March 19 Senate impeachment court record

8/2/2019 March 19 Senate impeachment court record

1/78

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012 1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Monday, March 19, 2012

Pasay City

AT 2:13 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 Honorable Chief Justice

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

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Francis G. Escudero.

Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President.

Panginoon, sa muli Po Ninyong pagpapahiram sa amin ng panibagong buhay at

lakas sa araw na ito, tanggapin Po sana Ninyo ang aming pagpapasalamat at pagkilala

sa Inyong biyaya.

Sa muli Po naming pagtitipon ngayon, Ikaw Po sana ang aming maging gabay at

panuntunan.

May You grant us the spirit of fairness, right thought and speech.Teach us to look at, weigh and appreciate different perspectives based on truth and

reason.

Please impart Your supreme wisdom among all of us and guide us to make the best use

of our own.

This we pray in Jesus Name.

Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.


2/78

2 MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012

______________*Arrived after the roll call

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 ................................. AbsentSenator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present*

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present

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

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

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

Senator 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 Senate President ......................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. With 18 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the

presence of a quorum.

The Floor Leader.

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.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 15, 2012

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

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the March 15, 2012

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


3/78


The Secretary will now please call the case.

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

Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. Appearances, the Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. May we ask the parties to enter their appearances, Mr. President?

Prosecution.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President.

For the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances. We are ready,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Defense.

Mr. Bodegon. Good afternoon, Mr. President and members of the Impeachment Court. For theDefense, Your Honor, same appearance.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, for a manifestation, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor

Santiago?

The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo is recognized.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you, Mr. President.

It appears to me that we have come to the point in this Impeachment Trial when we are faced with

the centerpiece of the Prosecution, meaning to say, the accusations against the filing of the SALN

(Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) by the Chief Justice. It appears to be the showpiece

of the Prosecution and therefore we must take time, not only take time out of number crunching which

we are doing last week and see what the Constitution and what the Supreme Court have said about

the filing of the SALN.

First, let me begin with Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. I will read it verbatim:

Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he

failed to discloseI repeatwhen he failed to disclose to the public Statement of Assets, Liabilities

and Net Worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Notice that thisheading under the Articles of Impeachment only uses the phrase failed to disclose. If he had disclosed

and we are going to apply this Article literally and very strictly, then there is no more case. Because

it turns out now that he disclosed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities as provided by law as I shall

explain later.

So, in my view, Article II is suffering from at least incompetence in phraseology. Because if we

were to apply it strictly, if there is evidence and evidence has been shown in this Court that Defendant

failed to disclose, meaning to say, failed to show his statement or make his Statement of Assets,

Liabilities and Net Worth unavailable or inaccessible to the public, then he would have committed the

impeachable offense. But if he already took steps to do otherwise, then the whole case falls. What


4/78


I am saying is that Article II should have said, When he failed to disclose and he failed to declare.

Because declare and disclose are two separate things.

As we shall see when we look at the Constitution, Article XI, Section 17, A public officer or

employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit

a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth. Notice therefore that the first

requirement by the Constitution is to file a declaration. You declare what your assets and liabilities are.And then in the closing sentence, the Constitution says, The declaration shall be disclosed to the public

in the manner provided by law. This is the second requirement, the requirement that it should

be disclosed. There are therefore two requirements: first, that he declared; second, that he disclosed.

It appears now that the Chief Justice both declared and disclosed. So the case is closed.

But in the spirit of liberality, we have taken note of the explanation of the Prosecution of its Article

II on the Articles of Impeachment. Now, let us look at what our Supreme Court has ruled concerning

the filing of the SALN under this constitutional provision. In the 2003 case ofFrancisco vs.

Nagmamalasakit, et cetera, Supreme Court said, A determination of what constitutes an impeachable

offense is a purely political question. We cannot settle it by citation of authorities or by citation of cases.

It is a purely political question, said the Supreme Court.

The Constitution enumerates six grounds for impeachment. Two of these, namely, other high crimes

and betrayal of public trust, elude a precise definition. But the issue calls upon the Court to decide

a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power. Therefore, we are

making history with this particular Impeachment Case. We are deciding a political question. What are

the failures or the omissions in the filing of the SALN that would constitute an impeachable offense?

Notice that in the United States Constitution, it is possible to impeach a high public official for

crimes and for misdemeanors. We did not use the phrase and for misdemeanors because

misdemeanors in common law systems are mere faults or failures to observe minor ordinances. So our

Constitution contemplates a very high crime.

We have to see then what is the meaning of a high crime. In the records of the Constitutional

Convention, we find at least this sentence: For graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust to be

ground for impeachment, their concrete manner of commission must be of same severity as treason and

bribery, offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation. They kept on repeating this clause

in the Constitutional Commission, offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation. That

is in pare materia with all those other obviously high crimes that are enumerated in our Constitution.

Our question therefore is not about how do you distinguish this value from that value, assessed value,

acquisition cost, fair market value. We are not number crunchers. This is a quasi-judicial and quasi-

political proceeding. This is not a quasi-accounting proceeding.

So the question is, whether there is any discrepancy or omission in the SALN of the Defendant

Chief Justice that strikes at the very heart of the life of the nation.

Now I come to a famous or, according to your view, an infamous statement that was made

by an American president during the attempt to impeach one of the most famous justices of the U.S.

Supreme Court, Justice William Douglas, in April 1970.

At that time, Gerald Ford, ultimately President of the U.S. who was just a representative, and he

maintained this famous, infamous statement. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the

Houseor in our case, one-third (1/3) of the House considers it to be at a given moment in

history. So we are actually writing the book for what is an impeachable offense. Conviction results


5/78


from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds (2/3) of the other bodymeaning to say, two-thirds

(2/3) of the Senate, just like the Philippine Senateconsiders to be sufficiently serious to require

removal of the accused from office. So it is for us to decide what is impeachable in terms of the SALN.

Now, I have already made a passing mention of the Constitution. Let us go to the laws that are

meant to implement the constitutional provision. The first law is called the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019). Section 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Every publicofficer within the month of January every other year shall file a Statement of Assets and Liabilities, in

the proper case, with the Office of the President, or in the proper case, with the Office of the Secretary

of the corresponding House or the corresponding Chamber.

Next law. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (R.A. No. 6713). The provision of the first

law that we cited, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, was expanded by the Code of Conduct and it said,

the two documentsmeaning to say, the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the

Statement of Financial Disclosure. It says, and I am quoting: These two documents shall contain

information on the following: (a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value

and current fair market value.

That is all that the law said. It did not indicate how we arrived at these values. It just says that

the SALN should contain information on real property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed

value and current fair market value. Who determines this? The proper public officials. So there is no

need for this Impeachment Court to argue lengthily on what is acquisition, what is assessed, what

is current fair market value. These are determinations made by the proper legal officer. And further,

the Code of Conduct provides the SALN shall be filed by, in the case of senators and congressmen,

with secretaries of the Senate and the House respectively. In the case of justices, with the Clerk of

Court of the Supreme Court.

We have already heard evidence that the Chief Justice filed his declaration and he filed it with

the correct official, the Clerk of Court, from whom the public may see fit by the proper proceduresto get a copy.

Not only do we have these two laws to guide us. We have to look at its Implementing Rules and

Regulations, particularly of the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct Implementing Rules and

Regulations reflects the law itself, meaning to say, the Code of Conduct in providing that the Statement

of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth shall contain information on the following and, it repeats, real

property, its improvements, acquisition cost, assessed value and current fair market value.

In the Implementing Rules and Regulations, we find this following statement: In the event said

authority determines that a statement is not properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and

direct him to take the necessary corrective action. 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.

This is the basis for the theory by some that since any failure or omission in the SALN has now

been decriminalized, it should no longer be considered an impeachable offense because of this provision

in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Code of Conduct, and there are certain provisions

that are provided for failure to do so.

Now, we have looked at the two laws. We have first looked at the constitutional provision. We

have looked at the provisions of the two major laws: the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and

the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.


6/78


Now, let us look at even lower level of legislation, the Civil Service Rules. You all know by now

that the recent guidelines issued by the Civil Service Commission are supposed to govern declarations

made for 2011 and thereafter, and there are definitions of terms in this guideline. But the most salient

provision of the guideline is: For computation purposes of real properties, acquisition cost shall be

used.

That is what the law says, you use acquisition cost. In the past, people did not know what to putin their SALNs, and the law did not say anything. Then, eventually, the law said, you can put either

acquisition cost, assessed value, or fair market value. Civil Service Commission, in practice, ruled

although the conjunctive issues for these three valuesthe conjunctive and actually should be

interpreted as or. So you could just choose any of the three. But now, we have in this new guideline

by the Civil Service Commission that when we compute our real properties we should use acquisition

cost. There is no more question about this. If the public officer fails to comply with the law, he can

be charged under the Penal Code with the crime of falsification for untruthful statements or for perjury.

So, we have taken a look now by this time at the Constitution, the applicable laws that are meant

to enforce the Constitution. But let me go more deeply into the matter of the failure to disclose, or

the failure to declare, or the omission of any declaration. The Civil Service Commission issued therecent guidelines that will govern 2012 and onwards. And it declares that for computation purposes

of real properties acquisition cost shall be used. So, you and I as members of Congressof the House

of Representatives and of the Senate beginning from 2012, should now use acquisition cost for our

SALN. But, before this guideline by the Civil Service Commission, our bureaucracy was governed by

the older guideline issued by the Civil Service Commission in 20062006 Resolution of the Civil

Service Commission does not provide any guideline.

The SALN filed by Chief Justice in 2011, but covering the period of 2010, as well as all his

previous SALNs, was filed according to the old resolution of the Civil Service Commission. I have

already said, and I repeat, according to Civil Service Commission, at that time under the old guidelines

which are very deficient, or let us just say, not specific, it is not necessary to fill up all three values.You could just choose among fair market value, assessed value, and acquisition cost.

Now, let us come to the question, how should the current fair market value be computed? We

have already been told that there are provisions in the Local Government Code because the

municipalities formulate a schedule of fair market values, and this is what is applied by the city assessors.

In our present case, the defendant based the valuation of assets in his SALN from the fair market

valuation, enacted by the local ordinances. However, the Prosecution contends that the Defendant

should have used the value by which a buyer is willing to buy the property and the seller is willing to

sell. This is the argument that uses the antique, the age-old, centuries-old possibly, definition by an

English writer called Sedgwick in his book, Sedgwick on Damages, and cited in a 1919 case by thePhilippine Supreme Court, defining market value as that reasonable sum which property would bring

on a fair sale by a person willing but not obliged to sell to a person willing but not obliged to buy.

I do not see what would be the utility of discussing what should be fair market value. We should

be discussing the question of whether the defendant committed an impeachable offense when he

allegedly, erroneously declared, misdeclared certain entries; or completely omitted certain entries in his

SALN. Let us see what theand I come now to the gist of what I really wanted to say. Let us come

now to what the Supreme Court has to say.

When you fail to properly and completely file your SALN, what are you committing? What crime

are you guilty of?


7/78


In the most recent case, 2011, Presidential Anti-Graft Commission vs. Pleyto. PAGC vs

Pleyto, promulgated in 2011, the Supreme Court answered: The failure is not dishonesty but only

simple negligence. That, Prosecution Panel, should be the topic of your next oral manifestation and

particularly your written manifestation or memorandum at the end of this Trial.

Here is the Supreme Court speaking and only as of 2011 Pleyto SALNs are prepared by a family

bookkeeper/accountant. Also, his wife has been running their financial affairs, including propertyacquisitions, which form part and parcel of her lending business. Thus, he was not directly involved

and he failed to keep track of the real property acquisition. Here is the important sentence.

Consequently, petitioners SALN was not filed in proper form containing several inaccurate information.

The Court had no doubt that the SALN was inaccurate. But, it went on to make distinctions among

these three terms: gross misconduct, dishonesty and negligence. It cited the two (2) standard laws,

remember, that we began with: The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and then the Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards. This is what the Supreme Court said: For gross misconduct to exist,

there must be reliable evidence showing that the acts complained of were corrupt,were corrupt

or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.

That is what you have to prove, Prosecution.

The Supreme Court went on. And as for dishonesty just committed by intentionally making a false

statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing

his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.

And then finally, negligence. Negligence in the Supreme Court is the omission of the diligence

which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the person,

of the time and of the place. In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a breach

of duty or failure to perform the obligation, and there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is

flagrant and palpable.

The Supreme Court goes on. Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrantthe removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee, together with the

accessory penalties. Hence, a finding that a public official is administratively liable for such charges must

be supported by substantial evidence.

Prosecution, you have to show at least substantial evidence because this sentence was made in a

decision that involved an administrative case. But we are trying an impeachment case.

The Supreme Court held that Pleytos failure in properly and completely filling out his SALN was

not intentional. The Supreme Court said, Clear from the foregoing legal definitions of gross misconduct

and dishonesty is that intention is an important element in both. Missing the essential element of intent

to commit a wrong, this Court cannot declare petitioner guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty. An

act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or

purposes does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence. And so in the Pleyto

case, the Supreme Court said, Thus, at most, petitioner is only guilty of negligence. You have your

work cut out for you.

Prosecution Panel, show that an omission or a misdeclaration was deliberately intended by the

Defendant. You must show essential element of intent to commit the wrong.

Now in another case, the Court found that the defendant was guilty and should be removed from

service. The Office of the Ombudsman vs. Racho, also a 2011 case. We have two cases to choose

from because the latest case always controls the jurisprudence. In this other case, Ombudsman vs.

Racho, the Court found Racho guilty of dishonesty for nondisclosure of his bank deposits in SALN.


8/78


Here is a note of caution to the Defense. Defense Panel, has your client, the Defendant, disclosed

in his SALN all his bank depositspeso and dollar deposits? Because if he did not, but he admits

that he made those deposits, then under the ruling in Ombudsman under ratio decidendi, then your

client is guilty. In this particular case, the Supreme Court defined dishonesty. It said: Dishonesty

begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact or practicing or

tempting to practice any deception or fraud.

And then finally, just for emphasis, one more case that challenges the position of the Defendant,

Carabeo vs. Court of Appeals in 2009. He was officer-in-charge of the Treasurer of Paraaque City.

He accumulated several properties and was able to travel abroad fifteen (15) times. He did not disclose

this in his SALN. He alleged as a defense that he can simply correct the entries made in his SALN.

But the Supreme Court said that while the law indeed allows for corrective measures, the defendant

was charged not only with a violation of the Anti-Graft Act but also violation of the Penal Code. He

failed to show any requirement that prior notice of the non-completion of the SALN, this correction

precede the filing of charges for violation of its provisions

I will now stop myself. I will challenge these two (2) Panels. Number 1, Prosecution, show that

there is intent to commit dishonesty on the part of the Defendant and you have won your case. Onthe part of the Defense, show that your client has in good faith declared in his SALN all his deposits,

both peso and dollar deposits. And if he did not, why not? Please take these decided cases that I have

cited accordingly.

Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Joker Arroyo wishes to be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol, Senator Arroyo.

Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President.

I would not have spoken this afternoon. Senator Defensor Santiago raised certain questions. I will

just follow that up. My question is this for both Panels: Is a correctible offense an impeachable

offense? I think that the two (2) Panels should think because offhand, that is what I am thinking. We

do not have precedents. We do not have the law which implements the constitutional provision that

allows correction. So this is myyou do not have to answer it. I am raising the question for both

sides to study it.

Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano wishes to be recognized, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The lady from Taguig.

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

Mr. President, just a very simple follow-up, follow-through on the challenge posed by Senator-

Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago, and actually also Senator-Judge Arroyo. I would like to know from

both the Prosecution and the Defense if they, in fact, agree with thewell with the challenge posed by


9/78


Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago. In other words, I think it is very straightforward and can we simplify

this because I saw the Prosecution nodding. And if, in fact, you will agree with Senator-Judge Santiago

that, in fact, what you will simply prove is that there was intent to commit a dishonest act inconsistent

with the Supreme Court ruling on Pleyto, then we are properly guided. Because I saw you nodding.

And while you are discussing among yourselves, I also pose the same question to the Defense

thatdo you agree, are you prepared to make a statement that if, in factthat you will prove thatthe Defendant had disclosed all of his bank accounts in good faith, and if not, why not? Are you

prepared to make a statement? Because that to me, as a Senator-Judge, simplifies the issue. And

although Senator-Judge Arroyo did not ask for an immediate answer to his question as to whether a

corrective statement or disclosure that has a corrective remedy is impeachable, I would also like to

know your statement on this, your reaction to this if now or if not, at a later date.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we will submit a memorandum with respect to that issue.

Senator Cayetano (P). Okay.

Representative Tupas. Thank you.

Senator Cayetano (P). And may I hear from the Defense?

Mr. Bodegon. Essentially, we seem to agree with the positionpresentation of Senator-Judge

Santiago, Your Honor. In fact, the direction which we are taking in presenting our evidence is

towards that. We just would want to state that under the SALN form, there is no requirement that

we must have to indicate any bank deposits or bank accounts. And the Chief Justice has not yet made

any pronouncement on this point, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (P). But it is very clear to all of us because that statement suddenly if taken

just withinif I take that statement in isolation, you are saying that the SALN does not declare a

disclosure of assets. Because obviously your bank accounts are part of your assets, correct?Mr. Bodegon. No, Your Honor. It is just that my readingand I am not quibbling over this

does not require a listing of bank account.

Senator Cayetano (P). Of this specific account.

Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (P). So, let me rephrase my question, if I may. My understanding of Senator

Santiagos statement is that, there is a requirement that the Defendant discloses their assets that are

in the bank accounts. Now, I will not quibble also as to whether that specific account needs to be

mentioned.Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (P). But the assets, whether it is in your baul at home or it is in a bank

account, the totality of that, at the very least, must be declared.

Mr. Bodegon. Must be declared. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (P). That one, we have no argument on that.


Senator Cayetano (P). All right.


10/78


Thank you very much.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, another question.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga.

Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just another point that I would like perhaps both the Defense and the Prosecution

to comment on if they should submit a memorandum.

May we also have your views on the standard of conduct required of a member of the Judiciary?

Is it the same as to the standard of conduct, for example, of an executive official or perhaps that of

a member of the Legislature? We would like to see if you are comparing apples to apples. In other

words, yung requirement ba,yung standard of conduct ba ngnasa Hudikatura, parehas ba yan

ngisang dating undersecretary ng Public Works, for example? Hopefully, we can have that likewise

in the memorandum.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we will include that in our memorandum.The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

The Floor Leader.

I think we better start with the trial. All of these are matters ought to be submitted after the closure

of the presentation of the evidence on both sides.

The procedure in this trial is for the Prosecution to present its case and for the Defense to present

its defense. Then if there is a need for rebuttal, then so be it. And the memorandum, if at all, will

come after the presentation of the Prosecutions case and the Defense rebuttal of the evidence of

the Prosecution, that is where we are at the moment.So, the gentle lady from Iloilo is again recognized.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Just one word. In response to the Defense Counsels manifestation

that it is their belief that the law does not require an itemization or a specification of the bank deposits

of the filer or the declarant, I repeat, in the case, also 2011, I am citing the Pleyto case of 2011.

In this case, it is also 2011, Office of theOmbudsman vs. Racho, 2011. In this case, the Court

found Racho guilty of dishonesty for nondisclosure of his bank deposits in his SALN. The Court held

that, In this case, Racho not only failed to disclose his bank accounts containing substantial deposits,

but he also failed to satisfactorily explain the accumulation of his wealth or even identify the sources of

such accumulated wealth.

And therefore, in view of this pronouncement by the Supreme Court, Defense will now have the

burden of proving that failure to disclose bank deposits is not necessarily an indication of bad faith to

omit a significant amount of the assets of the Defendant.

Mr. Bodegon. We agree, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So, the Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are now

The Presiding Officer. May I suggest that we go on with the trial


11/78


Senator Sotto. Yes. We are now ready

The Presiding Officer. and let us hear the Defense present the case for the Respondent. We

cannot judge this on the basis of manifestations or just the evidence presented by the Prosecution, unless

the Defense is ready to say that We waive our right to present evidence. And I do not think that they

are going to waive that.

Mr. Bodegon. We are not, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Now, there are issues here that must be clarified and that is what we are

waiting for.


Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are now ready to

The Presiding Officer. As far as the Presiding Officer is concerned, there is only one standard

for high officials and lowly employees of this government and that is found in the first sentence of Section

17 of Article XI, To tell the truth and nothing but the truth in the declaration of assets, liabilities andnet worth.

So, proceed.

Senator Sotto. We are now ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the

Defense, Mr. President.

Mr. Bodegon. Before we proceed, Your Honor, I just would like to make a manifestation. It is

unfortunate and we apologize that our Chief Defense Counsel is presently ill, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Indisposed.

Mr. Bodegon. Indisposed, Your Honor. So, in the meantime, I will be acting lead counsel forthe Defense, if the Honorable Presiding Officer would permit.

The Presiding Officer. So, proceed. We cannot control who is going to handle the defense of

the Respondent. You are the panel designated by him to present his case, do so.

Mr. Bodegon. Yes, Your Honor. We have specific assignments in the presentation of evidence,

Your Honor.

So, for the first, may we request that Atty. Tranquil Salvador be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. Atty. Tranquil Salvador has the floor.

Mr. Salvador. Magandang hapon po, Senate President.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Mr. Salvador. If I may proceed, Your Honor.

Last Thursday I think the parties have agreed to enter into a stipulation on a singular document,

Your Honor, in connection with the subpoena duces tecum that was issued by this Honorable Court.

And for the record let me state it. It pertains to Tax Declaration No. F-1000235345 pertaining to CCT

No. 85716 issued by the Register of Deeds of the city of Makati, particularly pertaining, Your Honor,

to Unit No. 31-B of The Columns Ayala Avenue, Makati City. And in the light of this stipulation with


12/78


the opposing counsel, let me put it of record that the document was previously marked as our

Exhibit 150.

And, Your Honor, and I will refer to the market value and assessed value duly marked and

stipulated on by the parties. The market value is P1,210,000.00 which was encircled and marked as

our Exhibit 150-A. I will also refer to the dorsal portion of the same document which is the assessed

value in the total amount of P726,000.00, Exhibit 150-B marked and bracketed.

The Presiding Officer. But what is the acquisition value?

Mr. Salvador. The acquisition value asthere is no acquisition value, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. There is no acquisition value?

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, I am referring to the Tax Declaration.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely, there is no acquisition value.

Mr. Salvador. Indicated here, no, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. How was that acquired? Was it by donation, inheritance or what?

Mr. Salvador. This is by purchase, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. By purchase.

Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So, there is an acquisition value if you buy a property?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. Salvador. In that light, Your Honor, before I further proceed, the witness who should have

identified it considering the stipulation as to the authenticity of the document and as to the competency

of the witness is Engr. Mario Badillo, the head or the City Assessor of Makati, Your Honor.

If allowed to testify, he should have established the accuracy of the entries of the SALN as of

December 21, 2010 and likewise, the assessed value and fair market value as approved and

determined in the Assessors Office of the City of Makati, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I think there is no problem about that. Is there, from the side of the

Prosecution?


Mr. Panganiban. Good afternoon, Mr. President.


Mr. Panganiban. That is not exactly the stipulation that we are offering.

The Presiding Officer. What is the stipulation?

Mr. Panganiban. The stipulation that we are offering is to the effect that we are not questioning

the authenticity of the tax declaration but that does not go into the accuracy of the values reflected in

the SALN. That is our position, Your Honor.


13/78


Mr. Salvador. So, in that case, would you want us to present the witness?

That statement was in connection, Your Honor, with all due respect, was for the purpose for which

the witness would have been presented.

Mr. Panganiban. Because

Mr. Salvador. And for us, if I may, it would be necessary such that at the end of the day, if weare to submit our formal offer of evidence, there is some reference point that we have to start with in

connection with the submission of our evidence.

The Presiding Officer. What is your pleasure? Do you want to present your witness now?

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, we would like to but in the light of their request last time, to agree

and stipulate on this tax declaration and in the light of the observations of some Senator-Judges

to expedite this, we decided to stipulate with them. I think we are in agreement on the document,

right, as to the authenticity?

Mr. Panganiban. As to the tax declaration, yes.

Mr. Salvador. Yes, as to the tax declaration. Their statement of the purpose is if he would

have been placed on the stand is the purpose, and that is for purposes of the record. Okay. Unless

you want him to be presented right now, Your Honor, I will have to do that. He could stipulate that

with me only for purposes of the record.

Mr. Panganiban. Your Honor, may I say something?


Mr. Panganiban. We want to spare the Honorable Court with all these markings and trivialities,

Your Honor. We will stipulate on the tax declaration and only on the tax declaration. If it goes into

the accuracy of the SALN, we are not going to stipulate on that because the assessor, Your Honor,is not the one who executed the SALNhas nothing to do with the SALN of the Chief Justice.

But he has got something to do with the tax declaration for which we admit, Your Honor.

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, if I may?


Mr. Salvador. I think my statement was if the witness would have testified, it was the purpose

for which it was offered. I think we are in agreement as to the authenticity of the document

and following Rule 132, Section 23, I think the entries therein are deemed asprima facie and that

is the reason why we entered into a stipulation.

The Presiding Officer. To stop this argumentation

Mr. Panganiban. Opo. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. there is no stipulation so far agreed upon because your minds

do not meet.

Mr. Salvador. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution will agree to stipulate with you only to the extent of the

authenticity of the document and as far as the figures that was entered in that document. But as far

as the accuracy of that document, they do not accept that.


14/78


So, since that is the situation, then you present your witness.

Mr. Salvador. Opo. Thank you, Your Honor.

Can we request a one-minute break? We will call the witness.

The Presiding Officer. All right. One-minute break.

The trial was suspended at 2:57 p.m.

At 3:03 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Franklin Drilon for an Offer?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo is recognized.

Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, during the break we talked to both parties, in an effort to make them agree on a

stipulation in order to dispense with the presentation of this particular witness. And both parties agreed

to the following stipulations, subject to their confirmation on record: Stipulation is that the entries in the

Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of the Chief Justice for the year ending December 31,

2010 marked as Exhibits 13 and 14 particularly the one that refers to a condo in Makati acquired

in 2003, the entries under the column Assessed Value and Current Fair Market Value in the

amounts of P726,000 and P1,210,000, respectively, are based on the Tax Declaration, which is

marked Exhibit 150.

Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. And if I can make a very short addition to that, to the extent

that it is copied from the Tax Declaration.

Senator Drilon. No, it is based onyou know, if you change that then, you know, you might

expectthere is no difference between what you are saying...

Mr. Salvador. Yes.

Senator Drilon. ...and what I have proposed, which you have agreed upon during the break.

Mr. Salvador. In that case, Your Honor, we will agree with that.

Senator Drilon. What about the Prosecution?

Mr. Panganiban. We likewise confirm that, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. With that, maybe we can dispense with the presentation of this witness, Mr.

President.

Mr. Panganiban. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, are you satisfied?

Mr. Salvador. We are, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Did the statement of the gentleman from Iloilo accurately reflect the

thinking of both the Prosecution Panel and the Defense Panel?


15/78


Mr. Panganiban. On the part of the Prosecution, we confirm that, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. How about the Defense?

Mr. Salvador. Yes, Your Honor. My understanding isis that it was copied and it is accurate.

To that extent, I agree, Your Honor.

Mr. Panganiban. Your Honor, I will have to object to the word accurate because that isthe word that we are trying to avoid here. You cannot say that it is accurate because it does not

reflect the current market value, Your Honor. Counsel is changing the stipulation. That is my

manifestation.

Mr. Salvador. No, Your Honor, that was based on the offer. But in that case, Your Honor,

in order to expedite, we will agree on that based on the statement of Senator Drilon.

The Presiding Officer. When you say current market valuemarket value today or yesterday

or in 2010?

Mr. Panganiban. As of the time that the SALN was filed, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Yes. Why do you say that?

Mr. Panganiban. Because the SALN is dated at that time. For example, the SALN in question,

it is a SALN dated December 31, 2010. So the current fair market value, Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. At that time

Mr. Panganiban. It should be as of December 31, 2010. That is our position, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And what was written in the SALN?

Mr. Salvador. What was written in the SALN were figures lifted from the Tax Declaration ofthe property.

The Presiding Officer. All right, I understand.


The Presiding Officer. So there is no meeting of the minds.

Senator Drilon. No, there is a meeting of the minds, Your Honor.


Senator Drilon. So that withboth of them have agreed to the stipulation as thisRepresentation has read, if the Defense can confirm that.

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, there is just one little addition as to the accuracy thereof.

Mr. Panganiban. We will not agree to the accuracy, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. That is why we have notthat is why we said the stipulation is based on

there is no statement of accuracy because the other side will object to it.

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, ifokay, for example

Senator Drilon. Well


16/78


Mr. Salvador. Yes, ... If it is what is based is accurate, then we will. We will stipulate on that.

Senator Drilon. Then I thinkI do not think we can have any stipulation with all those

qualifications. We just proceed.

The Presiding Officer. Present your witness.


The Clerk of Court. Please stand up and raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment

proceeding?

Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor.

The Clerk of Court. Do you?


The Clerk of Court. So help you God.

Mr. Salvador. Mr. Witness, can you give us your name?

Mr. Badillo. I am Engr. Mario Badillo, City Assessor of Makati.

Mr. Salvador. Your age?

Mr. Badillo. Fifty-nine years old.

Mr. Salvador. And your status?

The Presiding Officer. Are you married?


The Presiding Officer. All right.

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, if I may proceed with the Offer?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, this Witness is presented to establish the accuracy of the entries of

the SALN as of December 31, 2010 and assessed values and fair market values based on the values

approved and determined by the Assessors Office of the City of Makati.

If I may proceed, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed.

Mr. Salvador. Okay. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us the reason why you are here before

this honorable Court?

Mr. Badillo. This is in compliance with the subpoena of this honorable Impeachment Court to

bring the original and certified true copy of Tax Declaration No. F-01-00235345, Your Honor.

Mr. Salvador. So you have that copy with you today?



17/78


Mr. Salvador. Okay. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us who is the declared owner

as appearing in the Tax Declaration?

Mr. Badillo. The declared owner is Ms. Cristina R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona,

Your Honor.

Mr. Salvador. Could you please tell us the location of the property as declared in

the Tax Declaration?

Mr. Badillo. The location of the property is The Columns corner Ayala Avenue, Gil Puyat

Avenue and Malugay Street, Bel-Air Village, Makati City, Your Honor.

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, for purposes of the record, this has beenthis document,

Tax Declaration, has been previously marked as our Exhibit 150.

The Presiding Officer. And are you marking it as such?

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, previously marked. Pre-marked as 150.

The Presiding Officer. Already entered in the record?

Mr. Salvador. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Okay, proceed.

Mr. Salvador. And, Mr. Witness, I am referring to the dorsal portion of the document that you

are in possession right now, and I am referring now to the market value.


Mr. Salvador. Could you please read to us the market value as declared in the Tax Declaration?

Mr. Badillo. The amount of the market value is P1,210,000, Your Honor.

Mr. Salvador. Okay.

And, Your Honor, may we request, and as has been previously marked, this market value has

been encircled and marked as our Exhibit 150-A.

Mr. Witness, I am referring to the assessed value on the lower right hand dorsal portion of

the same document, could you please tell us the assessed value of the property?

Mr. Badillo. The assessed value is P726,000, Your Honor.

Mr. Salvador. Okay. Your Honor, may we request that this amount be encircled and be

bracketed as our Exhibit 150-B.

And just a few more questions, Mr. Witness. There is a signature on the lower left hand portion

on top of the typewritten name Engr. Mario V. Badillo. Whose signature is that?

Mr. Badillo. It is my signature, Your Honor.

Mr. Salvador. Okay. Your Honor, I have no further question.

The Presiding Officer. Mark the documents accordingly.

But the Court would like to be clarified, when was this assessed value undertaken by the

City of Makati?


18/78


Mr. Badillo. January 11, 2008, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And how about the market value?

Mr. Salvador. The Witness is now referring to the documents that is now in his possession.

Mr. Badillo. I think 2006, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Huh?

Mr. Badillo. 2006, Your Honor, under the name of Community Innovation Incorporated

transferred to

The Presiding Officer. When was that market value determined?

Mr. Badillo. 2008, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. 2008?


The Presiding Officer. Can you certify that that is the market value of the property

as of December 31st, 2010?


The Presiding Officer. And what basis can you do that? Did you do an appraisal?

Mr. Badillo. Yes, Your Honor, since 2008 up to 2010, the same market value, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. It remained the same.


The Presiding Officer. After December 31, what was the market value?

Mr. Badillo. The same, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The same.


The Presiding Officer. Until when? Until now?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Thank you.

Proceed.

Mr. Salvador. Your Honor, no further questions and ready for cross-examination.


Mr. Panganiban. We will conduct no cross-examination.

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

Mr. Salvador. Thank you, Your Honor.


19/78


Mr. Badillo. Thank youpo.

Mr. Bodegon. For our next witness, Your Honor, he will be presented by our Atty. Dennis

Manalo. So may we request that he be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. Atty. Dennis Manalo is recognized.

Mr. Bodegon. May we request for a one-minute suspension, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. By the way, Counsel


The Presiding Officer. why is it that you have different lawyers presenting different

witnesses?

Mr. Bodegon. Because we have made separate assignments, Your Honor, for the different

witnesses.

The Presiding Officer. For the preparation of the witness.


The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.

Mr. Bodegon. May we request for a one-minute suspension, Your Honor, because Attorney

Manalo is fetching the witness?

The Presiding Officer. All right. Trial suspended for one minute to wait for the witness.

Mr. Bodegon. Thank you, Your Honor.

The trial was suspended at 3:14 p.m.

At 3:16 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. We are ready for the next witness, Mr. President.

The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please stand up, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell

the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding?

Mr. Alcantara. I do.

The Clerk of Court. So help you, God.

Mr. Manalo. I am Atty. Dennis Manalo, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Atty. Dennis Manalo will conduct the examination of the Witness.

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, the Witness is offered to prove the basis of the noninclusion of the

Ayala Heights and La Vista properties in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of Chief

Justice Corona as of December 31, 2010.



20/78


Mr. Manalo. To prove further, Your Honor, that there was a transfer of the title of the Ayala

Heights property in the name of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona to a certain Amelia E. Rivera

et al. on the 12th day of March 2010 based on the title of this property and the Certificate Authorizing

Registration. To prove further, Your Honor, the transfer of the title of the La Vista property in the name

of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona to a certain Carla C. Castillo on the 22nd day of October

2010 based on the title and the Certificate Authorizing Registration.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. Manalo. Now, the second part, Your Honor, of the testimony will delve on the basis, on

the noninclusion of the properties in Cubao and Kalayaan Avenue in the SALNs of Chief Justice

Corona. The property in Cubao, Your Honor, we will prove that it is in the name of Constantino T.

Castillo III and Carla C. Castillo and the property in Kalayaan Avenue is also in their names.

The Presiding Officer. In their names, what is their?

Mr. Manalo. Them, referring to Constantino C. Castillo and Carla C. Castillo.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Mr. Manalo. And lastly, Your Honor, to prove the basis for the noninclusion of the parking space

in the Burgundy Condominium in the SALN of Chief Justice Corona beginning 2003. The parking

space of the Burgundy property in the name of the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona being a part

of the technical description of the TCT. That is our purpose for presenting this Witness, Your Honor.


Mr. Justiniano. Your Honor, if the Witness will be identifying documents, maybe he can just

show us and we can just submit the authenticity of the documents, Your Honor. This Witness was

presented by this representation before and I am sure he would not have any problem identifying the

documents.

Mr. Manalo. If the Counsel will agree to the purpose of our presentation, then we are willing to

The Presiding Officer. Proceed to present the Witness and let them agree or disagree.

Mr. Manalo. Okay, Your Honor.

Mr. Witness, please state your name and other personal circumstances for the record.

Mr. Alcantara. I am Atty. Carlo V. Alcantara, of legal age, married and presently the designated

Acting Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City Registry of Deeds, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Mr. Manalo. And how long have you been the Acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City,

for the record, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Justiniano. May I interrupt? I will admit the qualification of the Witness to expedite the

proceeding. As I have said, he was my Witness before.

The Presiding Officer. Including his tenure as Acting Register of Deeds?

Mr. Justiniano. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So ordered.


21/78


Proceed.

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, can you just briefly explain your duties and functions?

Mr. Justiniano. We can also admit that, Your Honor. In fact, I presented that during the time

when I presented him to the witness stand.

The Presiding Officer. All right. His duties and functions and authority are admitted by theProsecution.

Mr. Justiniano. Admitted, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, as the Acting Registrar of Deeds, do you have in your record a copy

of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R.

Corona.

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. We have on record the Transfer Certificate of Title

No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. And what is the status of that title?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title is a cancelled title, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that this document presented by the Witness

be marked as our Exhibit 183, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, but before we mark it, I just want to find out when was it

cancelled? When was that title cancelled?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this title was cancelled on April 13, 2010, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And why was it cancelled?

Mr. Alcantara. The reason, Your Honor, for the cancellation of this title is the registration

of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona in favor

of spouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is the date of the Deed of Sale?

Mr. Alcantara. The Deed of Sale, Your Honor, refers to a

The Presiding Officer. What is the date?

Mr. Alcantara. Datethe Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, is February 26, 2010.

The Presiding Officer. Is that a unilateral contract or bilateral contract?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is a bilateral contract.

The Presiding Officer. Between the buyer and the seller?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And who notarized it?

Mr. Alcantara. This document, Deed of Absolute Sale, docketed as Document No. 138,

Page No. 29, Book No. IV, Series of 2010 was notarized by Atty. Wenna T. Tan, Notary Public

for Quezon City, Your Honor.


22/78


The Presiding Officer. And that is registered in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City for

purposes of cancelling the title in the name of the spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina Corona.



Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Manalo. May we request that the document be marked as our Exhibit 185, that the rubber

stamp Cancelled be marked as our Exhibit 185-A, and that the annotation in the title of the sale

of the Deed of Absolute Sale, in favor of Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, be bracketed and

marked as our Exhibit 185-B.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, do you have a copy of the title that replaced this particular

certificate of title?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, we have a certified true copy of the title in the name ofspouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That is the replacement of the TCT cancelled by that Deed of Sale?


The Presiding Officer. Already marked as exhibit, okay. What is the number of that TCT?

Mr. Alcantara. The number of the title, Your Honor, is Transfer Certificate of Title No. 004-

2010001387, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And what is the date of issuance?

Mr. Alcantara. The date of issuance, Your Honor, is April 13, 2010 at 11:33 a.m.

The Presiding Officer. And who signed that Deed of SaleTCT?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this Transfer Certificate of Title was signed by Carlo V. Alcantara,

the Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City.

The Presiding Officer. At that time?

Mr. Alcantara. At that time, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed, Counsel.

Mr. Manalo. We request, Your Honor, that the title mentioned by the Witness be marked as

our Exhibit 186, the name of the owner therein, being the spouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia

Rivera, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 186-A.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Manalo. And that the date and time of entry of this title being 13 th day of April, 2010 at

11:33 a.m. be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 186-B.



23/78


Mr. Manalo. Do you have with you the Certificate Authorizing Registration of this particular

transaction, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, I have with me transfer certification, the Certificate Authorizing

Registration No. 2009

The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of that authorization? The TCT was already issuedand the presumption of regularity of the issuance of that title exists.

Mr. Manalo. We will move on to the next document, Your Honor.


Mr. Manalo. Do you have a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 0042010010259 for

the La Vista property?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. I have certified true copy of Transfer Certificate of Title

No. 004-2010010259, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. In whose name?

Mr. Alcantara. This, Your Honor, is registered in the name of Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married

to Constantino T. Castillo III, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That isis that an OCT or TCT?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is a Transfer Certificate of Title.

The Presiding Officer. And who transferred the property to the named owner?

Mr. Alcantara. This property or title is a transfer from the title of Cristina R. Corona, married

to Renato Corona, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. When?

Mr. Alcantara. This title was issued on November 9, 2010 at 3:26 in the afternoon, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is the operating document that caused the transfer of that property

to the present owner?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the basis for the cancellation of the title of Cristina R. Corona,

married to Renato Corona, is the registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Ma. Cristina

R. Corona, married to Renato C. Corona, in favor of Ma. Carla C. Castillo, married to Constantino

T. Castillo III, for the sum of P18 million.

The Presiding Officer. Eighteen million pesos.


The Presiding Officer. Incidentally, what was the consideration of the transfer of property, the

Corona property, to the Riveras?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the Transfer of Title from Renato Corona

The Presiding Officer. To the Riveras.

Mr. Alcantara. to the Riveras is P8 million, Your Honor.


24/78


The Presiding Officer. Eight million pesos. And this one is P18 million?



Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the Transfer Certificate of Title referred to by

the Witness be marked as our Exhibit 187 and that the name of the owner Ma. Carla C. Castillo,married to Constantino T. Castillo III, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 187-A, and the date

of entry of this Title on November 9, 2010 at 3:26 in the afternoon be bracketed and marked as our

Exhibit 187-B.


Who was the signatory to that new TCT?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the signatory to the new TCT is Carlo V. Alcantara, Deputy

Register of Deeds, Quezon City, Your Honor.


Mr. Manalo. That is you, am I correct, Mr. Witness?


Mr. Manalo. Now, do you have a copy, Mr. Witness, of the Transfer Certificate of Title

N-327732 in the name of Constantino T. Castillo, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo? This is the

property located in Cubao, Quezon City.

Mr. Alcantara. I believe that was the subject of marking during my presentation as witness for

the Prosecution, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you Exhibit BBB of the Prosecution which you have earlier

identified when you testified the last time. Is it the document which I am referring to as the title?

Do you confirm the existence of that title in your office?


Mr. Manalo. And under whose name is that title?

Mr. Alcantara. Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-327732 is registered in the name of

Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And who transferred the property to them?

Mr. Manalo. The Witness, Your Honor, is just going over his record.

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this was not part of the subpoena duces tecum issued to me and

I do not have the recollection as to the previous title of this property, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, will you be able to get, for the record, the document that will evidence

the reason for the issuance of this title?


The Presiding Officer. Can you present those documents?


25/78



The Presiding Officer. That certificate of title was from what previous title?

Mr. Alcantara. The previous Certificate of Title No. 125683, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And do you know in whose name that previous title was?

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor.


Mr. Manalo. Earlier this Witness testified for the Prosecution and they marked in evidence the

Deed of Absolute Sale which was the reason for the issuance of this title.

May I confront the Witness with the document so he can just confirm that this is the document

which was the basis for the issuance of the title?

The Presiding Officer. Without the objection of the Defense, you may proceed.

Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you the Deed of Absolute Sale marked by the Prosecution as

Exhibit DDD which you have earlier identified when you testified before, a Deed of Absolute Sale

between Daniel G. Encina and Constantino T. Castillo. Is this the document which you have earlier

testified to which resulted in the issuance of this title?

Please take a look at the document, Mr. Witness.

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Daniel G.

Encina in favor of Constantino T. Castillo III, married to Carla R. Corona, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Encina was the owner?

Mr. Alcantara. The previous owner, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Under TCT?

Mr. Alcantara. Under Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-20758 (129302), Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And that was sold to the Castilloscouple?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, Constantino T. Castillo III married to Carla R. Corona, Your

Honor.

The Presiding Officer. When was the sale made?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the Deed of Absolute Sale is dated December 15, 2003, Your

Honor. And this Deed of Absolute Sale was registered on February 23, 2004.

The Presiding Officer. 2004. And as a consequence, a new TCT was issued?


The Presiding Officer. And what was the consideration for the transaction?

Mr. Alcantara. The consideration, Your Honor, for this sale is P10,500,000.

The Presiding Officer. Paid for by the buyer?


26/78




Proceed, Counsel.

Mr. Manalo. We wish to mark the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, as our Exhibit 188.

We also wish to have the names of the parties in the contract submarked as our Exhibit 188-Aand the date of execution of the contract be marked as our Exhibit 188-B.


Mr. Manalo. We request as well, Your Honor, that the Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-

327732 in the name of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, which was the

result of the Deed of Absolute Sale identified by the Witness, be marked as our Exhibit 189.

The name of the registered owner be marked as our Exhibit 189-A and the date of entry of this

title in the Register of Deeds at Quezon City on 17th day of March 2009 at 1:40 p.m., in the afternoon

be marked as our Exhibit 189-B.The Presiding Officer. This is another transaction?

Mr. Manalo. No, Your Honor, it is the same TCT identified by the Witness. It is the property

in Cubao, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, do you have with you a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title

N-260027 for the Kalayaan Avenue property in the name of Constantino Castillo III and

Carla C. Castillo?

Mr. Alcantara. I believe, Your Honor, I have also testified on that Transfer Certificate of Titlefor the Prosecution, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you the Prosecutions exhibit marked FFF. Is this the Transfer

Certificate of Title that you have referred to as part of your earlier testimony?

The Presiding Officer. In whose name is that Transfer Certificate of Title?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-260027 is registered in the name

of Constantino T. Castillo III married to Carla R. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. And what was the title from which that new TCT was originated?

Mr. Alcantara. This title originated from RT-20758 (129302), Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. In whose name?

Mr. Manalo. May I propound the question, Your Honor, so that the Witness can answer?


Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, do you also recall bringing with you when you testified the document

evidencing the underlying transaction that caused the issuance of this title?

Mr. Alcantara. I believe, Your Honor.


27/78


Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you a document marked by the Prosecution as Exhibit ZZ.

Is this the Deed of Absolute Sale which you have earlier identified covering this particular title?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Myrla

Melad-Bajar married to Beneroso E. Bajar, Your Honor, as vendor and Constantino T. Castillo III

married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo as vendees, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is the date of that document?

Mr. Alcantara. The date of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, is March 11, 2009.

The Presiding Officer. And the consideration?

Mr. Alcantara. The consideration, Your Honor, is P15 million.

The Presiding Officer. And who notarized it?

Mr. Alcantara. This Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by Atty. Myrna S. Valdez-Cruz,

Your Honor, and docketed as Document No. 077, Page No. 016, Book No. 1, Series of 2009.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Counsel, proceed.

Mr. Manalo. Your HonorMr. Witness, in the title of this property, is there an encumbrance

annotatedcan you justbased on the title?

The Presiding Officer. The question is, is there an encumbrance annotated at the back of

that new Transfer Certificate of Title?

Mr. Manalo. Let me refer you again to the document marked as Exhibit 189 which is the

property in Cubao, a common exhibit between the parties. Can you take a look at this document

and confirm if there is an encumbrance in this title?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, there is an existing real estate mortgage annotated on this title

under entry No. 2504T-327732.

The Presiding Officer. Who is the mortgagor?

Mr. Alcantara. The mortgagor, Your Honor, are the registered owners, Constantino T. Castillo

III married to Ma. Carla C. Castillo, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And the mortgagee?

Mr. Alcantara. The mortgagee, Your Honor, is the Bank of Philippine Islands, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is the total amount secured by that mortgage?

Mr. Alcantara. The mortgaged amount, Your Honor, is P12 million, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Twelve million pesos?


The Presiding Officer. What is the date of that mortgage?

Mr. Alcantara. The date of the instrument or the Real Estate Mortgage is 5-15-2009

May 15, 2009, Your Honor. And it was registered on May 19, 2009.


28/78


The Presiding Officer. After the transaction between the seller and the buyer of the property?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, after the sale.


Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that the encumbrance identified by the Witness be

submarked as our Exhibit 189-C.


By the way, that encumbrance still exists until today?

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, that is an existing encumbrance on the said

The Presiding Officer. And it has never been paid?

Mr. Alcantara. As far as the records of the Registry of Deeds is concerned, no cancellation yet

has been registered on that encumbrance, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Twelve million pesos?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, may we request that the Transfer Certificate of Title for the Kalayaan

Avenue property in Quezon City No. N-260027 identified by the Witness be marked as our Exhibit

190.


Mr. Manalo. That the name of the registered owner be submarked as Exhibit 190-A and the

date of entry in the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on the 23rd day of February 2004 at 9:43 a.m.

be submarked as our Exhibit 190-B.


Mr. Manalo. We likewise request, Your Honor, that the Deed of Absolute Sale identified

by the Witness to be part of the record in the Register of Deeds of Quezon City for the previous

title marked which is a Deed of Absolute Sale by and between Myrla Melad-Bajar and

Constantino T. Castillo be marked as our Exhibit 191, the name of the parties thereto be

submarked as our Exhibit 191-A and the date of the Deed of Absolute Sale being March 17, 2009

be marked as our Exhibit 191-B.


Mr. Manalo. I am sorry, it is not March 17, it is March 11, 2009.

Mr. Witness, do you have a copy of Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812 for the

Burgundy Condominium in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona?

Mr. Alcantara. I believe, likewise, Your Honor, I have already testified on that title previously

for the Prosecution.

Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you a copy of this TCT marked as Exhibit OO of the

Prosecution. Do you confirm that this is the title of this particular property?


29/78


Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor. This is Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812

registered in the name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, Your Honors.

The Presiding Officer. Is that an original title or transfer title?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this is a certified true copy of the Condominium Certificate of Title

No., Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Original issue?


The Presiding Officer. From the developer?



Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, can you please take a look at the technical description of the property

and kindly confirm to the Honorable Court if the description includes the parking space for thatparticular condominium?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, there is an annotation on this Condominium Certificate of Title

pertaining to an Agreement. This Agreement was entered under Primary Entry No. 4175, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. Please read it.

Mr. Alcantara. Primary Entry No. 4175N-35812, Agreement, executed by Burgundy Realty

Corporation, referred to as the First Party, and Spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona,

referred to as the Second Party.

Whereas, the First Party is the owner-developer of one (1) Burgundy Plaza while the SecondParty is the owner of 21-D and Parking Slot identified as Parking Slot Upper Third Floor, No. 11,

and for this purpose, the First Party and the Second Party have agreed that the Second Party alone

shall use Parking Slot U3F-No. 11 under Document No. 257; Page No. 52; Book No. 59; Series

of 2003, of Notary Public for Quezon City, Atty. Jose F. Ordona. Date of instrument: October 8,

2003; and date of inscription: December 11, 2003, Your Honor.

This was signed by Atty. Constante P. Caluya III, the Deputy Register of Deeds of Quezon City,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Does that mean thatfirst of all, the question of the Chair is, is that an

inscription at the back of the title of the condominium unit?


The Presiding Officer. As an encumbrance?


The Presiding Officer. And that in effect, that parking lot does not belong to the owner of the

unit but only to use it

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, the exclusive

The Presiding Officer. as an owner of the unit?


30/78



The Presiding Officer. It remains to be the property of the owner of the condominium

development? Is that it?

Mr. Alcantara. The annotation simply refers, Your Honor, to the right of the

The Presiding Officer. Right of use?

Mr. Alcantara. Use, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So, usufruct.


The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed, Counsel.

Mr. Manalo. May we request, Your Honor, that this Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-

35812 in the name of the spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona be marked as our Exhibit

192 and the annotation of the Agreement between Burgundy Realty Corporation and the Spouses

Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona, referring to Parking Slot No. U3F No. 11, be sub-marked

as our Exhibit 192-A?


Mr. Manalo. And the date of the instrument and date of inscription of said annotation be sub-

marked as our 192-B.

I have no further questions for the Witness, Your Honor.

Mr. Justiniano. No cross, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Are you marking it?

Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor.


Okay. No further question.

Mr. Manalo. No, no. Wait. Just a moment, Your Honor. I think there is a matter that we have

to mark.

May I just ask a question, Your Honor, with regard to Exhibit 192?


Mr. Manalo. Apparently, there is matter here.


Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, please look at the date of entry of the title in the Register of Deeds.

The date of entry isthe year is in 1993. However, the inscription is in 2003. Can you please explain

the apparent contradiction in the year?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, Condominium Certificate of Title No. N-35812 registered in the

name of spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona was issued or entered at the Registry of

Deeds for Quezon City on December 11, 2003, Your Honor, at 2:15 in the afternoon, Your Honors.


31/78


Mr. Manalo. The first page of the document, if you will see the form, the form does not say

2000. It says 90, 1993.

Mr. Alcantara. Yes, Your Honor, this is an old form and we did not correct. As far as the

form is concerned, we simply indicated the year when the title was issued. So, on the original form,

on the form itself, on the judicial form, it is dated in the year 1900 instead of 2003, Your Honor.


Mr. Manalo. Thank you for the clarification.

May we just have that particular portion read by the Witness sub-marked as our Exhibit 192-C?


Mr. Manalo. With the clarification, Your Honor, we have no further questions for this Witness.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any

Mr. Justiniano. No cross, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. cross-examination?

Mr. Justiniano. No cross-examination, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Who wants tothe gentleman from Pampanga.

Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just a clarificatory question with respect to our Acting Register of Deeds of

Quezon City.


Senator Pangilinan. You mentioned earlier na there is this property in Quezon City sold to Carla

Castillo, is that not right?


Senator Pangilinan. And this was sold October 18, 2010? Is this the La Vista property? I am

sort of confused. Would youor is this a different property?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, the La Vista property is a property with an area of 1,200 square

meters. This was previously owned by spouses Cristina Corona, married to Renato Corona, and

this was sold to Ma. Carla Castillo, married to Constantino T. Castillo III, Your Honor.Senator Pangilinan. Yes. When was this sold?

Mr. Alcantara. The date of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor, is October 18, 2010,

Your Honor.

Senator Pangilinan. So, this is the La Vista property that is 1,200 square meters?


Senator Pangilinan. It was acquired in 2003 by the Coronas, if I am not mistaken, and

then sold in 2010?


32/78



Senator Pangilinan. Who did they acquire it from? Would you have records?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, this property was previously covered by Transfer Certificate of Title

No. RT-96031 (270444) previously registered in the name of Victor N. Bocaling, Your Honor.

Senator Pangilinan. Okay. So that is a La Vista property purchased in 2003 from Bocaling andthen sold in 2010, October to Carla Castillo for P18 million?


Senator Pangilinan. So there is no other property sold in La Vista to other persons by the

Coronas? I mean, based on your record.

Mr. Alcantara. I believe, Sir, this is the only property in La Vista previously owned by the CJ

the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

Senator Pangilinan. Well, this is the question that is requested of me to be raised to you by

Senator Lacson. Is this the Maranaw property? Would you know?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, I have no particularity of the property. Our record simply indicates

that this is the La Vista property, Your Honor.

Senator Pangilinan. Is there any other property in Pansol apart from the La Vista property on

your record?

The Presiding Officer. Pansol. Pansol is another street? Another street in La Vista or?

Senator Pangilinan. Is Pansol in La Vista or is this another

Senator Sotto. It is a barangay in the 3rd District, Mr. President. Barangay in the 3rd District

of Quezon City, Barangay Pansol.

Senator Pangilinan. So that would have been thejust to clarify, that would have been the P8

million property sold to the spouses Rivera in Barangay Pansol?

Mr. Alcantara. This is a property, Your Honor, covered previously by Transfer Certificate of

Title No. 85121 in the name of spouses Renato C. Corono and Cristina Corona which was the subject

matter of the sale in favor of spouses Rhodel V. Rivera and Amelia E. Rivera, Your Honor,

The Presiding Officer. And that is located in Pansol?

Mr. Alcantara. for the amount of P8 million, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Located in Pansol?

Senator Pangilinan. That is located in Pansol?

Mr. Alcantara. Your Honor, specifically identified on the technical description, this is a property

located in Barangay Matandang Balara, Quezon City, Your Honor.

The Presiding Off

Documents

March 19 Senate impeachment court record