Feb 15 Senate impeachment court record

8/3/2019 Feb 15 Senate impeachment court record

1/63

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 1

AT 2:08 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,

CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C.

CORONA TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice

Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by the distinguished senator from Batangas, Sen. Ralph Recto.

Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President.

Almighty God, You once said that for everything there is a season. So as we do our duties today,

remind us that there is also time for every reasonthere is time to object, and there is time to accept.

There is a time to concur and there is a time to dissent. There is a time to ask, and there is a time

to admit. There is time to dispute, and there is time to defer. There is time to argue, and there is time

to agree. There is time to speak, and there is time to be silent. There is time for one to stand ground,

but what is more important now is to find common ground. There is time to tarry over; the time to

hurry is now for the peoples patience is wearing thin. The backlog of work of this Chamber is growing

big, and the fissure among the branches of government is getting wider.

And we shall do all the above with Your help, O Lord. So if we delay, remind us to be fast.

If we show our bias, remind us to be fair. If we accuse without proof, remind us to show evidence.

If we hide our guilt in the thicket of legalese, help us hack away this false sanctuary so truth will come

out. If we grandstand, overrule us and teach us the economy of words, and the elegance of the simple

prose. If we expedite the process, sustain us. If You know of a way that this trial can be shortened

without justice getting the short end of it, let us know, please.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Pasay City


2/63

2 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012

______________

*Arrived after the roll call

You created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, and we mortals with a far simpler

mission than Yours are now nearing our sixth week, and it appears that the Defense will not be able

to rest on the seventieth day.

So if our progress is hindered by technicalities, help us cast them aside. If there is confusion, light

the way and guide us.

These we respectfully submit to You, God, our Supreme Judge.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will please call the roll of Senators.

The Secretary, reading:

Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present

Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present

Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Present*

Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... PresentSenator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present

Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present

Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present

Senator Francis J.G. Escudero .......................................................... Present

Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Present

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present

Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Present

Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Present

Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present

Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... PresentSenator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present

Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present*

Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present

Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Present

Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present

Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present*

Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Present*

The President ..................................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. With 19 Senator Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a

quorum.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. May I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.


3/63


The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while

the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 14, 2012

Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence]

There being none, the February 14, Valentines Day, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an

Impeachment Court is hereby approved.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. May we please call the case?

The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now please call the case before the Senate sitting as

an Impeachment Court.

The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief

Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. For the appearances. For the Prosecution.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the panel of Prosecution of the House

Representatives, same appearances, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Noted. For the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearances.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, in compliance with the Order given in open court by the Presiding

Officer last February 13, the Prosecution submitted at 7:11 p.m. last night its Compliance concerning

Annexes A to A-4 of the Supplemental Request for Subpoena Reply dated 3 February 2012. The

Members of the Court have earlier been furnished with copies of the Compliance.

So, Mr. President, to allow our colleagues time to go over the Compliance, I move that the matter

be taken up at our caucus on Monday, February 20, 2012.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the Complianceshall be considered by this Court in a caucus on Monday, February 20, 2012.

Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. The Counsel for Chief Justice Corona filed a Reiterative Motion to Quash the

Subpoena issued by the Court to PSBank Branch Manager Ms. Annabelle Tiongson. May I move that

the Presiding Officer rule on the Motion?

The Presiding Officer. Well, just like what this Chair said yesterday, since the bank account

deposit number is a peso account, the Chair reiterates its ruling given yesterday that our purpose here


4/63


is to find out whether the Respondent has not included in his SALN an asset that sprang from the

account like the one before us, the Philippines Savings Bank. And so, it is removed from the ambit of

the TRO given by the Supreme Court it being a peso account, so therefore, it is open for examination.

SO ORDERED.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.Mr. President, Sen. Loren Legarda wishes to ask question, then Sen. Pia Cayetano would like to

make a manifestation on theJournal.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique, Malabon and the Republic of the

Philippines has the floor, Senator Legarda.

Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President.

I simply wish to make a manifestation, in fact, just a question to the Presiding Officer. How do we

Members of the Impeachment Court regard the testimonies of the witnesses who were subpoenaed

based on the allegedly inauthentic or fake documents submitted to this Court?I do not think that the Presiding Officer has made a ruling on that, unless I did not quite understand

it. So, I want to clarify how would we regard that.

On the other hand, there have been news reports that I have read where Malacaang or

through its spokesman has said that these documents are not fake and are in fact authentic, which

is not confirmed through the testimonies of the witnesses from PSBank. So, will this Representation,

Mr. President, be clarified on the matter?

The Presiding Officer. Well, at this point, we cannot make any ruling on this particular matter.

As you know, we are all aware of it that there is a pending case before the Supreme Court, whether

the subpoena duces tecum issued by this Presiding Officer violates the bank secrecy provided inRepublic Act 6426. So it is the position of this Chair to await the disposition of the Supreme Court

with respect to that and take up this particular legal issue at the time when those documents or those

testimonial evidence and those documentary evidence would be offered in evidence by the respective

parties that would do it provided at that point in time, the Supreme Court shall have rendered already

a final decision on the matter.

With respect to the peso deposit, I think there is no question. We have the authority to scrutinize,

them there being a clear exception given in Republic Act 1405 with respect to such deposits in relation

to an impeachment case pending before this Court.

Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President.Would the authenticity of the documents then and the attachments be material in this case

considering that, based on the testimonies of the witnesses, more specifically the president of PSBank,

he had actually confirmed the existence of those accounts and did not counter the testimonies based

on the allegedly fake documents that were, in fact, existing accounts that had similar, if not the same,

numbers of accounts and the same balances, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. I think at this point the Court cannot take a position on that. It is up

to the contending parties to do their job to deal with that matter. That is a matter ofto be taken up

in the course of the trial by the contending parties. I would not wish to suggest the remedies available

to each side on this particular matter. I know that as trial lawyers they know the procedures.


5/63


Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. So ordered.

Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano, Mr. President, on theJournal.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig.

Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you, Mr. President.

This is a continuing concern I also have on the discussion earlier yesterday on the treatment of the

alleged fake bank documents attached to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena. I would just like

to clarify the records, Mr. President, that yesterday when the Prosecution had the floor, Representative

Farias made a statement and this can be found on theJournal, Page 8. Sabi po niya,Ipagpatawad

po ninyo kasi po hindi naman po nila in-object. Puwede naman po nila ipa-quash. Katulad po

noong isang subpoena naminngayon, ino-object po nila kaya hanggang ngayon hindi pa po na

natin nadedesisyunan. Pero ito po ay talagang in-issuepo Senate President. Wala pong umangal

sa mga Miyembro, wala rin pong umangal sa mga partido. Kaya sa tingin po namin nandoon

po ng hindi lamang ang presumption of regularity noong pagka-issue ng Kagalang-galang naSenado, kung hindi tumalima na rin po iyong kabilang partido dito sa subpoenang ito. Nais

ko lang pong ilagay sa record na hindi po tama na wala hong umangal.

In ourJournal, Pages 34 and 35 of February 6, 2012, Senator Escudero stated, Mr. President,

I thank the good gentleman for his explanation and also Congressman Tupas. Mr. President, I raised

this issue actually if only to place on record and manifest that in granting the subpoena, the Senate is

not in any wayand that is my understandingtolerating any violations of law in order to obtain

evidence or details of evidence to be subpoenaed. That in so issuing the subpoena, as specified by the

order of the Court, the Senate does not in any way allow nor does it give its consent to such practices

in violation of the law to be done by either side. Either by the Prosecution or by the Defense. I submit,

Mr. President. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the gentle lady?

Senator Cayetano (P). Well, I just want to clarify because I would have stood up on the same

issue. I just want to be sure that we do not take as the truth, the statement na wala ho sa Senado

na umangal kasi meron po, si Senator Escudero. And if I recall, it was left at that. So to my mind,

that is a pending issue and as His Honor said, we now have the Compliance which we will take up

in caucus. So that is an issue, the Senate is not in any way prevented from acting upon this because

it is not an issue that we let pass.

That is all I would like to put on record, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. I just want to state for the record that my thought on this is to hold

this in abeyance until we have taken it up in a caucus. But I just want to advance the thought that

reading the Supplemental Request for SubpoenaI think this was dated 12 February 2012. Is this

correct, Madam Clerk of Court, this is the Supplemental Request for Subpoena?

The Secretary. February 3.

Representative Tupas. February 3.

The Presiding Officer. February 3, 2012. It is during this time thatMr. Prosecutor, was it in

accordance with this supplemental request that the questioned document was attached to this pleading?


6/63


Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. Now, I am not accusing anybody but I think that the requesting

party knew very well that the source of the material was of questionable nature. In fact, the mere

knowledge that the source was anonymous should have given the Prosecution enough caution to

scrutinize the document before they presented it to this Court as a basis for a compulsory process.

They cannot pass the buck to this Court because in our system of adversarial proceeding, it is theobligationnay, the dutyof the party seeking the assistance of this Court to make it sure that the

request is valid in every respect. And more so in the case of the Prosecution when the matter under

consideration of the Court involves a prejudice on the liberty or rights of a party. As the lady Senator

from Iloilo said yesterday, the ethics of the profession requires every lawyer representing a client to

assume that responsibility. On the other side of the coin, the Court, whether it is a court belonging to

the judicial system or special court, like this Impeachment Court, must give due course and presume

the good faith of the requesting party with the knowledge that it has exercised the necessary caution

to present to the Court hearing the case, an authentic and valid document as a basis for the request

for a compulsory process. So I will leave it at that and we will take the stand, this matter in a caucus

of the Impeachment Court on Monday.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please

Representative Tupas. If Your Honor please, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. May the Defense

Representative Tupas. May the Prosecution say something, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution first.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, this is regarding the query earlier by the Honorable Sen.

Loren Legarda regardingthe query was, how does the Impeachment Tribunal deal with theauthenticity or not of the said document which was attached to our Supplementary Request for

Subpoena?

I just want to call the attention of the Tribunal to Page 91 of the Record of the Senate,

Monday, February 13, 2012. The Presiding Officer was questioning Ms. Tiongson and I want

to read:

The Presiding Officer. You are the manager of Kalayaan Branch of the Philippine

Savings Bank, you are ordered by this Court, no longer by a subpoena; you are already

ordered by this Court to bring the original of the document that was shown to you if it exists

or a document of similar nature in the possession of the bank for the examination of this Court,

to compare it with this document attached to the Supplemental Request for a Subpoena and

to bring it here at two oclock tomorrow afternoon during the trial of this case and also to

notify your president to come back here to be examined by any Member of this Court who

wishes to examine him on this document because you said the head office of your bank

carriesdoes your head office carry documents? Does your head office carry the documents

Annex to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena?

Ms. Tiongson. This document, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Madam Witness

Ms. Tiongson. All documents pertaining to this account are in the head office, Sir.


7/63


So, Mr. President, there was a directive by this Honorable Court for the branch manager to bring

the original. And we were informed that she is here. I just want to put that on record, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct. But it turned out that the account involved covers a

foreign currency deposit, and there is a TRO which the majority of this Court opted to recognize.

Representative Tupas. So which isThe Presiding Officer. Then came the issue of authenticity and the witness said: It is a fake

document. So the issue is, is this really a fake document or not? I repeated it to the witness. Are

you sure that this is a fake document? And she confirmed that it is a fake document under oath. And

that stands in the record as the answer of the witness. And unless you have a controverting evidence,

that will stand on the record as a characterization by the bank of this document. And you are bound

by it because you presented that witness as your witness.

Representative Tupas. If I may say something, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. If you have read the rules of evidence

Representative Tupas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. I think you will agree with me that that is the rule. That the presenting

lawyer of a witness must be bound by these admissions and statement of the witness presented by him

or by her.

Representative Tupas. Sir, if I may say something? Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. That is the ruling of the Court.

So proceed.

Representative Tupas. If I may read again from the records.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Representative Tupas. That is February 13, 2012.

The Presiding Officer

The Presiding Officer. Are you objecting to the ruling?

Representaitve Tupas. No, no, I am not objecting, Sir. I am not objecting.

The Presiidng Officer. What is the purpose of the

Representative Tupas. No, I just want to say something that

I just want to manifest.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Representative Tupas. The Presiding Officer. Are you saying that these documents are false

documents? Ms. Tiongson said: Yes, Sir, it seems fake. O, Presiding Officer. Then Ms. Tiongson,

They are fake documents.

What I am saying here, Mr. President, is that Ms. Tiongson is saying It seems fake. And if there

are repercussions, whether as a result of the authenticity or not of the documents, there are grave


8/63


consequences. And to us, if we may manifest, Your Honor, the best evidence here is the document

itself. And at the very least, the witness here should bring the document.

The Presiding Officer. That is not my understanding, Sir. The law must be respected. There

is a law that prohibits disclosure. And the Supreme Court has issued a TRO. And this Court, by a

majority vote, opted to respect the TRO of the Supreme Court. Now, your witnessnot my witness,

not the Defense witnesscharacterized the document as a fake document. Now, if that is so, and thatis under oath, you are bound by that statement. If you want to controvert it, you are free to do it.

There is a remedy for it if you know how to present it.

Representative Tupas. Well, we leave it up to the wisdom of this Honorable Tribunal.

The Presiding Officer. It is not my wisdom, that is the rule of trial.


The Presiding Officer. If you studied your trial technique very well, that is the rule.


Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we request for two or three minutes?

The Presiding Officer. Defense Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. There was a statement here made by a member of the Prosecution staff, Your

Honor, that we are precluded in now questioning the issuance of the subpoena made by this

Impeachment Court because we were never heard to object much less did we really object to the

issuance of the subpoena in question, Your Honor. That statement is belied or controverted by our

Opposition to the Request for the Issuance of the Subpoena which was filed on February 1st, Your

Honor, and which was reiterated on February 6 in our consolidated Opposition and Rejoinder. Both

these pleadings, Your Honor, now form part of the record of this case.

Now, notwithstanding our opposition, Your Honor, the Honorable Impeachment Court has chosen

to issue the subpoena. We have no other alternative but to honor and respect the order of the

Honorable Impeachment Court, Your Honor. But it is our submission that the mere order to produce

documents does not carry with it the order to admit the same. There are a lot of things that must be

done in accordance with the rules of evidence. First, it must be identified; it must be marked; and it

must be offered; and the Opposition should be given the opportunity to comment or object, Your

Honor. We have not yet reached that portion, Your Honor. The mere fact that these documents are

ordered produced does not mean that they are actually considered evidence for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct, Counsel. And the compliance with a compulsory process

simply means that the party ordered to bring anything under a compulsory process obeys the Courtto bring it in the courtroom. And when presented, it may be objected to by the other party if there

is a ground to object.

And I think that this is elementary to any lawyer who has been in a courtroom. I do not have to

educate lawyers here. I feel ashamed to educate lawyers here.

So, let us go to the trial.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The matter is academic. The Presiding Officer has already ruled. He

stands by the subpoena that he issued and he feels wholly responsible for it. The majority of this Court


9/63


respect the TRO of the Supreme Court with respect to foreign currency deposits. So, the local currency

deposit, the secrecy of which is covered by Republic Act 1405, can be scrutinized because there is

an exception, an express exception with respect to impeachment. So, let us proceed with the trial.

Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.

May we now call on the Prosecution for the continuation of the presentation of evidence?Representative Tupas. Your Honor, our witness for today is a continuation of the testimony of

the BPI Branch Manager, Ayala branch, Ms. Leonora Dizon, but we were informed that she already

gave birth. But they sent a representative to attend todays hearing. And may we call on the Secretariat

of the Impeachment Tribunal?

The Presiding Officer. The subpoena was directed to Ms. Dizon, not a representative.

Representative Tupas. We just received the information. We just want to confirm that. So, we

call on Ms. Leonora Dizon, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the honorable Court.I think we argued on this issue very lengthily yesterday, Your Honor, that both the Prosecution and

the Defense are through. First, the Prosecution with direct examination; the Defense with their cross-

examination. And this is practically a recall of this witness. And in accordance with the Rules of Court,

this must bear the authority or the imprimaturof the Court involved, Your Honor. We have not seen,

much less, been served with any motion for the recall of this witness stating the purpose therefor and

why is there a necessity of the recall of this witness.

So, this is practically a violation of the rule on procedure and evidence, Your Honor. And we

cannot affix our stamp of approval or concurrence to this kind of illegality or infirmity of a judicial

proceeding, Your Honor.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, if I may say something, Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. To cut short the discussion, this extended discussion

between the Prosecution and the Defense, this witness was called here under a subpoena issued by this

Court because of an interest on the part of a Member of this Court to ask questions from that witness.

And it is up to you, when that witness is placed on the witness stand, if you want to ask question on

the witness or not. But at that point, you have to identify whether in asking the question, you admit

that that witness is your witness while you are asking the question.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of the honorable Court, yesterday,

the honorable Senator-Judge Osmea, Your Honor, conducted direct examination of this witness. Andhe was through, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. But there was also the

Mr. Cuevas. That was

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Counsel. There is a pending desire on the part of the

gentleman from Iloilo to propound question to that witness. Only that yesterday, the gentleman from

Iloilo, from my recollection, gave the floor to the gentleman from Cebu.

Mr. Cuevas. So, this will be clarificatory questions, Your Honor, on the part of the honorable

Senator Drilon.


10/63


The Presiding Officer. Correct, correct.

Mr. Cuevas. Then, I yield, Your Honor, and I willingly accept the explanation of the Presiding

Officer.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the gentleman from Iloilo?

Senator Drilon. You know, it was debated at length yesterday, and I thought we have settled

this. And let me read again the Transcript or theJournal of the session two days ago.

On Page 61 of theJournal clearly specified the cross-examination done by Counsel, Attorney

Cuevas, who inquired into these monthly statements. Siya po, si Attorney Cuevaspo, ang nagtanong

nung monthly statement. At si Attorney Cuevas din po ang humingi nitong mga dokumentong ito.

At kaya pokami, bilang mga judges , sinabi natin, Puwede ho ba tingnan din ito?

At nakalagay ho sa Transcript: Mr. Cuevas says, In view of the answer of the witness, YourHonor, may we respectfully request that the statements of account covering the periods 2005, 2006,

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 be produced by the witness at the most convenient time considering her

condition now. Our purpose, Your Honor, is to show that this figure is not made in one single deposit

and one single withdrawal, Your Honor.

And the Presiding Officer ruled: All right. So, the witness is instructed by this Court or ordered

by this Court to produce the documents that the Defense Counsel requested.

Mr. President, as you just stated a while ago, the client is bound by the mistakes of his Counsel.

And the Counsel asked for these documents. And it is the Court who ordered that this document

Mr. Cuevas. If we will be allowed

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Gentlemen, there would bewe have settled this already. The

witness was subpoenaed by this Court to satisfy the request of Members of this Court to ask question

from the witness. So, if there is no more Member of this Court to ask any question on that witness,

what is the pleasure of the Court? Is the gentleman from Iloilo finished?

Senator Drilon. The documents have not yet been produced, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but I am not askingI am sorry, Your Honor.

May I ask permission to

The Presiding Officer. Did the Court already

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I still have the floor.

Mr. Cuevas. The trouble is I cannot argue because the rules prohibit, Your Honor. But that is

not an accurate statement, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute.

Gentleman from Iloilo, my question is, are you through in asking question from the witness? If not

then I will ask the witness to come to the witness stand.


11/63


Senator Drilon. We are not through, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Senator Drilon. Because the documents have not yet been produced.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Let the witness come to the plenary session, take the witness

stand under the same oath to be questioned by the Members who desire to ask questions from her.

Mr. Cuevas. May we request for the indulgence of the Honorable Court, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. When we made the statement to the effect that we wanted the production of the

monthly statement of accounts, Your Honor, that was ourthat is our course of action, Your Honor,

or move on the part of the Defense to show to the Honorable Court that there wasthe 14 million

stated in the statement of account is not on a single occasion. We have at that time not conferred this

matter with the Chief Justice. When we were assured that we have the documents involvingwe made

the withdrawal, Your Honor. Why will we be compelled merely by the manifestation of a Member of

this Court to produce the same?

The Presiding Officer. We will take your manifestation into account when we consider this case

finally, Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. At the discretion of this CourtAnyway, we have filed a motion to that effect, a

written pleading, Your Honor, stating why we are already abandoning our plea for the examination of

the bank records because we have what we wanted to. Why shall we be compelled to continue with

our examination of the alleged statement of accounts, Your Honor? We only placed that on record

so that we will not be precluded in the future if it is necessary for us to make any definite and categorical

explanation on the matter.

Thank you, Your Honor.


Proceed. Where is the witness? She gave birth? Well there is a force majeure for the appearance

of the witness.

Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Rosario Jurado-Benedicto.

Our witness from Bank of the Philippine Islands has given birth so we looked for another

representative; she is on the way. She gave birth early this morning, 7:45. So naghanap kami ng

substitute, a representative. So she is on the way but she is not giving birth. [Laughter]

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute.

Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. She is on the way to this Court. Okay.

The Presidng Officer. Okay. Just a minute. Would the requesting Members of the Court be

satisfied in dealing with a substitute witness?

Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. If I may respond, yes, because all that we are interested in

are the records to be brought here. And if the witness can attest to the fact that he or she is in official

custody of the records and can testify on the same, we are willing to listen to this witness. In fact,

yesterday, we anticipated this happy event and we said that if the witness cannot come back, a

substitute bank officer can come around and bring these records and testify before this Court.


12/63



Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. Yes, Your Honor, which we did. But may we be clarified, Sir?

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Do you have the witness now or on the way?

Ms. Jurado-Benedicto. She is on the way.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Trial suspended until the witness arrives.

The trial was suspended at 2:49 p.m.

At 2:54 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

Prosecution, do you have another witness?

Representative Tupas. Your Honor.


Representative Tupas. With respect to the other witness, Your Honor, Ms. Annabelle Tiongson,

we are done with the witness. But I think there was a reservation from Members of the Tribunal to

ask questions...

Senator Sotto. Jinggoy Estrada.

Representative Tupas. ...and she is here now. We are referring to Ms. Annabelle Tiongson,

the branch manager of the PSBank Katipunan Branch.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Senator Estrada and Senator Osmea have expressed their intentions to ask

questions to Ms. Tiongson.

The Presiding Officer. Sois she here?

Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. She is here.

The Presiding Officer. Please ask her to come into the plenary session to take the witness stand

under the same oath, and to answer questions from Senator Osmea, the gentleman from Cebu; and

from Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga.

Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, may we inquirebecause if I recall in the previous

proceeding, even the president of the bank was asked to return because it appeared, based on the

testimony of the bank manager, there were certain bank procedures that she was unfamiliar with. And

that only the bank president would be in the position to explain.

So may we inquireas to the Prosecution, if the bank president is also

The Presiding Officer. Bank president of what bank?


13/63


Representative Tupas. PSBank.

Senator Pangilinan. PSBank.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we were informed that the bank president, Mr. Pascual

Garcia, is also here.

Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President.


Then let us finish first with Ms. Tiongson.

Mr. Puno. May we be allowed to address the Honorable Court?


You are representing whom?

Mr. Puno. I am representing Philippine Savings Bank, Your Honor.

In connection with the subpoena received yesterday at 9:40the subpoena is dated February 13.

It commands the bank to bring certain documents in a subpoena ad testificandum, duces tecum. It

was addressed to the manager, Your Honor. But as previously mentioned by the bank officers, all the

records in regard to the subject accounts have been elevated to the head office. And the compliance

with the subpoena has been prepared under the direction of the president of the head office who is here

to testify. In other words, Your Honor, the president is more competent to testify in regard to the

subpoena and the other matters that were pending during the previous hearing, in particular the

questions of Senator Osmea, I believe.

So, with the permission of the Court, the PSBank is requesting that the president testify in her behalf.

The Presiding Officer. In the

Mr. Puno. Yes. But they are both here, Your Honor, at the pleasure of the Court, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, precisely. Mr. Counsel, the Presiding Officer has called for the

bank officer of the Bank of the Philippine Islands first. And we will call your president later.

Mr. Puno. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So, let the bank officer of the Bank of the Philippine Islands come.

Senator Sotto. PSBank, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Is it PSBank?

Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President.

Mr. Puno. PSBank, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. All right, then. Let the witness from the PSBank

You know, I am also getting confused already with so many statements coming...

Senator Sotto. Left and right. [Laughter]

The Presiding Officer. ...into my head.


14/63


Where is the said president of the PSBank?

Senator Sotto. The branch manager first, Mr. President. The request is for the branch

manager first.

The Presiding Officer. All right. The branch manager, please enter.

Senator Sotto. She is here, Mr. President.

May we recognize Senator Estrada?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan has the floor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President.

Good afternoon, Ms. Tiongson.

Ms. Tiongson. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. You mentioned during the last hearing that you never

knew Congressman Niel Tupas. Am I right?

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Where are you from?

Ms. Tiongson. I am from Iloilo, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Iloilo. Where in Iloilo?

Ms. Tiongson. I am from La Paz, Iloilo City, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. La Paz, Iloilo. And you are fully aware that Congressman Tupasis a congressman of Iloilo?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Are you married?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. May I know your middle name, Madam Witness?

Ms. Tiongson. My middle name is Buenaflor, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Buenaflor. All right. Taga-saan po iyong mga Buenaflor?

Ms. Tiongson. I grew up in Iloilo City but my father is from Dumangas.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Your father is from Dumangas. Your mother is from?

Ms. Tiongson. My mother is from Capiz but she grew up in Marikina. And then when she

married my (sic) father, she went to Iloilo.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. What is the name of your parents?

Ms. Tiongson. My fathers name is Eugenio Buenaflor. My mothers name is Zenaida Dela Paz

Buenaflor.


15/63


Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Do you know a certain Thelma Solinap Buenaflor?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Who is she?

Ms. Tiongson. She is my auntie, Your Honor. She passed away

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you know of a certain Roberto Obet Buenaflor Armada?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Who is he?

Ms. Tiongson. He is the son of Thelma Armada.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. The son of Thelma.

What is the name of the father of Obet?

Ms. Tiongson. I forgot. I honestly do not recall, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not know the name of your uncle.

Ms. Tiongson. Tito Gil. Gil. Sorry.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. O

Ms. Tiongson. Sorry. Gil Armada, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. What is your relationship with Obet Buenaflor Armada? How are you

related to him?

Ms. Tiongson. He is my cousin, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. He is your cousin. All right.

This Roberto Obet Buenaflor Armada became a vice governor of the province of Iloilo. Am

I correct?

Ms. Tiongson. As I recall, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Who was the governor then?

Ms. Tiongson. I do not know, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not know. I thought you

Ms. Tiongson. I was already here, Your Honor, when he ran so I was not involved in his

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, I know. You do not know.

Okay. Just to refresh your memory, the governor then when your cousinwhen your first cousin

was vice governor of Iloilo, the governor then was the father of Congressman Tupas. His name is

Governor Niel Tupas Sr. All right?

Ms. Tiongson. Okay.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right.


16/63


So, are you acquainted with any member of the Tupas family?

Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Still no?

Ms. Tiongson. Personally, I am not acquainted with any of them, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have never met any brother of Congressman Tupas?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Never?

Ms. Tiongson. I was here since college, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Since college.

Where did you studywhere did you take your elementary school?

Ms. Tiongson. I took my elementary school in Assumption Iloilo, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Iloilo. College?

Ms. Tiongson. College, I initially took it in UP Visayas and then I went on to UP Diliman on

my third year until I graduated, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, when did you come here in Manila?

Ms. Tiongson. That was 1988, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. 1988.

Ms. Tiongson. 87, Your Honor. Sorry. The school year of 1987, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay.

Do you know of a certain Raul Buboy Tupas?

Ms. Tiongson. Personally, no, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Have you heard of him?

Ms. Tiongson. I think they were just talking about him before but I have never really bothered

to know about him, anything about him.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. When was the last time you went to Iloilo?

The Presiding Officer. What is the answer of the witness?

Ms. Tiongson. I am trying to recall, Your Honor. The last time I was in Iloilo was during our

reunion in high school

Senator Ejercito Estrada. When was that?

Ms. Tiongson. and that was in December 2011.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Just recently.


17/63


Ms. Tiongson. Wait, sorry. 2010, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. One and a half years ago?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right.

Your cousin, again, Mr. Obet Buenaflor Armada, ran for vice governor in the last 2010 elections.

Am I correct?

Ms. Tiongson. I believe so, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You believe so.BakitI believe so?

Ms. Tiongson. Kasi I am not really that interested in whatever they do there especially in

politics. I am not interested in that, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. And again, to refresh your memory, the candidate for, or the running

mate of your cousin, your first cousin was Raul Buboy Tupas, the brother of Congressman Niel

Tupas. Am I correct?

Ms. Tiongson. If you say so, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. If I say so.

Ms. Tiongson. I thought nga it was the

Senator Ejercito Estrada. And

Ms. Tiongson. Sorry.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. And, unfortunately, both lost during the last 2010 elections, for

governor and for vice governor.

When your cousin ran for vice governorof course, you know personally your cousin, am I right?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Are you close to him?

Ms. Tiongson. Not really, Your Honor. We do not see much.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not see much.

When was the last time you saw your first cousin, vice governor?

Ms. Tiongson. I do not recall, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. When he ran for vice governor in the year 2004 and in the year 2010,

did you help in his campaign?

Ms. Tiongson. In the year 2004, yes, Your Honor. We offered to give P3,000. But in 2010,

we did not.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. You did not help him in the 2010 election. So do you still

stand by your answer that when you were asked that you do not know Congressman Tupasthat you

do not know Congressman Tupas?


18/63


Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. I do not know him.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have not seen him even when you were visiting your province

in Iloilo?

Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. We were never introduced, I have never seen him.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about Buboy Tupas?

Ms. Tiongson. Same also, Sir.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have never seen any member of the Tupas family?

Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about the wife of Congressman Tupas?

Ms. Tiongson. I do not know her.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Does she frequent your bank in PSBank?

Ms. Tiongson. I do not know her, Sir. I have never seen her.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ms. Tiongson, you are under oath.

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. I am under oath.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You are testifying here under your previous oath.

Ms. Tiongson. I know.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. And I hope you will not lie.

Ms. Tiongson. I am not lying, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because records show that there is an acquaintance

The Presiding Officer. Please let the questioner finish the question before you answer so that it

can be well recorded into the record of this proceeding.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because all that I mentioned to you, the link between your family

and the family of Congressman Tupas, talagang obvious na obvious na mayroong acquaintance

iyong pamilya ninyo. Magkakilala yung pamilya ninyo at iyong pamilya ni Tupas. And now you

are still denying that you do not know even one family member of the Tupas family. It is quite absurd,

Ms. Witness.

Ms. Tiongson. I reiterate, Your Honor. I do not know any of them, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Let us go to a different topic.

Last time around I requested you to bring the logbook. Did you bring the logbook?

Ms. Tiongson. It was not covered by the subpoena, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You were ordered to bring the logbook, if I remember correct.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because I remember I asked you a question, if my memory serves

me right, that only four persons have access to the vault, to the documents, the confidential documents.

And when I asked you kung mayroong logbook iyonnoong tinanong kita kung may logbook

iyon, sinabi mo mayroon.


19/63


Ms. Tiongson. Yes, we do have a logbook, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. May I request, Mr. President, if this witness can submit or can bring

the logbook of PSBank?

The Presiding Officer. My recollection is that when that point was discussed, precisely I asked

her several questions. And you can either deny or confirm what I asked you. I asked you where those

signature cards were being kept. Then you saidyour answer was that they were kept in a steel

cabinet. And I asked you again: Who has control over that steel cabinet? And your answer was

that two officers have control over that steel cabinet. And so I asked: Could one of them only open

that steel cabinet? And your answer was that: No. Then you said: The two custodians of the steel

cabinet have different keys to open that steel cabinet. Then, they must both be present to be able

to open that steel cabinet. Is that correct?

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir, partly. Actually I said that an officer and the customer service assistant

may open jointly

The Presiding Officer. Jointly.

Ms. Tiongson. the vault with the combination, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. All right. Jointly.

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The steel cabinet is inside that vault.

The Presiding Officer. Jointly, but they have different numbers

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. on the combination?


The Presiding Officer. Correct. So neither one of them could open alone?


The Presiding Officer. Both of them must open?


The Presiding Officer. And the next question that I asked you was: Do you also have access

over the contents of that steel cabinet? And you said, Yes, but I have to bring the two officers.

Is it not?

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, sir.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Then at that point, the gentleman from San Juan asked whether

you have a logbook and your answer was in the affirmative, correct?


The Presiding Officer. Then I ordered youhe asked that the logbook be presented to this

Court, correct?

Ms. Tiongson. I do not recall, Your Honor. We will have to review that again and we will bring

it if ordered.


20/63


The Presiding Officer. I ordered you toI will appeal to the record.

Ms. Tiongson. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. I may be mistaken by the sequence of the question.

Can you go to the records and find out, please?

Can the recorders of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court identify the pages where those

statements were recorded?

While they are looking for the pages, I would like to ask you.

Do you have a logbook?


The Presiding Officer. Regarding opening of this vault?


The Presiding Officer. Anybody who requests for the opening of the vault must be in that

logbook?


The Presiding Officer. Including you?


The Presiding Officer. Including any person who would want to access that logbook?


The Presiding Officer. Including the names of the officers that would open that steel cabinet?

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. We even sign it, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Including the time?


The Presiding Officer. Of request and the time of closing?


The Presiding Officer. So these are all in the logbook.

So you have the logbook. If we have not previously ordered you, you are ordered to produce

that logbook.


The Presiding Officer. All right. I now


Mr. President, may I ask for additional two minutes just for me to wrap up my questioning?


21/63




The Presiding Officer. The Chair grants you an extension given the importance of this matter.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you.

Madam Witness, I asked a question addressed to your bank president regarding the letter K

which I browsed on one of these allegedly fake or genuine documents. Is the letter K after the figure,

is that a normal banking practice?

Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor, it is not.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not. So, kasi nakalagay dito 700, regardless of that currency

sign whether it be dollar or it be peso. Pag nilagay mo 700K, does it mean na 700,000?

Ms. Tiongson. It may mean a lot of things, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Like what? K will stand for kuryente, halimbawa, what?

Might it be an initial or what do you think? What does it mean?

Ms. Tiongson. I usuallykasi normally I write the whole amount.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. You write the whole amount in figures?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kunwari 700,000, limang zero?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. You do not usually write the letter K?

Ms. Tiongson. No, sir.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not a normal banking practice?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right.Thank you.

You answered during the previous hearing, I think the Presiding Officer posited a lot of questions,

and you answered, if I am not mistaken, that these documents which were shown to you were fake,

according to you.


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you still stand by your answer that the documents are fake?

Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor, because when Honorable Senator Escudero asked me to look

at the documents and our president allowed me to look at them, then we compared. There were

differences, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Differences lang pero hindi fake.

Ms. Tiongson. They are not the same, Your Honor, so they may be fake. They are fake.


22/63


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Even though they are not the same, you cannot assume that these

documents are fake. Am I correct?

Ms. Tiongson. In our banking practice, Your Honor,pagka magkaiba iyon, it is not the same,

they are fake, they are spurious.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Baka naman nasabi mo lang fake iyon dahil you were sopressured, you were so nervous. Ano ba talaga?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. You still stand by your answer that it was fake?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Because when I read the document one by one and this was

attached by the Prosecution panel, as I have said before with regard to the Supplemental Request for

Subpoena, I have noticed that in the left side portion mayroon dito Peso Account, Peso TD, all right.

The account number is 089121017358 and 089121019593, and these accountstinestipay (testify)nung bank president ninyoare existing.At sinabi, in fact, mayroon ngang deposito itong 358, ang

opening balanceang opening date ng account niya January 26, 2009.Ang opening balance nung

account na iyon ay P2,100,000. Pero ngayon after 2010, zero balance na.

Doon sa isang account number iyong last three digits na 593, it was opened on December 22,

2009, and, according to your president, ang opening balance niya is P8.5 million. Tapos iyong

remaining balance niya naging P12 million plus.

So kung existing itong mga accounts na ito at ito ang nagingbasehan ng pag-isyu ng subpoena

sa inyo, how can this be a fake document? Kasi this is the only basis I think for the president

Ms. Tiongson. Well, Sir, the account numbers could have come from a lot of sources. When aperson deposits a check, he can write his account number at the back or the bank will put it. So

it could be a source. Bank certifications in embassies or the like. It could have come from other

sources, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Again I will show you this piece of document which you said

it was fake. There are several initials here or signatures here by supposedmaybe a bank teller or maybe

you yourself, no. I will show to you these signatures kasi itong dalawang bank accountI am just

referring to peso, I am not referring to any dollar account of the Chief Justice, dito lang tayo sa peso.

Mr. President, may I ask permission to show the witness this particular document?


Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Mr. President, may I be allowed to address this Court, Your Honor?


Ms. Ramos-Pilares. May I approach the witness so that I can also see the document being

shown to our witness?

Senator Ejercito Estrada. I will show it to you.

The Presiding Officer. You may, you may.


23/63


Ms. Tiongson. Sir, I am not familiar with the initials. I was still not assigned in Katipunan Branch.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. When were you assigned at PSBank Katipunan Branch?

Ms. Tiongson. August 2010, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. August

Ms. Tiongson. 2010.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Of 2010.

Ms. Tiongson. I was concurrently assigned in Katipunan Branch in August 2010. I was heading

both branchtwo branches concurrently at the same time.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about the other signatures of the other accounts, are you familiar

with it?


Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not your signature?

Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. It is not my signature.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not the signature of your tellers orNo.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I just would like to put on record my own personal opinion that this particular

document that was allegedly leaked from the PSBank is, I think, a faithful reproduction of the original.

That is all, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. I just want to clarify. When you say the document is fake, do you knowwho did the faking?


The Presiding Officer. Not your bank?

Ms. Tiongson. Not our branch, Your Honor. For the bank, Sir, Mr. Garcia could answer for it.

The Presiding Officer. If the document is fake, the faking was not by the bank?

Ms. Tiongson. Not by the branch, Your Honor, branch.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Not by the Katipunan branch of Philippine Savings Bank.

Ms. Tiongson. Yes. I am only speaking for my branch, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely.

Ms. Tiongson. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Not Katipunan Branch?

Ms. Tiongson. Katipunan Branch, yes.



24/63


Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Osmea has agreed to allow Senator Drilon to ask

questions first before he does and also Senator Lacson before he does. And then afterwards, Senator

Guingona wants the floor.

The Presiding Officer. Senator Drilon has the floor.

Senator Drilon. Just a few questions on this particular document brought out by Senator Estrada.Madam Witness, you mentioned that this was shown to you by the bank president?


Senator Drilon. And you compared it with a document on file with the bank?


Senator Drilon. And you say there were differences between what was shown to you and what

is in the bank record?


Senator Drilon. What were these differences?

Ms. Tiongson. There are differences, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. What were these differences?

Ms. Tiongson. I did not note down their differences but there were differences. It is spurious.

Senator Drilon. Can we ask the witness to answer what differences? Because you said there

were differences. You were the one who made the statement.

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute.

Witness, answer the question if you know the answer.

Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, I did not note the differences. I did not list them down so I cannot

recall but there were differences. The original documents and the photocopies that you gave me had

differences. They were not the same.

Senator Drilon. Is it possible that the difference is because of additional entries?

Ms. Tiongson. Sir, Mr. Garcia can answer that because he holds the original.

Senator Drilon. No, no. I am asking youYes, except that you were the one who said thatthere were differences. So I am asking you, could the differences be that there were additional

entries not reflected in the Annex A that was submitted as part of the request for subpoena?

Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, if I may? There were entries in the original that were not in the

photocopies and there were entries in the photocopies that were not in the original. That is all I can

say, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. I see. Okay. So there were entries in the original whichI am sorry. There were

entries in the original which were not found in the xerox.

Ms. Tiongson. And there were alterations.


25/63


Senator Drilon. And there were entries in the xerox which were not found in the original?

Ms. Tiongson. There were alterations as well.

Senator Drilon. Where was the alteration?

Ms. Tiongson. I could not recall, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Ah, you could not recall.

Ms. Tiongson. It is not with me. So I need the basis.

Senator Drilon. Yes. Is this not a branch document?


Senator Drilon. Why was it taken away from you?

Ms. Tiongson. Upon the start of this hearing. I do not know.

Senator Drilon. No. Why?

Ms. Tiongson. So that it will be safely kept, Your Honor. It was ordered by our president.

Senator Drilon. I see. Why? Is your branch not safe?

Ms. Tiongson. It is safe, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. It is safe.

Ms. Tiongson. He ordered it. So maybe you can ask him later.

Senator Drilon. Now, just on its face, it would appear to be a PSBank document containing all

of these signatures, this logo of the PS Bank, et cetera, is that correct?

Ms. Tiongson. As to the standard format, Sir, yes.

Senator Drilon. Now, you said you do not know the signatures pointed out by Senator Estrada?


Senator Drilon. Now, these signatures were presumably affixed at the time of the opening which

is January 26, 2009 and December 22, 2009. Madam Witness, you said you were not familiar with

the signatures here?


Senator Drilon. Who canwho are the bank officers on or about January 26, 2009 and

December 22, 2009 who were authorized to open accounts in your bank, in your branch on these

particular dates?

Ms. Tiongson. To approve, Your Honor?

Senator Drilon. Yes as it says here, Approved by: officers full signature?

Ms. Tiongson. The officers in the branch are the branch manager and the branch service and

control officers, Your Honor.


26/63


Senator Drilon. Who was

Ms. Tiongson. At that time, we will have to check our records. I do not know the names of the

officers at that time.

Senator Drilon. Can you come back to us and tell us who are the approving officers?

Ms. Tiongson. At what time? What year?

Senator Drilon. January 26, 2009 and December 22, 2009.

Ms. Tiongson. They will have to note that now. I cannot.

Senator Drilon. I am sorry.

Ms. Tiongson. The 2009 January.

Senator Drilon. I am reading from the Annex A which was read earlier by Senator Estrada,

January 26, 2009, December 22, 2009? There are signatures appearing here which, you say, you are

not familiar with. So, we are asking who were the officers there?

Ms. Tiongson. Okay. Will I get back to you on that, Your Honor?

Senator Drilon. Yes.

Can I ask for just one minute extension, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. Approved.

Senator Drilon. Okay. So, now there is also a column here which says Date Closed on the

Peso Current Deposit ending 7358, April 16, 2009 and there is a signature of an approving officer,

would you know whose signature is this?


Senator Drilon. No. But can you check who is the authorized officer?

Ms. Tiongson. We willyes, it is the same, the branch manager or the branch service and

control officer.

Senator Drilon. All right.

The approving officers that you will attest to in the next hearing, can you also bring their specimen

signatures?


Senator Drilon. At that time, we will ask the necessary questions on this point when these

documents are brought.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Since we cannot object, Your Honor, according to the Rules of Procedure before

this Honorable Court, I am worried and apprehensive that the matters being asked now refer to foreign

currency account. No. That is ourdi ba?


27/63


The Presiding Officer. I thought that we are dealing with the

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. That is

The Presiding Officer. With their Philippine currency account.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. That is my information, Your Honor, but apparently, what is being dealt with

now are foreign currency account.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, no. Mr. President, may I?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. No. I think the ones that were being referred to by Senator Drilon

were peso accounts.

The Presiding Officer. May I reiterate the ruling of this Chair. No questions will be done on

foreign currency accounts.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. So ordered.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President.

Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Just one minute.

To be fair with Senator Drilon, I think he was referring to all peso accounts. I will just mention the

Account Nos. 089121017358 and 089121019593. These are all peso accounts which had been

testified to by the bank president, Mr. Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. President.


Senator Sotto. Senator Lacson, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. I would like to inform the Court that per record, this Presiding Officer

did not order this witness to bring the logbook. So, if a motion to that effect is made, then the Chair

will entertain it.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, Mr. President. I move that the witness bring the logbooktomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence]

The Chair hears none, the motion is approved.

The witness is instructed, ordered to bring the logbook pertaining to the matter now under

discussion.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The President Pro Tempore.


28/63


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Including that of the specimen signatures datedof the account

numbers which I just recently mentioned. The Account No. 358three (3) digits ending with 358

opened on January 26, 2009, and the three (3) digits ending 593 opened on December 22, 2009.

Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I clarify? The specimen signatures of the officers? You are

referring to the officers?

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, yes.

Ms. Tiongson. Not the

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. What did the witness say, please? Will you repeat?

Ms. Tiongson. I was just clarifying if the request was for the specimen signatures of the officers

at the timethe date that were mentioned.

The Presiding Officer. The President Pro Tempore may clarify his request.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. That is correct, Mr. President.

And may I also request the witness to call someone from the bank who knowswho among the

approving officers of the accounts that I mentioned whose signatures appeared in those documents? If

you know of someone who can give the names of these persons who affixed the signatures after these

bank accounts, Madam Witness.

Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I consult with my counsel?


What was the question?

Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, if I may.


Ms. Tiongson. Upon advice of my counsel, I cannot bring any specimen signature of the officers

on those dates mentioned because the signatures apparently appeared to be in the accounts that

pertain to dollar.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President.

Ms. Tiongson. It is the same.

The Presiding Officer. What do you mean? Will you explain clearly what you mean?

The Counsel.

Ms. Ramos-Pilares. May I address this Honorable Court, Your Honor.


Ms. Ramos Pilares. Your Honor, what my client is trying to say is that if we bring a specimen

signature with respect to the signatures in that paper, some of those signatures also appear beside

the foreignthe alleged foreign accounts, Your Honor. So, in effect, we will also be confirming,

Your Honor.


29/63


The Presiding Officer. Are those

Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Confirming or denying and Your Honor, that is already covered by the

TRO, with all due respect to our Honorable Judges, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Are those peso accounts or dollar accounts?

Senator Drilon. Peso accounts, Mr. President. Peso accounts.

Ms. Ramos-Pilares. But, Your Honor, with all due respect, the document also pertains to foreign

currency accounts, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, you know, Mr. Garcia even confirmed the existence of the dollar

account, the five (5) dollar accounts. That is why we did not ask for it. We did not ask him to bring

that. What we are just asking for are the signatures of the approving officers appearing across the line

Peso TD and the account number, last four digits are, 7358, because the witness said this is a fake

document so we are trying to show that this is, as Senator Estrada said, this is not a fake document.

And all we are saying is there is a signature appearing below Approved by, this peso account, a

certain signature here appears. And we are asking who are the bank officers who were authorized toopen this account at that time. And the second is also a peso time depositlast four digits, 9593

December 22, 2009; again, there is a signature. If you want, you can cover everything else pertaining

to the dollar, just this account where the signature appears across the peso.

Mr. President, we are asking the witness to bring this as she was the one who raised this issue that

this is a fake document. So we are just asking to validate that point, to tell this Court who are the

authorized opening account officers and their signatures, so that it can be placed on record whether,

in fact, these are not genuine signatures. And the witness, I move, be so ordered, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Ruling of the Chair: The witness will cover the signatures

opposite the dollar accounts but the signatures opposite the local currency accounts you must identify

them, if you know, or

What is the request of the gentleman from Iloilo?

Senator Drilon. On this column appears Approved by, parentheses, officers full signature.

There was a signature appearing opposite the peso time deposit with Account No. 7358 dated January

26, 2009, there is a signature appearing here. That is why we asked who is this officer of the bank

who, as of January 26, 2009, was authorized to approve the opening of the account.

And then still further, the fifth column says, Date closed, April 16, 2009, and then there is a

signature below the printed words Approved by, parentheses, officers full signature and there is

a signature here. These are all peso accounts. All we are asking is identify who are these officers in

both accountsPeso Account 7358 and Peso Account 9593. Who are these officers who authorized

the approval and the closure of this account in the bank and their specimen signatures. That is all.

It is peso account, Your Honor.


Senator Drilon. We ask for the ruling of the Chair.

Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Your Honor, with all due respect, may I be allowed to address this Court?

Because, Your Honor, if we are going to look at the signature and if they are not the same with

those beside the foreign currency account, thenBecause, Your Honor, there is a possibilityI am


30/63


not familiar with the document because I have not really looked at it. But if the signatures beside the

foreign currency accounts are the same with those besidebut of course, Your Honor, then that will

be also covered by the TRO, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. We will come to that when the Supreme Court shall have decided

the case.

In the meantime, the Chair will authorize the identification of the signatures opposite all local

currency accounts. But in order to comply substantially with the TRO of the Supreme Court dealing

with foreign currency accounts, the witness is allowed to cover the signatures opposite those foreign

currency accounts.

So ordered.

Did you understand the ruling of the Chair, Madam Witness?

Ms. Tiongson. We will compare and identify the signatures.

The Presiding Officer. Did you understand the ruling of the Chair?


The Presiding Officer. Okay. Very clear?

Ms. Tiongson. May I just repeat

The Presiding Officer. Over the signatures opposite the foreign currency accounts but identify

the signatures opposite the local currency accounts.

Ms. Tiongson. May I just clarify, Your Honor?


Ms. Tiongson. I will be the one to identify, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. If you know. If you know the signature. If not, say so that I cannot

identify because I do not know whose signature that is.

Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute please. I am just clarifying the point. I am clarifying the

point.

Ms. Tiongson. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Madam Witness

Ms. Tiongson. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. did you understand the Order of the Court?



Gentleman from Pampanga.

Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President.


31/63


Mr. President, my understanding is this witness was not part of the bank in 2008 and 2009 and

so she cannot be the resource person to testify as to the authenticity of the document because that is

what the witness asked.

The Presiding Officer. That is why the Court, Your Honor, said Answer if you know. Identify

if you know. If you do not know the signature, common sense will tell us as lawyers that she cannot

identify. She is incompetent to identify.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes, but my understanding, Mr. President, is that Senator Drilon wants the

verification by the bank of the signatures. That is my understanding. I am sorry if I am confused,

Mr. President, but

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, may I respond?


Senator Drilon. Mr. President, we just asked the witness and so ordered by the Court: Number

one, to identify who these officers are on the peso time deposit; number two

The Presiding Officer. May I clarify so that it is clear to everybody. The gentleman from Iloilo

is asking this witness, this particular female witness, to identify the signatures.

Senator Drilon. No, no, no, Your Honor. That is what I am saying. First, to identify the name

of the officer.

The Presiding Officer. All right. The name of the officer.

Senator Drilon. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. If she knows.

Senator Drilon. If she knows because there are records of the bank which will show as to whoare the approving officers on the specific dates we have mentioned. So it is based on the records of

the bank who were the officers.


Senator Drilon. Now

The Presiding Officer. So the Order of this Court is modified accordingly.

Senator Drilon. Yes. Who are the officers. Second, bring specimen signatures of these officers

appearing in the banks records.

The Presiding Officer. If she knows.

Senator Drilon. If she knows. Yes.


Senator Drilon. Okay. Now, our third point, Your Honor. Apart from these documents that I just

mentioned, there are other peso accounts appearing in Annex A and this is peso account

089121020122. This is a peso account. Again, there is a signature appearing across that peso account

as the approving officer onI think this is March 4, 2010. Can she also identify who is the approving

officer and bring the specimen signature of this approving officer?


32/63


And also another Peso Account 089121021681. The opening was done on September 1, 2010

with an opening balance of P7,090,099.45. Again, there is a signature appearing across this account

number. So we are also asking that the witness identify the officer authorized in the branch to approve

the opening of the account and the specimen signature.

The Presiding Officer. Do you understand what the Court wants, Madam Witness?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Comply with it. So ordered.

So what is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel?

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court,

Your Honor.

There are matters brought out in the examination made by the Honorable Senator-Judge, Your

Honor. Whether it is clarificatory or cross-examination my worry is this, Your Honor: Who is going

to offer this as evidence, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. This will be for the information of the Court.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But they are evidence, Your Honor. There will be a time when

we now go into the process of offering, Your Honor. So we will be objecting. Are we precluded

from objecting, Your Honor, simply because these questions are brought about by the Honorable

Member of this Court?

The Presiding Officer. I cannot make a ruling at this point. Just state your concern and we will

take it up in a caucus and decide.

Mr. Cuevas. My apprehension is this, with the kind indulgence of the Court, we will not end heremerely with the examination, Your Honor. If the Court will go with me, we go further. And unless these

documents are offered, they will not be considered as evidence. Now, who is going to offer them since

these are not evidences or these are not documents brought about by the questioning direct or by any

of the parties, neither the Prosecution much less the Defense, Your Honor?

Now, if they stand only as parcels or pieces of papers, Your Honor, then we will be practically

I am sorry to state, we are practically wasting the time of this Court. Assuming that matters are

brought out, but will they form part of the evidence, Your Honor? If not offered formally, they shall

not be considered as evidence in the case. That is my apprehension, Your Honor. And since we cannot

objectwe wanted to object, Your Honor, but we are precluded by the Rules of this Impeachment

Court which we have, time and again, honored and respected. That is our apprehension, Your Honor.We do not want to bring this matter out at the time when they are already presented in evidence.

Because the first issue, Your Honor, is the scope of the subpoena. As we have made it clear, we were

objecting to the issuance of the subpoena. But they were produced, Your Honor. Now, that is only

part of the process in dealing with documentary evidences, Your Honor. I hope everybody will agree

with me that the next part is, aside from identification and marking, they will be offered.

So my question now or my clarificatory question is very, very pertinent: Who is going to offer it?

There is no statement on the part of the Prosecution that these form part of their evidence, Your Honor.

And there is not even any statement on the part of any Member of this Court that they will be offered

as part of the evidence for the Court, Your Honor.


33/63


The Presiding Officer. Anyway

Mr. Cuevas. I hope you pardon me, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You are free to make your manifestation. I will understand that because

you are the Defense Counsel. As far as this Presiding Officer is concerned within the bounds of existing

rules of evidence and the laws, you are entitled to protect the interest of your client.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. But before I respond to you, I will recognize the gentleman from Cavite.

Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

My question is addressed to the Defense Counsel and also to the Presiding Officer.

My question is: In a criminal proceeding, is the trial court judge precluded from asking clarificatory

questions?

Mr. Cuevas. The answer is no. Definitely, Your Honor.

Senator Lacson. So we are allowed.

Mr. Cuevas. But the extent of the questioning must not be construed by either parties as favoring

a party litigant.

Senator Lacson. That is beside the point, with due respect, Justice Cuevas.

Mr. Cuevas. Because your question is this: Is the judge precluded? My answer is no. But

if the questioning goes farther than clarificatory, then a doubt may enter into the scene and that is the

non-neutrality of the judge and that may amount to a mistrial, if Your Honor please.

Senator Lacson. I am not yet into that, with all due respect. Because my next question would

be, how would the evidence elicited from the questionings of a trial court judge treated or admitted as

evidence? Kindly educate me, Sir?

Mr. Cuevas. You mean questioning of the judge?

Senator Lacson. A trial court judge asks questions of the witness and then some of the answers

provided by the witness may be used or may not be used as evidence. Assuming that the replies or

the response of the witness may be used as evidence by the court or may be appreciated by the judge

in rendering a decision, then how would that be treated?

Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor. When you say, may be used by the court, what the

court may do is consider the evidences not use it. Now secondly

Senator Lacson. Use as evidence.

Mr. Cuevas. if the examination made by the court, Your Honor, far exceeds that which is

normal, then the law on cold neutrality of the judge will come. And that is precisely one of the cases

before the Sandigan, examining the records, it consisted of several pages and the Supreme Court was

convinced that the judge there was already performing the act of a prosecutor and not that of a judge.

That is not the ruling of Justice Cuevas. That is the ruling of the court.


34/63


The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel for the Defense, you are actually asking this Presiding

Officer to make a ruling with respect to the treatment of this evidence as far as the culmination of this

hearing is concerned and that is the judgment. There is a rule on that and I will not pronounce it now.

That is covered by existing jurisprudence not only here but from where we copied this process.

So as far as the culmination of this hearing is concerned, with due respect to the court, to the highest

court of this land, that is outside of the jurisdiction of that court, and it is up to this Court to make adecision on the basis of its appreciation of all the facts gathered in this proceeding at that point when

it will make a judgment and the guilt or innocence of the witness is beyond the appeal of anyone.

So, the gentleman from Cavite.

Senator Lacson. What is the answer to my question, Mr. President?

Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, I was about to ask, Your Honor, an apology to the Presiding Judge,

because when I do explain, I was only explaining

Documents

Feb 15 Senate impeachment court record