May 14 Senate impeachment court record

7/31/2019 May 14 Senate impeachment court record

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/may-14-senate-impeachment-court-record 1/52

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Monday, May 14, 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 Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Sergio R. Osmeña III.

Senator Osmeña.

Dear Lord, as we approach the finish of this Impeachment Trial, we must not forget to

express our deepest appreciation to You for the strength, the light, and the courage You so

lovingly bestowed on each and every participant in this prolonged exercise: the members of

the Philippine Senate so ably led by its Presiding Officer, the members of the Prosecution and

Defense panels and their staffs, the members of the Senate Secretariat, the witnesses for both

the Prosecution and Defense, the members of media for faithful reporting, and last but not theleast, the Accused himself and the members of his family.

Whatever the outcome might be, whatever the decision will be, may we all acknowledge

Your interventions in the smooth execution of this constitutional exercise which is testament to

our deeply embedded values of democratic governance.

May Your grace and blessings upon the Filipino nation be never ending. Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

Thank you.



2 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

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 “Compañero” S. Cayetano ................................. PresentSenator 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. Osmeña 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 President ..................................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. With 23 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 May 8, 2012

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

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none; the May 8,

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

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

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

Renato C. Corona.




The Presiding Officer. Appearances?

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President.

May we ask the parties for their respective appearances?

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President. On the part of the House Prosecution

Panel, same appearance. We are ready, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the Defense, the same appearance. We are

ready, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we have received the letter from the Ombudsman, Conchita

Carpio-Morales, requesting that she be allowed to testify ahead of all other witnesses during today’s

hearing in view of heavy volume of work and equally urgent professional work that needs her immediate

attention.

So, I move, Mr. President, that this matter be submitted to the Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, we wanted to accommodate the request, Your Honor, but

we assure the Honorable Ombudsman that we will call her today, only that we be permitted to call

ahead of her other witnesses whom we have subpoenaed for today’s hearing, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. But Walden Bello is not here.

Mr. Cuevas. We have Noli—Emmanuel Santos, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. But whatever these witnesses will say in this Court will still be dependent

upon the findings of the Ombudsman if indeed she conducted an investigation of the complaint of

these witnesses that were subpoenaed and who are complainants before that office. So why not

hear the Ombudsman first and if there is a need to ask the other witnesses to corroborate her,

then so be it?

Mr. Cuevas. Okay, then subject to the discretion—we yield to the discretion of the Honorable

Court, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I would suggest that we hear the Ombudsman first because if there is no

need to present these other witnesses, if the Ombudsman has made a substantial presentation or no

presentation at all, then even if we do not hear these witnesses, this Court will already be given an

opportunity to see the pendency of the evidence being presented today.






Mr. Cuevas. In compliance with the statement made by the Honorable Presiding Judge, Your

Honor, may we call the Ombudsman to the stand.

The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Ombudsman—is she around already? Yes. Please bring

her in and swear her.

One-minute recess to wait for the Ombudsman.

The trial was suspended at 2:23 p.m.

At 2:24 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Clerk of Court. Honorable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.

The Presiding Officer. The session is resumed.

The Clerk of Court. Honorable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, please raise your right

hand.

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

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I do.

The Clerk of Court. So help you God.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Counsel, proceed.

Representative Tupas. Mr. Presiding Officer, please.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution?

Representative Tupas. On the part of the Prosecution, Mr. President, may we ask permission

that our lead private lawyer be recognized, be allowed to receive the testimony of the Ombudsman and

to conduct the cross, if necessary. Atty. Mario Bautista, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The request of the Prosecution is granted.

Representative Tupas. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. The Counsel referred to may now take the podium and take care of the

case for the Prosecution.

Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, will you kindly state your name

and other personal circumstances for the record, Madam Ombudsman.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Conchita Carpio-Morales, 71 years old, going—no—70 years old, going

72—no—I am just kidding you—I am 70, I am going 71. I am the present Ombudsman.




What else?

Mr. Cuevas. Your residence, please.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Residence: No. 9, Carpio Compound, Soldiers Hills, Muntinlupa. Married.

Mr. Cuevas. May we be allowed to proceed, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. You have the floor. You can proceed, Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

Madam Ombudsman is being presented, Your Honor, first, to prove that she has an interest against

Chief Justice Corona, the Respondent in this case; to show that the Honorable Ombudsman is currently

conducting an investigation against Chief Justice Corona especially with respect to his alleged foreign-

denominated bank accounts in the aggregate value of $10 million; to prove further that there is no

evidential basis whatsoever for the imputation that CJ Corona has foreign-denominated bank accounts

in the aggregate amount of $10 million; and to prove that the Honorable Ombudsman’s investigation

is illegal, baseless and not in accordance with the Constitution.

The Presiding Officer. In other words, you are considering this Witness as a hostile witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Then comply with Section 12 of Rule 132.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, the fact that the Witness, Your Honor, had made statements both in TV and

radio castigating or commenting on the propriety of the Ombudsman—on the propriety of the Chief

Justice, Your Honor, to continue—

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, wait. I am not trying to hurry you up but whatever was said

outside this Court is not evidence.

I will read to you the rule: “A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared

by the court upon adequate showing of his/her adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his/

her having misled the party into calling him/her to the witness stand.”

So, please comply with that requirement.

Mr. Cuevas. There are two kinds, in our humble submission, Your Honor, of hostile witnesses:

first, is one who is introduced right from the beginning as a hostile witness because of the interest he

has in connection with the subject matter of the Complaint together with the person of the Respondent;

and secondly, a witness who had been presented as an ordinary witness but who turned hostile in the

course of the proceedings, in which case, we may ask for a ruling on the part of the Court that he isa hostile witness in view of the statements made by him.

The Presiding Officer. My understanding of the Rules of Evidence are the classes of witnesses:

willing witness, unwilling witness, hostile witness, adverse party as a witness. So can you cite to me

the rule that you are using to justify in considering the Ombudsman immediately as a hostile witness?

She is not an adverse party to this case.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But—

The Presiding Officer. But the presumption is the party in producing a witness, is producing the

witness as a friendly witness.




Mr. Cuevas. Well, that is our impression also, Your Honor. But a deeper analysis of the situation

involved in hostile witnesses showed two different occasions whereby a witness may be considered

hostile.

The Presiding Officer. But precisely Section 12 requires you to lay the basis. Qualify your

witness in the way that you want that witness to be treated on the witness stand and let the court make

the ruling.

Mr. Cuevas. Very well, Your Honor. We will proceed as directed, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So, proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, Madam Witness, you are familiar with the De Castro case before the

Supreme Court in connection with the qualification of the Honorable Chief Justice Corona.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. And that involves the validity of his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court.Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. And I understand from the records of the case that you were the lone dissenter…

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right.

Mr. Cuevas. …insofar as the validity of the appointment is concerned.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. It is your contention then at that time that the Supreme Court has no authority, much

less any power, to rule that the former or outgoing President of the Republic of the Philippines mayappoint a Chief Justice to the position two days after the election, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. In a Motion for Reconsideration, you likewise sustained your stand as objecting to

the qualification—or rather, but the power of the President to appoint a Chief Justice, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. All right. In that Motion for Reconsideration, you cling to the view that GMA or

the Honorable ex-President Macapagal-Arroyo has no authority to make the appointment, Your

Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor, I always clung to my earlier decision if I thought that

my decision for the first time was correct.

Mr. Cuevas. But knowing that the Supreme Court acts as a collegiate court, the majority did

not sustain you, am I right?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. And that is—

Mr. Cuevas. And the majority opinion declares that the President in this particular case can

appoint even notwithstanding the holding of an election and a determination of a winner in that election.





Mr. Cuevas. And it is a time-honored practice that what governs the resolution of the issues

involved in a case is the majority opinion.


Mr. Cuevas. All right. So there is no further question as to the validity of the appointment orthe appointing power belonging to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. You are asking me?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, that is the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court. So we

have to abide by the decision of the majority.

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct. And you will agree with me that there is no power on earth that

can modify, reverse or, much less, set aside that decision of the Supreme Court.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. The members who wrote the majority can always change their mind, Your

Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But that is not my question to you, Madam Ombudsman.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. There is no power, you said, on earth who can reverse or change

the decision of the Supreme Court, and I said the power emanates from those who want to change

their mind.

Mr. Cuevas. Because judicial power belongs only to the Supreme Court.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is a fact, Your Honor.Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Now, notwithstanding that pronouncement made by the Supreme Court at

the time, President—the President did not appear to be comfortable in accepting that kind of an official

action.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Which President?

Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor please.

Mr. Cuevas. The present President.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am not competent to answer that, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But you are—you must have read in the papers together with the speeches

over the radio and the television, or you are not aware of that?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I read them but whether or not that is true—sometimes, you know, reports

get into the papers but they are not exactly accurate.

Mr. Bautista. Mr. President, may I raise an objection, please? Counsel for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. What is the basis of the objection?

Mr. Bautista. The Defense Counsel has been requested by the Chair to qualify the Witness as

a hostile witness so that the Chair, in turn, may declare the Witness as such.




The mere fact that the Witness was the sole dissenter in the De Castro case does not qualify her

as a hostile witness. As the Chair correctly ruled, a hostile witness is one who is, No. 1, an adverse

party; No. 2, an adverse party witness; No. 3, someone who is reluctant or does not want to testify;

and No. 4, someone who is established to have an adverse interest to the accused.

Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor.

Mr. Bautista. All of those situations are not present, so that it is premature for the Counsel of

the Defense to start impeaching the Witness before she has been qualified as a hostile witness.

Mr. Cuevas. I am just starting—

The Presiding Officer. Well, I have to sustain the objection, Counsel. The first rule is, “A party

producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his own witness.” So objection sustained.

Mr. Cuevas. I am not—If Your Honor please, I am not impeaching the Witness. I am laying

the basis to show hostility and attitude on the part of the Witness that qualifies her to be a hostile

witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Then reform the question, please.

Mr. Cuevas. All right.

Now, I am not asking you about the truth of what President Aquino had stated that he does not

like the Honorable Justice Corona to be occupying the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But I am

asking you—my question to you is limited to the fact whether you are acquainted with those news

spread over the TV and radio.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. I have read those news.

Mr. Cuevas.All right. And you also must have heard the fact that there was a statement bythe Honorable President Aquino now that he is not willing to take his oath of office as a President

before the Honorable Chief Justice Corona?


Mr. Cuevas. And as in fact, he made mention of the fact that he would rather take his oath before

a barrio captain.


Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, these questions are irrelevant to the adverse interest of the

Witness. They have nothing to do at all with the qualification of the Witness as a hostile witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, qualifying the Witness, Your Honor, is not borne out by one and only

question, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Let the Ombudsman who is a very intelligent witness answer the

question.

Mr. Bautista. We submit, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

Pakibasa nga ‘yung question.



10 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. He said that—early on he said he wanted to take his oath before

a barangay captain. That is the question.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And there were also statements made by him that he will try his level best

not to allow Chief Justice Corona to continue occupying the position to which he was illegally

appointed.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That I do not know.

Mr. Cuevas. You have not read in the papers?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I could not recall reading that.

Mr. Cuevas. You do not recall also having heard it over the radio?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I seldom listen to the radio.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, may I suggest that you go direct to the point? Find out through

direct questions regarding the hostility of the Witness towards the Respondent. She is the Ombudsman.She is investigating the Respondent.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay then. Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, in fact, he took his oath before the Honorable Ombudsman now?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is a fact, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And that notwithstanding, Chief Justice Corona attended the oath-taking,

is it not?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor, I witnessed him.

Mr. Cuevas. He was there?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, in the course of a certain event like the Criminal Justice Summit,

Your Honor, you must have read over the papers also as reported that there were statements made

by the President against the Chief Justice?

Mr. Bautista. Your Honor please, may I object again? May I raise a continuing objection to

this line of questioning? I do not see the point in establishing any hostility there may be between the

President and the Chief Justice. We have a witness here as the Ombudsman.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Mr. Bautista. What is the connection between the Ombudsman and the President?

Mr. Cuevas. At that time, Your Honor, we wanted to show how hostile the President was. And

having acted that way, led to the filing of this complaint for impeachment, Your Honor.

Mr. Bautista. That is totally irrelevant, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. We submit, Your Honor. We are only in the process of—



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 11

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. We will be very liberal and let us see the

Defense—

Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think I was abroad at that time. But eventually, I was told about it.

Mr. Cuevas. Now I noticed that—I am aware of the fact that before your appointment as

Ombudsman, there is a necessity that nomination be made by the Judicial and Bar Council.


Mr. Cuevas. And you were aware of the proceedings in that body?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I just knew about it through others because I was not present.

Mr. Cuevas. And you came to know that one of those who did not vote for your nomination

is the Chief Justice.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I eventually came to know when they invited my attention to the internetdata showing the results of the voting.

Mr. Cuevas. The Chief Justice is not one among those who voted for your nomination.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is right.

Mr. Cuevas. He was opposed to your nomination, did I understand you—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Whether he was opposed to my nomination, I do not know. But it is

a fact that he did not vote for me.

The Presiding Officer. May I intervene? Counsel, I would like to be very liberal but may Irequest you to go direct to the point by showing the adverse interest of the Witness with respect to

your client, the Respondent. What is the adverse interest of the Witness such that if that is established,

then she will be considered as a hostile witness?

Mr. Cuevas. I will go into that direction, Your Honor. But I was trying to deal with it little by

little in the hope that—

The Presiding Officer. Yes. I do not want to control you but I think—why do you not ask

her if she has investigated the case of the Respondent?

Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, may I go to a letter dated April 20, 2012, purportedly addressed to one Renato C. Corona,

Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Manila, consisting of five (5) pages, and direct your attention to a

signature appearing over the typewritten name “Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ombudsman.”

The Presiding Officer. I would suggest that the Counsel will show that letter to the Witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Which we request, Your Honor, to be marked as Exhibit…

Witness examining the same, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. This appears to be a photocopy of my letter.



12 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. May I request first, for purposes of identification, Your Honor, that it be marked,

as we prayed before, as Exhibit “253”, consisting of five pages?

A little earlier I was asking you to go over the signature appearing over the typewritten name

“Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ombudsman.” That is your signature?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. It appears so.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, there are three (3) complaints involved in this investigation.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, why do you not ask the Ombudsman why she wrote that letter

to the Respondent?


Now—I adopt the question. Will you kindly tell us why this letter was written or addressed to the

Honorable Chief Justice Corona?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. After we received the Complaint from—it is difficultto memorize the first mentioned complainant, but one of them is Risa Hontiveros. I went over it because

I had an advance copy and I first sought information from agencies and then I referred the complaints

to the Anti-Money Laundering Council because I thought that the charges included of— some matters

that were within the jurisdiction of the AMLC. And then later I constituted a panel of investigators.

And eventually, I wrote the AMLC seeking assistance towards the determination of the truth of the

charges. And then I got an initial report from the special panel recommending, among other things, that

we should write the Chief Justice.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, in this letter you were asking the Chief Justice to explain in writing…


Mr. Cuevas. …his—May I read the particular portion, Your Honor? “Accordingly, consistent

with the provisions of Section 15, 22 and 26, you are hereby requested, within 72 hours from receipt

hereof, a written answer to the complaints and to the above-stated information respecting your alleged

several bank accounts in several banks.”


Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, I understand that in this kind of investigation by your office, the

Respondent is akin to an accused in a criminal case.

Mr. Bautista. Your Honor please, the questions are leading and up to now, the Witness has notbeen qualified nor established—declared by the Court as a hostile witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, that is a direct question, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, why do you not reform your question? Ask the Ombudsman

if by that letter, she was actually investigating the Chief Justice.

Mr. Cuevas. I predicate the—

The Presiding Officer. That would be the adverse interest.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay then, Your Honor.



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 13

Now, when you stated in this letter that the Chief Justice is being requested to submit within 72

hours from receipt a written answer to the complaint, my understanding is that he is already being

investigated by your office, am I right?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. We were doing a case buildup. In other words, it was a fact-finding

investigation, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. All the while I thought that the complaint, per your letter, is on the basis—this letter

rather is on the basis of the three (3) complaints: one, by the group of Ruperto Aleroza; second, by

Walden Bello; and the third one by Emmanuel T. Santos, right?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. We were—what—

Mr. Cuevas. Since—I am sorry, go ahead.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Whenever we received a complaint, we determine first if it merits

docketing. So we docketed it for purposes of factual investigation or case buildup.

Mr. Cuevas. Correct. When you asked him to file an answer, the answer that you wanted tobe made by him is in connection with the allegation or this strictly confidential resolution.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, may I invite your attention to the second to the last paragraph

of page 4. It says here: “Furthermore, we received information that there are several bank accounts

in PSB and several other banks in your name including those denominated in U.S. dollars, the aggregate

value of which amounts to at least US, US$10,000.”

The Presiding Officer. In other words, Madam Ombudsman, when you wrote that letter you

were already initiating an investigation of the Respondent Chief Justice.


The Presiding Officer. And that, in effect, you are taking an adverse position with respect to the

subject of your investigation.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. We wanted him to…

The Presiding Officer. Explain.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. …enlighten us, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because as I said early on, I had sought the help of another agency for

purposes of determining further there was indeed unexplained wealth or things to that effect whichwould be violative of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Mr. Bautista. If, Your Honor please—

The Presiding Officer. Yes, the gentleman from Iloilo.

Senator Drilon. I am sorry for the intervention but the Ombudsman mentioned 10,000, is that

US$10,000? Is that what is reflected in—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Oh, I am sorry, US$10 million. Sorry.

The Presiding Officer. All right.



14 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Again, as I said, I am not used to millions so I always say thousands.

The Presiding Officer. In other words, the Office of the Ombudsman was already conducting

an investigation of the Chief Justice so much so that you have to write the Respondent Chief Justice

to explain, to appear in 72 hours to explain his side.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right. That your testimony here would be, if you have any finding

at all in the course of that investigation, will be against or in favor of the Ombudsman—of the

Respondent Chief Justice, we do not know that.



Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please…

The Presiding Officer. So Counsel, please proceed along that line so that we can finish this.

This is only to lay the basis whether this party is a hostile witness or a friendly witness to you.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We will do so, Your Honor, as directed.

Now, you mentioned in here US$10,000.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am sorry.

Mr. Cuevas. Ten million pala, I am sorry. All right.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Chain of errors.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, you must have been informed about the impeachment proceedings going on

before this Honorable Body by then?


Mr. Cuevas. All right. My question to you, is there any mention or evidence of this US$10 million

and the evidence presented before this Honorable Court?

Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor. Up to now the Witness has not been qualified. With due

respect, the mere fact that the Ombudsman—

The Presiding Officer. The Counsel for the Prosecution is correct. Just to help in this. Anyway,

this is a preliminary matter.

Madam Ombudsman, you are conducting an investigation of this case against the Respondent, am

I correct?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Fact-finding investigation, Your Honor. A case

buildup...

The Presiding Officer. Yes, fact-finding investigation.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. …as opposed to preliminary investigation, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Have you made any findings at all?



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 15

Ms. Carpio-Morales. About?

The Presiding Officer. Against the Respondent?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, I was able to get data showing that at least—

The Presiding Officer. You obtained data material to—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Material and relevant to the…

The Presiding Officer. Complaint filed with your office.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. …complaints filed by the three (3) complainants. Yes, at least from the

first complainant.

The Presiding Officer. And are those materials adverse to the Respondent?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, it appeared so, Your Honor, because…

The Presiding Officer. Correct.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. …these are the documents that I sourced from that agency.

The Presiding Officer. So that whatever testimony you will give here in this Court would have

the tendency to be adverse to the Respondent.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It appears so, Your Honor.


Ms. Carpio-Morales. And that is the reason why—

The Presiding Officer. So, Counsel proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. In which case, Your Honor—

The Presiding Officer. If you want to make a motion, then make a motion.

Mr. Cuevas. May we move, Your Honor, that the Witness be declared as a hostile witness,

because her interest as Ombudsman investigating the case is already adverse to that of the Respondent,

the Honorable Chief Justice, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, the answers of the—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, that is my mandate. If I am mandated by law to investigate

and I investigate the Respondent, that does not make me an adverse person. So, I have to discharge

my mandate.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct. That is a constitutional mandate. In fact, the Ombudsman

can investigate with or without complaint.


The Presiding Officer. So, you may proceed.


Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, the Defense has moved for the qualification of the Witness

as a hostile witness, may I object. The mere fact that the Ombudsman is conducting an investigation



16 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

does not render her as an adverse witness. In fact, she has merely written the Chief Justice to explain

if there is any truth to the allegation that he has $10 million. There has been no adverse finding by the

Ombudsman. She is merely performing her mandate and task under the Constitution and the

Ombudsman’s Law. That is not evidence of any adverse interest.

Mr. Cuevas. We do not question that there is an investigation, that the investigation is allegedly

being conducted by the Honorable Ombudsman, Your Honor, pursuant to law. What we wanted tolay down is the fact that there is already allegedly a finding made by her adverse to that of the Chief

Justice. How can she be expected to be neutral, to be unbiased and to be impartial, Your Honor, in

dealing with the Chief Justice?

Mr. Bautista. If I may, Your Honor please. The Ombudsman has not said she has made a finding.

She merely said that she has gathered or received data. She has not made any finding.

Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, the gathering of data does not appear to be in consonance with the

impartial investigation of a case, Your Honor. Because there are complainants in here.

The Presiding Officer. All right. To cut short this discussion unless I am reversed by the

Impeachment Court given the fact the Ombudsman and according to the question of the Counsel for

the Defense has shown some disagreement with the Respondent and the fact that she is the one

investigating the Respondent by virtue of her office, this Court would consider her as a hostile witness

and so declared that she is a hostile witness.

And you may examine her as a hostile witness.



Mr. Cuevas. Now, being a respondent in your case his position may be akin to that of an accusedin a criminal case, am I right?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I said, Your Honor, we are still in the fact-finding investigation. He was

a mere respondent. You become an accused only when you are indicted in court.

Mr. Cuevas. I am not saying he is an accused, he may be likened to an accused in a criminal

case. There is no similarity whatsoever, is that your point?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, as I said, it is merely fact-finding.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is no determination yet of probable cause because he has to undergo

preliminary investigation. If we wind up our fact-finding investigation and we believe that there ought

to be preliminary investigation, then we set the case for preliminary—

Mr. Cuevas. But why the necessity of compelling him to submit or to file an Answer?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is what the law says, Your Honor, Section 26.

Mr. Cuevas. But this is practically compelling him to be a witness, which is prescribed by the

Constitution under Article III, Section 17...

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Are you assailing—



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 17

Mr. Cuevas. …that no person may be compelled to be a witness against…because the moment

he answers necessarily he has to state his reason.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Are you assailing the constitutionality of Section 26 of Anti-Graft?

Mr. Cuevas. I am raising it right now because the practice—

Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor please.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It does not follow, Your Honor, that if he refuses to answer, then—

The Presiding Officer. Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. I am still—

The Presiding Officer. Please propound your question.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Do not argue with the Witness.

Mr. Cuevas. There is a pending question, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, precisely. Ask your question, whether leading or direct question.

You are now entitled to ask, but do not argue with the Witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, I am not, Your Honor. I am asking her whether the position of the Chief Justice

as a respondent or a party being investigated with her office may be compared to that of an accused

in a criminal case.

The Presiding Officer. You are asking an opinion.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. That is a legal characterization. We are dealing with facts here.

Mr. Cuevas. But she is very much in a position to answer that, Your Honor. With due respect.

The Presiding Officer. Well, the Ombudsman may answer, if she wishes to answer.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I have already answered, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. All right.

And in accordance with the Constitution, the law says under Article III, Section 17, “No person

may be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not compel him, Your Honor. I said I was just following the

mandate of the law. That was his lookout if he did not like to answer. You could waive answering

if you want to.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. But again, as I am saying, Your Honor, you are assailing the

constitutionality of Section 26.

Mr. Cuevas. I am showing that that practice is not in accordance with the Constitution.



18 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is not a practice, Your Honor; it is a provision of law, Section 26 of

the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but that nullifies the right of—I am sorry, I am sorry. I will just ask question.

I am sorry, Your Honor, and I apologize.

Now, furthermore, may I direct your attention to this portion of—Ms. Carpio-Morales. Sorry. Let me correct my answer. It is Section 26 of the Ombudsman

Act, not the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, may I remind you that the time to raise the non-incrimination

clause of the Bill of Rights is when a question is addressed to the respondent. She was only asked

to appear for—

Mr. Cuevas. To answer, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. To answer, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. To answer within 72 hours. He can answer that he does not want togive an answer because it might tend to incriminate him. That is the prerogative of the party.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. With the kind indulgence of the Court, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. What we are invoking is a right which is fundamental and enshrined under our

Constitution, Your Honor. And it is the right of a person not to be compelled to testify against himself.

Here, it is our humble submission, if Your Honor please, that the moment he is compelled to answer

he will state all his defenses and everything and that is practically compelling him to answer. It is a

definite violation of that particular law, not merely from being safe from the trouble of incriminatinghimself but the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, Your Honor.

Mr. Bautista. If I may make a counter-submission, Your Honor, please. Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right. Again, I sound like a broken record, Justice Cuevas. Section

26 of the Ombudsman Act requires the Ombudsman to direct the respondent, in the event there is

reasonable ground to investigate further, to answer within 72 hours. So I sent that letter requesting

him—I want to emphasize the word “requesting him.” And so the immediate reaction was, “Oh, the

Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over me. That is a phony data”, and all that. So now, you are invoking

the Bill of Rights?

Mr. Cuevas. I am just stating for the record, Your Honor, the right—the constitutional right of

the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Already answered.


Mr. Cuevas. Now, I have examined the various affidavits of the different complainants in this case

and I have not found any statement to the effect that they are leveling an accusation against Chief Justice

Corona for the amassing of this $10 million. Do you agree with me?



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 19

Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor, the question is misleading. The Witness has never stated

that the basis for the $10 million accusation or charge is the three (3) complaints. She has never said

that. In fact, I do agree with you that if you examine the three (3) complaints there is no mention of

the $10 million.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.

Mr. Bautista. What she said is that the $10 million was gathered from information and evidence

she got from AMLC. So, the question is misleading, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Objection sustained.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, may I go back to the different complaints. Will you kindly tell the Honorable

Court whether you have examined any of the complainants in connection with the contents of their

complaint?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, I have not.

Mr. Cuevas. Not even any one of them?Ms. Carpio-Morales. No.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, there were statements by these complainants that they have nothing to do

with the alleged $10,000.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Ten million.

Mr. Cuevas. Ten million. I am sorry. I am not accustomed to million also. [ Laughter ] Good

lang ako sa P10.00.

And they mentioned that they have nothing to do with that.


Mr. Cuevas. Do you contradict that or you are not in conformity with them?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is correct. They did not mention anything about $10 million.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Thank you.

And insofar as their complaint is concerned, nothing touched on the $10 million.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Ten million dollars ($10 million). No, no, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, this AMLC that you mentioned a while ago, would you like us to believethere was already a court proceeding involving the AMLC?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. I just asked for assistance if they had any document

that had a bearing with the financial transactions and related transactions of the Chief Justice.

Mr. Cuevas. But that will require an investigation, is it not? Or an inquiry.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. An investigation by?

Mr. Cuevas. By the AMLC. Otherwise, their statement to you and reply to your query may not

be accurate and true.



20 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. I think the AMLA Law requires that if a deposit of 500,000 plus

is received by the bank, they are mandated to report to the AMLC these transactions.

Mr. Cuevas. But there is no statement here with respect to the AMLC in coming in. And

that the transaction is one covered by the AMLC. Am I right?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No.

Mr. Bautista. Misleading, Your Honor. The Witness already stated that she requested the

AMLC for assistance.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, this is a different question now. I am not asking her about the assistance.

If Your Honor please, I am sorry.

The Presiding Officer. Reform the question.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, my question to you is: There is nothing on record nor in the complaints

of the complainant here dealing with that AMLC intervention.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. There is none.

Mr. Cuevas. There is none.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Precisely I asked the assistance of the AMLC because I wanted to

know if there are documents in the possession of the AMLC that have a bearing on the complaints.

Mr. Cuevas. Would you like us to understand then that the AMLC can just come in upon the

request of any—

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, may I read to you the Constitution?


The Presiding Officer. Powers of the Ombudsman, Paragraph 5. “Request any government

agency—Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of

its responsibilities and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents.”

It is a constitutional law. The supreme law of the land directs, gives that power to the Ombudsman.

And we are wasting our time on this particular point.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, my point, Your Honor, is notwithstanding the grant of the powers, that

power must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. I am conversant, Your

Honor. I hope the Court pardons me.

The Presiding Officer. Please go ahead. No, no, I am not asking you to articulate your position

but I am just reminding you of the constitutional mandate given to the Ombudsman.

Mr. Cuevas. That insofar—may I proceed now, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Insofar as the AMLC is concerned and in the exercise of its powers, there must

be a procedure to be adopted. And that there must be an application before the court and the court

must have granted the application and that is the exercise of the power. The grant of the power

is constitutional but the procedure—



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 21

The Presiding Officer. The Ombudsman being an intelligent Witness may answer.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. You must be referring to the freezing of assets?

Mr. Cuevas. No. I am referring to the general exercise of the power of the AMLC, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. The AMLC—

Mr. Cuevas. My point is this. The AMLC cannot just, in response to any query, conduct an

investigation, submit a report—that is my point.

Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, the point made by Defense Counsel is irrelevant. He earlier

stated the proffer of testimony. And if we examine the request for subpoena which they themselves

submitted, they only offered two purposes for the subpoena of the Ombudsman.

Number one, in order to prove that Chief Justice Corona does not have foreign-denominated

accounts amounting to $10 million. That is the first purpose.

The second purpose is for them to explain while an investigation is being conducted on matters

already within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Impeachment Court.

Mr. Cuevas. We have no quarrel—

Mr. Bautista. The validity or invalidity of the actions of the Ombudsman with respect to the

investigation being conducted over the Chief Justice, that is irrelevant here, Your Honor. In fact, those

are legal conclusions which have no room in a trial.

Mr. Cuevas. We do not question the validity of the exercise of the power. We made that clear,

Your Honor. But our point is, that power, although constitutional in character, must be exercised in

accordance with the procedure laid down by jurisprudence and the law. That is our point. If the

Court—Mr. Bautista. Well, if you want to study that, Mr. Defense Counsel—

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. All that—the Ombudsman had already stated that she

sought the assistance of the AMLC. How the AMLC performed its function, I do not know whether

the Ombudsman is competent to testify on that. And she has already answered the question. She

sought the assistance of the AMLC. How the AMLC got records that—if there are records that he

got and delivered to the Ombudsman, I do not know whether we can—you can ask if the Witness is

competent to testify on that, if she knows how the AMLC performed its functions.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, I was just asking her whether the records—

The Presiding Officer. We presume the regularity of official conduct.

Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor. I fully agree with that. But as I have articulated, Your Honor,

I have a point and that is the validity of this alleged assistance made by the AMLC without complying

with the provisions of the law on the matter, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Then that will be a function of appreciation of the evidence by this Court.

If there is any violation by the AMLC, that is another issue altogether, he will answer for it.

So please proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.



22 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Now, going back to the complaints filed with your office, more particularly one by the Honorable

Noli or Emmanuel Tiu Santos, did you notice that practically the entirety of the allegations therein

mentioned are merely based on newspaper accounts?

Mr. Bautista. Asking for opinion and conclusion, Your Honor, and it is irrelevant.

Mr. Cuevas. Why? I am asking—

Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, I do not—

The Presiding Officer. She may answer.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Based on newspaper accounts?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Is that your conclusion?

Mr. Cuevas. No. Did you notice that what she stated there is based on—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Under the assumption that I always read all newspaper accounts.

Mr. Cuevas. No. I have a definite question. I have gone over the affidavit of Noli Tiu Santos.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. And I noticed that all that you have stated in there are practically coming from

newspaper or newspaper accounts. And my question to you—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. You noticed it? You noticed it?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And my question to you, did you notice that?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, he attached to his complaint newspaper clippings.

Mr. Cuevas. And you will agree with me that newspaper clippings have no probative value

whatsoever especially so in this particular case where the subject to be investigated is a Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bautista. Irrelevant, Your Honor. I cannot understand the line of questioning because it was

the Defense Panel who themselves asked to subpoena the Ombudsman and to produce documents

relating to the $10 million account. That is all. And we have already stipulated that the complaints do

not mention the $10 million accounts.

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. She is a very intelligent witness.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, as I said, Your Honor, he attached to the complaint newspaper

clippings. But let me emphasize that before I invoked the assistance of the AMLC, I first asked the

AMLC—I first furnished copies of the complaints to the AMLC thinking that the charges might have—

had to do with matters within its jurisdiction. And then when I wrote the AMLC again, I only received

yet the first complaint. In others words, the second and third complaints including that of Mr. Santos

had not yet been with the Ombudsman.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Madam Ombudsman.

I propounded that question, Madam Ombudsman, in the light of what appears in this request that

you sent to the Chief Justice. May I read for the record, Your Honor?



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 23


Mr. Cuevas. “While you may only be removed from office through impeachment proceedings,

this Office, as reflected earlier, has the power and duty to investigate you for any serious misconduct

in the office for purposes of filing a Verified Complaint for Impeachment, if warranted.”

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes.Mr. Cuevas. “It was on this account that this Office conducted an initial evaluation of the

complaints.”

I am led by that statement of yours that it was on the account made by the complainant-affiant that

you conducted the initial investigation of the complaints. Am I right?


Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. On account of the complaints.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.


Mr. Cuevas. But there is nothing in the complaint relative to what you wanted to be investigated,

and that is the $10 million account.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Precisely, Your Honor. Again, I sound like a broken record. I said,

“Furthermore, we received report that the Chief Justice has $10 million.” And that report was based

on the report I—that was given to me by the AMLC. And these are the documents given to me by

the AMLC.

Mr. Cuevas. So, you totally disregarded the Affidavit of Complaint of Noli Santos?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not disregarded.

Mr. Cuevas. In what sense or what value did you give to that complaint?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, there were three (3) complaints.

Mr. Cuevas. No, I am referring—I am sorry, Your Honor. I am merely referring to Noli Santos.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. But why should you drop the other complainants?

Mr. Cuevas. No, I am—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because they have essentially almost the same complaints. They were

complaining against acquisition of unexplained wealth.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. I am just asking a question. May we request most

respectfully that the Witness be admonished not to argue with this Representation, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am not arguing, I was just explaining.

Your Honor, I was just explaining.

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. The Witness is explaining to the Counsel that she did not—



24 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

the 10 million was obtained from a report to her by the AMLC. She initially referred the complaint

submitted to her by private parties. If I may recollect her former statement to the AMLC and there

was a report returned by the AMLC to her and in that report was a statement about a $10 million

account supposedly of the Respondent.

Am I correct in this, Madam Ombudsman?


The Presiding Officer. All right. So, that is the situation.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. The way I understood you—

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, proceed.


The way I understood you, you received that report from the AMLC. Was it prior or after your

letter of April to the Chief Justice—of April 20?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Prior, Your Honor, because I could not have told the Chief Justice that

we received report about $10 million if I had not gathered it from the AMLC data that was—

Mr. Cuevas. No, will you be kind enough to tell us why you did not incorporate that as a

statement so that at least the Chief Justice will be able to answer intelligibly and correctly?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. What statement, Your Honor?

Mr. Cuevas. That according to you, based from the papers coming from the AMLC, there was

this alleged $10 million deposit. That was not stated in your—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, but I said report. We received report.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but even that—I am sorry. But even that does not appear in your letter

request of April 20, 2012.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I thought it was not necessary.

Mr. Cuevas. So, why did you not consider that necessary when you are asked—practically

accusing a person of illegally acquired wealth, Your Honor. Why?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I thought it was not necessary to mention the source. After all, he said

that that account does not exist.

Mr. Cuevas. Kindly let us—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. So, why should you know? All right.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, but that was—when he said that that account did not exist, it was only after

your letter of April 20—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, but I thought it was not necessary, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. That is your—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, to mention that it came from AMLC.



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 25

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But in order that the witness or Chief Justice Corona may be allowed to

explain well his position, why was it not necessary? What made you think that that was not necessary,

$10 million is not necessary?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. That was data gathered by the AMLC.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but my point is this, Madam Witness, you wrote the Chief Justice RenatoCorona a letter dated April 20, 2012...

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, yes.

Mr. Cuevas. ...and you said, “Strictly confidential.”

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is right.

Mr. Cuevas. One of the statements that you made in here is in connection with the $10-million

account.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Strictly confidential, meaning...

Mr. Cuevas. Wait. No, no, no. Wait.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. ...the contents of the letter were strictly confidential.

Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, why was there no mention in order that he may defend himself and write

correctly why you did not mention it?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I thought it was not necessary, Your Honor. I thought it was not

necessary.

Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed to finish my question?

The Presiding Officer. The Witness has already answered that she felt it was not necessary.

So, that is her position.

Am I correct in this, Madam Carpio?


The Presiding Officer. Already answered.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay.

The Presiding Officer. We cannot—we are arguing on this point. The Witness said that she

found it not necessary to give that information in her letter.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, but my point is this, Your Honor. If that was so stated and a request to

answer is made, then the party to whom it is addressed may be able to intelligibly reply to the request,

Your Honor. That is my point.

Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please.

Mr. Cuevas. I am not questioning the opinion of the Witness, Your Honor. I am just bringing

out facts, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor.



26 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly direct your question to the Witness so that we will

understand each other?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, you were saying so that the Respondent could probably have

been able to answer intelligibly to the request?

Mr. Cuevas. And correctly, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Correctly?


Ms. Carpio-Morales. But he could have asked for a bill of particulars.

Mr. Bautista. Yes. He could have asked, “Where did you get this information?”

Mr. Cuevas. But this is not a prosecution in court whereby the bill...

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, in any event even if it were not a bill of particulars, he could have

said that, “Can I be enlightened where you got the information?”

Mr. Bautista. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. That is precisely why we came to this Court, open up this matter because we feel

that there is no truth nor any basis—legal basis for this assertion. That is the point of the Defendant,

Your Honor.

Mr. Bautista. There is no truth...

Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is no truth to my assertion that I received report that he has US$10

million in transactional accounts?

Mr. Cuevas. But there is no statement to that effect. What I am limiting myself is your statement,“Furthermore, we received information that there are several bank accounts in PSBank and several

other banks in your name including those denominated in U.S. dollars the aggregate value of which

amount to at least $10 million.”

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, you knew if this is in dollar, this is highly confidential protected by the foreign

currency deposit.

Mr. Bautista. No basis, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Republic Act 6426.Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not source it from the bank, Your Honor. I sourced it from the

AMLC.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but wherever it is sourced. You mean to say if the source is different, it can

be—foreign currency deposit may now be inquired?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. So, you are saying, Your Honor, that these accounts exist because you

are saying these are confidential?

Mr. Cuevas. No, I am not saying. I am not saying that—it is your answer that there are reports

to this effect. My question is, why was this not incorporated in the report?



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 27

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It was incorporated. I just did not mention the source.

Mr. Cuevas. There is no mention of—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Ten million dollars.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but source.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, AMLC. Here, 17-page document.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, where in your report?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, I did not mention. We sound like a broken record, both of you

and I. I said I thought it was not necessary.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, the Witness has already answered that the basis of the 10 million

is a report. She did not include it in her letter.


The Presiding Officer. Well, that is her answer.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, we wanted to emphasize, Your Honor, the apparent—

The Presiding Officer. Yes, you have already overly emphasized it to this Court.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, if I may.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, the gentleman from San Juan.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo.

Pasensiya na ho kayo at bigla po akong tumayo. Kanina po mayroong hawak-hawak si

Ombudsman na mga papeles. Report yata ng AMLC iyon. Eh sana ho makakuha kami ng mgakopya, kopya para sa mga Senador para mabasa na po namin, kung pupuwede lang po.

Mr. Bautista. And can the Prosecution Panel likewise be given a copy of that?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. If directed by the presiding Senate President.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Can we get hold of the copies, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. To be fair to...

Mr. Cuevas. May we be heard, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. ...to be fair to the Respondent, let the process be done. The Prosecutionknows what to do when it is their turn to ask questions from this Witness. Because she will be subject

to cross-examination.


The Presiding Officer. So Counsel for the Defense, proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, this report that you were telling us is a report that came into your possession

after the filing of the Impeachment Complaint in this case, am I right?




28 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. And I suppose you must have read the entirety of the Impeachment Complaints

in this case, is it not?


Mr. Cuevas. And there is nothing in this Impeachment Complaint that deals with this $10 million

account.Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor. At the last hearing, the Defense expressly assured the

entire nation—this Senate, that they were going to face the $10 million issue squarely. That is what they

said. And on the basis of that assurance, they were given a recess of 48 hours, they were given the

right to subpoena the Ombudsman and five (5) other witnesses. And now you are going to question it?

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. What was your question, Counsel?

Mr. Cuevas. This is not one of those covered by the Impeachment Complaint in this

Impeachment Proceedings, Your Honor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. You are referring to the $10 million?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I do not know if the alleged $700,000 in PSBank is included in this $10

million.

Mr. Cuevas. So you are not sure about that?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not sure about it, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. What you are telling us is merely your opinion about the matter.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Opinion on the basis of how I analyzed the 17-page data coming from

the AMLC.

Mr. Cuevas. But that is not my question to you. My question to you is this: This letter is

dated April 20, 2012?


Mr. Cuevas. At that time, there was already an Impeachment Proceedings before this Court.


Mr. Bautista. Already answered.

Mr. Cuevas. There is nothing in that Impeachment Complaint which deals with this $10 million

account that you mentioned, am I right?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am not supposed to remember all those Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. Cuevas. I am not asking you to remember. All I am asking you is, since you are familiar

with the Impeachment Proceedings…


Mr. Cuevas. ...I am asking for a fact, that whether you are familiar or what. Did you notice

that it is not included in any of the Impeachment Articles?



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 29

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not nitpick the Impeachment Articles, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. So if I tell you now that it is not one of those charges embodied in any Articles

of Impeachment, you will not be in a position to deny or contradict this Representation.


Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, thank you.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. If it is—if it is not, with more reason I should conduct further investigation.

Mr. Cuevas. I see. And the idea is for impeachment also?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Possibly for impeachment in December.

Mr. Cuevas. On the basis of your investigation?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, if it is not covered.

Mr. Cuevas. But you do not fully agree with me that it is not embodied in this Impeachment

Complaint?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, I do not recall.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, we have read the Articles of Impeachment. There is no mention

of $10 million so we know that.


The Presiding Officer. There is no point in belaboring that issue. We deal with the allegations

of the Complaint. That is a detail of—that is required by the Counsel. But there is no mention of an

amount.

Mr. Cuevas. And we are guided by the fact, Your Honor, that the elementary rule of procedure

in evidence debars any evidence being presented to a matter that is not proved—alleged in the

Complaint.

Mr. Bautista. If that is so, Your Honor, then why did you subpoena the Witness and to bring

with her documents regarding the $10 million, if you are saying it is irrelevant?

Mr. Cuevas. Is he entitled to question me, Your Honor? I will yield if he is entitled, but he

has no authority.

Mr. Bautista. Counter-manifestation, Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. Propound your question to the Witness and let us finish this.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, I understand that you investigated—

The Presiding Officer. There is no question that there is no mention of $10 million in the Articles

of Impeachment. But the issue is inclusion and non-inclusion of assets, liabilities and net worth. That

is the main issue in Article II. Whether the amount included is one billion or one peso, the issue is

inclusion and non-inclusion. The amount is immaterial.

So reform your question.

Mr. Cuevas. I have no pending question, Your Honor.



30 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Then proceed to ask another question.


Now, this $10 million, is this an amount embodied already in the other amounts discussed in this

Impeachment Court, which is the subject of evidence by the Prosecution?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I think we have been going around in circles on this issue.

Let me just read the Journal of May 8, 2012, the manifestation of one of the counsels for the

Defense, Mr. Roy. And let me quote that, Mr. President. The Journal reads: “I was referring to, Your

Honor, the mention of 10 million from Senator Estrada. I believe it is on Page 52 on Paragraph 1. Is

it there? At any rate, Your Honor, I draw your attention to the 10 million that was mentioned by

Senator Estrada and as he put it, ‘gentle recommendation’ for the Chief Justice to testify in this

connection. Now I wish to draw attention to the fact that this is not a matter within the Complaint.

“Be that as it may, Your Honor, the Defense is not going to skirt from this issue. If the Honorable

Court is inclined that we should address this issue, if this Honorable Court is inclined to consider thismatter in its deliberation, if the Honorable Court is inclined to make this form part of the basis of any

verdict rendered here, we will willingly confront the issue.”

This was already settled as early as May 8, 2012. I believe, Mr. President, that enough time has

been debated to this debate. Can we go now to this point? This was already settled before by Counsel

of the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. We want to be liberal in this Court, but the time that we have is limited.

So may I request the indulgence of both sides to—we do not want to control you in the way you ask

your questions, in the way you will handle your cases. But all of us are lawyers, and I think that you

understand my position. Direct the question to the Witness and let the Witness answer so that we canmove on. Because if you are going to argue a certain point back and forth with the Witness, we will

never finish this case.

So, Mr. Counsel for the Defense, proceed to ask your question from the Witness so that we can

finish.

Mr. Cuevas. In view of the admissions made on record by the Witness, Your Honor, in

connection with my previous questions, I have no further direct examination questions, Your Honor. I

am through with my direct examination.

The Presiding Officer. You are through with the Witness?


The Presiding Officer. All right, cross.


Madam Ombudsman, you earlier mentioned that the AMLC gave you a report.


Mr. Bautista. Do you have a copy of the report with you?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I have my copy.



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 31

Mr. Bautista. For the record, Counsel is being given a copy of the AMLC report.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Seventeen (17) pages and there are also four (4) pages separate from

that—

Mr. Bautista. For the record, Your Honor...

Mr. Cuevas. How many pages?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Seventeen (17) pages, the record of transaction.

Mr. Bautista. ...the document consists of the—the first page is entitled “Transaction Codes

Legend” but it is not paginated. There are 17 pages, which indicate at the top page of each one the

name of the account holder, the account number, the transaction date, the transaction code, the peso

amounts; the currency denomination, whether it is U.S. dollars or peso; the foreign exchange amount;

and the name of the financial institution, in other words, the bank.

On its face, there appears to be 705 accounts entered here—

Mr. Cuevas. Seven hundred five accounts?

Mr. Bautista. Seven hundred five—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Entries, transactions—entries, entries.

Mr. Bautista. Entries or transactions, sorry.

In addition to this report, Your Honor—Madam Ombudsman, was there any other report submitted

by any party with respect to the AMLC report?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. This one, have you already invited the attention of the Court respecting

this four-page document?

Mr. Bautista. Where did you get this, Madam Ombudsman?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It came with this same 17-page document. I think this reflects the

summary of the peso and dollar accounts.

Mr. Bautista. Thank you.

For the record, may we request that the transaction list be marked as Exhibit Eleven W

(“WWWWWWWWWWW”) for the Prosecution and—

The Presiding Officer. What is the marking?

Mr. Bautista. Eleven W (“WWWWWWWWWWW”)—

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Bautista. —and the attachment which is simply entitled “Strictly Confidential; Subject:

Renato Coronado Corona” which appears to be a summation or a summary of the transaction list

consisting of four (4) pages be marked as Exhibit Eleven X (“XXXXXXXXXXX”).

Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, what is the pleasure?



32 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. Before any question is propounded on this alleged report, may we be allowed

to examine the same so that we will know the contents thereof? We had not been furnished a copy.

It just surfaced today, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The Counsel for the Prosecution, will you kindly show the—to be fair,

the document to the Defense Counsel?

Mr. Bautista. If I may respectfully suggest, Your Honor, can we have a 20-minute recess so that

we can photocopy the documents for the Senator-Judges and for us to examine the document because

this is the first time—

The Presiding Officer. How long?

Mr. Bautista. Half an hour.

The Presiding Officer. All right, motion granted. The session is in recess for 20 minutes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, excuse me. Sorry, puwede ba ito ang kopyahin ninyo?

I am sorry, may I beg the indulgence of the Presiding Justice? That is my personal copy, YourHonor. I made some annotations, so, can I request that the other copy, which bears the initial of the

one who prepared, be the one to be photocopied.


The Presiding Officer. Yes. If the documents are the same in all respects, except the notes

of the Ombudsman.

So ordered.

The trial was suspended at 3:36 p.m.


The Presiding Officer. Session resumed.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the copies have already been distributed but the Members of the

Court do not have a copy yet. We are told that they will instead come up with a PowerPoint

presentation so that it will facilitate the distribution of the papers or the documents to the Members

of the Court while it is being processed.

So, we may proceed, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Witness, the Honorable Ombudsman will please take the witness

stand.

We are in the stage of cross-examination. The Prosecution may proceed.


Honorable Ombudsman, did you advise the Senate that you are prepared with the PowerPoint

presentation?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir.



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 33

Mr. Bautista. So you earlier testified that on the basis of the information you received from

AMLC, you concluded that there are several bank accounts and I am quoting from your letter to the

Chief Justice.

“There are several bank accounts in PSBank and several other banks in your name including those

denominated in U.S. dollars…”

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Denominated.

Mr. Bautista. “… the aggregate value of which amounts to, at least, $10 million.” Do you

confirm that?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bautista. Can you please explain to us, Honorable Ombudsman, how you arrived at the

figure of $10 million?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. First, I listed all the different accounts. I classified them under

one column. And then, after getting—grouping different accounts under one column, I got the datesthe transactions occurred. Then, I got the amounts the transaction occurred.

But since I noticed that there were some accounts which were deposited in, let us say, A account,

but on the same—let us say, hundred thousand, example only, but on the same day, the hundred

thousand dollars were withdrawn in three (3) tranches and transferred to three (3) different accounts

X, Y, Z. I had a bit having difficulty trying to analyze. So I came up with some significant observations

and I put them into writing.

Mr. Bautista. Can you please show to us these significant observations you have made in writing?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. That the Chief Justice has, at least, $10 million in transactional

balances. He has 82 U.S dollar accounts in five (5) banks. There were significant deposits andwithdrawals on very significant dates including the 2004 and 2007 elections, as well as the week he

was impeached, specifically for December 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 22, 2011. The significant transactions

are as follows:

On December 12, 2011, the day Corona was impeached, the following bank transactions were

made:

There was a time deposit for termination of $418,193.32. This amount was added to a BPI San

Francisco del Monte account number blank, blank, blank. And then from this, $417,978.80 was

deducted from this account and placed in a regular trust fund contribution placement.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.


The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, we noticed that the testimony of the Witness is being

in narrative form. May we request, Your Honor, that questions be directed to her so that we can

properly object when the time so demands, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I think she—

Mr. Bautista. The question calls for an explanation, Your Honor, please.



34 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But irrespective of what you wanted her—

The Presiding Officer. That is an answer, I think, to a question.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. And we noticed that it is being—the answer is being made in

narrative form. It is practically a story. We can no longer object, Your Honor. That is why I am

requesting that the testimony of the Witness be adduced by question and answer, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right. In order to be fair, will you kindly slice your questions in

segments, Mr. Counsel for the Prosecution?

Mr. Bautista. We will try to do that, Your Honor, but the difficulty is I just got this a few seconds

ago. But I will try.

Honorable Ombudsman, you were already testifying on how much were the withdrawals made by

the Chief Justice from the date of his impeachment on December 12, 2011 forward. Do you have the

total amount of dollars the Chief Justice withdrew after the date of his impeachment from the various

bank accounts?

Mr. Cuevas. We object, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Why?

Mr. Cuevas. Because the Witness may be cross-examined only on matters directly taken up in

direct examination.

Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. The Witness has been subpoenaed by the Defense

specifically for the purpose of addressing the $10 million and now they are trying to limit her testimony.

I think we should put it on record, Your Honor, that the Defense has repeatedly misrepresented the

supposed intent of the Chief Justice to open his dollar accounts.

Mr. Cuevas. We do not—

Mr. Bautista. As early as February 12, 2012, this Honorable Court already ruled that the

PSBank Account should have been opened but it relented to the TRO in particular because of the

representation of the Chief Justice that he will open his account.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please.

Mr. Bautista. Up to now he has not done that and now they are trying to block the testimony

of the Ombudsman regarding transactions and documents which they specifically subpoenaed.

The Presiding Officer. The rule says and I will read to you the Rule of Evidence involved,Section 12, Rule 132, “The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse

party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the

adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character.”

The rule involved in this discussion is this: He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the

adverse party which is the Prosecution, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject on

his examination in chief. So, I will have to sustain the motion.

Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. May I ask for a reconsideration?




MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 35

Mr. Bautista. The Defense has already waived its right for the Prosecution to cross-examine on

the $10 million accounts. They expressly waived back, Your Honor, by making the representations

they made last Tuesday and on the basis of the subpoena request they made. They already waived

that, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. If I may be allowed to answer, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

Mr. Cuevas. There could be no waiver, Your Honor. Because our objection now is predicated

on the Rule of Evidence. We are not preventing my learned colleague from cross-examining her. But

the cross-examination being a hostile witness, Your Honor, must be only on matters taken up only on

the direct. Did we touch on the withdrawals? The answer is no. Did we ask her to testify?

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, motion to reconsider is denied.

Next question.

Mr. Bautista. Honorable Ombudsman, who gave you this report from the AMLC?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. You are referring to the particular person?

Mr. Bautista. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, the Executive Director.

Mr. Bautista. Who is he?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Vicente Aquino.

Mr. Bautista. I notice, Honorable Ombudsman, that there are initials—there is one initial on every

page of both exhibits pertaining to the reports of the AMLC. Do you know whose initial this is?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. One of the officials of the AMLC or Central Bank who is an analyst, bank

analyst.

Mr. Bautista. You earlier mentioned that you arrived at a conclusion that there were $10 million,

did you ask, did you request anyone to assist you in evaluation—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. After my initial evaluation I had to seek the assistance of the COA.

Mr. Bautista. Who in particular, Ma’am, in the COA?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. The chair, Grace Tan, and then eventually I later requested Heidi

Mendoza.

Mr. Bautista. What was their response to your request for assistance?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, they came up with their analysis of dollar accounts.

Mr. Bautista. Did they come up with a report on their analysis of the dollar account?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, they came up—

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. Before this Honorable Ombudsman answer, may we go on

record, Your Honor, as again objecting to this—these matters had not been taken up in the direct

examination, Your Honor. And if we have to be—



36 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Which one?

Mr. Cuevas. The alleged report. The examination by the COA and so on. And nothing had

been mentioned about that in the direct examination. So, following the previous—

The Presiding Officer. Actually, Counsel, the documents have been waived by the Witness

during her examination in chief, hindi ba?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But the question now—

The Presiding Officer. Ipinakita niya eh.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But—

The Presiding Officer. And it was elicited by virtue of a question from the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor. May I—

The Presiding Officer. So, the Witness is now explaining who helped her, and that was the

question...


The Presiding Officer. ...of the cross-examining Counsel. So, the Witness may answer.

Mr. Cuevas. May I request for the reconsideration, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. The matters being sought to be elicited on cross-examination, Your Honor, are

matters not taken up in the direct examination and the Witness does not cease to be a hostile witness.

The Rules under Rule 132, Section 13, if I recall correctly, allows cross-exam—We are not denying

them the right to cross-examine. But my point is, the cross-examination must be limited only to matterstaken up in the direct examination. Now, the question now centers on the alleged examination by the

COA, on the report and on the examination. Our point is, this had never been touched in our direct

examination and I appeal to the records to buttress our argument on the point.


The Presiding Officer. But do you not think the answer—the question to the Ombudsman is

because of the document that was presented to this Court by virtue of the examination-in-chief?

Mr. Cuevas. No, what the document—if, Your Honor—

The Presiding Officer. She is explaining what happened, how that document was prepared,

evaluated by her and she said she sought the assistance of other people.


The Presiding Officer. But anyway, okay. I will just give to you all the leeway to defend your

client—

Counsel for the Prosecution, reform your question.


May I just point out that in the request for subpoena of the Defense, I quote, “That the Honorable

Ombudsman bring with her the original and certified true copies of documents of the complaint against



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 37

Chief Justice before the Office of the Ombudsman as well as original and certified true copies of the

documents on which they based their accusations that Chief Justice Corona has foreign-denominated

accounts with an aggregate value of $10 million.”

These are the words of the Defense when they asked for the subpoena. And now they are trying

to prevent the Witness from testifying on the very documents they subpoenaed just because they now

know that the contents are adverse to them.

Mr. Cuevas. We are afraid, Your Honor, that we had been misunderstood. We never have

referred to any subpoena, much less to any subpoena duces tecum that has not been part of the direct

examination of the Witness.

Mr. Bautista. Therefore you directly examined her on the basis of matters that were not subject

of a subpoena?

Mr. Cuevas. What we are objecting is the question propounded to the Witness which covers

subject matter that has not been taken up in the direct examination. That is very clear.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Counsel for the Prosecution, please reform your question so thatwe will not go into this lengthy discussion.


You earlier said, Madam Ombudsman, that you are prepared to present a PowerPoint?


Mr. Bautista. Can you do that?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. If the Impeachment Court will allow me, Your Honors.


The Presiding Officer. Unless I am reversed by the—

Yes, what is the pleasure of the—

Mr. Cuevas. If it is not—it is not part of our direct examination. And secondly, Your Honor—


Mr. Cuevas. Allow me to continue.

Mr. Bautista. I vehemently disagree with the statement that it was not part of the direct

examination.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please.

Mr. Bautista. The Journal will bear me out; they asked questions regarding the basis for the $10

million.

Mr. Cuevas. Right. O, where is the PowerPoint?

Mr. Bautista. Now that the evidence is adverse to them, they are trying to suppress it. May I

point out the presumption in the Rules of Court that when evidence is suppressed, it is presumed to

be adverse to the party suppressing such evidence.



38 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. You are misquoting a wrong law. That does not apply in this particular case. Do

we have a right to object? Our answer is yes. It is addressed to the Honorable Court and we—

The Presiding Officer. Did you not ask a question about the basis of the charge that the Chief

Justice has $10 million?

Mr. Bautista. Yes, they did.

Mr. Cuevas. We did not discuss that in the direct examination.

The Presiding Officer. Did you ask that question?

Mr. Bautista. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. I do not recall, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Let us go to the record.

Mr. Cuevas. My question is, what is—

The Presiding Officer. Let us not discuss this. I want to see the record if indeed the DefenseCounsel did not ask anything about the basis of the $10 million, the subject matter of the examination-

in-chief.

What is the pleasure of the gentleman from Taguig?

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, just to save time and to support the earlier ruling of the

Chair. During the direct-examination, tinanong po ng Counsel, “ Bakit hindi mo nilagay sa sulat

iyong basehan...

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Senator Cayetano (A). …at ano iyong basehan?” Ang sagot po nung HonorableOmbudsman, ang basehan niya iyong dokumento sa AMLC. Natandaan ko po ito kasi apat na

beses niya po winagaygay—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Winagayway.

Senator Cayetano (A). Sorry po. Excuse my Filipino. Anyway, she held it up and waved it.

And we were teasing Senator Jinggoy na kumuha na tayo ng kopya baka mawala. And paulit-

ulit po iyong Ombudsman in saying na, “Para tayong sirang plaka. Hindi ko sinama ito sa letter

sapagkat—” she did not think it was needed na ilagay sa letter. Therefore, Mr. Chair, to support

the Presiding Officer, winagayway niya iyong—kanina pa niya wini-wave iyon.

And, secondly, Your Honor—not to debate with you, huh—kasi kung bubuksan pa natin iyong

record, hahaba pa. Or kung iyong pronunciation ko sa Tagalog aayusin ko, hahaba pa. So

excuse me for that mistake but the Defense is the one who brought up the AMLC records. Ang

ginagawa lang ng Prosecution ngayon nag-i-elaborate o hinihimay. And the PowerPoint is para

tulungan na ihimay.

So I will stop there but I am supporting the ruling of the Chair that it is proper in cross because

it was brought up in fact by the Defense except hindi ninyo hinimay o hindi ninyo na tinanong iyong

Ombudsman kung ano iyong laman. But iyong—the fact na meron pong papeles na galing po sa

AMLC, nanggaling po iyon sa tanong ng Defense. And I am afraid na hahaba po at tatagal po

tayo today kung babalik pa tayo sa records and every single question kasi po pagkatapos ninyo



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 39

po, magtatanong din kaming Senator-Judges at hawak na po namin kopya naming, magtatanong

din kami.

So without interfering in the way you will defend your client, and I understand you have to do this,

these questions will come out, Sir. And I just like to put on record that I am supporting the Senate

President’s stand that this was brought up. And I hope maging smooth iyong pagtatanong natin

dito.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Mr. Senator.

Senator Legarda. Mr. President?

Mr. Cuevas. What we are objecting is the utilization of PowerPoint, Your Honor. True. But

there was a statement to the effect that this came from the AMLC. I recall having questioned—cross-

examined the Witness, Your Honor, on several matters regarding the AMLC and the net effect is that

she is not in a position to testify on matters properly within the confines or jurisdiction of the AMLC.

That is why I stopped in there. I am not—I did not insist, Your Honor, that she should be examined

in connection with how the matter was brought to the AMLC. What investigation was conducted by

the AMLC? Why is it confidential? Why there is no predicate crime and yet there was an informationsupplied to that. I totally withdraw all my statements relative—

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

Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President.

Isang maliit na kahilingan lang po na sana po ay bigyan natin ng pagkakataon si

Ombudsman Morales na makapagsalita na dahil tatlong oras na po tayong nakaupo ditto. Gusto

po nating marinig ang kanyang pahayag dahil meron na po tayong kopya ng 17 na pahina dito.

Pero mahirap intindihin dahil puro numero po at mga codes. Iyon lang po ang hinihiling ko.

Pakinggan natin siya with minimum interruption at iyong mga abogado dito at saka doon po, with

all due respect, mamaya po magtanong. Pwede pong mag-redirect naman po siguro ang Defense.Pwedeng magtanong siguro sa tamang pamamaraan ang Prosecution tapos kami bibigyan po ng

pagkakataon kung kailangan pa. Pero paano po tayo magkakaintindihan, bigyan po natin ng

pagkakataon para mapaliwanag iyong mga numerong napakaraming hindi namin maintindihan.

Salamat, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. With due respect, Your Honor. I think with the least fear of contradiction, we

are agreed that this alleged report came from the AMLC. As to who prepared the same in particular,

whether he is under oath, whether we can cross-examine him on the veracity of the entries herein

appearing, whether they are authentic or not, we are already helpless, Your Honor. And the

presentation—

The Presiding Officer. Your Honor, the document was testified to by the Ombudsman. It is

a part of the testimony. You know that that is a rule on evidence. Any document presented to a witness

and used by her in the course of her testimony—in this case, this is a part of the testimony of that

Witness, which could be the subject matter of a cross-examination.

Now, you are objecting and you say that you did not touch upon that matter in your examination-

in-chief. I agree with you that the COA was never mentioned by the Ombudsman. But precisely, she

was asked—the way I understood the question of the Prosecution is that the Prosecution asked the

Ombudsman whether that document was prepared by her. And my recollection of her answer was that

she asked the help of some other people including the COA, if I understood her correctly.



40 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

So that is in answer to the question of the Prosecution, but...

Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor—

The Presiding Officer. ...just to satisfy the objection and to be sure that we are not guessing

here, I am—as Presiding Officer, I want to check the record. Because my recollection of the record

is that you, the Defense, really touched this matter in their examination-in-chief.Mr. Cuevas. My point of objection—if I may be allowed to continue, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Go ahead.

Mr. Cuevas. My point of objection is not only whether it was not touched in the direct or not,

but whether the Witness will be competent insofar as AMLC figures are concerned.

Mr. Bautista. We will establish that, Your Honor, when we finish our examination.

Mr. Cuevas. What is being presented now is an AMLC report, unsigned—

The Presiding Officer. That will be a proper subject of a re-cross or a redirect.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, maybe—

The Presiding Officer. A redirect—because in your redirect, you can actually cross-examine

the Witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, but—

The Presiding Officer. We have already declared her to be a hostile witness.

Mr. Cuevas. We are very appreciative of that, Your Honor. But our point is, apparently, there

is no competency on the part of the Witness to discuss this report because, first, she is never party.

Hence—

The Presiding Officer. Then show that in the course of your redirect.

Mr. Cuevas. No. But our observation—

The Presiding Officer. Are you objecting on the ground that the Ombudsman is incompetent

to testify on this matter?

Mr. Cuevas. On the AMLC report, in addition to our previous objection, Your Honor.

Mr. Bautista. Your Honors, this is...

Mr. Cuevas. Because it is not shown yet whether she is a party to the preparation thereof,

whether she is privy to the entries therein appearing, and whether she had talked to the person who

made the entries, Your Honor. So this will be a paper presentation.

The Presiding Officer. Correct. But she is simply reading from the report.

Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So—

Mr. Cuevas. PowerPoint presentation eh, this will include interpretation, Your Honor, of figures

stated in there.



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 41

The Presiding Officer. Well, if you do not want a PowerPoint presentation, then I will submit

it to the Body for a decision, if you are objecting.

Mr. Cuevas. That is my point, Your Honor, and I made clear our position on the matter, Your

Honor.

We are heavily thankful to the Court for allowing us to say our piece on this particular and specificmatter.

Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, just for the record.

I have not seen these documents. And the mention of the PowerPoint presentation, I heard of for

the first time from the Honorable Senator Sotto. And I thought it was a wonderful idea to expedite the

presentation of the evidence. It did not come from the Prosecution; it came from the Senator.

Now, if the Ombudsman is ready to come up with a PowerPoint presentation, I think it is within

the discretion...

The Presiding Officer. Well—Mr. Bautista. ...of this Honorable Court to say “yes” or “no.” But definitely, it is not barred

by any rule.

The Presiding Officer. It may be tedious but if you want to—you object to the PowerPoint

presentation, then I will direct the Prosecution to ask the specific questions so that you can object.



Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Marcos?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

Senator Marcos. Thank you, Mr. President, just a quick question to Madam Ombudsman.

We thought we would be able to figure out these figures, but as you can see, there are many items

under which these transactions are categorized.

Madam Ombudsman, you used a term earlier “transactional balance.”


Senator Marcos. What does that mean exactly, Sir, because it is so hard for us to determine?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. The transactions that went into funds, the transactions that—including the

inflow and outflow of funds. That is not the balance of the account, those are the balance of the …

Senator Marcos. So that is the total—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. In other words, that went through the system of his—

Senator Marcos. Exactly. In other words, all the dollar transactions, when added together, total,

$10 million. Is that the determination that you made?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is even more, I think.



42 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Senator Marcos. It is even more. So it is not the balance. It is—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is a balance of transactions.

Senator Marcos. So even it—so even if, let us say, $10,000 was deposited and subsequently

$10,000 was withdrawn, that will be a transactional balance of 20,000. Is that correct, Madam

Ombudsman?Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let us put it this way, Senator.

I think our computation—my computation which was arrived at with the assistance of CPA-lawyers

is that, his fresh deposits—which means, fresh deposits, they never moved, they remained in that

particular account—amounted to more than $12 million fresh deposits.

Senator Marcos. Yes, but—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. But the transaction, we are saying the inflow and the outflow, that is it.

Senator Marcos. I heard you specifically say that the transactional balance to your determination

was $10 million and even more. But again, so this does not denote the balance, it merely denotesthe total amount of money that went through the system.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, it does not denote the balance of the account.

Senator Marcos. Okay.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. But as I said, Mr. Senator, his fresh deposits amounted to more than $12

million. When I say “fresh deposits,” they were never moved from one bank to another, they stayed

in those accounts.

Senator Marcos. Very well, we will have to plow through all these information.

Thank you very much, Madam Ombudsman.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. If you allow me—it will abbreviate the proceeding, if you allow me to

come up with a PowerPoint presentation. It will be easier to be understood if you—

The Presiding Officer. Madam Ombudsman, there is an objection from the Defense, so …

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay.

Senator Sotto. Senator Santiago, Mr. President, is asking for the floor.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, the primary rule in the Rules of Evidence is

relevancy. In fact, it is one of the first few articles that opened the section on the Rules of Court

concerning evidence. As long as evidence is relevant, it is admissible in court.

There is no prohibition in the Rules of Evidence of a PowerPoint presentation. There is

no categorical prohibition of such means of introducing evidence. The only question facing us is,

is this relevant?



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 43

I hold as a judge that this is relevant, therefore, it should be admitted. And besides, it will help

us considerably to reduce the hours that we might spend going over these items one by one. If there

is a need for voting, I vote therefore for the PowerPoint presentation. [ Applause]

The Presiding Officer. Order. Order.

May I request the public to refrain from showing your approval or disapproval with things that are

happening in the courtroom.

So ordered.

The gentleman from Cavite.

Senator Lacson. If there is a need for a motion to be submitted to the Chair to allow the

Ombudsman—Ombudswoman to present through a PowerPoint presentation, I so move, Mr. Presiding

Officer.

The Presiding Officer. All right. There is a motion to allow the Ombudsman to present the

PowerPoint presentation of the report prepared by the AMLC to her. May I request the—those who

are in favor, please raise your right hand. (Twenty-three senators raised their right hand .)

All right. Those who are against, please raise your right hand likewise. Those who are against.

No one is against? All right, the Power Point presentation is authorized by the Impeachment Court.

Proceed.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right. If Your Honor please, if you will allow one of my colleague—

no, if one of those who assisted me in charting this visual aid in coming out with a presentation, to herself

present—I am referring to commissioner of the COA, Heidi Mendoza, if you will allow her to do the

presentation? Or you will prefer that it is going to be me?

The Presiding Officer. Well, if you are technically capable, Madam Ombudsman, the…

Ms. Carpio-Morales. I will try, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, please do so.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. As you can see, this refers to analysis of dollar account. Basic Information:

Tabulation of Transactional Accounts Submitted by AMLC. The amounts appearing in the tabulation

are not account balances, but rather they are transaction balances. The same is considered complete

as to movement of funds above 500,000 from 14 April 2003 to 22 December 2011.

Methodology: recording of reported transactions into specific bank accounts; posting of individual

amounts under specific debit and credit column using the transaction codes as guide; summarizing allthe debits and credits which are basically the inflows and outflows of funds followed by the computation

of net inflow-outflow; marking of abnormal balances such as withdrawals where there are no apparent

entries under the debit column; preparing individual schedules; summary of transaction per account,

summary of account movements, Inter and intrabank schedule of net flows, supporting schedules

for significant observations.

Significant observations: Multiple accounts created for similar purpose; multiple accounts spread

over five banks in various branches/places.

Circuitous fund movements. Deposit and withdrawal made on the same day. Significant movement

on significant days.



44 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Significant observation: In 2003, he had one dollar account. In 2004, he had 13. So, one plus

13 would be 14 in 2005. In 2005, he had an additional nine dollar accounts. So, from 2003 to 2005

his dollar accounts totaled 23—it is not too visible from my end. Plus, he had an additional 12 dollar

accounts.

In 2007—excuse me, may I just look at my record because it is hardly visible from here. In 2007,

he had 35 dollar accounts, and he added 14 accounts. So, in 2008, he had 49 dollar accounts andhe added 14 accounts. In 2009, he had 63 dollar accounts and he added 12 dollar accounts. In 2010,

he had 75 dollar accounts and he added six accounts. In 2011, he had 81 dollar accounts and he

added one account. That gives a total of 82 dollar accounts.

The Presiding Officer. How many dollar accounts?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Eighty-two, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Eighty-two.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay. The PowerPoint machine, I think, came in late so I said I was not

able to see.

All right. First, he had this BPI Acropolis Branch, he had eight accounts; then BPI Tandang Sora,

he had 18 accounts; BPI San Francisco Del Monte, 34 accounts; BPI Management Investment

Corporation, he had one account; PSBank Cainta, he had eight accounts; PSB Katipunan, he had six

accounts; then ABC (Allied Bank Corporation) I think, Kamias, he had four accounts; and Deutsche

Bank, I do not know how to pronounce this, AG, Deutsche Bank he had two accounts; Citibank N.A.,

he had one account.

Now, circuitous movement of funds for the four main accounts. All right. An account in BPI

Acropolis, Account 4005939, deposit in the amount of $48,589.72. This was deposited on April 14,

2003.On even date or April 14, 2003, he withdrew $52,202.38.

On April 23 he deposited to the same account the amount of $78,400.66. Two days after, he

withdrew—is this possible—he withdrew $4,000—no, $80,000. Maybe the—Well, the amount would

show that it was bigger than what he deposited but the presumption is that he had seed deposit there.

Okay. Now, on April 1, 2004, he deposited hundred sixty-two million—No, no, rather—I am

sorry. This time—I am now used to millions—it is $162,982.97 he deposited to the same

account. This came from Account No. 9771.

Okay. Now, on April 1, 2004, he withdrew $390,000 from still the same account and depositedit to Account No. 1822.

On May 6, 2004, he deposited $390,526.09 and on April 2, 2004, he withdrew from the main

account the amount of $100,000 and deposited it in Account No. 1865.

The Presiding Officer. When you say account, you are talking within the same bank?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor, the same bank.

In other words, he had several accounts in the same bank.

The Presiding Officer. In the same bank?



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 45



Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right.

On April 2, 2004, as I said, he withdrew $100,000 and place this in Account 1865. On May 7,

2004, he deposited $100,134.89—Excuse me, Your Honor. May I just talk to Ms. Mendoza?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay. All right. Are we still in the same—Your Honor, may I be allowed

to use my magnifying lens?

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead, Madam Ombudsman, I am also using a magnifying glass.

[ Laughter]

Ms. Carpio-Morales. On May 5—No, rather on May 11, 2004, he deposited to the still the

same account, mother account, nine million three hundred forty dollars. No, I am sorry. Again, as I said,

I am sorry. I am now used to million. So it should be $9,340. On May 12, 2004, he withdrew$500,000. That was May 12. On May 14, 2004, he returned $500,000 to the mother account. On

August 4, 2004, he deposited to the mother account $15,000. On May 14, ’04, he deposited

$500,000. No, no, withdrew rather. I am sorry. He withdrew $500,000 from the mother account. On

August 4, 2004, he withdrew again US$30,000.

The Presiding Officer. Madam Ombudsman.


The Presiding Officer. Are these deposits and withdrawals covered by documentary evidence

like checks or debit memos or whatever?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Based on the AMLC documents, Your Honor, there are codes there

which says “debit”, “credit”, “debit”. But the credit memo, in other words, from where these funds came

from, who deposited them, or how it came about, it is not recorded there.

The Presiding Officer. Is this actually being operated by the account holder himself directly or…


The Presiding Officer. … was there a fund manager doing this for the deposit holder?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Except for maybe two or three accounts which I suspect it must have been

on the move of a manager, all the rest of the accounts reflected in the data document appear to havebeen made by Renato Corona, Renato C. Corona or Renato Coronado Corona.

The Presiding Officer. Signed on the documents withdrawing and depositing?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. This document is sourced from the database of the

AMLC. So, they did not submit supporting documents.

The Presiding Officer. So, it is actually electronically generated?


The Presiding Officer. Okay.



46 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Now, where are we? Now, on September 8, 2004, he deposit—no,

he withdrew US$30,000 and placed it in Account No. 3345. What is this? Ah, no, no. Thirty

thousand—I am sorry, I am referring to the blue. Are we in the same account? No. On September

9—No, rather 8, 2004, he deposited to the mother account $30,040.47. On August 18, 2004, he

withdrew from the mother account $30,000 and placed in Account No. 3507. On September 22,

2004, he deposited $30,040.47 to the mother account. On August 18, 2004, he deposited $10,000

to the mother account. On August 18, 2004, he deposited $15,000 to the mother account. OnSeptember 8, 2004, he withdrew $30,000 and placed it to Account No. 1840. On September 23,

2004, he withdrew thirty thousand zero point forty point forty-seven and deposited it to 3949 account.

On October 21, 2004, he withdrew $100,000. On October 29, 2004, he deposited $39,000. On

January 3, 2005, he deposited US$15,000. Now, on the same date, he withdrew $15,000, the same

amount. On January 14, 2005, he deposited US$10,000. On the same date, January 14, 2005, he

withdrew $15,000. On January 20, 2005, he withdrew US$10,000.

I think we are done, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, my impression of this, and correct me if I am wrong, there is one

deposit account in this bank by the depositor and he sliced it into several placement accounts. So, theaccounts were being coming in and out of the same deposit account in the same bank.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Coming out of one particular deposit account and going to another

account. In fact, there are several different accounts here which—

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Before you do that, may I request for…

Ms. Carpio-Morales. A recess.

The Presiding Officer. …a one long minute recess.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay.The trial was suspended at 5:35 p.m.


The Presiding Officer. Session resumed.

Senator Sotto. May we recall the Witness?

The Presiding Officer. Madam Ombudsman


The Presiding Officer. Analyzing this particular account, bank account number, there were

actually 14 withdrawals and 17 deposits.


The Presiding Officer. All right. This is over a period of time?


The Presiding Officer. It started at a given date and ended on a given date?




MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 47

The Presiding Officer. Does the Ombudsman know if there is a—what was the balance at the

end of this period involved?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. We cannot determine. It is the—to determine.

The Presiding Officer. You are not in a position to state?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. No.


Ms. Carpio-Morales. Unless they are fresh deposits which means there were no withdrawals

from the account. It would be difficult to determine the balance.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. But this account exists and it is being operated with deposits and

withdrawal by the depositor.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, the data we determined was up to 2005, I think. Yes, January

2005. So that is what is reflected in the document that the movement, the circuitous movement of the

deposits ended on January 2005.



The Presiding Officer. Yes. What is the pleasure of the good gentleman?

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of—before we go into another subject, may we request

that the Defense be furnished with PowerPoint—

The Presiding Officer. Yes. The Honorable Ombudsman is requested to provide a hard copy.


Mr. Cuevas. So that we can go over the same, prepare for our redirect and determine the facts

stated therein, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. In fact, if we may also request the Ombudsman to provide the Court

with a hard copy of this Power presentation?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor, we will do that.



Mr. Bautista. May the Prosecution, likewise, be given a copy, Your Honor.


This Power presentation was prepared by whom?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. It was prepared by me with the assistance of the COA.

The Presiding Officer. The COA.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. They were the ones who—



48 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Why was the COA brought into the picture?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, because I had to ask their assistance because the COA—

there are CPAs in the COA and for a mere lawyer without background in accounting, I found it difficult

to analyze. I did it manually and all that with all those columns and all that. So I wanted them to see

if my observations were correct. So I had to engage their help.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Counsel for the Prosecution.

Mr. Bautista. Mr. President, may we also be given a copy?

The Presiding Officer. You may continue with the Power presentation.

Mr. Bautista. Yes.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is another major account, Your Honor. This is Account No. 1842,

Bank of Philippine Islands, Tandang Sora.

The Presiding Officer. 1842?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. 1842, on—wait—left side.

On August 11, 2004, he withdrew—No, I will not say withdrew. There is a withdrawal of $10,000

which went to Account No. 4676. More than a month later or on September 15, 2004, the amount

of $10,011.24 was deposited to the same account.

The Presiding Officer. This is separate from the first—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Separate, Your Honor. This is BPI. The other one was BPI Acropolis.

This is BPI Tandang Sora (TS).

The Presiding Officer. Another bank deposit account?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Another bank deposit account, Bank of Philippine Islands. The first

one—

The Presiding Officer. The same bank—

Ms. Carpio-Morales. The same bank but different branch, Your Honor. The first one was

Acropolis Branch. This time, it is Tandang Sora Branch.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Now, on September 12, 2004, he withdrew $10,000. But on October

16—and placed it in another bank account. On September 16, 2004, he deposited to the mother

account $10,011.24.

In 2005, Your Honor—this is still the same BPI Tandang Sora Branch, the same account number—

mother account rather. But this time, again, he withdrew $11,000 on April 14, 2005, to another

account, Account No. 5427. This is different from the previous accounts that we mentioned.

On January 12, 2006, he deposited to the mother account $11,215.97.

On October—No. All right. Let us go to the first. I will be referring to the account at the left



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 49

side. On October 25, 2005, he withdrew $12,000 and placed in Account Number—BPI No. 5974.

And on January 24, 2006, he deposited $12,091.19.

On December 8, 2005, he withdrew from the mother account $15,000 and on March 9, 2006,

he returned $15,113.99 to the mother account.

On December 8, 2005, he withdrew $21,000. And on March 23, 2006, he returned $21,159.98.This came from another bank account.

So there are four (4) bank accounts involved in this page.

Still in the same BPI Tandang Sora Branch and still in the same mother account. On January 12,

2006, he withdrew $16,000 and placed it in another new account, Account No. 6261. And on January

11, 2007, he deposited $16,566.07 to the mother account.

On March 10, 2006, he withdrew $26,000 and placed it in a different account, Account No. 6474.

And on September 8, 2006, he withdrew $26,000—No. He deposited, rather, $26,455.95.

On March 23, 2006, he withdrew $21,159.58 from the mother account and placed it in a differentaccount, Account No. 6539. And on September 21, 2006, he deposited $21,538.04.

Finally, on this page.

On January 24, 2006, he withdrew $12,091.19 from the mother account. And on January 23,

2007, he deposited $12,526.15.

Please segue to the next page.

This is an account from BPI San Francisco Del Monte. The account number is 8104.

This is BPI.

All right. From the account number you will recall that the previous mother account was—Ah, no. Excuse me. Yes, it is different.

All right. San Francisco Del Monte. On September 14, 2006—no, rather August. August 14,

2006, September 8, 2006. In other words, September 21, 2006, January 16, 2007, January 23,

2007, he made five deposits. The first was $48,391.09; $26,455.95; $21,534.04; $16,566.07;

$12,526.15. These came from an Account No. 1842.

Again, on August 16, 2006, he deposited to the mother account the amount of $13,700. Then on

September 27, 2006, he deposited $110,109.19. And on January 24, 2007, he deposited

$21,234.05. The account where these came from is not indicated.

On May 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $134,603.25. This came from an account

numbered 9366.

On September 27—Okay. The withdrawal first should have been mentioned first because

it is a year before that.

So anyway, he withdrew $131,643.32 from his mother account and deposited it to Account

No. 9366.

On May 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $27,039.80. And on September 8, 2006,

he withdrew $26,455.95 and placed it to Account No. 9188.



50 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Finally, on August 16, 2006, he withdrew from the mother account $62,000 and placed it in

Account No. 8955. And on February 14, 2007, he withdrew $63,000—No, he deposited rather

…$232.23.

Still another account—No. San Francisco. Still in the same account in San Francisco Del Monte.

On February 15, 2007, he transferred $63,232.23 to Account No. 0933. And on May 3, 2007, he

deposited $63,345.61 to the mother account.

On January 24, 2007, he withdrew $53,326.85 and placed it to Account No. 0704. And on May

3, 2007, from the same account, he deposited to the mother account $53,572.71.

Now on December—No, no, rather—let me start with—On July 19, 2007, there was a deposit

of $12,700. Where the deposit came from, it is not indicated. Fresh deposit.

All right. On July 27, 2007, he deposited $100,000. On May 29, ’07, redeposited $129,498.98.

And on September 3, 2007, he deposited $20,000, while on December 21, 2007, he deposited

$50,000. These are fresh deposits that were infused into the mother account.

Still in the same account, BPI San Francisco Del Monte. On July 19, 2007, he withdrew fromthe BPI account, the same mother account, the amount of $20,000 and placed it in a different account,

2693. On August 23, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $20,076.44. On August 31, 2007—

No, let me start with the withdrawal first.

On July 27, ’07, he withdrew the amount of $100,000 and placed it still in another account; but

on August 31, 2007, he deposited to the mother account $100,404.69. On August 23, 2007, he

transferred $20,007.44 from the mother account and deposited it into a different account, 3193. On

September 3, 2007, he deposited to the mother account from this new account the amount of

$20,082.83. On September 3, 2007, he transferred $40,082.93 from the mother account and

transferred it to a new Account 3479.

On March 3, 2008, he deposited $40,973.18. On August 9, 2007, still from the same account,

he withdrew $296,728.99 and placed it in a new Account 2987. And on November 8, 2007, he

deposited $299,937.86 to the mother account. On July 31, 2007, he withdrew $130,443.32 to a new

Account 2812. And on March 4, 2007, he deposited to the mother account the amount of

$133,547.67. On August 31, 2007, he transferred from the mother account US$100,404.69 to a new

Account 3398. And on February 29, 2008, he returned to the mother account the amount of

$102,634.97.

On November 9, 2007, he withdrew the amount of 299,937.86 and transferred it to a new

Account 7659. On December 21, 2007, he withdrew from the mother account the amount of $50,000

and transferred it to a new account 4351; and on January 25, 2008, he deposited to the motheraccount $50,224.83.

Still in BPI San Francisco Del Monte account, Account No. 8104. On March 5, 2008, he

deposited the amount of $30,300 to the mother account. On April 17, 2008, he deposited $24,000

to the mother account. On July 31, 2008, he deposited $30,000 to the mother account. On January

28, 2008, he transferred from the mother account to a new account the amount of $50,224.83. From

this new account, he withdrew on August 15, I think this is 15,208, the amount of $51,167.70. On

January 28, 2008, he withdrew the amount from the mother account $50,224.33. On July 7, 2008,

he withdrew the amount of—no, it is not July. It is March 3, 2008, he withdrew the amount of

$143,608.15 from the mother account and transferred it to a new account 4874. And on July 7, 2008,

he returned or rather he referred back to the mother account the amount of $144,947.79. On March



MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 51

5, 2008, he withdrew the amount from the mother account US$175,000 and transferred it to a new

Account 4912.

And on July 9, 2008, he deposited $176,561.40 to the mother account. On April 17, 2008, he

withdrew from the mother account $24,000 and transferred it to a new Account 52277. And on June

26, 2008, he deposited to the mother account $24,102.63. On July 9, 2008, he withdrew the amount

of $345,611.82 to a new account. The following day, he returned what he withdrew the day beforein the amount of $345,640.68.

On July 7, 2010, rather July 10, 2008, he withdrew the amount of $345,640.00 and created a new

account. And on October 20, 2008, he deposited to the mother account the amount of $348,334.93.

On August 6, 2008, he withdrew from the mother account the amount of $130,443.00. And also

withdrew on October 20, 2008, the amount of $356,372.34. On December 15, 2008, he withdrew

from the mother account the amount of US$20,000 and created a new Account 7393. And on January

19, 2009, he deposited to the mother account $20,022.49. Finally, on July 3, 2008, he deposited the

amount of $100,630.83.

I think I am done. Maybe there are still so many things, but I would like to believe that there arewithdrawals on a particular date and returning back to the same account on the same date. Deposit

and withdrawal on the same date. There are still many here but—if you will allow Ms. Mendoza to

take over. I am a bit enervated.

NOTE: Upon motion of Senator Pimentel III and duly approved by the

Impeachment Court during the May 15, 2012 trial, the testimony of Ms. Heidi

Mendoza was stricken off the record.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Well, I am getting a consensus from the Members of the Court that perhaps

we may continue tomorrow with the Ombudsman herself instead of another witness …


Senator Sotto. … that has not been duly accepted by the—

The Presiding Officer. We have to discharge first the Witness.

Senator Sotto. Yes. We discharge Ms. Mendoza.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much, Mrs. Mendoza, for coming over.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. We have to discharge the Witness because she is not submitting

a PowerPoint presentation, rather she is testifying on the nature of the transactions involved.

Senator Sotto. And so, Mr. President, inasmuch as we have been informed that the Ombudsman

has been very tired because of the trial since two o’clock this afternoon, may we just ask that she

be present tomorrow for the continuation of the cross-examination.

The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Ombudsman is requested to come back to the Court

in tomorrow’s proceedings so that we can continue and hopefully finish with her testimony.

So ordered.



52 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.

One more. May we ask a copy of the PowerPoint that was being presented by the Ombudsman?

Mr. Cuevas. We make the same request, Your Honor, in order to enable us to conduct an

intelligible cross-examination, Your Honor, material to the points discussed.

Senator Sotto. Redirect, redirect.

Mr. Cuevas. No, for our redirect.

Senator Sotto. Yes, your redirect.

The Presiding Officer. The request is reasonable.

The Chair would like to request the Ombudsman to provide the Defense and this Court hard

copies of the PowerPoint presentation done by her this afternoon.

Mr. Bautista. And the Prosecution as well, Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer. As well as the Prosecution.

Mr. Bautista. Thank you.


Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please, may we know from the Defense if the Chief Justice is

going to testify tomorrow? Is he going to testify tomorrow?

Mr. Cuevas. Bakit naman ganyan? Para bang wala na kaming alternative. You are dealing

with a retired Justice of the Supreme Court and former Secretary of Justice.

The Presiding Officer. I think the Prosecution should not ask the Defense when they presenttheir witnesses.

Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. I am sorry, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. So Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement.

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms may now make the announcement.

The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until

the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, May 15, 2012.

The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the session is adjourned until

two o’clock, May 15, circa 2012.

Documents

May 14 Senate impeachment court record