Yolanda Ricaforte, sa account ni Yolanda Ricaforte na nandito na rin ‘yong mga accounting noong Fontainbleau, ‘yong pinatayo ni Presidente na casino, Your Honor.

“SENATOR BIAZON. Ang ibig sabihin ito po ba’y noong inilipat ninyo kay Yolanda Ricaforte ibinigay ninyo in the form of check or cash?”

“Check, Your Honor, at saka cash ‘yong iba, Your Honor.” ‘Yon po ang sagot ni Mr. Singson.

“SEN. BIAZON. Magkano ang check nito?

“MR. SINGSON. Ang matatandaan ko po, Your Honor, ‘yong P70 million na galing kay Gatchalian at saka P34 million na hindi na namin

kinubra sa Fontana dahil napunta rin kay Pangulong Estrada ‘yong Fontana, Your Honor.

“SENATOR BIAZON. Okay, ‘yong tseke na ‘yong inisyu, kayo ho ang nag-issue ng tseke?

“MR. SINGSON. Hindi, si Gatchalian, Your Honor. Pinautang ni Presidente. Pinautang namin, pinagpaalam ko kay Pangulong Estrada. Umutang sa akin si William Gatchalian ng P62 million, naging P70 million. So sinabi ko kay Pangulong Estrada, O sige, sabi niya. Galing din sa jueteng, Your Honor. So, pinautang ko ng P64 million, nagbigay siya ng P70 million na postdated check.

“SENATOR BIAZON. Okay. Ang ibig sabihin po, Governor, mula dito sa P123 million na ito ay pinautang ninyo si Gatchalian ng magkano?

“MR. SINGSON. P62 million, Your Honor.”

MR. MENDOZA. I thank you, very much. I now understand that this is supposed to be part of the P123 million.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That seems to be very clear from the reading of the transcript of the stenographic notes.

The witness may now answer.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, dito po sa gawing ilalim, sa gawing kanan po nitong Exhibit “GG” ay meron pong lagda. Kanino po bang lagda ito?

MR. SINGSON. Sa akin po, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At dito po sa ilalim na nakasulat na “accounting” pakibasa nga po kung ano po ang nakasulat?

MR. SINGSON. “Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson,” Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ito pong tsekeng ito ay 46,350,000. Nagtataka lang po ako dahil sabi n’yo ang pinautang po galing sa jueteng money ay 62 million. Bakit po ba may… Pakiliwanag n’yo nga po kung bakit may diperensya sa amount?

MR. SINGSON. Ibang tseke po iyong binigay ko, Your Honor. Iba ibang tseke. Iyong balanse ito po, Your Honor, parte ito noong 62 million, forty six million three hundred fifty thousand. Ang kasama po nito, Your Honor, ibang tseke na, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Noon pong 13 ng Disyembre ay nagtestigo rin po kayo na nagpatulong kayo kay Atong Ang ng pangungulekta ng protection money galing sa jueteng operators. Pakisabi na nga po kung anong buwan at taon kayo na nagpatulong kay Atong Ang?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong umpisa, Your Honor, November, Your Honor, 1998. At katulong din ako, Your Honor. Sinasabi nga niya na, “Iyong away namin ni Presidente bale wala ‘yan, madalas kaming mag away pero nagkakaayos din kami.” So tumutulong din, Your Honor, si Atong Ang. Pero iyong unang page, iyong November, iyon ang listahan niya kaya napasama dito si Jinggoy at saka Jude, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At noon pong sumunod na buwan?

MR. SINGSON. Sumunod na buwan, Your Honor, nagpatulong pa rin ako sa kanya, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Hanggang kailan po siya tumulong sa inyo?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi ko na matandaan, Your Honor. Pero nag uusap din kami, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ito pong mga nakaraan na pagtestigo ninyo ay sinabi n’yo po na buwan buwan ay si Secretary Jimmy Policarpio ay binibigyan ng pera galing sa jueteng. Pakiulit na nga po paano ninyo nalaman na nakakatanggap siya ng pera.

MR. SINGSON. Madalas po ‘pag nag uusap kami, Your Honor, kinukumpirma niya iyong napupunta sa kanya, dahil tinatanong ko rin, Your Honor, kung natanggap na niya. At umaangal nga si Bong Pineda minsan, Your Honor, dahil advance daw kung kumuha si Jimmy Policarpio, nagpapa advance.

MR. MARCELO. Batay po doon sa mga nakaraang testimonya n’yo po nitong mga nakaraang mga araw, sinasabi n’yo po na madalas at regular na tumatanggap ng malalaking halaga ang Pangulong Estrada mula sa mga jueteng operators at ito’y pinapadaan sa inyo. Maaari po bang pakiulit ninyo kung sino ang nagdadala nitong perang ito na malalaking halaga sa pangulo ng ating bansa.

MR. SINGSON. Si Bong Pineda, Your Honor; iyong kapatid ko, Your Honor, Bonito Singson, saka iyong… Binigay ko na sa Blue Ribbon Committee iyong mga pangalan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ang tinatanong ko po, kung sino po ang nagbibigay kay Presidente Estrada ng pera.

MR. SINGSON. Ah, ako mismo, Your Honor, except, minsan, Your Honor, si Emma Lim. Minsan lang, Your Honor. Ako na po kadalasan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At iyon pong pagdadala n’yo ng pera kay Presidente Estrada, saan naman po ito dinadala? Saan n’yo po ito dinadala sa kanya?

MR. SINGSON. Noong umpisa lang, Your Honor, doon sa Polk Street, sa Greenhills, San Juan. Noong lumipat sa Malacañang, kadalasan sa Malacañang na, Your Honor. Minsan lang ako nagdala sa P. Guevarra.

MR. MARCELO. At kung matatandaan n’yo po, maaari po bang sabihin ninyo kung kailan kayo nagdadala ng mga pera sa Pangulo mula sa jueteng operators?

MR. SINGSON. Pakiulit, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Maaari po ba n’yong sabihin, kung natatandaan n’yo, kung kailan po kayo nagdadala ng mga pera sa Pangulo?

MR. SINGSON. Kadalasan, Your Honor, kada… every 15th day, pero hindi naglalayo doon, Your Honor. Kung minsan 16th, 17th. Kung minsan nagpapa advance naman. Ako minsan nahuhuli, Your Honor. Pero hindi naglalayo sa 30 o katapusan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ba ang porma ng pera na ibinibigay ninyo kay Presidente? Cash po ba o tseke?

MR. SINGSON. Karamihan po cash, Your Honor, in 1,000 bills; kung minsan tseke, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. ‘Pag nagdadala po kayo… Sinabi n’yo po nagdadala kayo ng pera sa Malacañang, kung nagdadala po kayo ng pera, saan n’yo po ba inilalagay iyong pera?

MR. SINGSON. Sa attache case, Your Honor, na dalawa iyon, Your Honor, at dalawang klase, Your Honor. Siguro mga apat o lima naiwan pa sa Malacañang iyong mga iba dahil tuwing nagdadala ako, iniiwan ko roon kinukuha ko rin iyong walang laman. Kung minsan di mahanap iyong maid kaya bumibili uli si Bong Pineda ng bago, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Meron po ba kayong katibayan na itong perang dinadala n’yo ay nilalagay n’yo po dito sa bag na ito o maleta o ano man?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon, Your Honor, mayroon pang isang natira, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Nasaan po ito ngayon?

MR. SINGSON. Dito, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. (Not using the microphone).

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder, please.

MR. MARCELO. For the record, Your Honor, the witness has pointed to this, what I will call an attache case, Your Honor, and we would like to ask that this be tagged, Your Honor, so that it can be counted as an exhibit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you propose to do?

MR. MARCELO. We will ask the permission of the Honora¬ble Presiding Officer that this bag be tagged as Exhibit triple “M” (“MMM”), Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let a tag be placed thereon and marked as Exhibit Triple …?

MR. MARCELO. Triple “M”, Your Honor. (“MMM”).

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “M”. Why don’t you write the exhibit number on one of the sides by means of a pentel pen, if you have, at the same time the tag.

MR. MARCELO. Tumestigo rin po kayo na nagdadala po kayo sa Malacañang ng mga milyun milyong pera mula sa jueteng operators. Pag po ba nagdadala kayo ng pera sa Malacañang saan po kayo dumadaan?

MR. SINGSON. Dalawang guardia ang dinadaanan, Your Honor, isa sa iyong gate sa labas, bago ka pumasok uli sa PR mayroon uling presidential guard, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pag nakikita po kayo, ano po ang ginagawa ng guardya, kung mayroon man?

MR. SINGSON. Bago ako pumasok, Your Honor, noong umpi¬sa, tumatawag ang sekretarya ng Presidente, dalawa sila, Your Honor, kung minsan si Malou, kung minsan si Sheryl at sinasabi nila sa guardhouse na huwag buksan iyong bag na dala ko.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Well, probably we should have a measurement of the bag which has been marked as Exhibit “MMM” and probably it should also be opened to show the divisions or whatever, maybe, inside the bag itself.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The recommendation is well taken. Let the Senate Secretary make the measurement and make it of record.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. There are two compartments. One compartment measures about four inches or three and a half. And the other one is about one inch. There’s another com¬partment, the third compartment side compartment with a zipper.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Which side?

THE SENATE SECRETARY. …This is to the left if it is facing the Honorable Senator Judges.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please do not cover the evidence.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. There are two combination locks, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Located whereat?

THE SENATE SECRETARY. At the left and the right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Can we place the bag in front of the witness so we can see it from here? Because it is being covered from where we sit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Better. Do that.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. There are three compartments: the smallest one is the side zipper.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Will you kindly point to us where that zipper or side compartment you’re talking about is?

THE SENATE SECRETARY. This is the side zipper. And this is the bigger compartment, measuring about 3 and a half inches, and the smaller compartment measures exactly one inch.

The length is exactly 18 inches and the height is 12 and a half inches. The width is exactly 5 inches.

There is no brand. No brand.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No brand? No name?

THE SENATE SECRETARY. So, brandless.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No brand. No name can be found anywhere.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. None, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator

Judge Cayetano, and then after that, the Honorable…

THE SENATE SECRETARY. No brand, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Just a request, Mr. Chief Justice.

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

SEN. CAYETANO. Can we find out from the Secretary of the Senate if there is a lock in this bag?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a mention already of two locks.

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. No, no. I mean, is it number or…

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Number combination lock.

SEN. CAYETANO. Combination number.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A Combination lock. Only one combination lock or two?

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Three each, Your Honor, from the left and another three from the right. Both now numbered 000 and the other one is 000.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Can you tell us, Secretary, if that is a leather bag or what kind of material is used?

THE SENATE SECRETARY. Your Honor, I think this is a leatherette, not a genuine one not a genuine leather.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any observation from the prosecution as to the material used?

MR. MARCELO. It’s hard to tell, Your Honor, what the material is.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any observation from Atty. Flaminiano for the defense?

MR. MARCELO. It looks like leather, but it’s not leather.

MR. FLAMINIANO. It looks like leather really, but it’s not really leather, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So at least you agree that it looks like.

MR. MARCELO. Yes. But it’s not leather.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

MR. MARCELO. Kanina po sinabi po noong Secretary ng mahal na Senado ng Kagalang galang na Senado na iyong combination lock ay may ang ginagamit ay numerong 000. Lagi po bang 000 ang nakalagay diyan?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Counsel. I think the matter of the number of the lock was never testified to by the witness yet.

MR. MARCELO. It was a description by the Secretary of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it was a description by the Secretary.

MR. MARCELO. I will repeat the question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, you make another question.

MR. MARCELO. Mr. Witness, natatandaan ninyo po ba kung ano po ang numero noong dalawang combination lock diyan sa pinakita po na Exhibit “MMM”?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon po, Your Honor. 000, parehong tatlong zero, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Iyon po bang mga maletang dinadala ninyo doon o bago, anuman ang tawag dito, o attache case, na katulad niyan, lagi po bang 000 ang numero?

MR. SINGSON. Dalawang klase po iyan, Your Honor. Iyong isang dalawa mas matataba, mas mataba. Iyong tatlo, apat, ganyan po ang size, pero minsan napalitan ko po iyong lock, Your Honor. Pero kadalasan, 000.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang ibig sabihin ninyong napalitan ninyo iyong lock?

MR. SINGSON. Noong nagtagal, Your Honor, na 000 iyan, sinabi ko sa Pangulong Estrada, baka mabuksan iyong mga ng ibang tao, sinabi ko sa kanya na pinalitan ko ng 419, iyong club ni Pangulong Estrada. So, pinalitan ko po at noong naibigay ko na, siguro mga isang oras tinawag po uli ako noong sekretarya…

MR. MARCELO. Bakit po kayo tinawag?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi po mabuksan ni Pangulong Estrada, so kako, “Di ba sinabi ko, pinalitan ko 415?” “Ibalik mo na lang uli sa 000,” sabi niya, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Paki ulit nga po. Ano po iyong numero na ipinalit ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Four one five, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. The question has been answered already.

MR. SINGSON. Four one nine, Four one nine. I’m sorry, 419, dahil birthday ni Pangulong Estrada iyon at saka nightclub niya, Your Honor, 419.

MR. MENDOZA. But that has been answered, then the answer was clear enough.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already answered.

MR. SINGSON. Four one nine.

MR. MARCELO. Noon pong a trese ng Disyembre ay tumistigo po kayo na nagpunta daw po kayo sa opisina ni dating Acting Police Director General Lastimoso. Kailan po ba ninyong unang nakita o nakilala itong si General Lastimoso?

MR. SINGSON. Sa bahay ni Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, sa Greenhills, sa bahay nila, bago siya ma appoint, Your Honor, nakita ko na noong nag courtesy call, sinamahan ni General Lacson.

MR. MARCELO. At pagkatapos po noon, nagkita po ba ulit kayo?

MR. SINGSON. Sa opisina niya minsan, Your Honor, at saka noong mga sumunod na sa Malacañang na, Your Honor. Sinabi ko kay Pangulong Estrada, na kailangan timbrehan ninyo rin si General Lastimoso at kausapin dahil hindi tinanggap iyong dinala ko roon ‘kako, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ang nangyari pagkasabi ninyo noon kay Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. So, hindi nagtagal minsan, Your Honor, nag uusap kami roon, pinatawag doon at…

MR. MARCELO. Sino po ang pinatawag?

MR. SINGSON. Si General Lastimoso, Your Honor, at ang sabi ni Pangulong Estrada, na tulungan ako at mag coordinate kami.

MR. MARCELO. Ano po ba ang pinag uusapan ninyo noon, noong sinabi po iyan ni Presidente Estrada kay General Lastimoso?

MR. SINGSON. Tungkol po sa jueteng, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos po niyong sabihan pagkatapos po ninyong mag usap na kasama si General Lastimoso, ano po ang nangyari pagkatapos?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi na po tinuloy na po namin iyong operation ng jueteng, pero may mga parang SOP na sa kanila na nagre report din iyong mga operators ng huli para lalo na kung nadidiyaryo eh may mga pinalalabas na hinuhuling jueteng, pero mga bodabil po iyon gawa gawa lang para sa for record purposes.

MR. MARCELO. Kahapon po ang huli pong minarkahan na ebidensiya ay iyong isang chart.

Your Honor, I would like to ask permission to get this chart from the Secretary of the Honorable Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You refer to Exhibit “KKK”?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate Secretary will have to turnover that to counsel. Copies of this have been distributed to the Members of the Impeachment Tribunal, Attorney…

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

Governor Singson, sino po ba ang gumawa nitong chart nito na minarkahan na Exhibit “KKK?”

MR. SINGSON. Ako po ang nag drawing, Your Honor, pinalipat ko lang sa computer.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkalipat po sa computer, ano po ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Paki ulit.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkalipat po sa computer, ano po ang nangyari?

MR. SINGSON. Ano ang ibig sabihin?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you understand the question or you want it clarified?

MR. MARCELO. Sinabi ninyo po na inilipat sa computer, ibig po ninyong sabihin tinayp (type) po ito sa computer?

MR. SINGSON. Oo, nilipat nga sa ah, sa computer. Nilinis at na print out sa computer, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Pagkatapos po itong i print out tiningnan ninyo po ba ulit ito?

MR. SINGSON. Oo, Your Honor. Ito nga ang comparison ng ano ng jueteng at saka Bingo-2 Balls. At sinabi ko nga na sa operation ng jueteng, 3 percent. ‘Yong Bingo-2 Balls, 23 percent. ‘Yong according to the testimony of Atong Ang, minimum lang ‘yong 50 million na sinasabi niya pero umaabot na mas malaki pa. Maski na i base natin dito sa 1.5 a month, ‘yong 23 percent eh puwedeng paglaruan lahat ‘yan ni Atong Ang at saka si Presidente, Your Honor, dahil sa private company. Legal sana kung PAGCOR ang nangongolekta. Dito po, Your Honor, net ‘yong 23 percent. So ibig sabihin maski na ano ang i declare nila sa PAGCOR o sa BIR, ‘yon na ‘yon. So puwede nilang paglaruan ‘yong 1.5 billion. So maski na gawin nila na hindi paglaruan, kikita pa rin ang Pangulong Estrada rito ng mga 165 million, Your Honor, a month, kung ili legal nila na kunwari wala nang kalokohan, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. May I manifest that the alleged basis of this Exhibit “KKK” are not part of the evidence in this case. This Exhibit “KKK” purports to be based on alleged statements of Atong Ang. It has even certain account names but there is absolutely no evidence in this case which would show, which would demonstrate that the basis of this is part of the evidence.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any reply before the Chair would make a ruling?

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, the witness is testifying based on personal knowledge and for the matters of which he has no personal knowledge, we will present evidence supporting evidence later on before we rest our case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What particular portion of the testimony of the witness would need a corroboration by other evidence?

MR. MARCELO. We will call other witnesses, Your Honor, regarding the alleged agreement, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only on the alleged agreement?

MR. MARCELO. Can you please repeat the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the alleged agreement will be corroborated by another witness?

MR. MARCELO. Also the matter on the implementation of this alleged agreement, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If that were the only items to be corroborated by another witness, then the Presiding Officer would have to partly grant the … or rather, give due course to the observation. This should only be taken as part of the testimony of the witness which is his own opinion based on a fact yet to be established. And therefore, this cannot be taken yet as evidence but merely as part of the testimony, not for the truth of what is being claimed to be.

The Honorable Senator Judge Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you, the Honorable Chief Justice, the Presiding Officer.

Well, Your Honor, before the expose’ specifically on October 5, this representation, being the Chairman of the Committee on Games, Amusement and Sports, conducted a hearing. And one of those resource persons was the chairperson of the Pagcor by the person of Ms. Alice Reyes. And we’d just like this Impeachment Court to take judicial notice that on record of the Senate based on that hearing, if I may read, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor may read.

SEN. JAWORSKI. On the last paragraph of Ms. Reyes’ statement, she said, “And finally, I think, one very important aspect is at least the government will earn from this operation from the 23 percent that we are requiring to be paid to Pagcor, 5 percent is going to BIR as franchise tax and the balance of 18 percent will be going to Pagcor. And after deducting the expenses and so on, whatever will be left will be given to the President’s Social Fund as we have been doing in our casino operations.”

Well, Your Honor, this was done on October 5 before the exposé. And may I just put on record that also in this hearing, I questioned the legality of the operation.

That is all, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

The Court may take judicial notice of the proceedings of the Senate Committee. But insofar as the probative value of any testimony given therein, the same may not be taken into account for this purpose until and unless the proper basis therefore or the witness who testified therein shall have been brought to this Impeachment Court.

And so insofar as your witness is concerned, the Court had ruled that it is just but a matter of an opinion which can only be taken as part of the testimony but not to prove the truth or to give probative value to such an answer.

MR. MARCELO. I will go now to another matter, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, ilang taon na ho ba kayong elected official ng Ilocos Sur at anong mga position na ang hinawakan ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Nag umpisa po akong konsehal, Your Honor, 1967. Tapos provincial governor from 1971 to 1987, ’88 to ’92, congressman, ’92 to present, governor, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Bukod po sa mga nasabi ninyo, mayroon pa po ba kayong katungkulan sa gobyerno o sa pamahalaan na kayo ay nagsilbi?

MR. SINGSON. Naging chief of police din ako sa Vigan, Your Honor, noong bago ako nag konsehal.

MR. MARCELO. Bilang gobernador po ng Ilocos Sur, ano naman po ang masasabi ni’yong pinakamahalagang nagawa ninyo?

MR. SINGSON. Unang una, Your Honor, iyong peace and order dahil magulong magulo po ang probinsiya namin bago ako naging gobernador. At noong panahon na iyon ay hinuhuli ko po lahat iyong nagkasala, at testigo po si Senator Enrile noon, kinulong ko pa lahat iyong mga kasamahan ko noon at nagpunta si Secretary Enrile, Your Honor. So, mula noon, Your Honor, naging tahimik ang probinsiya namin ng Ilocos Sur. At isa pa, bagamat walang pera ang gobyerno namin noon, nag umpisa kami sa 2 million na income, ngayon, Your Honor, nagkaka income na kami ng 300 million dahil nanumbalik na ang katahimikan at ang mga investors. That is aside from the funds coming from 7171.

MR. MARCELO. Siyanga po pala, noong tumestigo po dito si Mrs. Emma Lim eh nagtestigo po siya na mayroon siyang nakolekta kay Mayor Jinggoy Estrada na isang tseke na may larawan ni Jinggoy Estrada. Ano po ang masasabi ninyo tungkol dito?

MR. SINGSON. Marami akong inuutusan nangongolekta roon, Your Honor. Ako rin mismo, Your Honor, madalas din ako roon. Kinukuha ko rin iyong mga koleksiyon doon at nakita ko minsan, Your Honor, iyong tseke na sinabi ni Emma Lim na may picture si Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Halos tatlong araw na po kayong tumetestigo ngayon at kung sa pakikinig ko po sa testimoniya ninyo, eh para po bang malapit na malapit kayo kay Presidente Estrada. Gaano katagal n’yo na po bang kakilala ang Pangulo natin?

MR. SINGSON. Mula pa nu’ng artista, Your Honor, dahil iyong nanay namin ay nasa production din; at madalas nagsu-shooting sila sa Vigan, Your Honor, iyong mga artista; at nakilala ko na sila nu’ng artista pa lang, nu’ng naging mayor, naging senador at vice president, president, natutulungan na namin siya, Your Honor; at magkakasama na kami madalas sa mga okasyon. Pagka-birthday niya, tinatawag ako; pagka-birthday ko, pumupunta naman siya sa Ilocos Sur; at madalas kami, Your Honor, sa club niya sa 419 na nag-iinuman, nagkakantahan, kung minsan, nagsusugal, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Ano nga po itong Club 419?

MR. SINGSON. 419 – iyon ang club na kay Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor, dahil ang ibig sabihin ng “419” ay iyong birthday niya, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kahapon po ay nu’ng sinasabi n’yo na nag-uusap kayo ni President Estrada sa telepono nu’ng September 14 at parang natandaan ko po na binanggit niya na ang tawag sa inyo ay “Pare.” Bakit po kaya tinawag kayong “Pare” ni President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Magkumpare din po kami, Your Honor; inaanak ko iyong anak niya sa binyag; inaanak niya iyong mga anak ko sa kasal, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sino pong anak ni President Estrada ang inaanak n’yo?

MR. SINGSON. Si Jacob, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Kanino pong anak si Jacob? Sino po ang kanyang ina?

MR. SINGSON. Si Ms. Laarni Enriquez, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Eh, sa mga anak po ninyo, ang sabi n’yo po may inaanak din si President Estrada, sino po ang inaanak sa mga anak ninyo ni President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Iyong anak kong si Randy, Your Honor, inaanak niya sa kasal; iyon ding anak ko na Racquel, inaanak din ni Pangulong Estrada sa kasal, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. May katibayan po ba kayo na iyong anak po n’yong si Racquel ay inaanak ni Presidente Estrada sa kasal?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon po, Your Honor, iyong anak ko na si Racquel ay kinasal noong January 29, 2000 eh sila ni First Lady ang ninong at ninang, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. For the record, Your Honor, I’m handing to the witness an invitation to a wedding between Jonathan Justo Oros and Racquel Evelyn Singson. This has already been previously marked as Exhibit “NN.” Together with the invitation is a list of the principal sponsors previously marked as Exhibit “NN-1.” And I will read the first name in this list of sponsors: “His Excellency President Joseph Ejercito Estrada” and opposite to his name is “First Lady Eloisa P. Ejercito-Estrada.”

Ano po ang kaugnayan o relasyon nu’ng sinabi n’yo pong imbitasyon at itong Exhibit “NN” at Exhibit “NN-1”?

MR. SINGSON. Ito po iyong sinasabi ko, Your Honor, na ninong si Presidente at saka si First Lady, Your Honor, noong January 29, Your Honor, 2000.

MR. MARCELO. Sabi n’yo po eh talagang malapit po kayo, mayroon po bang… Sa mga biyahe po ba nagkakasama kayo ni President Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Dito po sa Pilipinas, Your Honor, tuwing lumalabas siya sa Maynila, Your Honor, sinasamahan ko siya sa Boracay, Boracay, Aklan, sa Capiz, Cebu, General Santos City, Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte at mga iba pang pinupuntahan, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Sa mga biyahe naman po sa ibang bansa, nagkasama po ba kayo?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor. Sa Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, U.S. at iba pa, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Nabanggit n’yo po rin na parang narinig ko po na tumulong din po kayo sa kanyang kampanya. Pakisabi nga po kung paano kayong tumulong?

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. If it is intended to establish some relationship, I think there has been enough questions on this already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you objecting to?

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, I am now objecting, if Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prosecution probably believes that it is not yet enough so the prosecution may proceed with that. The witness may answer.

MR. MARCELO. Pakisabi nga po kung anong naging suporta n’yo kay Presidente Estrada nu’ng tumakbo siya sa kanya pong pagkampanya para pagka-senador, bise presidente at presidente.

MR. SINGSON. Noong senador at bise presidente, Your Honor, madalas namin tinutulungan sa mga kaibigan kong mga gobernador, mga congressmen, lalung lalo ng Presidente, Your Honor, ako ang namahala sa Region I, at ganoon din, kinausap ko rin ‘yong mga gobernador, mga congressmen na mga kakilala ko pa noong araw, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, sa isang pangungusap po o sa isang sentence, papaano ninyo po ilalarawan ang relasyon ninyo ni Pangulong Estrada bago niyo po ginawa ‘yong exposé niyo noong October 9, nitong taon na ito?

MR. SINGSON. Pakiulit, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Read the question to the witness.

Stenographer.

MR. SINGSON. Ang relasyon….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder, please. Use the lectern.

STENOGRAPHER. (Reading the last question.)

Governor Singson, sa isang pangungusap o isang sentence, paano ninyo ilalarawan ang relasyon ninyo kay Presidente Estrada bago noong October 9, ang exposé niyo?

MR. SINGSON. Malapit po, Your Honor. Halos pareho kami ng hilig, Your Honor. (Laughter.)

MR. MARCELO. Puwede po bang magbigay kayo ng isang halimbawa na pareho kayo ng hilig?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Immaterial already, Your Honor. Irrelevant, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, may we ask for reconsideration, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the purpose?

MR. MARCELO. The purpose is to show the very close relationship between President Estrada and the witness, Your Honor.

This is to show… Because as we have noticed, Your Honor, especially during the opening statements, the credibility of this witness has been questioned. We want to show that they have been very, very close, Your Honor.

As we all know, Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are not satisfied with the previous answer, that the relationship was very close?

MR. MARCELO. Not yet, not yet, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you are going into the details?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. MARCELO. Pakibigay po kayo ng halimbawa noong sinasabi n’yo pong pareho kayo ng hilig ni Presidente Estrada.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, may I just ask…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the objection?

MR. MENDOZA….that the purpose of this question be as declared only to show relationship but not to show the fact of performance of certain acts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That should be clearly understood to be like that — only to show the relationship.

MR. MARCELO. Puwede po bang sagutin na ‘yong tanong?

MR. SINGSON. Pareho kaming mahilig sa mahjong, Your Honor. Madalas kaming nakikipaglaro ng mahjong sa mga kaibigan namin, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At saan naman po kayo nagmamahjong?

MR. MENDOZA. Well, I object already, if Your Honor please. That goes a little too far already. They play mahjong, it does not matter where they play mahjong.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the objection has to be sustained.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, we will show how playing mahjong with the President will prove how close the relationship are, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see…

MR. MARCELO. As we all know, Your Honor, the darkest secrets are only revealed to your closest friends, Your Honor.

‘Yong sinasabi po nila, saan…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you kindly elaborate on the what you really mean by that?

MR. MARCELO. Ipapakita po namin na we will show that they have been…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without stating the facts because, otherwise, you may be suggesting the facts to the witness.

MR. MARCELO. We will show…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just on legal matter.

MR. MARCELO. We will show, Your Honor, that they have shared some secrets, Your Honor, secrets which are only to be revealed to your closest friend, Your Honor. They have questioned the credibility of this witness, Your Honor, but there are certain secrets, dark secrets that can only be revealed to your closest friend, and he is one of the closest friends of the President, Your Honor. And that’s why his testimony is credible.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honors please, I think the purpose is somewhat unstated. The witness has already said they play mahjong together. But what is the point of establishing where they play mahjong? If it is just to establish that they were friends, they were close, they were kumpadres, we can even stipulate on that because that is a fact, that is not disputed. The Article I, if Your Honors please, involves jueteng, not mahjong.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, if they will not question

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us hear the procesution.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With this closeness that you are going to in connection with which you are going to elicit certain facts, has something to do with jueteng which is Article I of Impeachment?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor. This will Your Honor, this will show the close relationship between President Estrada and Governor Singson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has it any materiality or relevance to the issue under Article I on jueteng?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor, because it shows the credibility of the witness, that his testimony is credible.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, no. That is not the

position, that is not the question of the Chair. How would you be able to link that to Article I?

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, under Section 4, Rule 128, Your Honor, “Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.”

Here in this case, Your Honor, the credibility of this witness has been questioned. They said he has been guilty of 13 falsifications, Your Honor. They say that that’s not material. What is material is that they are very close to each other and that he has been privy to the secrets of the President, Your Honor. That this witness is so close that the President has entrusted to him a duty, a duty which you will only entrust to somebody who is very close to you. And that the person who is very close to you is a credible person because he’s the only one who will know what are these secrets.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have precisely cited a particular rule in the Rules on Evidence. So, the ultimate issue is, has it something to do with Article I? Because if you’ll be able to develop a theory out of this in relation to Article I, the Chair will not hesitate to rule in your favor.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor. As I have said, they’re so close together that he was entrusted with a duty of collecting protection money from jueteng operators, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If that is the case, the objection is overruled, the witness may answer.

MR. MENDOZA. If your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let’s go directly to the point so we can resolve the issue as fast as possible.

MR. MENDOZA. May I just make one observation, Your Honors?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Counsel has adverted to, perhaps my opening statement, in which I referred to falsifications committed by the witness. That is not yet in evidence. So, counsel is anticipating a fact not yet in evidence. And so, these questions are apparently intended to enhance a credibility which has not yet apparently been impaired by this evidence on falsification simply because this falsification has only been alleged in the opening statement.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, if they will stipulate that this witness is credible, I will withdraw my questions. They’ve been always attacking the credibility of this witness, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. So, perhaps, I can withdraw the objection provided this is the last question on mahjong.

MR. MARCELO. We cannot agree to that.

MR. MENDOZA. Just ask where did you play mahjong, just so that we can dispense with this problem, if Your Honor please, and not delay the proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, counsel for the prosecution can be guided accordingly just to elicit the facts by the simplest possible question as you can without going into so much details which can only provoke an objection.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May I ask counsel, how will the place where the mahjong was played between or among the witness and the President and other people prove the allegation of jueteng, Article I?

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, as I have said before, this will show that they’re so close to each other. That the President, in playing mahjong, has made certain admissions, Your Honor.

As I have said, you only disclose your darkest secrets to your closest friends, Your Honor. And they’re so close together that’s why the President entrusted him with the duty of collecting protection money from jueteng operators.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And yet, this final point, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. You are asking about the place where they’re playing mahjong.

MR. MARCELO. We will show that with the succeeding questions and answers, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go direct to the point in relation to jueteng. So, you avoid objections.

MR. MARCELO. Uulitin ko ‘yong tanong ko. Saang mga lugar po ba kayo naglalaro ng jueteng? (Laughter) Ah, I’m sorry, I’m sorry.

I withdraw that, Your Honor.

Saan ho kayo naglalaro ng mahjong ni Presidente Estrada?

MR. SINGSON. Sa iba ibang bahay niya, Your Honor. Ang natatandaan ko, sa Boracay, naglaro kami sa Boracay, Your Honor, bahay niya sa Wack Wack, bahay niya sa Green Meadows, bahay niya sa Tagaytay, dalawang bahay niya sa Tagaytay, sa Laguna, sa Baguio. Kadalasan, sa Malacañang, Your Honor, at saka sa presidential yacht, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po ba itong Boracay?

MR. MENDOZA. I move to strike out, if your Honors please. Apparently, this has clearly no relation. This is intended obviously to establish another charge that the President has houses here and houses there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Court will not consider this as establishing another charge. That is exactly the reason why counsel was admonished to go direct to the point in relation to Article I.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor, we will not …

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. I would hope that it is the last of the series of questions.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, as I said, this is on Article I. All questions and all answers elicited will just be to show the close relationship, Your Honor. This will not be we’re willing to stipulate …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us have a very clear understanding of the issue.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it merely to establish the closeness or to establish closeness in relation to jueteng?

MR. MARCELO. In relation to jueteng, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then go directly to the point.

MR. MARCELO. Saan po ba itong Boracay na sinasabi mo?

MR. MENDOZA. I object, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

MR. MENDOZA. Wherever this Boracay may be …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is sustained.

MR. MENDOZA. … it is obviously irrelevant.

MR. MARCELO. I’m not referring to the Boracay house that he mentioned before.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is sustained.

MR. MARCELO. Ano’ng mga okasyon po ba kayo naglaro ng mahjong ni President Estrada?

MR. MENDOZA. The same objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained. Go direct to the point that you announced to the court.

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor. Kanina po, sinabi ninyo po na nagpunta na kayo sa Boracay ni Presidente Estrada. Puwede po bang pakisabi dito sino po ang mga kasama ninyo noong pumunta kayo sa Boracay, sa Aklan?

MR. MENDOZA. Objection, Your Honor. Aklan is too far from Luzon where these jueteng operations was supposedly … (Talking simultaneously.)

MR. MARCELO. He already testified that they went to Boracay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me. The witness mentioned about Boracay. Was it already established that that Boracay is the Boracay over there or anywhere else?

MR. MARCELO. It’s Boracay, Aklan, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. Immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Boracay, Aklan.

Immaterial is the objection?

MR. MENDOZA. Irrelevant.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the places were already mentioned, the witness should proceed the counsel should proceed directly to what he intended to establish. The location of the places would seem to be immaterial at this time. So, the objection is sustained.

MR. MARCELO. Governor Singson, sinabi po ninyo kanina na kasama kayo ni Presidente nagpunta sa Boracay Island sa Aklan, sino po ba ang mga kasama ninyo na nagpunta sa Boracay Island?

MR. MENDOZA. Objection, if your Honor please … (Talking simultaneously.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was already asked before and …

MR. MENDOZA. … irrelevant.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. In the first place, the trip to Boracay Island is irrelevant.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was the same question that was asked. The objection is maintained, overruled.

MR. SINGSON. Marami po, Your Honor, pero natatandaan ko po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness cannot answer, the objection was sustained ah, overruled. I’m sorry, witness may answer. (Laughter)

You know, sometimes you are confusing even the Chair. (Laughter) So, I hope that the counsel should cooperate. It is very difficult to be sitting here.

MR. SINGSON. Marami po, Your Honor, ang natatandaan ko na natatandaan ko po na kasama namin, Your Honor, ‘yong madalas kasama ni Pangulong Estrada pag lumalabas kami si Joelle Pelaez, Your Honor.

MR. MARCELO. At noon pong kayo’y nasa Boracay Island na may mga kasama po kayo, kasama itong si Joelle Pelaez, napag uusapan…

MR. MENDOZA. Objection, Your Honor. I think this is a most unfair question not just to the respondent but even to the persons whose names are being mentioned by this witness. They have no relation whatsoever to this case. For example, the names…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Considering the purposes that you have announced, Attorney Marcelo, on developing a story relating to the closeness and to the possibility of very, very confidential conversations relating to jueteng, then I will have to sustain the objection.

MR. MARCELO. May we ask for a reconsideration, Your Honor. That precisely will be my next question as to what they discussed about when they were in Boracay Island.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But you were talking about another person.

MR. MARCELO. My question, Your Honor, is noung nandodoon po sila, magkakasama po sila sa Boracay Island, ano po ba ang napag usapan nila?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness may answer for as long as it is related to what had been announced as the purpose.

MR. SINGSON. Ang napag usapan po, Your Honor, ‘yong tungkol po doon sa kasama namin, Your Honor, at may pinabigay po ang Pangulong Estrada, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor If Your Honor please, may I move to strike out. It has nothing to do with jueteng. “’Yon pong tungkol sa kasama namin, mayroon pong pinabigay na bonus”, has absolutely no relation. And I think this is again most unfair to the person adverted to who’s not even a party to these proceedings and cannot defend herself.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Marcelo, I am afraid I have to sustain the objection.

MR. MARCELO. In that case, Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I will advise you again to go direct to your announced purpose.

MR. MARCELO. In that case, Your Honor, I will just make a proffer of evidence so that the Honorable Body will know what we’re trying to prove, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make an offer of evidence.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, I would not object to the offer of evidence but I would hope that even the offer of evidence does not disparage the reputation, the character and integrity of a person who is not even a party to these proceedings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. An offer of evidence is allowed.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor, I said I am not objecting, I am just pleading, if Your Honor please, to counsel of the prosecution to be a little more circumspect that in doing so he does not disparage the integrity and reputation of a person who is not even a party to these proceedings and is not in a position to defend herself.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation is noted. Attorney Marcelo may make the offer of evidence.

MR. MARCELO. If I’m allowed, Your Honor, to ask the question about the closeness of President Estrada and Governor Singson, we will be able to show that Governor Singson has accompanied President Estrada in many places including the places what Governor Singson will term as “Mga mahal n’yang kaibigan.” And when they were in these places, President Estrada admitted that he is the owner of these places where his “Mahal na mga kaibigan” are staying, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The offer of evidence is noted.

MR. MARCELO. And lastly, Your Honor, we have marked in evidence a check, which again, I will make a proffer of evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A proffer or offer?

MR. MARCELO. A proffer, Your Honor.

The proffer will involve Exhibit “III”, Your Honor, which is a check in the amount of P2 million Pay to the Order of Cash, Your Honor, and signed by Governor Singson. At the back of the check, Your Honor, which is marked as Exhibit “III 1″, there’s an endorsement, Your Honor. And I will read the endorsement. “Joelle Pelaez.”

All of these, Your Honor, all these proffer of evidence are being made, Your Honor, to prove the closeness between President Estrada and Governor Singson, Your Honor.

That will be all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.

Before that, you mean you are closing your direct testimony on this witness only insofar as Article I is concerned?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, on…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because we already had an agreement that he can be called again as a witness for Article II?

MR. MARCELO. Ah, Your Honor, I will withdraw that manifestation. I think I still have one question. I confer with my assisting lawyers, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. I just want to ask the counsel whether this evidence, which is actually a cancelled check, I suppose, being proffered as evidence, whether the amount represented by that check is included amongst the amounts stated in the so called “listahan” or ledger?

MR. MARCELO. It’s not included in the ledger, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. It’s not?

MR. MARCELO. It’s not.

SEN. ENRILE. But this was a check issued by the witness?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor. This is a check issued by Governor Luis Chavit Singson.

SEN. ENRILE. In whose behalf or for whose behalf?

MR. MARCELO. This check was issued by if asked the question, Governor Singson will say that this check was issued to, was issued upon order of the President, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. For and in behalf of the President?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. In favor of?

MR. MARCELO. Ms. Joelle Pelaez, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the direct testimony has been concluded…

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

MR. MARCELO. … as I have said, I am withdrawing I’d like to ask permission to withdraw my manifestation. I’d like to conclude my … my mere manifestation to conclude. I would like to ask for a break to confer with my assisting lawyers just in case there are a few questions that I have forgotten to ask, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, in the meantime that you will confer with the panel of prosecutors, the Chair recognizes the Honorable Judge Biazon.

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

Some clarificatory questions to the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. May I call the attention of the witness to Exhibit “C 9″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. “C 9″. Show the exhibit to the witness.

SEN. BIAZON. The fourth column on “C 9 A”, or the third column on “C 9 A” has Xs markings. What does this what do these Xs represent, Governor?

MR. SINGSON. Pagkaalam ko rito, Your Honor, wala nang koleksyon dito, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Wala nang koleksyon?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon pa pero marami nang nagsasara dahil pinapag usapan na namin ‘yong Pick 2 muna, Your Honor, paglipat sa Bingo 2 balls.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. If you will examine closely, the Xs started to appear on the month of February of this year. And as the “Xs” started to increase, the collection decreased. What is the meaning of this, Governor?

MR. SINGSON. Ano’ng Exhibit, Your Honor?

SEN. BIAZON. Iyong mula sa…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Marcelo, would you go closer to the witness?

SEN. BIAZON. …Exhibit “C6 A”, all the way to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we can be properly guided as to the exhibit number.

MR. MARCELO. May we ask the Honorable Senator Judge…

SEN. BIAZON. Yes, I repeat, ‘no.

MR. MARCELO. …to repeat?

SEN. BIAZON. From Exhibit “C 6 A” to Exhibit “C 12″, there is an increasing number of appearance of the X marks for every month. So that at the end of the period in question I’m referring to August 16 to 31 of Exhibit “C 12″, for August 16 to 31, all the spaces there are marked “X” and the amount of collection is zero.

Could you explain this, Governor?

MR. SINGSON. Sa mga buwan na ito, Your Honor, pinapag usapan na namin siguro iyong “Pick 2″ muna, nalipat sa Bingo-2 balls. And there was a time na hinuli ni General Lacson iyong jueteng, dahil doon nagalit si Pangulong Estrada, hindi sila nag usap for two months. Tapos ho, naisip ni Presidente noon ilipat na sa Bingo.

SEN. BIAZON. Hindi sinasagot ng witness iyong tanong. Ang katanungan…

MR. SINGSON. Kaya nga po, pawala na po dito.

SEN. BIAZON. Ah, wala na?

MR. SINGSON. Oo.

SEN. BIAZON. Ang ibig sabihin ng “X”,…

MR. SINGSON. Wala.

SEN. BIAZON. …wala nang koleksyon?

MR. SINGSON. Oho.

SEN. BIAZON. Now, can I call your attention to “C 11.” On Exhibit “11 B”, July 16 to 31, mayroong nakalagay dito, “Pangasinan stop operation.” Walang “X” iyong kanyang column, ano’ng ibig sabihin niyan?

MR. SINGSON. Eto po iyong listahan na ni Ricaforte, Your Honor, ang… Pag stop operation, Your Honor, dapat wala na ito, baka nagkamali lang si Yolly.

SEN. BIAZON. Oo, pero mayroon pang X ah, wala pang X?

MR. SINGSON. Wala ho, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Now, if you go down, iyong sa ibaba, 3.850 three million eight hundred fifty thousand, I assume this is the total of the columns that do not have “Xs”.

MR. SINGSON. Tama, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Correct. Ang ibig sabihin, ang Pangasinan may koleksyon pa rin?

MR. SINGSON. Mayroon, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Pero bakit nakalagay doon “Stop Operation?”

MR. SINGSON. Hindi ko alam, Your Honor, ito, si Yolly ang gumawa nito, Your Honor. Puwede i…

SEN. BIAZON. Hindi ninyo ma explain iyong “Stop Operation”?

MR. SINGSON. “Stop Operation” supposed to be wala, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Right. Now, do I still have time?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Time na.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The cross examination here, pursuant to the agreement, will be done only after the recall of the witness on the second Article.

So, what would be the pleasure of the prosecution now? Are you presenting another witness? We would rather…

The Honorable Senator Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Witness, yesterday, you were asked on this Mr. R.C. appearing in Exhibit “MM 3″. If you can take a look at Exhibit “MM 3″, Exhibit “M” and specifically Exhibit “MM 3″.

MR. MARCELO. Ah, puwede pong paki ulit?

SEN. DRILON. Ang tanong ko po, hindi ny’o kahapon maalaala kung sino si Mr. R.C. Mayroon pong lumabas sa pahayagan ngayon na ito’y baka si Senator Judge Renato Cayetano. (Laughter)

SEN. CAYETANO. Roman Catholic.

SEN. DRILON. Ha? Roman Catholic. Ito po ba’y si Renato Cayetano?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi po, Your Honor, hindi po siya, Your Honor. Pero hindi ko na matandaan ito, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Ha?

MR. SINGSON. Dahil minsan kasi lumabas ito, hindi ko na matandaan, Your Honor. Hindi po si Senator Rene Cayetano, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Honorable Drilon.

What is now the pleasure of counsel for the prosecution?

MR. MARCELO. We have no more…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m on the proffer of evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the what, Your Honor?

SEN. ROCO. The counsel had a proffer of evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proffer?

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not offer?

SEN. ROCO. Not offer. He was trying to tell us that he had he been allowed to ask questions, the answers would have shown closeness of relationship as to maintain confidentiality in going into an illegal activity like jueteng.

My question for counsel, how does the giving of a check of two million, I think, to a person who is a stranger to this proceeding, how does that establish in your mind, in your proffer, how does that establish that relationship?

MR. MARCELO. Puwede pong magbigay po ako ng example para…

SEN. ROCO. Oo, puwede, puwede.

MR. MARCELO. … ma explain ko po. Noon pong kasi sa college mayroon po…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just for the record and just an advice to the Honorable Members of the Impeachment Court, any statement made by counsel by way of a response to the query of the Honorable Judge Roco will not be considered by you as evidence.

SEN. ROCO. That’s correct. ‘Yung proffer ho para maintindihan din siguro, Mr. Chief Justice, ‘yung proffer ay ang isang remedyo ng abugado kung hindi napahintulutan. Kaya sinasabi niya lang na kung pinahintulutan, lalabas ang katotohanan. Pero hindi ko makita nga ang relasyon sa parang pinagsisikap niyang mapatunayan. Please.

MR. MARCELO. I will try to illustrate it, Your Honor.

In college, I had two friends, one is married, the other one is not. Unfortunately, the one who is married has a girlfriend and the only one who knows about it is my other friend. And, you know, things like that, when you’re young, about infidelity, the only people who knew about these are the people close to you. So, sinasabi po namin nga, as I have said before, you only reveal your darkest secrets to your closest friends especially ng illegal conspiracy.

Kung natatandaan n’yo po, ‘yun pong sa States, ‘yun pong paglilitis doon kay John Gotti, ang nagsilbi po na principal witness sa kanya ay si Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, ‘yun pong kanyang kanang kamay. And despite the fact that Sammy “The Bull” Gravano has committed so many murders in his criminal career, I think the criminal court sustained his testimony and convicted Mr. John Gotti, Your Honor. To me, these two stories illustrate what we are trying to show before this Honorable Body.

SEN. ROCO. Ang sinasabi mo ba’y ang pagbigay ng two million ay illegal?

MR. MARCELO. It shows the closeness, Your Honor, and it can even be illegal, Your Honor. Under the… Well, I don’t want to delve into that because as the distinguished counsel has said, you may be disparaging people who are not parties to this case but, of course, what we wanted to show was the real closeness between Chavit Singson and the President, Your Honor. And, you know, this is a closeness that engendered a criminal conspiracy, Your Honor. What we wanted to show is a criminal conspiracy, and in a criminal conspiracy, you will not get somebody that you have just known a few days ago. You will get somebody if you want to commit a crime and you want to get a co conspirator you will get somebody that you have known for so many years, somebody you have trusted, somebody that you hope who will not betray you.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

SEN. ROCO. Let me just call out, for the record, that I should not have been timed because I was asking counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Drilon, and then after that we will recognize the Honorable Judge Osmeña, and then after that the Honorable Judge Loren Legarda Leviste, in that order. After that, we will close.

SEN. DRILON. Since I only consumed 30 seconds of my time, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then after that we will recognize the Honorable Judge Osmena, then after that, the Honorable Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste. In that order. After that, we will close.

SEN. DRILON. Mr. Witness, you have testified that the code name or the code number of the President that you assigned to him, among others, especially in the lock was 419, representing his birthday. And in the course of your testimony, inyo pong binanggit na kapag may nakita kaming numerong 258, kayo po iyon, sinasabi ninyo. Is that correct?

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Bakit mo naman napili iyong code na 258?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Sino ang nagbigay ng 258?

MR. SINGSON. Ah, sa radyo ginagamit iyon, code ko iyon, Your Honor, dati na.

SEN DRILON. Ah, code mo iyon.

MR. SINGSON. Sa radyo.

SEN. DRILON. Hindi ba parang sa mahjong din iyon?

MR. SINGSON. Ganoon nga, Your Honor, sa mahjong, 258.

SEN. DRILON. Anong ibig sabihin noon sa mahjong?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the answer of the witness?

SEN. DRILON. Anong ibig sabihin ng 258 sa mahjong?

MR. SINGSON. Ah, tatlong waiting, Your Honor, iyong 258.

SEN. DRILON. So, ito po ay naging code name, code number mo?

MR. SINGSON. Opo, Your Honor. Nakuha rin ito sa mahjong, 258, pero sa radyo, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Matagal mo na bang code name ito?

MR. SINGSON. Matagal-tagal na rin, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Even before you knew the President?

MR. SINGSON. Hindi naman, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Kailan mo nakuha itong code name na ito? Kailan mo nakuha itong code name na ito?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your answer.

MR. SINGSON. Three to four years ago, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Osmeña.

SEN. OSMENA, (S). Mr. Governor, tinotal ho namin iyong mga koleksiyon, iyong dalawang grupong ledger, iyong isa sa inyo ho, iyong ikalawa, kay Ricaforte. Sa inyo ho, nai-sweep ninyo ho iyong one hundred twenty-three million balance. And tinotal ho namin iyong kay Ricaforte, if you add that to the one hundred twenty-three million, eh umaabot lang ho ng two hundred forty-nine million. Ngunit ang sinabi po ninyo, nagbigay ho kayo ng two hundred million kay Pangulong Erap

at saka sixty million pa ang ginastos sa Fontainbleau.

So, medyo may missing ho dito na mga between eleven to fifteen million. Mayroon po bang ibang koleksiyon ang operations ho ninyo na hindi galing sa jueteng?

MR. SINGSON. Pakiulit iyong question, Your Honor, para ma …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we have the stenographer re-read the question to the witness? Take the lectern please. Were you able to get everything? Not even the stenographer’s machine? Do you have it now? Otherwise, with the kind indulgence of the Honorable Senator Osmena … oh, it’s okay now. The stenographer should re-read the question. Have you found that particular portion of the notes? None? Not all. So, Your Honor, Senator-Judge Osmena, the Chair believes that you have to repeat your question and we are very sorry about that.

SEN. OSMENA (S). That’s okay, Mr. Chief Justice.

Governor Singson, ‘yong collection ho ni noong panahon ni Yolly Ricaforte ay umabot ng mga 110 million, ‘yong collection ho ninyo na nai sweep by sweep, I mean, na clean out ho ‘yong balance ng account ho ninyo, 123 million as of July 30, ‘no, 1999. That totals 249 million. But you testified that 60 to 65 million was spent to construct ‘yong Fontainbleau Casino at saka 200 million ibinalato kay Erap sa birthday n’ya. So medyo kulang ho ‘yong collection ng jueteng. Saan po nanggaling ‘yong balanse na mga 10 to 15 million?

MR. SINGSON. Wala ‘yong listahan dito sa akin, Your Honor. Ang nasa akin, Your Honor, ‘yong mga naibigay kong pera sa Pangulong Estrada na one hundred ninety six million three hundred, Your Honor, plus ‘yong na collection ni Yolly Ricaforte na 249 226, plus ‘yon, eh, magiging 445 million, Your Honor, ang napunta lahat sa Pangulong Estrada.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Hindi ho, ‘yong computations ho namin, ‘yong 249 kasama na ho diyan ‘yong 123 million, ‘yong first 12 months na wala pa si Yolly Ricaforte.

MR. SINGSON. Ah, sa loob ng 123 million?

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Oo, kasama na ho sa 249.

MR. SINGSON. ‘Yon pong buwan na nag start, November, up to ipinasa ko kay Ricaforte, Your Honor, 123 million ang nandiyan sa record.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Tama ho ‘yan, okay. Ginamit mo ho ‘yan sa Fontainbleau, ‘di ba?

MR. SINGSON. Oho, hindi ho nagamit lahat ‘yon, Your Honor, kaya may ibinigay akong mga 64 million to 65 million, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Okay, gawin nating 63, so may balanse ho na 60? At saka ‘yong collection naman ni Yolly Ricaforte ay 126 million ho. So 126 million plus 60 million is 186 million. Where did you get the 200 million that was allegedly given to President Estrada on his birthday? Kulang lang ho ng mga 10 to 15 million. We want to find out if there were other sources of income?

MR. SINGSON. Wala po, Your Honor. Ang nasama lang dito ‘yong four million na ibinigay ko, Your Honor. Baka nagkamali lang sa kuwenta, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. SINGSON. Maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Guingona. After this, we will take another matter.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Governor Singson, sabi mo kanina na kahit maraming milyon milyon itong tinatanggap mo, wala kang tinatanggap na suweldo, tama po ba ‘yon?

MR. SINGSON. Tama ‘yon.

SEN. GUINGONA. Ngunit marami kang expenses na puwedeng gamitin at nakalagay dito sa listahan, tama po ba ‘yan?

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. At lahat ng mga expenses, eh, nalalaman din ng Pangulo?

MR. SINGSON. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.

MR. SINGSON. Kaya ‘yong taxes, Your Honor, na kinukuha ko, doon ko kinukuha ‘yong mga tseke na pinagbibigay n’ya sa iba na hindi ko na tsa charge dito, Your Honor. So nanggagaling din dito sa jueteng, Your Honor, ‘yong mga tseke na pinamimigay n’ya sa iba na nakakalimutan ko na kasi advance kung minsan magpakuha, Your Honor, hindi ko na tsa charge dito. So hiningi ko sa kanya na tanggalin ko ‘yong mga butal butal. ‘Yong mga tseke na ipinamimigay n’ya, galing din sa jueteng, ‘yong mga ipinamimigay n’ya sa iba iba, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the next witness for the prosecution will be called, the Chair will rule on certain documents or papers filed.

The Court notes the following: Entry of Appearance by Agabin, Verzola, Hermoso, Layaoen and de Castro, in collaboration with the present defense attorneys, filed on 11 December 2000. However, notices of orders, resolutions, and writs or processes from the Court shall only be given to the lead counsels.

Second, urgent manifestation filed on December 11, 2000 by the panel of House prosecutors regarding the alleged death threats to proposed witnesses Atty. Perfecto Yasay, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Atty. Ruben Almadro, former Vice President, Compliance and Surveillance Group of the Philippine Stock Exchange.

Third, counter-manifestation filed by the defense counsel on December 13 which was, however, ordered included in the journal of December 13, 2000.

Fourth, the concurring opinion on the denial of the Motion to Quash the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the Honorable Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. on December 13, 2000.

Number five, the manifestation filed on December 13, 2000 at 8:30 p.m. by the House panel of prosecutors, praying that the Impeachment Tribunal issue an order commanding the UOB to immediately surrender the documents called for in the subpoena duces tecum issued on 5 December 2000 by the Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., directing offices of said bank to testify on the aforesaid documents on December 18, 2000, directing said bank offices to show cause why they should not be held in and punished for contempt and after due hearing, to render judgment adjudging them guilty for contempt.

The sixth, manifestation and motion filed on 14 December 2000 at 12 o’clock noon by the United Overseas Bank Philippines (UOB) through its counsel, Atty. Marian Malate Gorrero, praying that the Impeachment Tribunal issue an order directing that deponent-representatives of UOB be relieved from compliance with the subpoena duces tecum et ad testificandum until after the issue regarding the interpretation of the secrecy of bank deposits has been resolved.

Number seven, counter-manifestation filed on December 14, 2000 at 2:26 p.m. by defense counsel re incidents during the deposition-taking involving the UOB, formerly Westmont Bank-Mandaluyong, with prayer that the counter-manifestation be noted under reliefs prayed for in the prosecution’s manifestation dated 13 December 2000 be denied for lack of merit.

Number eight, urgent ex parte request filed on December 14, 2000 at 6:05 p.m. by the panel of prosecutors for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum directed to Raul P. de Guzman and to bring with him the originals and duly certified copies of the articles of incorporation, by-laws, corporate and financial records of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation.

Number nine, urgent ex parte request filed on December 14, 2000 at 6:10 p.m. by the panel of prosecutors for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum directed to Wilfrido Vergara and to bring with him originals and duly certified copies of the documents enumerated therein.

In addition to that, the Court also notes the following: Received by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate at 1:38 p.m. yesterday, Opposition to Deposition of Branch Manager, Equitable Bank, now Equitable PCI Bank, and subpoena duces tecum dated 6 December 2000 filed by counsel for the respondent.

Second, a manifestation filed by counsel for the respondent dated 15 December 2000. This is in connection with the matter in issue on the materiality of the evidence.

Third, supplemental manifestation filed by the defense dated 15 December and received at 12:18 p.m. this afternoon; and

Finally, the memorandum and reply to the opposition dated December 14, 2000 received at 3:05 this afternoon filed by the panel of the House of Representatives Prosecutors.

SEN. CAYETANO. With the permission of the Chief Justice, in relation to the announcement.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Cayetano.

SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I be informed about the Notice of Appearance of Agabin etcetera, etcetera Law Office, if it bears the conformity of the President being the client.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, it doesn’t appear to be so, but yesterday, Your Honor was also of a position that anyone appearing for a party is deemed to have the proper authority to do that.

SEN. CAYETANO. No. I’m just asking. I am not arguing. Just for the record, since I don’t have a copy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, the record will be in the Office of the Secretary.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And now, as promised… Yes, Atty. Marcelo.

MR. MARCELO. Your Honor, I have conferred with the supervising House prosecutor, Your Honor, and we have no further questions to the witness, Your Honor. No further question. May the witness be excused already, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Subject to the agreement again that the cross- examination will be done after the witness shall be recalled and shall have finished his direct testimony for Article II. The cross-examination will be both for the testimony on direct examination for Article I and the direct testimony for Article II. Is that not correct?

MR. MARCELO. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

MR. MARCELO. And, Your Honor, just for the record, we are turning over again the custody of Exhibits “C” “C-1” to C-12” and Exhibit “KKK” plus the bag which was marked as Exhibit “MMM,” Your Honor, to the Secretary of this Honorable Body.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary should make of record the fact of his receipt of these documents.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, for a while, we will finish this activity. What’s the pleasure of the Honorable Apostol?.

REP. APOSTOL. We have a pending motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of Atty. Marcelo.

REP. APOSTOL. With the permission of the Chief Justice. We have a pending motion for ocular inspection of the so-called mansions and the temporary order of this Honorable Body was to hold in abeyance that inspection till and after a witness will testify on that matter. The witness has testified about the so-called mansions, so we deem it now, we pray now that our motion be submitted for resolution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from the defense, too.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honors please. My understanding is that that motion was deferred for lack of predicate at that time. If counsel for the prosecution now believes that that predicate exist, may I now suggest that this be made in writing also. Because, you know, it is difficult to follow the representation that there is a basis for that. If it is based on the testimony of this witness, I frankly do not recall any basis for it.

So since this is not really of urgency, the houses will not disappear, neither will the witness disappear, so perhaps there is really not that urgency now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What we shall do here, Prosecutor Apostol, will be — because the Presiding Officer will have to make a ruling yet on a pending incident. So in order not to clutter our records with several unresolved motions, why don’t you formally reiterate that particular motion, serve a copy to the defense and it may be resolved tomorrow afternoon.

REP. APOSTOL. Tomorrow afternoon we have no…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oh, Monday afternoon. I thought tomorrow is still a Friday. You know, the mind of the Presiding Officer is a continuous trial until the end. Even on Sundays.

REP. APOSTOL. Yeah, we will do that. We will do that, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.

MR. MENDOZA. I recall, Mr. Chief Justice, that we had agreed that motion day will be Fridays?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.

MR. MENDOZA. So that if there are any motions to be filed, may I suggest that this be set for hearing on Fridays so that everyday we are not confronted with motions such as these.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I hope, really, that the parties will take seriously agreements made.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Precisely to contribute to the orderly proceedings of this Impeachment Court.

REP. APOSTOL. We will do that, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. O, thank you very much. And so…

REP. APOSTOL. In the meantime, Mr. Chief Justice, may we request that the witness be excused?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness will now be excused with the advice that he should be ready to appear for his direct testimony for Impeachment Article No. II, for the cross-examination thereafter, on his testimony for Impeachment Article 1, and for his testimony on Impeachment Article II.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request that the Honorable Joker Arroyo, in the meantime, be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Arroyo is recognized. The witness is now excused.

REP. ARROYO. With the permission of the Chief Justice.

Yesterday, we discussed and I said I was not prepared to discuss the question of the issue of materiality that former Chief Justice Narvasa raised. But I discussed the question of notice and the applicability of the Bank Secrecy Law. Well, the Chair ruled that we should file memoranda, which we did.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. ARROYO. But the defense — we filed our reply memorandum and the defense filed their memorandum then, manifestation then a counter-manifestation, meaning, three pleadings in respect to that. But we have not been able to discuss orally the question raised by Chief Justice Narvasa.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On materiality?

REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you…?

REP. ARROYO. Now, I’m not going to argue that point. It’s really Congressman Tañada who will argue that point. But we just want to bring that up on…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it not included in the memorandum and the reply to opposition? I have here a copy.

REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Your Honor, but…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You still would want to supplement?

REP. ARROYO. Yes. Because, almost two-thirds of the Court are not lawyers. We have to face the reality that the pleadings that we have filed are couched in very legalese language. The idea now is to kind of…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time would be needed by the prosecution to expound, by way of amplification, on that particular issue alone?

REP. ARROYO. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many minutes?

REP. ARROYO. Congressman Tañada says 20 minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many minutes?

REP. ARROYO. Twenty minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.

REP. ARROYO. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we have to give the defense another 20 minutes too, in other words.

REP. ARROYO. That’s okay with us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought that the parties were willing to reduce that number, that duration to 10 minutes. Make it 10 minutes.

REP. ARROYO. No, Mr. Chief Justice, they were able to discuss that yesterday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s correct.

REP. ARROYO. We were not able to discuss it. So I think we should be given an adequate time to discuss it because, in fact, I said I am not prepared to discuss it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you will be given adequate time, 20 minutes, but since they opened the argument yesterday, the defense shall also be given time to reply.

REP. ARROYO. That’s all right, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same number the same period.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. One inquiry, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Will it please the court to have this before or after the break?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After the break? Before the break? So after the break we can already suspend the proceedings probably until Monday if you like unless a witness is ready.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Tañada is recognized.

REP. TAÑADA. Marami pong salamat, Kagalang galang na Presiding Officer, Mr. Senate President, mga Kagalang galang na mga Hukom na mga Senador.

Bilang karagdagan po sa aming memorandum na naisumite kaninang hapon, mapahintulutan lamang po sana ang inyong lingkod na makagpasalita tungkol dito sa puntong ating pagtatalunan ngayon.

Ang tinututulan po ng mga abogado ni Presidente ay yoon pong subpoena duces tecum na hiningi ng mga prosecutor para makuha ang ilang mga dokumento na may kaugnayan doon sa isang tseke na nagkakahalaga ng P142 million na in issue ni Jose Velarde ba ‘yon o Valhalla hanggang ngayon hindi pa natin alam na ang payee diyan sa tsekeng ‘yan ay walang iba kundi si Ginoong Jose Sel Yulo, isang matalik na kaibigan, tsokaran ni Presidente Estrada at dating kalihim ng HUDCC, iyong Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. Siya ang pumalit kay Karina David noong siya ay magbitiw diyan sa posisyon na ‘yan.

So ayaw po ng mga abogado ni Pangulong Estrada na mabuksan iyong sealed envelope na nadala na dito sa Senado upang makita natin iyang mga dokumentong ‘yan na sinasabi ng mga prosecutor ay may kaugnayan diyan sa napakalaking halagang tsekeng ‘yan P142 million na hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa natin alam kung sino nga ba ang nag issue niyan.

Mga Kagalang galang na Hukom, patuloy pong iginigiit ng mga abogado ni Presidente Estrada na ito raw ating paglilitis ay paglilitis kriminal. Ito raw ating paglilitis ay pag uusig kriminal. Eh akala ko ay iyan ay napagpasyahan na natin noong mga nakaraang panahon. Tinuro pa nga natin iyong ating record ng Constitutional Commission na nakita natin doon sa tanong ni Presiding Officer, ang ating namamatnugot dito sa ating paglilitis na nagagawa ngayon sa Senadong ito, ay itong paglilitis na ito ay hindi paglilitis kriminal, hindi pag uusig kriminal. Hanggang ngayon iginigiit pa rin ng mga abogado ni Pangulong Estrada na ang kailangan daw ebidensya ay iyong “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” At sabi pa nga ni Atty. Mendoza ay kaya daw kami tumututol doon ay wala kaming ebidensya. Takot daw kami ‘pag ang maging standard ay iyong “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Hindi po totoo ‘yon.. Ang masasabi ko po, masasabi ng aking mga kasamahang prosekutor na baka sila ang natatakot dahil alam na nila na may hawak na kaming substantial evidence, kaya kung ‘yan ang pagbabatayan sa paghatol kay Pangulong Aquino ay, kay Pangulong Estrada ay nandiyan na ‘yan, kaya ngayon hinihingi na nila ngayon iyong mas mataas na ebidensiya, iyong ebidensiyang walang kaduda duda.

So, sana matapos na po itong debatehan tungkol dito sa puntong ito. Hindi po ito paglilitis kriminal, hindi po ito pag uusig kriminal.

Ngayon, tungkol naman po doon sa kanilang pagtutol sa aming hinihinging mga dokumento doon sa subpoena duces tecum sabi nila ay immaterial daw po ‘yon at irrelevant, at sabi po nila ay hindi raw ‘yan nabanggit doon sa impeachment complaint. At sabi pa ng kasama ko sa Partido Liberal, si Atty. Daza, ay bakit daw dagdag ng dagdag ang mga prosekutor sa kanilang mga paratang o ebidensiya laban kay Pangulong Estrada.

Tingnan po natin kung totoo o tama iyong sinasabi ng ating magigiting na mga abogado ni Pangulong Estrada.

Dito po sa Impeachment Complaint, makikita at babasa¬hin ko, maliwanag na maliwanag, nakasulat:

“President Joseph E. Estrada violated the Constitution and stands guilty of graft and corruption.”

Ipagpapatuloy ko.

“He also violated the Anti Graft Law he is sworn to uphold. He filed his statement of assets and liabilities for the year 1999 stat¬ing therein that he and his wife and children have business interests in only three corporations.

“The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their chil¬dren have other interests in other companies outside of the three firms listed in the statement of assets and liabilities.”

Tapos, parenthesis (Annex “C”).

Ngayon, tinuturo po nila iyong Annex “C”. Gusto nilang malimitahan ang prosecutors doon sa mga nakalista na mga korporasyon doon sa Annex “C”, pero iyong Annex “C” naman po ‘yan ay evidentiary lamang. Iyan ay halimbawa lamang. Illustration po lamang ‘yan. Kaya hindi po makat¬wiran na ang prosecutors ay tatalian ang kamay nila para hindi nga makapag produce ng ebidensiya na hindi nababanggit sa Annex “C” na ‘yan.

At mga Kagalanggalang na mga Hukom, ito pong usapin na ito tungkol sa mga mansiyon na ang isa diyan ay iyong tina¬tawag na Boracay Mansion, ay nabanggit na ito sa maraming pahayagan at doon sa aming opening statement. Nabanggit na rin ito ni Governor Singson sa katatapos lamang niyang deklarasyon at hindi na po ito magdadala ng kagulatan sa mga abogado ni Presidente Estrada.

Marahil po, kung ang nangyari ay doon sa impeachment complaint ay wala iyong akusasyon na graft and corruption, tapos magpe presinta kami ng ebidensiya tungkol sa graft and corruption, magugulat nga sila. Hindi naman nga makatu¬wiran at makatarungan iyon, pero andoon po iyan sa Impeachment Complaint. Maliwanag na maliwanag. Siguro po kung, halimbawa, nagprisenta kami ng ebidensya tungkol sa treason, sa pagtataksil ng Pangulo, hindi tama iyon, hindi makatwiran iyan dahil hindi nakabanggit iyan sa Impeachment Complaint. Pero maliwanag, nasabi na natin, na nakabanggit sa Impeachment Complaint iyang akusasyon ng graft and corruption.

Ngayon, ano’ng ginawa ng mga abogado ni Pangulong Estrada noong nakita nila iyang Impeachment Complaint na iyan? Sinasabi nila wala raw sapat na alegasyon para mabuo iyong mga paratang laban kay Pangulong Estrada. Marahil kung ganoon nga ang kanilang naisip, bakit hindi sila nag file ng motion for bill of particulars. Iyan naman ay karapatan nila, at nakalagay po iyan na maliwanag na maliwanag sa ating Rules of Court. Eh, hindi po nila ginawa iyan. Ang ginawa nila ay general denial.

Kaya kung hihigpitan nga po ang pagpapatupad ng ating Rules of Court ay baka maaari pang sabihin namin na dahil general denial lang ang ginawa nila, tinanggap na nila lahat noong mga akusasyon na nakapaloob doon sa impeachment complaint. Pero hindi po namin ginugusto iyan dahil alam po namin this is an impeachment proceeding. The Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure shall be liberally construed.

Ngayon po, para higit pang makita ang materiality, ang relevancy nitong mga dokumentong hinihingi ng mga prosecutors na hanggang ngayon ay hindi nila makuha, at ang nakakabahala po ay marami nang bangko ang tumatanggi na ipakita iyong mga dokumento na hinihingi ng mga prosecutors.

Para makita po ang materiality at relevancy nitong mga dokumentong ito ay babanggitin ko lang po itong ilang mga pangyayari na magpapakita maliwanag na maliwanag ng materiality at relevancy niyang mga dokumentong iyan.

Nabanggit na po natin iyong 142 million na tseke na issued ni Jose Velarde ba iyon o Valhalla, na hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa sumisipot. Nasaan ba iyang taong iyan o korporasyon na iyan? This was issued in favor of Jose Sel Yulo. Alam na natin kung sino si Sel Yulo. Ano’ng ginawa ni Sel Yulo diyan sa tsekeng iyan? Diniposito po niya iyang tsekeng iyan sa kanyang private account sa Bank of PI; at pagkatapos po noon si Mr. Jose Yulo ay nagbukas ng isang bagong account sa pangalan ng St. Peter’s Holdings. Sino naman itong St. Peter’s Holdings? Pag aari po ito ni Jose Sel Yulo. Halos lahat ng shares ay pag aari niya, except for four shares, at ang paid up capital nitong korporasyong ito ay 62,500.00 lamang na in increase iyan to 250,000. Ngayon, pagkabukas niya niyang account na iyan sa St. Peter’s Holding, nag issue si Jose Sel Yulo ng isang tseke in the amount of 142 million, na iyan naman ay diniposito doon sa bagong account na binuksan niya sa pangalan ng St. Peter’s Holding. At pagkatapos na nadeposito na iyan sa account ng St. Peter’s Holdings ay nag issue naman ang St. Peter’s Holdings ng ilang tseke. Isa na diyan iyong tsekeng nagkakahalagang 86,000,000 at iyan ang binili noong tinatawag nating “Boracay Mansion.”

So, hindi ba nararapat lamang at makatwiran na makitang makita itong mga dokumentong ito? Paano nakuha, na bilhin iyang korporasyon na iyan na may paid up capital na 250,000 lamang na iyang napakalaking property na iyan, na Boracay ang tawag for 86,000,000? At ang gusto nating mapalabas at mapatunayan ay sino nga ba, sino nga ba itong mga incorporators ng St. Peter’s Holdings, ano? Bukod diyan, sino nga ba itong Jose Velarde o Valhalla? Saan niya nakuha iyang 142,000,000 na iyan? May ini open ba siyang current account? May application ba siya to open a current account? May specimen signature ba siya na iniwan diyan sa Equitable PCI na bangko na iyan? At sino nga ba itong Jose Velarde o Valhallang ito?

Ngayon, iyan po ang sinasabi namin na makukuha doon sa mga dokumento na nasa loob niyang sealed envelope na iyan na hawak ngayon ng Senado. Bakit hindi mapahintulutan ang mga prosecutors na makita na iyan, mabuksan na iyang sealed envelope na iyan at makita na iyang mga dokumentong iyan?

Mr. Presiding Officer and Honorable Judges, I have just been informed that there are other banks now who have refused to honor the subpoena duces tecum that have been issued by the Honorable Presiding Officer. Kaya’t hindi po talaga…Nakalagay po dito, there are at least 30 bank accounts that need to be examined. Hindi po ba kami pahihintulutan na makita iyang mga dokumentong iyan na may kaugnayan, may materiality, may relevance dito sa paratang na nakalagay na maliwanag, na maliwanag sa Article II, sa Impeachment Complaint at kasama na diyan pati iyong Article I? Kung tutuusin natin, kasama na rin diyan yoong Betrayal of Public Trust, pati na iyong Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

Kaya Kagalang galang na mga Hukom, kagabi po, kami ay nagpulong pulong na mga prosecutors, tunay po kaming nag alala, nabahala dito sa mga nakikita naming maaaring mangyayari sa paglilitis na ito. Tinatanong na po namin ang aming mga sarili, ano ang nangyayari? Saan ba tayo patutungo? Ganito ba talaga ang magiging kapalaran natin dito sa paglilitis na ito?

Kung hindi po kami papayagan na makita iyang mga dokumentong iyan na material na material naman, relevant at napaka relevant naman iyang mga dokumentong iyan ay masasabi namin na parang gagawin na ninyo kaming magbulag bulagan, magbingi bingihan at magpipi pipihan. Kaya kami po ay nakikiusap sa inyo, humihiling kami sa inyo at hindi lang po ‘yon, kami ay nananawagan sa inyo na sana ay kilalanin ninyo, pahalagahan ninyo at tanggapin ninyo ang aming karapatan bilang mga prosecutors dito sa Impeachment Complaint na matupad namin ang mabigat na mga tungkulin namin para mapatunayan ‘yang mga sakdal na ‘yan na nakapaloob sa Impeachment Complaint.

Marami pong salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The defense. You consumed only 18 and a half minutes.

MR. NARVASA. May it please Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you may proceed.

MR. NARVASA. I have listened very intently to the eloquent address of my young friend, the distinguished Congressman from Quezon, with whom I had the pleasure before of playing some tennis but with whom I now cross swords but I could not detect the direct thrust of his argument regarding the principal issue before us this evening which is the materiality of the evidence that is sought to be discovered and revealed through the deposition taking process. What seems clear to me is that the intention of the prosecutors is to adduce evidence in proof of ownership of a certain house described as a mansion.

Now, I have spoken at length about this yesterday but I would like to reiterate that evidence which is supposed to be introduced or discovered must comply with the cardinal requisite of materiality or relevancy as we were discussing yesterday with Senator Roco. That is the principal character of every evidence because without materiality, without relevancy, evidence is not admissible or is not discoverable. And we contend, if Your Honors please, that the evidence that is sought to be discovered is not material. I advert again, Your Honors, to the very allegations of the complaint itself which as I pointed out yesterday we reproduced, we took some pains to reproduce verbatim precisely so that we could be clear as to exactly what was being charged in the complaint. And if you will bear with me, the offense ascribed to the President which is material to our discussion is as follows, and I am quoting:

“The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other interests in other companies outside of the three firms listed in his statement of assets and liabilities, Annex “C” hereof.”

I think the language cannot be made any cleaner.

Now, what is specifically referred to as having been omitted are the properties stated in Annex “C”. But just to make sure that that was the issue before this court, we added this following sentence:

“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.”

Now, there is talk or there is an insinuation as to the nature of this action whether criminal or otherwise. But let me say, whether it is civil or criminal, the requirement of materiality is there.

Now, I pointed out yesterday too, that as to what was done done by the prosecutors. They had ample opportunity to consider these allegations of ours. And what was their reply? They filed a reply where they insisted that in determining the specifics of the impeachment charges, and this is what they implied, the Senate should not look solely to what is expressed in the main body of the Articles of Impeachment, but should also consider the annexes thereto.

And I say, neither the Constitution nor the Senate Rules on Impeachment prohibit the Senate from taking the annexes into account. They are insisting therefore that the annexes must be really read as part of the complaint itself. And they cite cases of Fil Estate Golf and Development vs. Court of Appeals decided by the Supreme Court to that effect.

Now, nothing could be any plainer, therefore, Your Honor, that this is the issue as it is formulated and as it is understood by both the defense and the prosecutors, which is why we say that if any evidence is sought to be introduced to prove a fact that is not within these allegations, that evidence is immaterial, and, therefore, is inadmissible.

Your Honors, the onus of the charge is that the President failed to include in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities 66 or a number of properties in Annex “C”. All right. If it is attempted to show that the President omitted not anyone of those properties in Annex “C” but another property not mentioned, that would be another crime which is distinct from the crime now charged.

Let me give another example. Suppose the fiscal files a case of unexplained wealth or failure to disclose assets saying that ten properties were not included by the accused in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities, and subsequently he finds out that he cannot the prosecutor cannot prove those allegations. He cannot prove that anyone of those properties was really omitted and what he wants to do now is to introduce evidence that another property not listed was the one actually excluded, that would be proving another crime which is not permitted under our Rules.

So if Your Honors, please, I will dwell briefly on the claim that that answer of ours simply put up a general denial and therefore maybe disregarded.

Your Honors, our Rules in this proceeding provide that a defendant need not even file an answer. If he does not file an answer, a plea of not guilty will be entered for him. But what did the defense do? It did not only file an answer where it specified the different paragraphs of the complaint and denied each one of them. It also asked the Court that it enter a plea of not guilty. And that plea of not guilty effectively operated as a denial of each and every allegation of the complaint.

Hence, Your Honor, it is our respectful submission that the issues have been well-defined, the issues have been made very specific, and every item of evidence that will be presented before this Tribunal or which will be sought to be discovered must relate to any one of those specific issues. Otherwise, that evidence would be inadmissible.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, if we may address some queries to the counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. ROCO. If that is…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel for the defense?

SEN. ROCO. Yes, to the imminent – to the eminent, not imminent — Eminent Counsel, and certainly not immanent.

MR. NARVASA. Yes, Senator Roco. Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. As I understand it, Counsel, we are talking of two things. One is scope of discovery or a scope of the examination; and the other one is objections to admissibility.

On the first aspect, on the scope of examination, I have the words of a truly Eminent Justice and I will read it:

“The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve as a device along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule XX to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties. And as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues, the evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties consistent with recognized privileges to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark. To this end, the field of inquiry that may be covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as in the interrogated party is called as a witness to testify orally on trial.”

I think the distinguished counsel will recognize the words which he wrote as Justice Narvasa. And it was the Narvasa Court, among others, and I think the Davide Court has carried the tradition of allowing broadly examination of evidence because they may not even be presented. They may not… I mean, it just allows counsels, both counsels to look at documents so that documents do not become hidden weapons that spring at you during the trial. And I think right now, that seems to be what counsels for the prosecution are asking for. Just to allow to look, maybe they will decide not even to present. However, if they so decide to present, then maybe the timeliness of objecting to its admissibility can come in.

Would this not be the better rule?

MR. NARVASA. I understand that’s what the prosecution has always been insisting on.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, yes.

MR. NARVASA. I just want to see what the whole thing is about. He said discovery process. We want to find out.

Well, you were referring, Your Honor, to…

SEN. ROCO. Yes, yes.

MR. NARVASA. …a decision I had the privilege of writing…

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. …and obtaining the concurrence of my distinguished colleagues. Well I wrote that decision, if I remember correctly, because I was lamenting the fact that most lawyers found little inclination to resort to the modes of discovery.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. And I agree with you, Your Honor, that the availment of the modes of discovery should be discovered to the end that the trials may either be aborted, terminated by compromise because if the parties may realize from the discovery that really there is nothing to find about, they may end the case by compromise. Or we may shorten the time of the trial.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. I’m with you there. All right. And that is why I was saying that I could not understand why the parties, by the use of the modes of discovery, could discover everything under the sun provided it is related to the controversy. Nowhere will you find any statement by me or by any other colleague of mine that anything is discoverable under the rules of deposition-taking even if it is not relevant.

You see yesterday, if Your Honors please, we recalled the familiar rule on deposition-taking and we said everything can be discovered if it is not privileged and if it is relevant.

SENATOR ROCO. Yes.

MR. NARVASA. So, even at the initial stage, if Your Honor please, of deposition-taking, the element of relevancy or materiality, better said, is present and must be taken into account.

SENATOR ROCO. This is precisely, Mr. Chief Justice, one of the critical points: The two accepted limits under the rules on depositions pending action, which is a matter of right, is precisely privilege, which is not being discussed now, and relevance. Materiality, I leave to you later on when there is a presentation of evidence, maybe the counsels can discuss the aspect of materiality. But relevance is just something that logically can lead you to a conclusion to support a fact in issue. And if a check for 142 million is in existence and there must be an owner of the check, there seems to be relevance. It is not a question of materiality, it becomes a question of relevance. And by the same token that the Eminent Counsel has pointed out, and I read again from the decision:

“In line with this principle of according liberal treatment re deposition discovery mechanism, such modes of discovery as depositions and interrogatories and requests for admission may be availed of without leave of court and generally without court intervention after the answer is filed.”

MR. NARVASA. Yes.

SENATOR ROCO. So, we now have, Mr. Chief Justice, the problem of modes of discovery having been availed of but being disobeyed and or being and subpoenas having been served and being defied.

If it is a question of relevance, there is a tendency in reason to show that such great wealth may have emanated from bribery, maybe, maybe it is not this particular bribery. That is the question of materiality, but it certainly raises questions of where and who owns, where did it come from, and who owns.

If the document can be looked back, then maybe we can ascertain.

MR. NARVASA. Have you finished…?

SENATOR ROCO. Please, please.

MR. NARVASA. To thinking…

SENATOR ROCO. Yes.

MR. NARVASA….relevancy is not an abstract concept dissociated from other facts. When you say “relevant,” you are talking of evidence that has connection with something else.

In other words, if you have a fact of evidence, you say it must be relevant and you don’t stop there. You have to ask relevant to what? Must be relevant to another fact.

And what is that other fact in which this relationship or relevance must exist? It is the fact in issue.

In other words, you don’t speak of relevance as if it was something isolated or individual or having to do or having nothing to do with other facts. No, if Your Honors please. Evidence must be connected with some other facts. And I submit, most respectfully, that to determine whether evidence is relevant, it must be in relation to some other fact. And what is that fact? I respectfully submit the fact alleged in the pleadings.

SENATOR ROCO. Materiality. Which brings us to the second question on objections to admissibility. And I think under the rules promulgated in ’97, that’s exactly that objections on admissibility should now be raised and then you can raise the questions of materiality and relevance at the time it is presented in court, at the time it is presented as evidence.

Right now, Mr. Chief Justice, we are just in modes of discovery and both parties would be guided in seeking to clarify the situation of these documents.

I guess that’s the last point I would want to make.

MR. NARVASA. If you will permit me….

SENATOR ROCO. Please, please, of course.

MR. NARVASA….to say something in respect to your last word.

SENATOR ROCO. Yes. Yes, please.

MR. NARVASA. You see, the law mentions or requires materiality not only at the time that the evidence is presented, the evidence discovered, is sought to be presented during the trial, but materiality is also mentioned at the deposition taking itself.

Now, ordinarily, if a deposition is taken ex parte without leave of court not ex parte, if deposition is taken without leave of court and there is an objection, materiality, hearsay, etc., the evidence is taken as, Your Honor knows when there is no ruling, there is no exclusion and the evidence is simply recorded.

Fortunately, however, the deposition taking is now before this Honorable Tribunal. And the timeliness of the objection of materiality seems to me most apt at this time. And that is why we are saying that this Honorable Tribunal may put a stop to deposition taking which is going into matters which are clearly immaterial, will not go into any specific issue as defined by the pleadings of the parties. And I must insist that the issues have been defined precisely and exactly and definitely by the pleadings of the parties as I have pointed out.

Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. We recognize Senator Judge Cayetano. And after this, the Chair, hopefully, may be able to make a ruling.

SEN. CAYETANO. May the eminent and good friend, former Justice Narvasa, answer some questions?

MR. NARVASA. Yes, gladly, Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO. Sir, para ho maintindihan natin ito. Binabasa ko po itong Rule 23 Depositions Pending Action. Ang akin pong tingin ay ganito: Dalawa hong klase yata ang steps dito. Unang una, kapag wala pang sagot ang defendant, halimbawa natin, ay kailangan ay pahintulot ng husgado. Tama po ba ‘yon?

MR. NARVASA. Tama po ‘yan.

SEN. CAYETANO. Pero kapag may sagot na po ang defendant, hindi na kailangan ang pahintulot ng husgado.

MR. NARVASA. Tama po ‘yon.

SEN. CAYETANO. At sa katunayan, ‘yan po ang sinabi n’yo sa Republic vs. Sandigan na napakaganda nga po na sinabi n’yo talaga and I quote, at Page 226, “But there was no need for the private respondent to seek such leave,” meaning, leave of court, “to serve their amended interrogatories to plaintiff after they have filed their answer to the PCGG complaint.”

MR. NARVASA. Tama po ‘yon.

SEN. CAYETANO. Ngayon, ang tingin ko, Mr. Chief Justice, sir, kapag wala nang leave of court, hindi ho namin kailangan na ngayon na hingan kami ng pahintulot ng prosecution sapagkat nag file na po ng answer kayo.Ngayon, ‘yong question po, this is second step to my understanding, please educate me, sir.

MR. NARVASA. Yes, sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. ‘Yon ang first step.

MR. NARVASA. Yes, sir.

SEN. CAYETANO. Nakasagot na ho, at sabi nga sa Rule, Section 1, hindi na kailangan silang humingi ng pahintulot ng Senado bilang husgado o ng ating Chief Justice, the Presiding Officer. Ito po ang nasa Section 1 at base rin sa Republic vs. Sandigan case. ‘Yan po ang Step 1.

Sa tingin ko po, sir, ‘yong Step 2. Ngayon sa pagtatanong ng deponent, ibig sabihin ‘yong ini examine, doon lang po dumarating ang pagkakataon ng abogado ng defendant. Halimbawa natin, kayo po na abogado ni Pangulo na maaari n’yong kwestyunin ang relevancy ng mga question. Sapagkat ‘yan po ang sinasabi ng Section 2. And let me read Section 2. Ito po ‘yong sinabi ni Senator Roco kanina. “Scope of Examination. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, etc., the deponent may be examined regarding any matter which is relevant.” Ang sinasabi po rito, the deponent na. Ibig sabihin, nasa Step 2 na raw. Tinatanong na ‘yong mga sinubpina (subpoenaed) ng mga prosector in this case na hindi nga po kailangan ang pahintulot namin sapagkat kayo po ay sumagot na. Only then, sa Step 2, sa pagbubukas ng sealed envelope at ini examine na po ang mga dokumento, kagaya po nung tseke.

Sir, ang tingin ko po, doon lamang lalabas ‘yong Section 2, na sinasabi, puwedeng kwestiyonin ‘yong mga kwestiyong relevant or not sapagkat ‘yon naman pong ano, opisyal na namamahala po sa deposition, hindi po ba, sir, ay wala naman siyang karapatan na mag rule on the relevancy or materiality ng question or ng dokumento. Ang kanya po lamang katungkulan, ay i note, hindi ho ba?

Ang Step 3 po nito, ito pong tinatawag na ‘yong kung ilalabas itong naging resulta ng deposition. Nasa sa prosecution po ito. Sabi po rito sa Article Section 4, “Use of Deposition.” Ito pong deposition, pagkatapos na matapos nila iyan, makita ‘yong tseke at matanong ‘yong mga opisyal ng Equitable, hindi po ba kung ayaw po nilang gamitin itong deposition under Section 4 ay hindi po natin mapipilit na gamitin po ‘yon. Pero po kayo, dahil dito, ay puwede ninyong gamitin kung gusto ninyo, hindi po ba?

Tama po ba ako, Chief Justice?

MR. NARVASA. Tapos na po ba kayo?

SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi ho.

MR. NARVASA. Sige, ituloy ninyo.

SEN. CAYETANO. So far lang ho. ‘Yong pang apat po, ito na ang huling tanong ko, ang lumalabas po sa aking intindi dito ay, ‘yong tinatawag na kailan ba magiging issue ‘yong tinatawag na materiality? Ito pong materiality ay magiging issue lang, dito po nakalagay sa ating Rules, kapag ‘yan po daw ay piniprisinta na sa hearing natin ngayon sapagkat magkakaroon kayo ng pagkakataon na mag rule na whether relevant or material, hindi ‘yong taong kumuha or, rather, ‘yong nakaharap, ‘yong notary public, kung hindi kami na po, sa pamamagitan ng aming Chief Justice bilang presiding officer.

Kaya suma tutal po, ang tingin ko po rito sa sitwasyon, sapagkat kayo po ay nakasagot na, hindi na po kailangang humingi ang prosecution ng pahintulot para humingi ng deposition. Nagkataon lang po humingi sila. Pero ang tingin ko po, automatic dapat ‘yan at ‘yong pagkakataon na tayo’y magkukuwestiyon ng relevancy, dalawang yugto po ‘yon una, noong tinatanong na po ‘yong witness at saka ini examine ‘yong dokumento. Pero ‘yong kumukuha, ‘yong notary public, hindi po siya puwedeng mag rule on relevancy or materiality.

Kung dadalhin po nila, ng prosecution, ‘yan namang resulta ng deposition at saka ‘yong mga dokumento, ang magru rule po ng relevancy at materiality, kami po rito sa pamamagitan ng ating Chief Justice na, under our Rule, has the prerogative to rule on relevancy and materiality of evidence.

Tama po ba ‘yong aking pagkakaintindi dito sa rule na ito?

MR. NARVASA. Tapos na po ba kayo?

SEN. CAYETANO. Tapos na po.

MR. NARVASA. Ikinalulungkot ko ho na hindi ako makapagsa makasang ayon sa inyong sinasabi. It is true that after that before a responsive pleading is filed, before an answer is filed, leave of court must be obtained for the taking of the deposition. And it is also true that after the answer is filed and before the and the reason for that is because, at that time, the issues are not joined, you do not yet know what are the specific issues of fact to which the depositions may relate and that is why leave of court is required before you can take deposition, so that you can tell the court what are the issues upon which the deposition-taking may proceed.

Now the answer is filed, no leave of court is needed. Why? Because the issues are already known and, therefore, the evidence must be directed towards those issues. And why should the issues be known, why?

And why is it that if the issues are known, leave of court is no longer needed? Because then you will know what evidence is permitted to be taken or to be discovered.

Now, fortunately, as I mentioned early when I was exchanging pleasantries with Senator Roco, the matter is before this Honorable Tribunal because leave of court was sought by the distinguished prosecutors although as you pointed out, there was no need for it. Now, but even if they had not sought leave, we could still have come to this Honorable Tribunal to question the deposition-taking.

Your Honor, when you were reading Section 2, you said, “Unless otherwise ordered by the Court”, “etcetera, etcetera.” You did not read “as provided by Section 16 or 18 of this Rule.” And when you turn to Section 18, Your Honor, it says that after notice has been served to take deposition, the Court in which the action is pending may make an order upon motion of any party that the deposition shall not be taken or otherwise impose conditions for the taking.

And one good cause for a motion to stop the taking of a deposition or that it should not be taken is precisely the absence of materiality of the evidence which is being inquired into. And this is the reason why I deeply regret inability to agree with your premises, my distinguished friend.

SEN. CAYETANO. Well, maraming salamat po, Mahal na Mahistrado. ‘Yon po ang aking paningin. Maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Defensor Santiago first.

SEN. SANTIAGO. Mr. Defense Counsel, please. We are discussing the Rules of Court on deposition particularly the scope of examination of deposition. The Rule states:

“The deponent may be examined regarding any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject of the pending action.”

Our question this afternoon, therefore, is: What is the subject of our pending action? For if we identify the subject, then we will be able to know whether the subject of the proposed deposition applied for will be relevant to it or not. The subject of a pending action will depend on whether the action is civil or criminal in nature.

Under the Rules of Court, the subject of a criminal case is an offense. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure in a civil case, the subject of a pending action is a cause of action.

It seems to me, listening to the defense counsel, that they are arguing as follows:

The Articles of Impeachment is based on four grounds. We cannot call them offenses and we cannot call them causes of action because an impeachment case is neither a civil cases or a criminal case. It is sui generis, it is in a class all by itself.

The Articles of Impeachment have four grounds:

The first one is bribery; the second one is graft and corruption; the third one is culpable violation of the Constitution; and the fourth one is betrayal of public trust.

When our Rules say that the deponent may be examined on any matter relevant to the subject, the issue before us, therefore, is: Would it be sufficient to say that anything connected with bribery can be asked about or anything connected with graft and corruption or anything connected with betrayal of public trust or anything connected with culpable violation of the Constitution? That is the question. The obverse of that question or the other side of that question is this: Or should the question in the deposition be related to specific instances of graft and corruption or bribery or betrayal of public trust or culpable violation of the Constitution as enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment itself?

I do not think that this has been properly ventilated. So, I would like to request your comment on this question: What should be considered the subject matter of our pending action of this impeachment proceedings? Should it just be the general grounds enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment or should it be the specific grounds, some of which are also enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment?

MR. NARVASA. I respectfully submit, Madam Senator, that the subject of the action consists of the specific charges in the indictment. Let’s not call it information, let’s call it a criminal complaint the complaint.

Your Honor made reference Your Honor posed the question: When you say subject of the action, is it permitted to present evidence or anything under the sun so long as it has some connection to the general subject of the action? That would seem to me an unfair proposition, if Your Honors please, because that would require the defendant, or the accused or the respondent, as you wish to call him, to defend himself, not only against the particular accusations of the indictment but against every other act or omission in his life which could conceivably be linked to the general definition of the crimes in the information. It seems to me, if the Court please, that this would trench upon the right of due process who do violence to our concept of fairness.When a person is called before a tribunal to answer for wrongs, he is entitled to be informed of what these wrongs consist. And it is against these wrongs which he must against these wrongs which he must defend. He is not called upon to defend himself for any other wrong generally connected with what is charged. And, therefore, Your Honors, I submit that, because now, therefore, any evidence that is sought to be obtained must … No, no, no. The wrongs that can be ascribed to a defendant should be those wrongs as they are particularly described in the complaint or information against him.

For instance, if I may draw example, a murder for example, murder of a specific individual will call for defense regarding the killing of that specific individual, not of any other person. So, I submit these are my views on the matter, if the Court please.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. I respectfully submit that the issue has been adequately argued and several minutes have been taken up and the Chair should be ready, I think, at this point. ..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. … to render his opinion on the matter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much. And …

REP. TAÑADA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … I think the issues have been more than sufficiently debated on.

REP. TAÑADA. Since…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But if it is still the desire of the prosecution to make a rejoinder, you have three minutes and after that no one else will be entertained by the Chair.

REP. TAÑADA. Marami pong salamat.

Kaninang umaga po, nagpagupit ako. Makikita po ninyo na bagong gupit ako.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you just go directly to your rejoinder, please.

REP. TAÑADA. Opo. Nandoon na po ako. Nakausap ko po ‘yong barbero ko. Ang tanong sa akin, “Bakit ayaw bang buksan ‘yang sealed envelop na ‘yan? Makaka damage ba ‘yan sa kay Presidente kaya ayaw nila?” Eh, sabi ko, eh, “Marahil kaya ayaw nilang mabuksan.”

Pero, ano pa kayang hahanapin na materiality natin dito? Ano pa kayang hahanapin na relevancy natin dito?

Alam naman natin na inaakusahan dito sa Impeachment Complaint ang Presidente Estrada ng graft and corruption. Itong tsekeng ito, sana isang libo lamang, isandaang libo. Hindi, eh, daang milyon, 142 million! Could this not be the fruit of the poisonous tree?

Marami pong salamat.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, the Presiding Officer, will now make a ruling. This will be without prejudice to an extended opinion for the other members of the Tribunal to either concur with or to submit their dissenting view. And if there is any dissenting view, it would mean that there is an objection to the ruling of the Chair and that matter will be taken up on Monday.

To be resolved are the following issues relating to and which arose out of the refusal of Equitable PCI Bank, to submit the documents required under the subpoena duces tecum, issued by the Presiding Officer on 6 December 2000, to the deposing officer, to wit:

1) Whether the defense was given sufficient notice for the deposition on oral examination and for the production of the documents by Equitable PCI Bank;

2) Whether the Equitable PCI Bank can legally disobey the subpoena duces tecum under R.A. 1405, otherwise known as “AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF AN INQUIRY INTO DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTIONS, AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR.”

Upon a point of clarification by the defense, the Presiding Officer ruled that, as to the first issue, the defense is not precluded from raising other grounds related thereto, such as what the defense asserted, namely, the materiality of the documents sought to be produced during the deposition taking. In his opposition which the court shall treat as the memorandum for the defense as required by the Court earlier, the respondent elaborated on the absence of notice to the taking of deposition on 7 December and thereby depriving him of due process. Because indeed, a notice is part of the constitutional right to due process.

At the same time, however, he alleges that the evidence sought to be discovered through the deposition by oral examination is immaterial and irrelevant. At the initial hearing of the Opposition yesterday afternoon, the defense stressed once more the obvious immateriality of the evidence sought to be obtained by the subpoena duces tecum and the oral deposition.

The prosecution insisted on its right under the Rules of Court to the mode of discovery by deposition on oral examination and the urgency of the production of the documents and now, the opening of the sealed envelope containing these documents.

There can at all be no question that any immaterial, irrelevant, incompetent or inadmissible evidence cannot be admitted in these proceedings because Rule VI of the Senate Rules on Impeachment Proceedings, vests upon the Presiding Officer, authority to rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, competency, or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions. The same rule adopts in a suppletory character the Rules of Court, but the Rules on Evidence and Procedure shall, however, be liberally construed. This simply means that the Rules of Court which necessarily include the Rules on Evidence and Procedures cannot and should not, however be, disregarded. To disregard them this is to guarantee bedlam in a proceeding which by its very nature and importance must be conducted with utmost dignity, decorum and order. The Court cannot tolerate anyone then who will cite the rules if it favors him and disregards them if they tend to work adversely to his cause.

And now on the issue raised. As to the first, while, indeed, there was no sufficient notice to the defense for the taking of the deposition, if the oral examination was, in fact, conducted, if at all it was conducted, the Court rejects the proposition to declare it void but it shall, however, allow the defense to cross examine the witness who was presented during the oral examination, during the continuation of the oral deposition/ examination. This is especially true because in the application for the taking of deposition by oral examination, it was clearly stated that it shall begin at a particular day and to continue until terminated. And, therefore, the defense shall be allowed the opportunity to cross examine the witness whose oral testimony and oral examination had been started.

Parties are, however, warned, are warned that henceforth no deposition on oral examination or the conduct of any other mode of discovery shall be allowed without the three day notice. The parties themselves had agreed during the first preliminary conference.

As to the related issue of materiality of the evidence sought to be produced by subpoena duces tecum, it bears stressing that the prosecution applied for the subpoena duces tecum in connection with the taking of deposition on oral examination under Section 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23 is among the Rules on Modes of Discovery. The Modes of Discovery are up to Rule 27.

The action taken by the prosecution in this connection may likewise be construed as an availment of another mode of discovery, that is production or inspection of documents or things covered by Rule 27 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

As to Rule 23, in the deposition on oral examination, the adverse party can cross examine in part the witness, and during that cross examination, the adverse party, through his counsel, may interpose any and/all objections allowed under the Rules on Evidence or even special laws. Of course, the deposing officer cannot rule on the objections. It would be this Court, this Court which will make the ruling at the appropriate time and that appropriate time, of course, is when the evidence on deposition is offered because the deposing officer will have to submit a report. The same rule will apply to objections to the mode of discovery involving production or inspection of documents or things.

Clearly then, since the matter under consideration relates to modes of discovery, the objection based on immateriality is premature and must be rejected. Nonetheless, once the documents obtained thereby are formally offered in evidence, the defense would have all the opportunity consistent with due process to object thereto, not only on grounds of immateriality but also on all other grounds recognized by the Rules of Court and, more than that, by the Constitution itself in the matter of due process and other relevant statutes.

As to the applicability of the prohibitions, under Republic Act No. 1405, suffice it to state that Section 2 thereof removes the confidentiality of bank deposits in cases of impeachment. It reads, and I have to quote it for the appreciation of the members of the Impeachment Court:

“All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines, including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its intrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.”

The court mentioned here refers to the regular court, not the Impeachment Court. But just the same, it will apply to the Impeachment Court because of the exception relating to impeachment cases. The Senate is now an independent court trying an impeachment case. No bank can take refuge under R.A. No. 1405 when such court directs the disclosure in connection with an impeachment trial. Accordingly, this is now the dispositive portion:

(1) The deposition on oral examination of the branch manager of the Equitable PCI Bank shall proceed provided that counsel for the respondent shall be given proper notice therefor in accordance with the agreement for the continuation of the deposition on oral examination and for that counsel to be allowed to cross-examine the witness;

(2) The subpoena duces tecum issued by the Presiding Officer, addressed to the branch manager of Equitable PCI Bank for the production of the documents mentioned in the subpoena duces tecum stands. And since the documents covered by it have been deposited with the Secretary of the Senate in a sealed envelope, the envelope may be opened in the presence of counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defense, or their duly authorized representatives for the purpose of examination and marking as exhibits by any of the parties;

(3) Henceforth, no subpoena duces tecum shall be issued without compliance of the required notice of three days to the adverse party.

And finally, the Court resolves to rule on the show-cause order issued to the branch manager on the matter of contempt in a separate order.

So ordered.

SEN. OSMEÑA, (J). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA, (J). Mr. Chief Justice, just a clarification.

Prior to your statement or order, you mentioned that if there is a dissent to your order, that that dissent shall be taken up on Monday.

The question, therefore, Mr. Chief Justice, is that under Rule VI of the Rules on Procedures on this impeachment trial, the second paragraph states, and I read:

“The President of the Senate or the Chief Justice, when presiding on the trial, may rule on all questions of evidence including but not limited to questions of materiality, relevance, competence, or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions, which rulings shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.”

And here is where my question lies. Unless a member of the Senate shall ask for a formal vote to be taken thereon, in which case, it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision after one contrary view is expressed.

The question, therefore, Mr. Chief Justice, is, would it still be seasonable for any member of the Senate to ask for such a vote on Monday?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It would still be seasonable. As a matter of fact, when the Chair stated earlier before making the final ruling that any dissent may be taken up on Monday, the Chair had in mind any motion to reconsider the ruling of the Chair because such a motion to reconsider would partake the nature of a dissent. And that can be taken up on Monday to give sufficient time to the one objecting to the ruling or to the one dissenting to prepare for his opinion in support of the motion to reconsider or in support of his dissent. But if it can be done, if the Chair would now hear a motion to reconsider, the Chair is willing to have it submitted immediately.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So it would be Monday.

Atty. Mendoza.

MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, in light of the fact that Senator Osmeña has pointed out that there is a possibility that the Senate itself may rule on this should a dissent be expressed by a member of the Senate, may I request that implementation of the order be deferred firstly until after a ruling has been made definitively; second, after a written order shall have been issued; and third, after a reasonable time, say one week, is given to the defense to consider whether to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, in case the decision should be adverse.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, yes. The Chair has just dictated the order but without prejudice to an extended opinion. I am sure that by tomorrow, our stenographers will be ready with the transcription of the order just dictated. Since there is an apparent the probability of a motion to reconsider by a member of the Impeachment Court, and the likelihood that the defense might submit a motion to reconsider, the Chair, in the interest of justice, will wait until Monday for the enforcement of the resolution. If you plan to have a motion to reconsider, that should be filed Monday.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And if any member of the Tribunal would desire to seek for a reconsideration, that should be made ready also in the afternoon. That should be treated as the first item in the agenda on Monday.

MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I now move that this impeachment trial stand?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President first.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before we make that motion, may I just inform all the members of the Impeachment Court that we will have a caucus on Monday at lunch time in the Conference Room of the Senate President, please.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. I believe that notice has been circulated earlier.

Mr. Chief Justice, I now move that we stand in adjournment until two o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, 18th of December 2000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel for the defense, Atty. Narvasa.

MR. NARVASA. I’m sorry if I may KJ, Your Honor, I know we all want to go home but…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just for a while, members of the prosecution panel, please take your seats.

MR. NARVASA. We have been served with notice for the taking of the deposition of Yolanda Ricaforte, Yolanda Ricaforte.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, yes.

MR. NARVASA. You will recall, Your Honor, that she has already been called to the witness stand. She has produced certain documents. After that her deposition will be taken. I thought that she would be presented here and actually testify in open court so that everybody could observe her demeanor. I failed to see the purpose of the taking of the deposition. That would be too — the deposition will be taken on in the morning and in the afternoon we will have a trial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is — the observation is well-taken. I think since Ricaforte had already taken her oath and submitted the documents required by you, by the prosecution, she should testify here instead of just having a deposition on oral examination taken from her.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, if…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that witness had been waiting for several days at the holding room at one time, sometime last…In the presence of no less than the Honorable Apostol, the lawyers for this witness had even requested if she can really be made to testify at a very specific — specified date.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, if you may please. I told the lawyers and including Ricaforte that in case we need her testimony, we will request for a subpoena. So, she’s not here anymore.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I cannot hear you.

REP. APOSTOL. I told her lawyer and Mrs. Ricaforte that if we need her testimony, we will request for a subpoena. So, that’s why she is not around.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s not the point of the defense.

REP. APOSTOL. Well…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of the defense is, why should she testify by way of deposition on oral examination when she had been qualified here as a witness for the court.

REP. APOSTOL. She was qualified only for purposes of leaving the documents which were requested…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But she was issued a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum. And so, the court will not allow a deposition on oral examination of this witness who had already appeared before the court.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, submitted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not submitted. Are you withdrawing the request for oral examination?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. We obey — we are withdrawing our request for taking of her deposition.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. I think there should be some kind of order also in the manner of presenting witnesses.

REP. APOSTOL. There is another, Mr. Chief Justice. We requested for subpoena and subpoena duces tecum for two witnesses — I mean, three witnesses today. They are now waiting at the holding room.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you want to present that witness now?

REP. APOSTOL. Not now. Our prayer is for them to be notified to come back on Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are they?

REP. APOSTOL. They are now at the room.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary of the Senate will so accordingly inform these witnesses that they should come here on Monday to testify, if there will be time for them.

REP. APOSTOL. The other witness, I understand, I don’t know if the subpoena and subpoena duces tecum was released…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did you not check whether such a subpoena had been issued?

REP. APOSTOL. We have checked and we were informed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. I would advise counsel to follow up request instead of bringing it up here.

REP. APOSTOL. My request is, we have checked that and the subpoena and subpoena duces tecum was not released as of four o’clock this afternoon. So, our request is that the subpoena and subpoena duces tecum be released for the witness to testify on Monday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On Monday.

REP. APOSTOL. The witness is Raul de Guzman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prepare the subpoena.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Arroyo.

REP. ARROYO. I don’t think all the taking of the deposition have been objected by the defense. What I am saying is that those that they would not object to, can we proceed because we are all — we have been blocked by so many objections. So, may I request now the defense…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the request was only in relation to Ricaforte.

MR. NARVASA. Yes.

REP. ARROYO. No, no, no.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And I think, you know, the prosecution should also consider and the defense should also consider the fact that the appearance of witnesses in court would be very, very important and critical because not only that the judges would require their appearance to be able to observe their deportment and manner of testifying which are indicia of truthfulness would be available to that.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, I wasn’t referring to Ricaforte. I am referring to the depositions of the various banks which have…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The various banks?

REP. ARROYO. Yes. Ricaforte is already a settled matter.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a consequence of the chair’s ruling?

REP. ARROYO. Yes, Your Honor, because I think there are some banks where they will not object.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are banks which will not object, it’s not a problem.

REP. ARROYO. How about Westmont?

MR. NARVASA. It’s a matter of saving time, if Your Honors please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly.

MR. NARVASA. You see, of course, they can take the deposition, but the witness whose deposition is taken will eventually have to come before the Court.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, I am only asking about certain deposition like Westmont Bank.

MR. NARVASA. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. One after the other, please.

MR. NARVASA. The deposition is taken on a particular morning, and we have to be there. We have to send representatives while we are preparing for the trial in the afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All right.

MR. NARVASA. That’s all right if we will save time this way. We will not, because what will happen? We have the deposition. Can we use the deposition in substitution of the actual testimony of the witness? They cannot. The witness will have to come. So, this will be duplication. The witness will have to testify twice. First, before the deposition officer and second, before the court. And that first testimony before the deposing officer will be useless because it is not within the observation of the court. We are duplicating. We are wasting time. We are dissipating our energy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That particular…

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me. That particular matter was even brought out during the preliminary conference.

REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, we are taking depositions only mostly of banks because those are documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, yes.

REP. ARROYO. So, if they are voluminous, and then, in fact, if we will present all of them here, we can never finish this case. We have to choose them and select which ones we need and, therefore, we can abbreviate the proceedings. That’s all. Like Westmont Bank. Ano pa iyong iba? Four accounts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But just consider the agreement regarding proper notice. The Presiding Officer, as mentioned as part of the dispositive portion of the order, will not issue a subpoena duces tecum without showing of compliance with your agreement.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Would it be acceptable to both parties, I think, maybe if prosecution can go under Rule 27 on Inspection, then you inspect. The appropriate lawyers can look at them and then, we satisfy also the request of Counsel Narvasa, and then, when they identify that after inspecting the documents, they may use it, then they bring it here and then, they are deposited. I can appreciate that there is loss of time in doing both. But if they go under 27 instead as under 23, then let them look at all these documents together with some lawyer from the defense and let them sift through and then we save everybody’s effort.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that the prosecution now want to avail of the different modes of discovery.

SEN. ROCO. That’s correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That should be availed of properly and taking into account the agreement on notice.

REP. ARROYO. But if they really will object to everything, then they may say so and we know. That’s all that we want to find out.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I don’t think they are…

MR. MENDOZA. May I just raise one small point, if Your Honor please?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the defense, yes.

MR. MENDOZA. The notices to take deposition usually only mention the persons to be deposed, but they mention nothing much, however, about the post, the subject matter.

On the other hand, we do not get copies of this subpoena duces tecum. May I request, if Your Honor please, that when subpoena duces tecum, copies of those subpoenas be also furnished the defense?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That should be granted. The Secretary of the Senate should consider that.

MR. MENDOZA. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Notice to the defense should not only be on the application or request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum or testificandum but also of copies of the subpoena thus issued. And the Presiding Officer should advise also the Secretariat that,…You know, on two occasions already, the Chief Justice was approached in his office late in the evening just for the subpoena. Be kind to the Chief Justice. Although I can stay in my office up to 8 o’clock, I also need rest.

The Majority Leader?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. May I now reiterate my motion to the Chief Justice that this impeachment trial stand in adjournment until 2 o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, 18th of December 2000?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? There being none, the motion is approved.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 7:19 P.M.