Feb 2 Senate impeachment court record

8/3/2019 Feb 2 Senate impeachment court record

1/68

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 1

AT 2:04 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,

CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the impeachment trial of the Honorable Supreme

Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by the distinguished Senator from Sorsogon, Sen. Gregorio B.

Honasan II.

Senator Honasan.

Father Almighty, we ask You to guide us as we go through the necessary agony of the

impeachment trial and as we try not only the accused but our ability to seek justice.

Help us emerge from this process united and more determined to pursue the path to lasting

peace and progress. As we repair our damaged institutions, guide us that we may respond

more effectively to the challenges of poverty, hunger, homelessness, ignorance and social

injustice.

Allow us to temper our proceedings with civility, mutual respect and a presumption of our

collective innocence inside and outside the trial court.

As we search for the truth, inspire us to be worthy Prosecutors, Defense Counsels, and

Senator-Judges and Jurors. And when our work is done, light our path as we continue to

build our nation and work for a better future for our children.

All these we ask of You.

Amen.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Pasay City


2/68

2 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

______________

*Arrived after the roll call

**On sick leave

The Presiding Officer.The Secretary will now 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................................................................... Present

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.................................................... Absent**

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

Senator JinggoyEjercito Estrada ........................................................ Present

Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero ................................................ Present

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. ..................................................... PresentSenator Sergio R. Osmea III .......................................................... Absent

Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ........................................................... Present*

Senator Aquilino 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 in the Chamber, the Presiding Officer

declares the presence of a quorum.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

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

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

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 is recognized.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 1, 2012

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

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none; the February 1,

2012Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved.

The Secretary will now call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.


3/68


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

Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer.The Floor Leader is recognized.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the respective Counsels to enter their appearances.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the House of RepresentativesProsecution panel, same appearances.

The Presiding Officer. Noted for the Prosecution. Defense.

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

The Presiding Officer. Noted for the Defense.


Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are in receipt of a Motion from the Defense. I move that we

discuss the said motion on Monday, during our caucus at twelve noon, to give the other Members ofthe Court time to appraise and study the motion.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, and I would like to announce and seek the forbearance of the

Prosecution. There were so many requests for a subpoena submitted to us, and this Presiding Officer

would like to submit this to the members of the Impeachment Court in a caucus. Because in the opinion

of this Chair, it touches on the principle of separation of powers among the three departments of

government and I would like to get the counsel of the Impeachment Court.

Thank you.


Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, may I include that in the motion that we will take, that we take

it up on Monday.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion is

approved.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we now allow to call the Prosecution to continue with

their presentation of evidence.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may now call their next witness. We are still on

Article II?

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I

Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. We are still on Article II.

The Presiding Officer. So, proceed.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, there is a request by the Members of the Court to ask the

Prosecution how many witnesses and who are the witnesses that they will present.

Representative Tupas. For the day?

Senator Sotto. For today, yes.


4/68


Representative Tupas. The first witness is Mr. Gregg Gregonia of the Burgundy Realty

Corporation; the second witness is Ms. Ava Venus Mejia from Filinvest. And we have a pending

matter. There are two: the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City and the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina.

They have been here since three weeks ago. We were not able to discharge them because the Defense

reserved their right to cross-examine. And effectively, we have four for today, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. All on Article II, Mr. President.

Representative Tupas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Is the Defense ready to cross-examine the witnesses who were not

subjected to cross yet?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We are ready to cross-examine them.

The Presiding Officer. So, maybe we should start the proceeding this afternoon with the cross-

examination of the witnesses who have not been subjected to a cross-examination so that to be fair to

them, we could dispense their recurrent presence in these proceedings.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we now call on the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon

City.

The Presiding Officer. The Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City may come to the Chamber and

take the witness stand under the same oath.

Representative Tupas. May we request that Atty. Jose Justiniano be recognized for the

Prosecution, Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. Compaero Atty. Justiniano is recognized.

Mr. Justiniano. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You are welcome.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we request permission that Atty. Esguerra of the Defense

panel be allowed to conduct the cross-examination of these two witnesses.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Witness not around yet, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. May we suspend the trial, Mr. President, while we are waiting for the witness.

The Presiding Officer. Trial is suspended until the witness is in the Chamber.

The trial was suspended at 2:12 p.m.

At 2:13 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed.

Mr. Justiniano. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Mr. Justiniano. May we know from the Defense what are the matters which they expect to elicit

from our witness? Maybe, if we....


5/68


The Presiding Officer. You cannot do that. That is their right to....

Mr. Justiniano. Your Honor, if they can inform me, maybe we can just admit, Your Honors, to

dispense with the cross-examination.

The Presiding Officer. I leave it to the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. This is cross-examination, Your Honor. And the progress of the cross-examinationwill depend on the statement to be made by the witness, Your Honor. We cannot stipulate on this,

Your Honor.

Mr. Justiniano. Okay, Your Honor. I am just guided by the pronouncement of Senator Defensor

Santiago that we should expedite.

Mr. Cuevas. Actually, we can accommodate....

The Presiding Officer. Normally, cross is not subject to stipulation. We cannot control the

Defense how they will defend their client.

Proceed.

Mr. Esguerra. With the permission of the honorable Presiding Officer and the honorable members

of the Impeachment Court.

Mr. Witness, you are a lawyer by profession?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Justiniano. Before you were assigned to be the Register or Registrar of Deeds of Quezon

City, you were posted with what office of the Land Registration Authority?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, I am the Deputy Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City, Your Honor.

Mr. Esguerra. You have not been assigned to the Head Office, the Office of the Administrator?

Mr. Alcantara. I have not been assigned with the office of the Administratorof the Land

Registration Authority, Your Honor.

Mr. Esguerra. You were here, according to your direct testimony, Mr. Witness, pursuant to the

subpoena issued by this honorable Impeachment Court, am I right?


Mr. Esguerra. And you have identified in the course of your direct examination certain documents

in connection with the property/properties appearing in the name of Renato Corona and CristinaCorona, am I right?


Mr. Esguerra. And you also identified other documents, particularly titles in the name of the

children of Chief Justice Renato Corona and Mrs. Corona, am I right?


Mr. Esguerra. Can we go to the title first, Mr. Witness, of Carla C. Castillo concerning a

property where there was a testimony from you that the lot was bought for P15 million? Can you show

that to us?


6/68


Witness, for the record, Your Honor, is going over his records.

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125683.

Mr. Esguerra. May we request the Prosecution to hand to usif we may borrow rather,

this particular exhibit for purposes of easier identification.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution is directed to show theto lend the said exhibitfor purposes of his cross-examination.

Mr. Esguerra. The Witness, Your Honor, produced for my inspection Exhibits YY, YY-1,

YY-2 and YY-3.

Is this the very title, Mr. Witness, that is in the name of Carla C. Castillo? This is a cancelled title

as it appears here.

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is a cancelled title in the name of Mirla Melad Bajar,

married to Veneroso E. Bajar, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. Why was it cancelled?

Mr. Alcantara. There is an annotation on the face of the title, Your Honor. It is stamp-

marked Cancelled. The reason for the cancellation of this title is the registration of a sale.

This is entered under Primary Entry No. 8708 T125683 Sale.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Mr. Witness. And, by reason of this inscription, evidencing the

sale of the property covered by this Transfer Certificate of Title, Exhibit YYY series, there

was a new title issued?


Mr. Esguerra. May I have a copy of that new title?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, I have with me the original copy of Transfer Certificate of

Title No. N-327732 registered in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Ma. Carla C.

Castillo, Your Honor.

Mr. Esguerra. I am showing to you what has been marked as Exhibits BBB up to BBB-2

for the Prosecution. May I invite you to look at the dorsal portion, second page, under the

Memorandum of Encumbrances, Mr. Witness, and focus your attention, invite your attention to the

stamp entry here. Can you read that, for the record?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, on the second page of this title, there is Entry No. 2504T-327732,

mortgage in favor of Bank of Philippines Islands to guarantee a principal obligation in the sum of P12

million, mortgagees consent necessary in case of subsequent encumbrance or alienation of the property.

Other conditions set forth in Document No. 461; Book No. 106; Page No. 301; Notary Public of

Quezon City; Delfin R. Agcaoili; Date of Instrument, 5-15-09; Date of Inscription, 5-19-09; Signed,

Carlo V. Alcantara, Deputy Register of Deeds, Quezon City.

Mr. Esguerra. Your Honor, we would request that this document be marked as our

Exhibit 50, consisting of three pages and that particular inscription read, for the record,

by the Witness, Your Honor, in the dorsal portion, entitled or described as Real Estate Mortgage

with the signature of the Witness above the printed name, Carlo V. Alcantara, be encircled and

submarked as Exhibit 50-A.


7/68


The Presiding Officer. Is that an encumbrance on the title of Constantino Castillo III?


Mr. Esguerra. We will go to another point, Your Honor.


Mr. Esguerra. Do you recall having testified about the Burgundy unit in the name of Renato

Corona and Cristina Corona, Mr. Witness?


Mr. Esguerra. Do you have the certificate of authority or authorization to register? You have

identified that, if I recall correctly.


Mr. Esguerra. Do you have it?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, I have with me the original or the Certificate Authorizing

Registration, Your Honor.

Mr. Esguerra. Is this Exhibit QQQQ? May I invite your attention, Mr. Good Counsel,

Attorney Justiniano?

I think we have the same, although what I have is a certified true copy, Mr. Witness. Can you

just go to Section A,Description of Real Property.

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. And there is reference there under the column, Market Zonal Value, of anamount as well as the column, Selling Price. Can you read the market zonal value as entered there,

for the record?

Mr. Alcantara. The market zonal value is P1,567,500.00. The selling price, Your Honor,

is P2,508,000.

Mr. Esguerra. Your Honor, we would like to request that this Certificate Authorizing Registration,

Exhibit QQQQ, for the Prosecution, identified by the Witness, be marked as our Exhibit 51,

and the entries read be both encircled underZonal MarketValue and Selling Price and submarked

as our Exhibit 51-A, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Mark all the documents accordingly as requested by the Defense,including the previous ones because the Chair missed to give a direction with respect to the markings.

Proceed.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Your Honor.

Do you recall having testified, Mr. Witness, relative to a parcel of land located in what is known

as Ayala Heights Subdivision in the year 2010 for P8 million?


Mr. Esguerra. Do you have also the Certificate Authorizing Registration for this property?


8/68


Witness is examining his records, Your Honor. [Pause] Did you find it?


Mr. Esguerra. For the record, Your Honor, the copy with the Clerk of Court of this

Impeachment Court is previously marked Exhibit III, or triple I.

May I invite again your attention to Section A of this particular document, Mr. Witness,and go to the column Market Zonal Value. It states there, thirteen....Can you read it, for the

record? I am sorry.

Mr. Alcantara. Market zonal value is P13,800,000.00; the selling price, Your Honor,

is P8 million.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you. Would this document show who the buyer or purchaser of

this lot is?

Mr. Alcantara. Sir, indicated on the CAR as the buyer is Amelia y Rivera, et al.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you. Your Honor, we would request that this Exhibit III or tripleI for the Prosecution, a document just identified once more by the Witness be marked as our

Exhibit 52 and the entries under market zonal value and selling price of P8 million be encircled

and submarked as our Exhibit 52-A.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Your Honor. I will go to another point.

The Presiding Officer. Mark the document accordingly.

Mr. Esguerra. There was another property, this time located in La Vista Subdivision,

also in Quezon City, Mr. Witness, the documents of which you have identified. Would you havealso the Certificate Authorizing Registration insofar as this property is concerned?

The Clerk of Court handed to this representation, Your Honor, a Certificate Authorizing

Registration, Exhibit WW for the Prosecution.

Did you find it, Mr. Witness?


Mr. Esguerra. May I invite once more your attention to Section A, Description of Real

Properties, particularly under the columns,Market Value, Zonal Value and Selling Price. Can you

read, for the record, the entries under these columns, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Alcantara. The zonal value is P21,600,000; the selling price, Your Honor, is P18 million.

We will request that this document Exhibit WW be also marked as our Exhibit 53 and

the entries under those pertinent columns that the witness just read be encircled and submarked

as Exhibit 53.

The Presiding Officer. Mark the document accordingly.

Mr. Esguerra. Two other properties in Quezon City according to you, Mr. Witness, and correct

me, if I am wrong, were also registered in the name of one Renato Corona and Cristina Corona. May


9/68


I ask if you have the titles with you covering these properties located in Xavierville Subdivision?

I have been informed that these are Exhibits QQ and RR , for expediency, please.

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Sir. I have with me the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title

No. RT-3191 (163660). This title, Your Honor, is registered in the name of Renato C. Corona,

married to Ma. Cristina R. Corona, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. May I invite your attention when was this entered based on your records?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3191 (163660),

was issued on April 5, 1971 at 8:20 in the morning.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you. Again, Your Honor, with the kind indulgence of the honorable

Impeachment Court, we would request that this particular Exhibit QQ for the Prosecution....

This has already been marked as Exhibit 20. I am so sorry. May I just request for a submarking,

Your Honor, of the entry just read by the witness.


Mr. Esguerra. The date of the entry be encircled in this particular TCT and submarked as our

Exhibit 20-A.

Is there any other Transfer Certificate of Title?

Mr. Alcantara. Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-141891, Sir. This title is registered in the

name of Renato C. Corona, married to Cristina R. Corona, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

Again, I am inviting you to this exhibit, particularly the entry as to the date of the inscription. Can

you read this for the record, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title was issued on October 23, 1995, at 10:30 in the

morning, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. For the record, Your Honor, we would just like to manifest that that particular

entry in this particular exhibit, Exhibit RR, has already been previously marked as Exhibit 21 and

Exhibit 21-A, Your Honor, insofar as the inscription is concerned. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Esguerra. That would be all for the witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Any redirect?

Mr. Justiniano. No redirect, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged.

Mr. Alcantara. Thank you, Your Honor. Permission, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Next witness.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we call on our second witness for the cross-

examination of the Defense, the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina.


10/68


The witness, Your Honor, is on his way to the Session Hallin few minutes. He is here,

Your Honor.

Let the witness take the witness stand. Has he been sworn....Under the same oath.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer. The distinguished Defense Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that Attorney Esguerra, a member of the

Defense panel, be allowed to conduct the cross-examination of this witness.

The Presiding Officer. Atty. Esguerra is recognized.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you once again, Your Honor. With your permission and the permission

of the other honorable Members of the Impeachment Court.

Since when have you been the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina City, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Garcia. Sir, I have been the Registrar of Deeds of Marikina since 2006, that is six years.

Mr. Esguerra. And you have identified in your direct testimony, Mr. Witness, certain

properties appearing in your records to be registered in the name of Cristina Roco Corona, married

to Renato C. Corona.

Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. Now, as far as your records show, you did not find any Deed of Sale or

Deed of Transfer or any form of Deed of Conveyance transferring this particular property to

any person.


Mr. Esguerra. And would I be correct in saying, therefore, that you are not aware that these

properties covered by the seven (7) titles have already been sold?

Representative Barzaga. Misleading, Your Honor.

Mr. Esguerra. He spoke of....

Representative Barzaga. Objection, Your Honor, because the Counsel is already assuming a

fact, and what is the fact being assumed, that there has been already a Deed of Sale.

The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer.

Mr. Garcia. As per records, Sir, there is no record of any sale for that matter, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. You would not know a certain Demetrio C. Vicente, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Garcia. Sir, from the records of the Register of Deeds, there is no such name, Sir.

Mr. Esguerra. Let me show you, Mr. Witness, and tell this honorable Impeachment Court,

a document denominated as Deed of Absolute Sale consisting of five (5) pages, Your Honor.

May I simply ask you if you have seen this particular document?


11/68


Representative Barzaga. Well, actually, Your Honor, there is no basis.

The Presiding Officer. He is just asking the witness if he has seen the document.

Witness may answer.

Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. I have not seen this document.

Mr. Esguerra. There is an inscription on page 5, because you have not seen, according to you,

this document under the dorsal portion of page 5, an entry in blue ink. Have you seen this particular

entry, if at all?

Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. May I request the Counsel for the Prosecution to be

deferent to the Defense Counsel. He is cross-examining. And I think it is proper that the Prosecution

should stay where they are.

Mr. Esguerra. Your Honor, may we request for a provisional marking of this exhibit because the

witness would not be able to identify this at this point in time. We will present, when our turn comes,Your Honor, the appropriate witness to identify this particular entry here about a Certificate of

Authorization to Register signed by one Rodrigo M. Lopez, Assistant Revenue District Officer, dated

July 30, 1990. Just a provisional marking, Your Honor, so we will not get lost.

The Presiding Officer. Let it be marked accordingly.

Mr. Esguerra. We request that the document be marked as our Exhibit 54, Your Honor, and

that the particular CAR entry here at the last page, page 5, be encircled as our Exhibit 54-A.

The Presiding Officer. Let it be marked accordingly.

Representative Barzaga. Your Honor, may I be permitted to see the document.


Mr. Esguerra. They are with the Clerk of Court, Your Honor, the original brownish document

and the photocopy, Your Honor.

Representative Barzaga. I will just make a manifestation, Your Honor.


Representative Barzaga. That the photocopy....

Mr. Esguerra. Nandoon po sa isang pahina, Kagalang-galang na Kongresista.

Representative Barzaga. Yes, we admit that the photocopy is a true and faithful reproduction

of the original, to expedite the proceedings.

Mr. Esguerra. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense, are you through with the cross?

Mr. Esguerra. We are, Your Honor, with the marking of this particular exhibit.

The Presiding Officer. Is this document already marked? Is that document already marked

for the parties?


12/68


Mr. Esguerra. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

The Presiding Officer. Is the document already marked for the parties? Please state it into the

Recordif it has already been marked for the parties.

Mr. Esguerra. It has already been marked, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, any redirect?

Representative Barzaga. No redirect, Your Honor.

I would just like to manifest, Your Honor, that the seven (7) titles involving the Marikina properties,

the photocopies have been previously marked in evidence starting from Exhibit HH up to

Exhibit NN.

However, in the course of the marking, we requested the Defense Counsel if he is willing to stipulate

that the photocopies are true and faithful reproduction of the original. And they answered that they

would make the stipulation in open Court. That is why, Your Honor, right now I am asking the Defense

Counsel if they are willing to stipulate that the photocopies of the seven (7) titles are true and faithfulreproduction of the original titles in the possession of the Register of Deeds of Marikina.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Not only willing to stipulate, Your Honor, we will go on record as making the

admission that they are the titles covering the seven (7) parcels, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Are you satisfied with the answer?

Representative Barzaga. Yes, very much satisfied, Your Honor. We do not want to have any

technicality in the future.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Representative Barzaga. That would be all with the witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. The witness is discharged.

There is a Member of the Court who wishes to posit questions so the witness.

The distinguished Minority Floor Leader has the floor.

Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang hapon, Mr. Presiding Officer

The Presiding Officer. Magandang hapon po.

Senator Cayetano (A). my colleagues at ang Defense and Prosecution.

Mr. Presiding Officer, noong mga huling araw, mayroon po kasing confusion sa mga values o

sa mga amounts at gusto ko lang i-clarify. I think the RD will be the right person or RDs or people

dealing with that land titles and assessment of land will be qualified to answer these questions. And after

these questions, I would like to ask the Defense and the Prosecution for a legal memopara very clear

tayo sa pinag-uusapan natin dito.

Mr. Witness, hindi po ba na iyong fair market value, zonal value at iyong schedule na makikita

mo sa Assessors Office ay maaaring iba-iba iyong amount na ito?


13/68


Mr. Garcia. Posible po.

Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. At sabihin niyo po kung tama iyong interpretasyon ko pero

kung mali po, paki paliwanag.Ang fair market value, iyon yung usual amount na iyung isang tao

ang gustongmagbenta at iyung isang tao ang gustong bumili na they freely, as Senator Guingona

said, may meeting of the minds sila, nagkasundo. So, kung sa isang subdivision nagkalimang

bentahan, apat na P10,000 per square, isang P8,000 per square, ang fair market value there issomewhere around P10,000 per square, tama po ba iyon?

Mr. Garcia. Opo.

Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Ang zonal value ng BIR, nilalabas ito ng BIR?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, po.

Senator Cayetano (A). So, ibig sabihin, fixed na ito? So, kungsa subdivision na iyon sinabi

nila na ang zonal value is P8,000, iyon ang zonal value doon?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, po.Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Pero pag sa Deed of Sale nakalagay P6,000 per square,

for tax purposes, you will follow the zonal value?

Mr. Garcia. Whichever is higher po.

Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. The zonal or the

Mr. Garcia. Market value.

Senator Cayetano (A). assessed value ng Assessors Office, ano?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (A). And in a lot of areas, ang value sa Assessors Office at sa BIR ay

magkaiba?


Senator Cayetano (A). So, for example, ang assessed value, let us say, for the Assessors Office

of the City of Taguig for Fort Bonifacio,puwedeng ang pinakamataas is P30,000 per square, tapos

BIR, it is P35,000pero in reality, ang selling price niya is P100,000.

Mr. Garcia. Yes, po.

Senator Cayetano (A). That is possible.


Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Just to make it clear, fair market value, iyon talaga iyong value.

Mr. President, I finished my time to ask, but this is the question I would like to ask both to the

Defense and the Prosecution. Ang chargepo kasi ninyo nondisclosure. Ngayon, nasa batas naman

kung ano ang dapat i-disclose.

So, I would like to knowand I assume that some of my colleagues would like to know, ano ba

ang sinasabi niyong, gaano ka-specific dapat ang SALN, at ano ba iyong amount na dapat


14/68


nanduon. So,pag sinabing acquisition cost, dapat ba iyong nanduon, iyong zonal value, dapat ba

nanduon assessed value or iyong value na nanduon sa Deed of Sale, or kung iyong Deed of Sale

ay ibinayad din for tax purposes at ibinaba?

So, I think these are points of law, Mr. President. As you ruled before, when it comes to points

of law, we will allow the Prosecution and Defense to just either submit memos or argue it, Mr.

President. But, I think, this will help us decide in the future dahil in the last few days, iyan ang pinag-uusapan natinkung ano ang dapatamount nanasa SALN and whether or not nanduon dapat

at kung ano sa mga amount na iyon ang dapat nanduon.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, the Chair just wants to make a comment. Assessed value is

for purposes of collecting real estate taxes, that is the valuation of the municipal, city or provincial

assessor for real estate purposes. Now, in the case of the zonal value, for purposes of transaction

involving real estate, that is the basis. The minimum basis for computing the capital gains, the final

capital gains tax. It cannot be less than that; it cannot be higher than fair market value.

Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. President. But a few days ago, when Senator Recto

rose, he was asking about the P14.6-million price in the Deed of Sale compared to the P6.8 million

declared in the SALN. And there was a mention that maybe the P6.8 is the zonal valuation.

So what I want the Prosecution and the Defense to clear up is: Is the Prosecution now saying, ang

dapat yung amount na nandunano ba? Yung sa Deed of Sale? Kasi yung Deed of Sale na yon

2008pa,pero tumaas na ang presyo sa Fort Bonifacio ngayon, 2012 na ngayon. On the other

hand, what is the side of the Defense? Anong amount ang compliance na with law, Mr. President?

And as you said in the past, Mr. President, points of law, we should not argue it but allow the two

parties to be the one to come out with their stand on each issue, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay, then.

Representative Barzaga. A very short response, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. On the part of the

The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

On the part of the Defense, Your Honor, may I be allowed in connection with this issue now to

read what is provided for under the rules governing the contents of the SALN that must be filed by

a public officer, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. I am referring to Rule 7, Your Honor, Public Disclosure.

The Presiding Officer. Whose rule is that?

Mr. Cuevas. This is the rule, Your Honor, made by the Civil Service, Your Honor, in connection

with the contents of the SALN.

The Presiding Officer. That is issued by what department of government?


15/68


Mr. Cuevas. Civil Service Commission, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The Civil Service Commission, okay.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. May I now proceed, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. Every official and employee, except those who serve in an official honorary

capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary laborers and casual or temporary or contractual

workers, shall file under oath their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth and a disclosure of

business interests and financial connections including those of their spouses and unmarried children

under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households, in the prescribed form

Contents of Statement, Your Honor: The Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth shall

contain information on the following: first, real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed

value, and current fair market value.

I would like to state, Your Honor, that the filer has no alternative. All these must be stated as perrequirement of these rules, relative to the filing of the Statement of Liabilities. In other words, if the

filer states merely the assessed value, that is not sufficient compliance. If he says, Acquisition Cost,

it is not because the implementing rules require these matters to be stated in the very document to be

filed, Your Honor.

Now, insofar as whether the Statement of Assets and Liabilities involved in this particular case,

Your Honor, we have not gone this far, Your Honor. Because if the Court will remember, the

introduction of evidence in connection with Article II merely refers to 2.2 and 2.3. So the only issue

is: Was there filing? There was no statement as to whether what was filed is inaccurate, if there were

corrections to be made and so on, Your Honor.

So, I submit that these items required to be filed and even if not complied with, this will exempt

the filer from any liability whatsoever. In fact, under the same procedure, if after the examination of

what was filed, there seemed to be errors or discrepancies, then he is allowed. He is allowed to make

the correction. This is the provision of the rules and regulations, Your Honor.

So we are not prepared to go on stipulation relative to what it must contain because the law is

specific, the rules and regulations.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, I am happy with that answer. Because I believe, then

we can agree that the SALN should contain

Mr. Cuevas. Correct.

Senator Cayetano (A). ... all of that.

Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (A). Because we all have copies of the SALN and the public can get a

copy or can see it through the media, so we can see whether there is compliance or not. But as the

Defense has said, they are taking two issues, whether or not 2.2 and 2.3 would include examination

of the SALN.


16/68


Mr. Cuevas. No. I am sorry, go ahead, please.

Senator Cayetano (A). Basically, Mr. President, I am just glad that we can agree na iyon po ang

sinabi ng Civil Service, so ang sinabi ninyo poit should contain fair market value, assessed value

and acquisition cost. So, if the Prosecution also agrees on that and that is what the law says, then I

think at least, as far as that issue is concerned, we will simply examine the SALN and look whether

or not nanduon po iyong mga binanggit ng law.

Mr. Cuevas. Whatever is our agreement, it will not affect the requirements prescribed by the rules

and regulations.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. We may agree otherwise but that will not have the effect of amending...

Senator Cayetano (A). I agree, Mr. President, I just wanted to know whether may issuepo doon

o wala. And I am glad na we both believe Kasi ang nagiging issue, Justice, if I am correct, iyong

interpretation ng law. But now the way you read it, it seems that it is very clear to all of us and I can

see my fellow Senator-judges nodding. So, we leave it at that. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much also.

Representative Barzaga. May the Prosecution respond? Very short only.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may make a response.

Representative Barzaga. Well, actually, we agree with the...

The Presiding Officer. You have two (2) minutes.

Representative Barzaga. Yes. Actually, we agree with the circular coming from the Civil Serviceand as a matter of fact, it is only a reiteration of what is provided under Section 8 of Republic Act

No. 6713.

The Presiding Officer. So, there is no quarrel about that.

Representative Barzaga. Yes. But we want to point out, Your Honor, that although the

distinguished Defense Counsel has actually stated that the SALN should contain the acquisition cost,

the assessed value and the current fair market value, in the SALNs of the Chief of Justice which

happened to be a common exhibit of both the Prosecution and Defense, the column pertaining to

acquisition cost as well as the improvements are blank. There is no declaration regarding the acquisition

cost of the properties acquired by the Chief Justice in all his SALNs from 2002 up to 2010.

The Presiding Officer. Your ground under Article II is culpable violation of the Constitution and/

or betrayal of public trust. Are you offering the SALN as evidence for culpable violation of the

Constitution or for betrayal of public trust?

Representative Barzaga. Both cases, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Both?

Representative Barzaga. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Can you explain to us the culpable violation of the Constitution?


17/68


Representative Barzaga. Well, because under the Constitution, Your Honor, the Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is required to file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and

Networth. And also when the highest official in the Judiciary should not declare accurately and truthfully

and should intentionally left some blanks open insofar as acquisition cost is concerned, then we think

that that would be the highest form of betrayal of public trust.

The Presiding Officer. So, you offer it for both?

Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Okay.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Recto wishes to be recognized, then Senator Joker.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Batangas has two (2) minutes.

Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President.

I invite the attention of the Prosecutor and the Defense since we are talking already of the laws

governing the filing and disclosures in the SALN. The Defense earlier mentioned the Implementing Rulesand Regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission. And he spoke about Rule 7 on Public

Disclosure, is that correct?

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. That is not my opinion, Your Honor, I just read the

rule as it is, no subtraction, no addition whatsoever, Your Honor.

Senator Recto. Correct. Now, let me invite the attention of the Defense to Rule 8 of the same

Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission and I would also like to get the

comments from the Prosecution.

Rule 8 says, Review and Compliance Procedures. Section 1, the following shall have theauthority to establish compliance procedures for the review of statements to determine whether

said statements have been properly accomplished.

a) In the case of Congress, the designated committees of both Houses of Congress, subject

to approval by the affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.

b) In the case of the Executive Department, the heads of departments, offices and agencies

insofar as their respective departments, offices, agencies are concerned, subject to the

approval of the Secretary of Justice.

c) In the case of the Judicial Department, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and

d) In the case of the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, their

respective chairmen and members thereof. In the case of the Office of the Ombudsman,

the Ombudsman.

The above officials shall likewise have the authority to render any opinion interpreting the

provisions of the review and compliance procedures in the filing of SALN and disclosure of

information.

Following, it says, In the event said authorities determined that a statement is not

properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary

corrective action.


18/68


Meaning to say, it can be corrected.

And finally, it says, The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other

individual involved in a similar factual situation and who, after issuance of the opinion,

acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided

in the Code.

What does this mean, Counsel for the Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. Well, to us, it is our humble opinion, Your Honor, that if there may have been

discrepancies, inaccuracies, incompleteness in the returns, Your Honor, this can be remedied, after a

review of the SALN has been made.

If it is not intentional, Your Honor, no criminal liability nor any administrative liability is incurred by

the filing official, Your Honor.

Furthermore, the law on the matter is very clear with respect to review and compliance procedure.

And with the kind permission of this Honorable Court, may I be allowed to read the same,Your Honor? Section 10I am referring to the very law itself, Your Honor.

The designated committees of Houses of Congress shall establish procedures for the

review of statement to determine whether said statements which had been submitted on time

are complete and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that the statement

is not so filed, the appropriate committee shall inform the reporting individual and direct him

to take the necessary corrective action.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, for the information of the Court, what is the penalty of not

complying with the required form?

Mr. Cuevas. Subject to corrective instructions that may be made by the committee investigating

the issue, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. There is no specific penalty?

Senator Recto. There are.

Mr. Cuevas. No penalty. If it is not malicious, it was not intentional and the committee

determines that it is so, no criminal nor any administrative liability.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Okay.

Senator Recto. Mr. President, there are penalties under the law but I can get to that later on.

But can we hear from the Prosecution, the point of the Prosecution on this matter as well?

Representative Barzaga. Well, actually, there is a case already decided by the Supreme Court

and that would be the case ofPresidential Anti-Graft Commission v. Pleyto. In that particular case,

this provision cited by the Defense Counsel was also the subject of issue. And according to the

Supreme Court, if there has been omission or not a faithful or true declaration of the properties, the

filer cannot avail of these provisions. In the particular case, the filer would be liable for perjury because

the statement insofar as the SALN is concerned is made under oath and there is a certification at the

last portion that all the statements contained therein are true and correct.


19/68


The Presiding Officer. All right. If it is a crime, is it a high crime?

Representative Barzaga. Well, it is

The Presiding Officer. Is it a high crime?

Representative Barzaga. No, insofar as high crime is concerned

The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. I

Representative Barzaga. No, Your Honor. It is not a high crime.

The Presiding Officer. All right. You read the Constitution. Culpable violation of the

Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption and other high crimes could be the basis for

impeachment.

Representative Barzaga. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So that is the law.

Representative Barzaga. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed to make a short reply, Your Honor?

The Pleyto case mentioned by my colleague, Your Honor, finds no applicability to the present

situation. No analogy. It has no compelling force so as to be considered by this Honorableand there

Pleyto has been found to be liable on so many occasions already.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Gentleman from Iloilo.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, you know, this is a legal issue and I thought that the agreement

was that a legal memorandum be submitted. May we request that we now proceed with the trial and

have the witnesses presented, and these issues on theon what constitutes.

The Presiding Officer. So let us finish this colloquy and proceed with the .

Senator Drilon. We proceed with the trial, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. Sorry, sorry.

Senator Drilon. And therefore, Mr. .

Mr. Cuevas. We have gone this far because there was a query posed by the Honorable Senator

from Taguig, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Correct.

The Presiding Officer. The only reason why this Chair asked the Prosecution to classify perjury

becausein order to relate it to the grounds for impeachment and no other thing. So let us stop this

argumentation, let us proceed with the trial.


20/68


Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So ordered.

Senator Recto. Finally, Mr. President, may I just request both Counsel to submit their legal

memorandum to the Impeachment Court.

The Presiding Officer. Comply with the request of the Gentleman from Batangas.

Senator Recto. And one last final question to the Prosecutor, Mr. President. Just a final question.

The Presiding Officer. The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol; then after that, the Gentleman

from Pampanga.

Senator Recto. Just a final question, Mr. President.

In relation to the cross-examination earlier, may I find out from the Defense the nature of that cross-

examination earlier, because I did ask the question two or three days ago, if I am not mistaken.

Ilang properties na ba ang na-present ng Prosecution insofar as Article II is concerned?At ang

sabi nila, mayroon pang pitong properties in Marikina, documents presented but just for my

understanding. And today, you did a cross-examination of the witness. Is it your position that in 1990,

in effect, is that your position that these properties have been sold already and therefore, they are no

longer found in the SALN? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor.

Secondly, the property referred to by the honorable Registrar of Deeds a while ago does not belong

to the Chief Justice. It is registered in the name of the owner, the daughter, Your Honor, who is of

legal age. And then there could be no presumption that could arise under the situation, unless fraud

had been proven, Your Honor.

Now, in these Marikina properties, if I may be allowed to go a little further in response to the query

of the Honorable Gentleman from Batangas, Your Honor, this property is one single parcel. It was

subdivided intoMarikina, yes,into seven (7) parcels, Your Honor. It was sold already. There

were seven (7) titles, Your Honor, but the buyerwe have the document of sale, we are ready to

present it when our time comes, but there was already payment of all the fees required by law, but the

buyer did not register it. So it still appears in the name of

Senator Recto. And because of that, let me just state for the record and I will sit down and yield

the floor to the Gentleman from Makati.

Nagtataka ako kahapon, sinasabi ninyothat

dahil hindi pa nape-perfect

iyongtransfer andtherefore, hindi kailangang ilagay sa SALN. Okay. Now in this case, baligtad naman iyong

argumento ninyo.

Mr. Cuevas. Ah, hindi po.

Senator Recto. No, becauselet me finish, let me finish.

Mr. Cuevas. My apology.

Mr. Cuevas. Because in this case naman ngayon, sinasabininyo hindi pa nape-perfect to the

buyer since 1990 and therefore, hindi pa dapat sa buyer iyon, nasa sa inyo pa rin iyon, based on

your arguments yesterday.


21/68


Mr. Cuevas. No. No comparison

Senator Recto. Hindi pa consummated eh.

Mr. Cuevas. between that property and this property. The other property, there is a claim

that there was already transfer of ownership constructively, Your Honor. We have authorities on the

point that we should distinguish ownership from possession. If what was delivered is only possession

not ownership, there is no legitimate transfer. Now, in this particular instance, Your Honor, not

only possession had been transferred, even ownership. In fact, the real estate taxes are being paid

by the buyer.

The Presiding Officer. At any rate, all of these will be covered by the memorandum of the parties

when they submit their cases to this Court.

Senator Rector. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. We will comply, Your Honor, as suggested.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati.

Senator Sotto. And then Senator Pimentel, Mr. President.

Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President.

I think we should be happy that this discussion arose. We have been hearing the evidence

presented back and forth. Now, what we have overlooked here is that we should determine whether

the offenses or omissions committed by the Respondent is, or reaches the level of an impeachable

offense.

That is the criteria. Not every offense, not every omission is an impeachable offense. In other

words, even a crime that may have been committed is not an impeachable offense. Now, we should

all look at that. And so the responsibility of the Prosecution is to present evidence that would amountto an impeachable offense and the Defense must also refute it. Otherwise, if we are given, or the

evidence presented here is just any kind of evidence, then I think it is not fair to the Senate because

our criteria is an impeachable offense.

Remember that President Clinton was impeached. The U.S. House of Representatives impeached

President Clinton. It was elevated to the Senate. When the Senate heard it, the Senate said, It did

not amount to an impeachable offense, and cleared him.

Now, that is the situation now that we have to because otherwise we will be hearing all these.

We want this finished, but give us evidence that has reached the level of an impeachable offense as I

keep on repeating, it is not just any offense. It must be of a higher bar because we are removing aChief Justice. This is not to say that it is like, for instance, an omission in this give us something to

hang on to.

So that is all I would like to say. Otherwise, we will go astray in the course of the proceedings and

we have been listening to this That is why I said I am thankful that this issue arose.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, just

The Presiding Officer. I will recognize first the gentleman from Cagayan de Oro and Misamis

Oriental.


22/68


Senator Pimentel. Mr. President. Yes, clarificatory.

To the Defense Counsel, how many documents, Sir, did you have provisionally marked during the

course of the cross-examination?

Mr. Cuevas. Of this particular witness, Your Honor?

Senator Pimentel. Yes, of this particular witness, Sir.

Only one, how many?

Mr. Cuevas. Only two.

Senator Pimentel. One or two?

Mr. Cuevas. Only one, Your Honor, and the others, submarking, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel. So one document provisionally marked because you will now have it properly

identified by your own witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor.Senator Pimentel. But even though it is a provisional marking, can we ask for a copy already?

So that we can anticipate your theory and we can appreciate the cross-examination.

And that document, Sir, is a Deed of Sale dated 1990 covering the seven (7) titles produced by

this witness. Is that it?

Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor, he was only confronted with it because it is a document existing

in our behalf, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. It is a Deed of Sale, Sir?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, covering seven (7) parcels emanating from one parcel only.

Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. But covering the seven (7) titles produced by this witness.

Okay. So I want to ask this question to the witness.

So the seven (7) titles that you produced before this Court are still subsisting in your Book of Titles.

So if someone were to ask for a copy, you would give these titles as still subsisting and valid titles?


Senator Pimentel. So, that means that 22 years have elapsed and yet the seven (7) titles have not

been transferred to the buyer named in that document. Maybe we will just ask your witness why the

buyer has allowed 22 years to pass without transferring the title to the buyers name.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, we are not in control of the buyer. We are not privy to him.

We have no relation whatsoever. What we did say is that there was a sale made by our client, Mrs.

Corona, in favor of this buyer. Now, whether she wanted it registered or not


Mr. Cuevas. it is her own lookout.


23/68


Senator Pimentel. I know, I know, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. We cannot.... I am sorry, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel. Okay. Anyway, so my point is, we are not to fault the Prosecution for

pursuing this subject matter because the titles still exist in the name of Ma. Cristina Corona, married

to Renato C. Corona. So, it means that the Defense has to explain why the titles are still in the nameof the wife of the Respondent.

Mr. Cuevas. We are not faulting them, Your Honor. Neither is it our intention.


Mr. Cuevas. We only wanted to stand with our evidence. And our evidence show that this

property had been sold several years ago. It was transferred to the buyer, but the buyer refuses to

register.

Senator Pimentel. So, as far as I am concerned, I am not faulting the Prosecution and this has

not been a waste of time because in my opinion they have correctly pursued this angle.Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you also.

Representative Barzaga. Just a brief response. The Defense is saying that these properties have

been sold as early as 1990.


Representative Barzaga. However, in our document, which has been previously marked as

Exhibit B in the SALN of the Chief Justice for July 1992, the Marikina properties are still included

among the list of his properties. And that is the reason we are bringing out these properties.

Senator Pimentel. Yes, and you could elaborate on that in your memorandum.

Representative Barzaga. Thank you, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. But why will the Chief Justice, Your Honor,...

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.

Yes, Counsel, please finish your sentence.

Senator Sotto. And then, Senator Escudero.

Mr. Cuevas. But why will the Chief Justice be the subject matter of an impeachment proceedings

for the failure of the buyer of the property he has? It is unfair. No justice whatsoever, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, we are now discussing the evidence of the Defense. I think

let us wait for the Defense to present their defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo has the floor.


24/68


Senator Drilon. Yes. The Senator-Judges were not allowed access to this particular document.

This is a Deed of Sale dated....[Pause]

Mr. Cuevas. We could have done so, Your Honor. But for fear that we may have been....

Senator Drilon. Just for the record. Just for our information.

Mr. Cuevas. This is a Deed of Sale, Your Honor, made by Ma. Cristina Roco Corona

Senator Drilon. In favor of....

Mr. Cuevas. in favor of Demetrio C. Vicente, Your Honor,

Senator Drilon. Dated....

Mr. Cuevas. dated dated July 26, 1990.

Senator Drilon. July 26, 1990.

Mr. Cuevas. 1990. Notarized by one Ma. Beatriz S. Montoya, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. And how much is the consideration for the transfer?

Mr. Cuevas. P509,985.00, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. May I beg the indulgence of the Members of the Court. Let us not vary

the order of proof here. Let us wait for the Defense to bring that out and that is the proper subject

for cross-examination of the Prosecution. So ordered.

Senator Sotto. Senator Escudero wishes to be recognized, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon.

Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President.

Just three points actually. One, this is raised earlier already. Tungkol po roon sa tinatanong na....

Tinanong ko po ito kahapon. Ano ba ang definition ninyo? Kailan ba idedeklara? Dahil

lumalabas po yata na teoriya ng Prosekusyon, sabi ninyo kahapon, Kapagka in-execute iyong

Deed of Sale, dapat ay inilagay na sa SALN. Ang sabi ng Depensa kahapon, Kapagkana-

turnover at tinanggap na, doon dapat ilagay sa SALN. Ngayon po kasi, lumalabas iyong titulo

nasa pangalan pa ni Chief Justice Corona, pero may Deed of Sale na.

If I may ask the Prosecutor, if it is proven that indeed there is a Deed of Sale, kung napatunayan

po ng Depensa iyon pagdating ng turno nila, pero iyong titulo nakapangalan pa po sa kaniya,

ayon sa inyo kahapon kapagka may Deed of Sale kahit wala pang titulo dapat ideklara na.

Binibilang pa rin po ba ninyo ito? Kung saka-sakaling mapapatunayan niya, bibilangin pa po ba

ninyo ito kung may Deed of Sale na nga bagaman hindi pa rehistrado, kailangan ba nakalagay

din po sa SALN niya iyon?

Mr. Barzaga. Well, that is a matter of Defense and appreciation on the part of the Impeachment

Court.

Senator Escudero. But, I would like to request, Mr. President, since we requested them to submit

a memorandum on this matter, can you kindly include this circumstance because you cannot be

inconsistent nor can you have a double standard on this. And the same is true with the Defense, as


25/68


pointed out by Senator Recto. Hindi ba pupuwedeng kapag ka pumapabor sa magkabilang panig ,

it should be consistent and one and the same.

And second point, Mr. President, Your Honor, I join Senator Arroyo, we might be wasting our

time discussing crimes that may not be impeachable. For example, assuming na may video na nag

jay walking si Chief Justice Corona, is this of the nature, indeed it is a violation of the law. Is this of

the nature that we can impeach him based on this criminal act? Let us say, naglagay siya sa LTO para mabilis-bilis iyong kaniyang pagbigay ng lisensiya, may video din naglagay ng pera,

nagbigay ng limang-daan, is this of the nature? What essentially we are asking for is kindly educate

us on the gravity and level of crimes that would be and should be considered as impeachable.

In the United States, for example, they also require a similar document to be presented as our

SALN. They talk and speak of a range. If you go beyond a certain range, then you are liable. But,

if you are within a certain range the lower, higher, the actual value, okay lamang iyon. So, in other

words, what I am asking for is, kung mahigit isang milyon iyong na-miss niyang hindi idineklara,

does that make it impeachable?

Kung limang-daan libo lang, does that make it not impeachable? Kung anim ang idineklara

tapos lima lang pala talaga, is that impeachable? Can you include that in your memorandum on the

part of the Defense and the Prosecution, if possible?

Mr. Cuevas. We will, Your Honor.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. After you are through, may we be allowed to...

The Presiding Officer. May I request the parties to please be courteous to one another?

The counsel for the Defense is still talking and then there is an interruption.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President.

Representative Tupas. My apologies.

The Presiding Officer. From hereon, I will warn everybody that this Chair will impose the rules

of this House!

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, sans the arguments and debates by the parties again, I am

simply requesting for a memorandum on this matter. We need not hear them at this point in time.

My last point, Mr. President, Your Honor, is just for clarity because I have been counting the

properties. Last time, I heard the Prosecution, they announced that the Chief Justice has 45 properties.

Just that I may found out if my count is accurate. So far, the Prosecution has presented how manyproperties? My count is 18 properties both in his name, in the name of his spouse, in the name of his

children, plus six (6) parking lots. That makes it 24, if I will include the parking lots as properties.

You announced to the media and here, I guess, in the Impeachment Court as well, that it is 45.

Do I take it that you are presenting 21 more titles?

Representative Tupas. No, your Honor. The 45 properties was a list from the Land Registration

Authority. But, as far as the Prosecution is concerned, so far we have presented 21 titles.

Senator Escudero. Twenty-one?

Mr. Tupas. Yes, so far.


26/68


Senator Escudero. Which includes the parking lots?

Representative Tupas. Yes.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, at this juncture, I join the Chair and again, using this as an

example in revealing evidence to the public. One side already said there were 45 titles, and here we

are waiting for 45 titles to be presented.

I hope, Mr. President, Your Honor, that this will serve as a guide, that unless evidence is

presented before the Court and accepted, we cannot evaluate it. It is unfair to the Senator-Judges

to be accused of, 45 iyan, ano ba naman kayo? Ganyan pa rin ang desisyon ninyo. Ang

ipinipresenta pa lang pala ninyo ay dalawamput isa. Do I take it you will not even reach 45?

Representative Tupas. We will not reach 45, and we just want to put on record, Your Honor,

that the 45 did not come from the Prosecution. It was a letter [Noise]...

The Presiding Officer. Order.

Representative Tupas. May I proceed, Mr. President, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please, the Counsel.

Representative Tupas. Just for clarification. The 45 properties came from the Land Registration

Authority. It was a letter. It was a letter coming not from the Prosecution but from a government

agency. And right now, it is up to the Prosecution to present evidence. And so far, we have presented

21 properties. We might present some more, but we are not bound by that 45 properties from the

Land Registration Authority.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, just one point and I will yield to Senator Estrada.

Mr. President, I know that the letter came from the Land Registration Authority, but it was the

Prosecution or through its spokespersons that revealed it to the public and told the public about thefact that there are 45 properties.

Again, it is putting us in a bind. Because, although it was announced that there were 45, in actuality,

only 21, 24, 25 will be presented. We might be put on the spot na hindi namin nakita iyong 45. Ang

prinisenta lang naman talaga dito ay iyon lang naman talaga.

Again, I just want to make sure of my count. So, it is not 18; it is 21 so far, plus the ones that

will be presented.

Representative Tupas. Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to Senator Estrada, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Senate President Pro Tempore, Senator Ejercito Estrada.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Maraming salamat, Ginoong Pangulo.

Mr. Prosecutor, base sa mga tinanong ni Senator Escudero at base sa sinabi mo, hindiraw

nanggaling sa inyo ang listahan ng sinasabi ninyong 45 properties na ari-arian ni Chief Justice

Corona. Tama po ba ako?

Representative Tupas. Tama po.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Sino ang naglabas sa media noon?


27/68


Representative Tupas. Ang nangyari po noon....

Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, no. Sino po ang naglabas sa media ng alleged 45 properties

ni Chief Justice Corona?

Representative Tupas. Hindi po kami ang naglabas sa media.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Sino po ang naglabas?Ang LRA ang naglabas?

Representative Tupas.Nag-file po kami ng subpoena ad testificandum at duces tecum at

doon nai-attach....

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ang tinatanong ko po sa inyo: Sino ang naglabas ng listahan

ng LRA sa publiko?

Representative Tupas. Kaya po, if the Senator would allow me...

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes or no. Okay.

Representative Tupas. Please, Your Honor. I think it was few days before the start of the trialin January that we filed a request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum with

respect to the documents and we attached the letter coming from the LRA.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, you are now admitting that you yourself released it to the media?

Representative Tupas. We did not release it to the media, Your Honor. We filed it with the

Impeachment Tribunal.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. So, are you making it appear that out of the 45 properties

of Chief Justice Corona, only 21 belong to Mr. Corona? Eighteen plus the six parking lots.

Representative Tupas. Around 24.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, 24. Iyong 21 hindi pagmamay-ari ni Corona iyan. Tama po

ba? Forty-five iyong sinasabi ninyong nasa listahan ng LRA.

Representative Tupas. Iyong iba cancelled po, Your Honor. Cancelled. Naibenta.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, lumalabas iyan sa diyaryo, pinalalabas ninyo na maraming

ari-arian si Chief Justice Corona when, in fact, 21 lamang. Tama po ba?

Representative Tupas. Marami rin po ang 24 o 21.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ano?

Representative Tupas. Ang alam po namin 24 ngayon.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, 24 lamang, hindi na 45.

Representative Tupas. Hindi 45.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Salamat po.

The Presiding Officer. Ang pakiusap lamang ng Hukumang ito, kung maaari ay magiging

fair tayo sa bawat isa lalung-lalo nana igagalang ang karapatan ng nakasakdal sapagkat iyan

ay hindi ko inimbento iyan.Hindi inimbento nitong Hukumang ito kung hindi iyan po ay utos


28/68


ng taumbayan sa kanilang Saligang Batas at may obligasyon po tayong lahat na sundin ang

kautusan ng makapangyarihang taumbayan.

So, huwag na nating pag-usapan iyan at isulong na natin iyong paglilitis para nang sa

ganoon ay matapos natin itong kasong ito. O, sige, proceed with the trial.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, may the Defense be heard even for one or two minutes only

in connection with this specific matter.

The Presiding Officer. You have one (1) minute.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. What is revolting to us is the fact that while it is true that

there were documents identified and marked, they are not yet evidence in this case. Because the Rules

of Evidence require insofar as documentary evidence is concerned, it must be identified, it must be

marked, it must be offered in evidence because if not offered, it will not be considered and there must

be a ruling of the Court.

Eh, wala pa pong nangyayari rito. Minarkahan lamang eh. Ipinakikita na nila sa publiko,

Ayan, pag-aari ni Chief Justice Corona. Hindi ho ba very unfair iyan? Iyon lamang ang amingibig....Wala pa pong ebidensiya sapagkat hanggang ngayon wala pang offer , hanggang ngayon

wala pa pong ruling.

The Presiding Officer. With due respect, Mr. Counsel, we take note of your remarks.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.


Representative Tupas. Just 30 seconds. We just want to put on record some matters,

Your Honor please, around 30 seconds. May I proceed, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please.

Representative Tupas. It was raised earlier by the honorable Senator Escudero and honorable

Sen. Joker Arroyo the issue on the nature of the crime or the nature of the impeachment, or which crime

that would result doon sa impeachable offense....gaano ba dapat katindi iyong krimen na iyon? And

it was mentioned by the honorable Sen. Joker Arroyo that not all crimes would constitute an

impeachable offense.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct.

Representative Tupas. In the same way, Your Honor, that....

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. That is correct. If you read the Constitution, it says,....culpable violation of the Constitution.... treason, which carries a capital penalty, although

it is now reduced to life imprisonment; bribery and there are several types of bribery; and then

anti-graft law and other culpable violation of the Constitution; other high crimes. The other high crimes,

and as you know, we are both lawyers, is ejusdem generis, meaning, those that preceded this term

should have an equal value as to the general statement at the end. Correct, Counsel?

Representative Tupas. May I proceed, Your Honor, because I have also a humble position on

the matter.

In the same way, Your Honor, that not all offenses punishable by statute are impeachable offenses.

There are also offenses which do not amount to a crime but would constitute betrayal of public trust.


29/68


There was a question earlier coming from Your Honor, Mr. President, to one of the Prosecutors about

the Pleytocase and the question was whether perjury, assuming there is perjury in that case for the false

entries in the SALN or the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networththat is why it was asked

by Your Honorwould constitute other high crimes. And it was correctly answered by one of the

prosecutors when he said, no.

I just want to put on record, Your Honor, that our charge against the Chief Justice is the untruthfulentries in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and it would not fall under high crimes. It would fall

under betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Under the definition by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, and I will quote: Betrayal of public trust, intended as

a catchall to cover any violation of the oath of office, refers to all acts even if not punishable by statute

which would render the officer unfit to continue in office. So, we just want to put on record that our

charge is not high crime; it is betrayal of public trust.

The Presiding Officer. That is why, Counsel, I asked whether the evidence presented is to prove

culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust or both, to be fair to you. And truly,

the distinguished Congressman from Cavite said it applies to both.

So, I took that, but our opinions about the characterization of a crime, one way or the other,

is simply an opinion and we will have to evaluate this. And while I respect the constitutional

scholar, Father Bernas, we will have to take his opinion under advisement because we will, ourselves,

evaluate what is the meaning of public trust. And that the definition of betrayal of public trust

will come from them.

Representative Tupas. Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized.

Senator Sotto. We would like to know if there are other questions to the witness so that we may

discharge him.

Mr. Cuevas. We are through with the witness, Your Honor. There is no redirect, Your Honor,

so may we request that the witness be excused.

The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.

Mr. President, before a motion that I will be posing in a while, may we recognize Senator Honasan

for an inquiry.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon, Senator Honasan, is recognized.

Senator Honasan. Mr. President, as a Senator-Judge, I cannot put this issue of premature

disclosure of information to the public before it is offered as evidence until we hold both the Prosecution

and the Defense accountable and bind them to an order of the Court last week, which required or

directed the spokesperson of the Court to confer with the spokespersons of the Prosecution and the

Defense so that they may moderate their pronouncements and the information that they disclose to

media. Because it was our observation, to which no one objected, that, apparently, the trial outside the

courtroom is proceeding faster than the trial inside the Court.


30/68


So, Mr. President, I would submit that we ask the spokesperson of the Court for a report now

on how the order of the Court was implemented. I submit, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. I suggest that we take that in our caucus on Monday.

Senator Honasan. I submit, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. We will take that up in our caucus on Monday.

Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, before the Prosecution calls the next witness, I move

that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes.

The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended.

The trail was suspended at 3:38 p.m.

At 4:07 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the next witness of the Prosecution, Senator Ejercito

Estrada wishes to be recognized for a manifestation.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore,

Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just for the record, when Congressman Tupas answered me earlier that they did not

release that particular document stating that Chief Justice Corona owns 45 properties and that list came

from the Land Registration Authority and during the break, Mr. President, I chanced upon the TV

coverage of, I think, it was ANC, showing that Mr. Tupas, together with the members ofthe

spokesperson of the Prosecution panel, showing to the media the list of the 45 properties. Kaya hindi

po totoo na hindi po sa kanila nanggaling ang mga listahan at ipinalabas sa media dahil nagpa-

picture-taking pa ho si Ginoong Tupas. Kitang-kita ko po kanina sa TV.

That is why, you know, Mr. President, these people are putting the Impeachment Court or the

Members of the Impeachment Court on the spot. Pinapaniwala kami, pinapaniwala nila ang

publiko na apatnaput limang ari-arian ang pagmamay-ari ng Chief Justicepero pagdating dito,

24 lang yata ang ari-arian ni Chief Justice. Yung anim doon ay parking lotpa; yung iba nasa

pangalan ng kanyang mga anak.

You know, Mr. President, I am not defending the Chief Justice. I do not even know him. In fact,

he is one of those who conspired to oust my father from office.

Ang sinasabi ko lang, kailangan maging patas tayo rito sa Hukumang ito. Huwag po tayong

magsisinungaling.

Iyon lang po, Ginoong Pangulo.

The Presiding Officer. The Counsel.

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, Your Honor, my name was mentioned. May I just reply?


31/68


The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed.

Representative Tupas. With utmost respect to the Honorable Sen. Ejercito Estrada, I admitted

last week when we were asked by Your Honor, with respect to the spokespersons, that we officially

released it a document on January 3, 2012. And this document is the Bellagio document. I was the

one who released at the House of Representatives during a press conference and I showed it to

the public. But that was the only document which we released to the public because after that,Your Honor raised that and we complied.

With respect to the properties, I never released that. There is no picture with the media,

no press conference. It was attached as an attachment with the request for a subpoena which was

filed around three days before January 16.

So, I just want to clarify that, of course, with utmost respect to our Honorable Sen. Ejercito

Estrada.

Thank you very much.

The Presiding Officer. May I just remind everybody that apart from being politicians,we who are lawyers elected by the Filipino people are still agents of the Court. And we are governed

by the strict rules of our profession and we must behave in accordance with the ethics of our

profession. And I would like to appeal to everybody, both sides, to observe the norms of ethical

conduct that is required of us as lawyers of this country.

So ordered.

Please proceed.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we understand there is another witness for cross-examination.

Representative Tupas. No more. It is a new witness, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. A new witness. Okay.

Representative Tupas. So, may we now call our third witness for the day, the Vice President

of the Burgundy Realty Corporation, Mr. Gregg Gregonia, Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer. Call the witness to the witness stand and swear him.

Representative Tupas. And may we request that Atty. Clarence Jandoc be recognized,

Your Honor, to conduct the direct examination for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Clarence

Representative Tupas. Clarence Jandoc, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Jandoc?

Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Compaero Atty. Clarence Jandoc will have the floor to present

the witness for the Prosecution.

Mr. Jandoc. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Where is the witness?


32/68


Mr. Jandoc. Your Honors, Mr. Senate President, good afternoon.

The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon.

Mr. Jandoc. While we are waiting for the witness, may we just manifest for the record,

Your Honor, that the Prosecution earlier received an UrgentEx-Parte Manifestation and Motion

dated 20 January 2012 that was filed by Atty. Yolando F. Lim for and on behalf of BurgundyRealty Corporation.

In essence, Your Honor please, it states that Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica who was required by

this honorable Impeachment Court via the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum dated

17 January 2012, to produce certain documents pertaining to the condominium unit owned by

Respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and his wife at 1 Burgundy Plaza is not the custodian

thereof but a certain Mr. Gregg Gregonia, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is that?

Mr. Jandoc. The addressee of the subpoena is Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica. But based on this

Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion that was filed by Atty. Yolando Lim, Your Honor,it stated that he is not the custodian of the documents required in the subpoena but the person in

the witness stand, Mr. Gregg Gregonia, Your Honor.


The Presiding Officer. Then we will...

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, You Honor.


Do we have to swallow hook, line, and sinker the statement appearing there? He should be herebecause he was the one subpoenaed, Your Honor, out of respect to the authority and majesty of this

Court. That is what we are complaining about. Witnesses had been subpoenaed, subpoena had been

issued and then later on, not to be produced, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Who was the person requested by the Prosecution to be subpoenaed?

Mr. Jandoc. The person we requested, Your Honor, is Mr. Rogelio T. Serafica, who is the

president of Burgundy Realty Corporation. But pursuant to thisEx-Parte Urgent Manifestation and

Motion filed for and on behalf of Burgundy Realty Corporation, Your Honor, with attachments as to

the purported flight of Rogelio T. Serafica out of the country as supported by photocopy of his flight

itinerary, Your Honor, and a plane ticket, we deemed it more expedient and consistent with the

administration of justice to present the person who, nonetheless, can testify on the records subjectmatter of the subpoena, Your Honor, to avoid any further delay on this matter, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Is the other fellow other than Roger Serafica present?

Mr. Jandoc. Yes, Your Honor. He is now on the stand, Your Honor please. He

Documents

Feb 2 Senate impeachment court record