May 8 Senate impeachment court record

7/31/2019 May 8 Senate impeachment court record

1/74

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Pasay City

AT 2:10P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,

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

CORONA TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the impeachment trial of the Hon. Chief Justice Renato

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

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr.

Senator Marcos. Let us all put ourselves in the presence of the Lord.

Almighty God and Father, we come to You today to thank You for the manifold blessings

that You have granted our nation, a nation that must remain united despite the growing voices

of discord.

As we resume our work today, may we ask for Your continued guidance and mercy.

May we, the Senator-Judges, be fair and decisive in our actions. Remind us of our

responsibility and accountability to the people. Give us the wisdom to make decisions that willstrengthen and inspire our nation.

Touch the hearts of all here before You now. Heal the wounds of division and conflict,

and open all our hearts and minds to find and to listen to the truth.

Above all, Dear God, we pray for the Philippines. Clear the minds of all from confusion

and anxiety so that we may clearly see what is reality, and what is not. In these trying times,

cause our leaders and our people to strengthen their faith in God and in country. And may

the Holy Spirit always give us hope in these trying times, as we pray all these in the mighty

Name of Jesus.

Amen.


2/74

2 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

______________* Arrived after the roll call

** On official mission

The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now please call the roll of senators.

The Secretary, reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. PresentSenator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Present*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Absent**

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

The Presiding Officer. With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares thepresence 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 will now 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 7, 2012

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

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the May 7, 2012

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

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


3/74


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

Justice Renato C. Corona.


Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the parties and/or their respective Counsel to enter

their appearances.

The Presiding Officer. For the Prosecution.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President.

For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearance. We are ready, Your

Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

For the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. We are also ready.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.


Senator Sotto. Before the business for the day, may we recognize Sen. Edgardo J. Angara.

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

Senator Angara. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, late yesterday afternoon, when we had a break in the session, I was handed a copyof a motion seeking my inhibition. I read it very carefully and I wanted to stand up even then to reply

point by point to the false allegations contained in that motion. But unfortunately, we did not go through

with the trial because the Defense was unprepared.

But now, Mr. President, at the first occasion, I woke up this morning seeing the motion almost

bannered by every newspaper and listened to the radio also bannering the story. It eclipsed, Mr.

President, the family thrill at seeing my grandson, Edgardo Angara, seven years old, winning a tennis

tournament at the Rizal Coliseum. So, I would like you to read the Philippine StarSports, Angara

pull thru in First Gen opener.

Well, Mr. President, I am not an athlete, but to me, this is a source of thrill because my grandson,the son of Congressman Sonny Angara, is only seven years old and yet he joined a 10-year-and-under

competition. So, that is for the athletic skill of the Angaras.

Mr. President, when we were convened as an Impeachment Court, we did not expect, we did not

seek this role. It was mandated by the Constitution that we shall sit as Senator-Judges, and therefore,

it is a constitutional task assigned to us, Mr. President, and I consider it as a constitutional duty on my

part to act as a judge, and no argument, no persuasion can convince me that I should inhibit because

this is a duty I will not abdicate.

Mr. President, I did not have a hand in choosing Sonny Angara, my son, to be a spokesperson

for the House of Representatives. The two Houses are quite separate and distinct, coequal, we honor


4/74


their own respective processes. So, I have no hand at all in telling anyone: Please choose Sonny

Angara to be one of the spokespersons. But the worst thing about this motion, Mr. President, is the

insinuation or the suspicion that I will be biased and prejudiced because of that relationship and this,

Mr. President, the malicious insinuation that political favors have been extended to my province of

Aurora, in effect, insinuating that my vote has already been bought as a result.

They mentioned, Mr. President, three major projects that were just recently approved by theNEDA. And of the three, Mr. President, only one really concerns and was for Aurora, and that is the

Baler-Casiguran Concreting Project. Mr. President, that project is not going to be funded by Philippine

money, not by the savings and taxes of Filipinos. It will be funded wholly by the Korean government.

I got that, Mr. President, three years ago during the past administration, not under this administration.

The only thing that happened during this administration is that it was approved by NEDA, which is

required for all foreign-funded projects.

The other two, Mr. President, is a project, I think a circumferential road in Samar. I am very

thankful and I am full of admiration for those who were able to secure that because Samar is such an

undeveloped province and putting a circumferential road like that in Bohol would really make Samar

a destination of investments and tourism.

The third project, Mr. President, is the bridge over Umiray River. Umiray River, for those

who do not know it, is a river in Aurora, located in Dingalan, which supplies all the water for Metro

Manila through Angat Dam. And that project I hope I was the one who initiated it but I did not,

Mr. President it was a project of Governor Suarez and Congressman Suarez funded again by the

Japanese government, not by our own government.

And yet, Mr. President, the petitioners have the gall and the audacity to suggest that these are

political favors for me. So, I reject that, Mr. President, and I reject it as an unthinking and illogical

conclusion that serves no purpose at all except to malign and makeI do not want to say itit may

be a diversionary tactic on their part because we just scolded them yesterday for their unpreparedness.

But I will not say that.

Mr. President, they also cited the application of the judicial rule, the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Mr. President, even a first-year law student who knows how to read will immediately conclude that the

Code of Judicial Conduct is not applicable to the Senate, much less to the Impeachment Court.

We have our own set of rules. And the only code or rules we adopted as suppletory are the Rules

of Court. So, that is completely irrelevant and immaterial. There they say my son is a party litigant.

You see, even a first-year student will know that a party litigant is one who will suffer or benefit from

a decision made. My son will not benefit from any decision either way. The only one who will benefit

or suffer is our Chief Justice.

And here are his lawyers who seem to device a strategy of almost antagonizing half of this Court.First, they want Senator Drilon to be inhibited, then Senator Guingona, they are pointing to Senators

Pangilinan and Recto because they simply happen to be partymates of the President.

Mr. President, many of us are party members. We are affiliated in one way or the other with one

party or another. And all of us, except, possibly, one or two parties, are all supportive of government

reforms, of government programs. Does that mean that the entire Impeachment Court is biased and

partial?

There is no other interpretation I can read in these actuations of the Defense except to destroy the

credibility of this Impeachment Court. I think that is the least that they ought to do because this could

be the saving grace in our democracy. If you destroy the one pillar of justice, the Senate, which can


5/74


stand up even to the Supreme Court or the President, then you are really knocking down the very pillar

that one day you may have to seek help and succor from, because it can stand up to any person or

institution.

And to see how malicious this insinuation is, in their concluding paragraph they said, The only way

Senator Angara can redeem himself is to vote for acquittal. Mr. President, you know I have been

president of the UP, I have been president of the Integrated Bar, I have been president of the ASEANLaw Association, I have been honored by all of these organizations in various ways. I have never seen

logic or legal logic like this.

Therefore, Mr. President, I take umbrage at this malicious paper. My good friend Joker, when I

showed him the petition yesterday, said, Ed, dont answer it. It is not worth it, because you are doing

a constitutional duty. They dont seem to appreciate that. And yet, Joker is very sympathetic and

I can share his feelings towards the cause of the Defense. As of now, but after this, maybe not

anymore. [Laughter]

So, Mr. President, I do not know. I have one outstanding alumnus of the UP College of Law, very

able, very skillful, very eloquent and can stand up in argument head to head with anyone. But, he hasone outstanding trait. He seems to have a penchant for antagonizing the judge. So, no client will now

retain him because what is the use? You may have a good cause but if you antagonize the judge, your

cause is lost. No, I am not comparing our set of Defense panel to that one friend of mine who is

brilliant, knowledgeable, eloquent, but has a penchant for antagonizing the judge.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you, Senator Angara.

The Chair would like to state for the record that we respect the opinion of others regarding each

one of us or all of us collectively. But I assure you that none of you can sway us one way or the

other. And if you have any reason to believe that we are dishonest, say so candidly and openly, andwe are ready, willing, able to defend ourselves. So, let us forget about this sad incident. Let us

proceed with the case.

Defense, present you evidence.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the Court, Your Honor, may I be

allowed even one or more minutes, Your Honor, to make a little manifestation?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, there had been some insinuation yesterday that the Defense had been trying to delay the

proceedings in this case, as evidenced by the fact that we have introduced quite a number of witnesses

with no purpose and accomplishment whatsoever, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Who was making the insinuation? Was it from this Court or from the...let

us be specific.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, that seem to be our impression, Your Honor, that apparently the Defense was

trying to delay proceedings, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Are you suggesting that it was the Court that created that impression?


6/74


Mr. Cuevas. No, it came from the Prosecution, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, that is the Prosecution.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Mr. Cuevas. And we wanted to be heard in connection therewith, otherwise, we may be said

to have acquiesced to that kind of manifestation, Your Honor.

If the records will be read, Your Honor, we have introduced quite a number of witnesses in

connection with our defense. Some of them they consist of three (3) register of deeds, three (3) city

assessors and provincial assessor, Your Honor. Insofar as the register of deeds is concerned, we

introduced them for the purpose of showing that there are no properties aside from those mentioned

in the SALN, Your Honor, of the Honorable Chief Justice that belong or were registered in his name.

We cannot lump up only one testimony or only one register of deeds because the properties were

located in different places. So, if we presented the register of deeds of Makati, of Manila and of

Quezon City, it was never our purpose to gain time in order to delay the proceedings. Not even thethought of it, Your Honor, but because we cannot do so.

The register of deeds of Makati will be highly incompetent, Your Honor, to testify in connection

with the records of the office pertaining to Quezon City and Manila, and vice versa. That was our

purpose. And, we also introduced in evidence the testimony of the Administrator of the Land

Registration Office. From the statements obtained from them on record we were able to show

convincingly, Your Honor, that the 45 real estate properties allegedly referred to be registered and

owned by Chief Justice Corona do not all belong to him but only five (5) of them. Hence, it cannot

be said that our purpose was merely to delay because, apparently, we could read from the records that

even the Court was convinced that actually there were only five (5) or six (6) properties that really

belong to Chief Justice Corona.Now, how about the testimony of the various representatives of the assessment office, Your Honor?

We admit we introduced three (3) assessors: The city assessor of Makati, the city assessor of Manila

and the city assessor of Quezon City on the same ground because we cannot make one of them testify

for the entirety of the properties not located in their respective places. So, if we presented three (3)

assessors, I hope we will not be misunderstood as trying to delay the proceedings but it is because of

our recognition that one is not competent to testify as to the other and vice versa, Your Honor.

Thereafter, we went further, Your Honor. We introduced in evidence the testimony of Ms. Arceli

Bayugan, the Finance Officer of the Supreme Court, in order to belie and contradict the statement on

record that there was no income tax return made by the Honorable Chief Justice Corona. Because

from the testimony of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, there were no returns for the years 2005,2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010, Your Honor. We were able to introduce the returns, identified by our

witness, they were duly marked, we took note of the trouble of marking the....

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, we know all of that. It is all in the record. We are not accusing

you of delaying.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Because that was our impression that we introduced these

witnesses simply to gain time. That is why we are placingon record....

The Presiding Officer. I must admit that yesterday I said you are wasting the time of the Court

by introducing someone to testify on whether market fees had been collected from that market.


7/74


Mr. Cuevas. We are not in conformity with that, Your Honor. But the plan of the other lawyers

came up and we allowed him to take the....

The Presiding Officer. You better advice your other panel that those things are irrelevant.

We know what is an irrelevant evidence.

Mr. Cuevas. We did, Your Honor. In fact, I gave him a tongue-lashing yesterday for thecorrection of all these matters that gave rise to the impression of the Court. That is our only purpose,

Your Honor


Mr. Cuevas. to contradict that and so on. Now, insofar as the Land Registration Commissioner

is concerned, we called him to the stand in order to testify on the various alleged properties which he

ascribes to be belonging to the Chief Justice and we were able to elicit admissions to the effect that

they were not properties registered in the name, specifically in the name of....

The Presiding Officer. That is already given, Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. In fact, yesterday when Congressman Colmenares of the Prosecution

made a manifestation, the tendency of which was to reconsider the ruling of this Chair, on the claim

that it will only prolong the proceedings, I denied it. So, you can see that we are giving you all the

time to defend the Chief Justice. We know that you are entitled to defend the Chief Justice. So, the

impression or statement of the Prosecution is their position but that is not the position of this Court that

you are delaying. That is why we are asking you to wind up your manifestation so that we can proceed

with the hearing.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much, Your Honor, for the opportunity for being allowed to bring

all these matters into the record in order to straighten, at least, the impression that may have beencreated, both public and upon the other parties involved in this case, that we are trying to delay. That

was never our intention.


Mr. Cuevas. Now, in connection with the Motion for Inhibition, Your Honor, the motion was filed

because of the feeling of the Chief Justice that, at least, he may not be able to obtain the cold neutrality

of a judge insofar as the subject of the motion is concerned. Now, what we did was to file. It is up

for the Court.... We never stated that everything stated thereon are indubitably true, Your Honor. What

we wanted to express, to give importance to the feeling of the Chief Justice in order that, if a decision

is made one way or the other, there is no doubt as to the impartiality and lack of bias on the part ofthe deciding Members of the Senate. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, thank you for your manifestation. We now proceed with the trial.

Do you have any witness?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We have. If Your Honor please, may we ask for authority for Attorney

Roy to conduct the direct examination of the witness on behalf of the Defense panel, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Granted.

Mr. Roy. Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honors. May I please the Court.


8/74


During my presentation, I will present two (2) witnesses who will testify on the decision pertaining

to the ownership of the Basa-Guidote Corporation. I wish to state the relevance before we proceed

because consistent with the mood of the Court, I wish to request for admissions. So if you will allow

me some leeway, I wish to point out that


Mr. Roy. Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.

The relevance of the ownership, of the actual ownership of the Basa-Guidote pertains directly to

matters stated in the SALN of the Chief Justice. It involves the P11 million that was borrowed and

repaid, and it may involve other acquisitions which may or may not have been drawn from the Basa-

Guidote funds. That is why we need to present these witnesses.

The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed.

Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. May we call to the stand the Clerk of Court of Branch 216

of the RTC of Quezon City, Lucita Cristi.

The Clerk of Court. Madam Witness, please raise your right hand.

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

proceeding?

Ms. Cristi. Yes, Maam.

The Clerk of Court. So help you God.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, on the part of the Prosecution, may we ask permission that

Atty. Cynthia Corazon Roxas be recognized to receive the testimony and later on to conduct the cross-

examination.The Presiding Officer. Granted.

Representative Tupas. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Roy. Before I proceed, Your Honor, I would like to invite the Prosecution to admit the

contentsfor an admission of the substance of the testimony of the Witness which, incidentally, also

constitutes the purpose for which the testimony is offered.

The Presiding Officer. Well, you better propound the questions first. If I were the lawyer from

the other side, how can I agree with you before you open your mouth to ask the question?

Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, precisely. So if this Witnesswe will proceed with her testimony,first, she will testify that Criminal Cases Q96-68147 and Q96-68148 were heard before the RTC of

Quezon City and these two are cases for libelous publication, entitled People of the Philippines

against Jose Ma. Basa, et al., the uncle of Mrs. Cristina Corona; Second,

Ms. Roxas. Just for the record, Your Honor. May I be excused? We will stipulate on that

matter.

Mr. Roy. Thank you.

Second, her testimony is offered to establish that a decision of conviction was arrived at in these

two cases, dated September 5, 2001. May I have an admission.


9/74


Ms. Roxas. We will stipulate on that.

The Presiding Officer. Those are matters of record. We can even take judicial notice of those

things. Just present them.

Mr. Roy. If you will allow me, Your Honor, it is to expedite because it appears that the opposing

Counsel is willing to stipulate anyway.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely.

Mr. Roy. We would be very happy if you would allow us to put these on record.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.

Third, that a Motion for Reconsideration was resolved dated September 2 and that the same

became final on October 12, both in the year of 2002 in both cases.

Ms. Roxas. We will stipulate on that matter, Your Honor.

Mr. Roy. Fourth, that a Writ of Execution for the said judgment was issued on April 23, 2003.

Ms. Roxas. Again, we will stipulate on that matter, it being a matter of record.

Mr. Roy. Your Honors, inasmuch as all the important points to be testified to by this Witness

have been admitted by the Prosecution, we ask that the Witness be excused.

Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please. May we be allowed?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed.

Ms. Roxas. By way of counter stipulation, will the Defense be willing to admit that insofar as the

accused Jose Maria Basa is concerned, he died on August 29, 2002?

Mr. Roy. We have no knowledge, Your Honor, I am sorry.

Ms. Roxas. Therefore, would the Defense be also willing to stipulate that during the pendency

of the motion for reconsideration which was stated by the good counsel of the Defense, there was a

pending motion for reconsideration on the conviction as well as on the civil award in favor of the private

complainant in this case?

Mr. Roy. I am confused. There was a motion for reconsideration when?

Ms. Roxas. You said that the motion for reconsideration was ruled upon.

Mr. Roy. Resolved.

Ms. Roxas. Resolved.

Mr. Roy. And then went final on 12 October 2002.

Ms. Roxas. Yes. But it is during this periodand we are going to prove thatthat on August

29, 2002, the accused Jose Maria Basa died.

Mr. Roy. I am not aware of this...


10/74


Ms. Roxas. If the accused is not willing to stipulate on this matter, Mr. President, I am afraid

that we should allow the Defense to present this Witness.

Mr. Roy. Let me just verify. I am unaware of Mr. Basas death. Personally, I cannot...

Ms. Roxas. But this is borne of the records. It will be part of the cross-examination.

Mr. Roy. All right, we will stipulate that he passed away on August 29, did you say?

The Presiding Officer. I thought you have no knowledge?

Mr. Roy. No, personal, Your Honor. She says it is on the record. I will take her word for it.

Anyway, the records are here, the Clerk of Court is here.

Ms. Roxas. Madam Witness, we will be willing to make it of record that indeed this notice of

death was given to and submitted as part of the record of the case.

Mr. Roy. If you will allow me, I am on direct still, Your Honor.

Ms. Roxas. No, but we are trying to expedite.

Mr. Roy. Yes, I will ask her the question, I will ask her the question.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, respect this Court.

Mr. Roy. With the permission of the Honorable Court, I want to establish the veracity of the

proposition made by the Prosecution.


Mr. Roy. Madam Witness, can you please tell us whether or not there is anything in the records

that attests to the death or establishes the time or date of death of the Defendant Jose M. Basa?

Ms. Cristi. Wala po, wala pong notice of death.

Mr. Roy. So I cannot stipulate then.

Ms. Roxas. In which case, if there are no further questions on direct, may we be allowed to go

directly to cross?

Mr. Roy. On what, Your Honor?

Ms. Roxas. Because the Witness is supposed to be here to testify on pertinent records pertaining

to this case. And while we did admit the existence of several documents which transpired during the

proceedings in this case, there are also several details which are indirect matters which bear, which havean importance in the proceedings.

Mr. Roy. If I may, Your Honor. Perhaps, Counsel would be kind enough to request for

stipulation likewise.

Ms. Roxas. Okay. May we...

The Presiding Officer. Point of order.

You cannot stipulate. Proceed to direct the questions to the Witness.

Ms. Roxas. Thank you, Your Honor.


11/74


Mr. Roy. Would you like to stipulate?

The Presiding Officer. You are directed to proceed with your direct examination.


With the permission of the Honorable Court. Madam Witness, can you please state for the record

your personal circumstances, name and personal circumstances, I am sorry.

Ms. Cristi. I am Lucita Masangkay Cristi, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of

Valenzuela City. I am the Branch Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court, Branch 216, Quezon City.

Mr. Roy. How long have you been the Clerk of Court of Branch 216, Madam Witness?

Ms. Cristi. Since October 1999, Sir.

Mr. Roy. All right. Now during your time as the Clerk of Court, are you still the current Clerk

of Court?

Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Roy. As Clerk of Court, Madam Witness, can you tell us whether or not you are familiar

with Criminal Case Nos. Q9668147 and Q9668148?

Ms. Cristi. I am familiar, Sir.

Mr. Roy. All right. Can you please tell us what is the title of these cases?

Ms. Cristi. This is People of the Philippines...Actually there are two cases.

Mr. Roy. Yes.

Ms. Cristi. People of the Philippinesvs.Jose Maria Basa, Raymunda Basa, Felix CarlosDecentillo, Virgilio Macabenta, Cecilia Basa, Betsie Basa, andcan I look at my record?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the Witness be allowed to refer to the records?


Ms. Cristi. And Flor Maria Guidote-Basa.

Mr. Roy. Now, Madam Witness, can you please tell the Honorable Court what was the charge

or the nature of the criminal cases? If I recall correctly, this should appear on the face of the pleadings.

Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, we already admitted that this is a libel case.


Ms. Roxas. So, there is no need for the question.

Mr. Roy. The Court has directedYour Honor, may I proceed.

Please go ahead.

Ms. Cristi. The cases were for libel.

Mr. Roy. All right. Can you please tell us whether or not and when, if any, a decision was

rendered in these cases?


12/74


Ms. Cristi. A decision was rendered on September 5, 2001, Sir.

Mr. Roy. How many decisions were rendered because you told me earlier there were two cases?

Ms. Cristi. Only one decision, Sir, because the two cases were consolidated.

Mr. Roy. Does that mean that they were heard jointly?


Mr. Roy. All right. Now, what was the decision of thedo you have a copy of that decision

with you?


Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the decision has been previously marked....

Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, we would like to manifest that the Defense has already caused

the marking of the same exhibit and this is Exhibit 176 for the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. All right, noted.

Mr. Roy. Can you tell us, Madam Witness, what is the dispositivewhat does the dispositive

portion of the decision state? Can you please attest to the outcome of the decision?

Ms. Roxas. We have already admitted, Your Honor, on the same, that there was a conviction.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I am a little perplexed. I thought that there had been no admissions

precisely why I have been directed to proceed.

Ms. Roxas. We have made several stipulations already on the matters. Perhaps, Counsel here

would be able to propound questions on those matters which we have not stipulated upon.

The Presiding Officer. I said disregard the stipulation. Let it be

Ms. Roxas. We will submit, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Direct the questions and subject to the objections of the Prosecution.

Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. May I just therefore request that the Clerk of Court, who

is here to certify the decision and to attest to its authenticity, anyway, read the dispositive portion for

the benefit of the record and all concerned.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. The Witness may read the dispositive portion of the Decision.

Ms. Cristi.

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-96-68147, the Court finds accused Jose Maria

Basa III, Raymunda Gorospe Basa and Virgilio Macabenta GUILTY beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime charged in the Information for libel. And the Court sentences them to suffer

the penalty of four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days as minimum to one (1) year, eight

(8) months and twenty-one (21) days as maximum, ordering them to pay jointly and solidarily

Cristina Basa Roco-Corona the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) moral

damages; and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for attorneys fees.

Accused Cecilia Henson-Basa, Betsie Basa-Chavez and Flor Maria Guidote Basa are

hereby ACQUITTED.


13/74


In Criminal Case No. Q-96-68148, the Court finds accused Jose Maria Basa III,

Raymunda Gorospe Basa and Virgilio Macabenta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime charged in the Information for Libel. The Court sentences them to suffer the penalty

of four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days as minimum to one (1) year, eight (8) months

and twenty-one (21) days as maximum, ordering them to pay jointly and solidarily Cristina

Roco-Corona the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) for moral damages

and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for attorneys fees.

Accused Cecilia Henson Basa, Betsie Basa-Chavez and Flor Maria Guidote Basa are

hereby ACQUITTED. Let warrant of arrest be issued for the apprehension of accused Felix

Carlos Vicentillo.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, September 5, 2001.

Mr. Roy. Thank you, Madam Witness.

Your Honor, I would like to manifest that the decisions in both cases, I mean, the dispositiveportions for both dockets are virtually identical, and that the total civil indemnity of P500,000 was part

of the judgment.

Now, you mentioned a....

The Presiding Officer.Wait a minute.

Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I only heard P200,000 plus P20,000, and P200,000 plus P50,000. Why

P500,000?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we ask the Witness to clarify.

Ms. Cristi. Your Honor, in the first case, P200,000 as moral damages

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Ms. Cristi. plus P50,000 as attorneys fees.

The Presiding Officer. I thought you said P20,000. So....

Ms. Cristi. P200,000, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Now, the attorneys fees, P50,000?

Ms. Cristi. P50,000, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. In the first case.


The Presiding Officer. And that is also true in the second case.

Ms. Cristi. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, I stand corrected. So, that is half a million. Proceed.


14/74


Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, you mentioned that the decision includes an order for

the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Is that correct?


Mr. Roy. All right. Now, can you please tell us, if anything appears on the record, what did

the defendants who were convicted do? After the judgment was rendered by the Court, the Decisionwas rendered by the Court, what did the defendants do, the accused?

Ms. Cristi. Actually, Sir, they did not appear in the promulgation of judgment.

Mr. Roy. All right, what else did they do? Was there anything else they did?

Ms. Cristi. They filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Sir.

Mr. Roy. They filed a Motion for Reconsideration. And if I recall correctly, that was dated

September 2, 2002. Am I correct?

Ms. Cristi. No, Sir.

Mr. Roy. When was it filed? What was the date of the Motion for Reconsideration?

Ms. Cristi. October 9, 2001, but filed before our court on October 18, 2001.

Mr. Roy. The date was filed on October....

Ms. Cristi. The motion was dated October 9, 2001, but the office or the court received said

motion on October 18, 2001.

Mr. Roy. Thank you. Now, can you tell us what did the court do with these motions for

recon....One motion for reconsideration or two?

Ms. Cristi. One motion, Sir.

Mr. Roy. What did the court do with this Motion for Reconsideration?

Ms. Cristi. The Motion for Reconsideration was set for hearing.

Mr. Roy. What else? What was the resolution of the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration?

Ms. Cristi. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

Mr. Roy. When was this denied?

Ms. Cristi. On September 2, 2002, Sir.

Mr. Roy. Do you have proof of the denial?

Ms. Cristi. The Order, Sir.

Mr. Roy. Is there an order to that effect?


Mr. Roy. Can you please produce the Order, Madam Witness?

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Counsel. What is the relevance of this with respect to the

impeachment?


15/74


Mr. Roy. Your Honor, as I was pointing out earlier, this will result in the acquisition of the shares

of the Basa-Guidote Corporation because of the civil indemnity. There is a levy of execution. But

before that, I have to establish the finality of the judgment, Your Honor. Afterwards, we will show you

that the shares of the corporation have been acquired by an individual.

The Presiding Officer. Acquired by Mrs. Corona.

Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor, by someone else, and that has a direct bearing on the....

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.



Mr. Roy. So, you told me that it was resolved by order of the court, on what date, Madam

Witness?

Ms. Cristi. On September 2, 2002, Sir.

Mr. Roy. All right. And what was the resolution of the court on the order?

Ms. Cristi. The dispositive portion, Sir?

Mr. Roy. Yes. I think so.

Ms. Cristi. Wherefore, finding no cogent reason to disturb or modify the Decision dated

September 5, 2001, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration,

dated September 2, 2002 be marked as Defense Exhibit 249.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, may the Prosecution be allowed to likewise adopt the same as

Exhibit Eleven O (OOOOOOOOOOO).


Ms. Roxas. Correction, Eleven P (PPPPPPPPPPP), Your Honor.

Mr. Roy. P. Is that Eleven P?

The Presiding Officer. All right, granted with that correction.

Mr. Roy. Can you tell us, Madam Witness, what is the status of that Order denying the Motion

for Reconsideration?

Ms. Cristi. Sir, the status?

Mr. Roy. Yes. What is the status?

Ms. Cristi. Of the order denying the Motion for Consideration?

Mr. Roy. Yes, of the denial. What happened after the denial?

Ms. Cristi. The Prosecution filed a Motion for Issuance of the Writ of Execution.


16/74


Mr. Roy. Did the accused file anything?


Mr. Roy. Did the accused oppose?


Mr. Roy. Did the accused file another, an appeal or anything of the sort?

Ms. Cristi. There was no appeal, Sir.

Mr. Roy. No appeal. In other words, what is the status now of the denial of the Motion for

Reconsideration?

Ms. Cristi. It is already final.

Mr. Roy. It is final. As of when?

Ms. Cristi. As of15 days from receipt.

Mr. Roy. And, according to your records, what date is that, Madam Witness? What is the date

of the receipt by the accused, Madam Witness?

Ms. Cristi. Actually, the counsel received the Order of Denial, Sir, on September 26, 2002.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we make of record that the Witness is showing me what appeared

to be registry receipt return cards which indicate that they were received on September 26, 2002, and

I invite opposing Counsel to peruse them.

This was received by counsel, Madam Witness, am I correct?

Ms. Cristi. Yes, sir.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the cards which appear to be registry receipts,

acknowledging receipt of the order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, be marked as Defense

Exhibit 250.

Ms. Roxas. We manifest that

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Ms. Roxas. We join, we confirm.

The Presiding Officer. But you know, Counsel,

Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor, I stand corrected. These have been previously marked as

Exhibit 177-A, to be marked today as Exhibit 177-A.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark it accordingly. But, Counsel, go direct to the point.


The Presiding Officer. This decision against Jose Basa, etal. became final and executory.


The Presiding Officer. All right. Was it executed?


17/74


Mr. Roy. The next question is precisely that.

The Presiding Officer. You are too verbose. Go direct to the point.

Mr. Roy. Was the Writ of Execution issued by the court?


Mr. Roy. When?

Ms. Cristi. On April 24, 2003, Sir.

Mr. Roy. All right. No further questions on the direct, Your Honor. We just have to mark the

Writ of Execution.

The Presiding Officer. Executed against what?

Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That decision was executed for against what?

Mr. Roy. Against the defendants, Your Honor, who were convicted.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, and what was the effect of the execution?

Mr. Roy. That will be testified to by the Sheriff, Your Honor, who is the next witness.


Ms. Roxas. Your Honor, please, we would like to manifest

The Presiding Officer. Cross?

Ms. Roxas. The defense already had this document marked as Exhibit 1the Writ of Executionas Exhibit 178. May we be allowed to have the same marked for the Prosecution as Exhibit Eleven

Q (QQQQQQQQQQQ).

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly for the Prosecution.

Mr. Roy. No further questions on direct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Any cross?

Ms. Roxas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Proceed.

Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, sinabi ninyo kanina na kayo ay nag-umpisa bilang Branch

Clerk of Court noong 1999 hanggang sa ngayon, tama po ba?

Ms. Cristi. Opo.

Ms. Roxas. Therefore, alam ninyo po bilang taga-ingat ng lahat ng dokumento sa hukumang

Branch 216, meron po kayong kaalaman o nasa kustodiya ninyo po ito?

Ms. Cristi. Opo.

Ms. Roxas. Pagkatapos na mag-file ng Motion for Reconsideration, tama po ba na bago

maibigay o bago mabigay ng korte ang Writ of Execution, nagkaroon po dito ng Notice of


18/74


Withdrawal ang counsel ng akusado na si Jose Ma. Basa at mayroong pleading na sinabmit sa

court. Tama po ba?

Ms. Cristi. May nabasa po ako based on records.

Ms. Roxas. Puwede ninyo po bang tingnan sa inyong mga record exactly kung nasaan po

ang dokumentong ito?

Your Honor please, just to help the witness, we have a copy of the Motion to Withdraw filed by

the counsel for the accused. May we be allowed to show the same?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed.

Who was the counsel for the accused?

Ms. Roxas. In this particular case, Your Honor, the counsel for the accused was the law office

of Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar. This is dated December 20, 2002. Do you confirm this, Madam

Witness?


Ms. Roxas. Now, this is a certified true xerox copy.Mayroon po ritong nakalagay sa ilalim

certified true xerox copy Atty. Lucita D. Masangkay Cristi. Kilala po ninyo kung sino ito?

Ms. Cristi. Ako po iyan, Maam.

Ms. Roxas. So, pinatotohanan po ninyo itong Motion to Withdraw.


Ms. Roxas. May we ask, Your Honor please, that this document be marked as Exhibit Eleven

R (RRRRRRRRRRR) for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Was that withdrawal prior to the judgment?

Mr. Roxas. This was prior to the submission of a Motion for Issuance of the Writ of Execution,

Your Honor.


Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, maaari po ba ninyong tingnan ang lahat ng mga

dokumentong kalakip dito sa Motion to Withdraw na ito? Tama po ba na sa kahuli-hulihang

pahina ng motion na ito ay mayroong isang sulat na may petsang November 26, 2002 at ang

pumirma dito ay isang Ana Basa? Kinukumpirma po ba ninyo ito?

Ms. Cristi. Opo.

Ms. Roxas. Now, dito po sa dokumentong ito, sinabi ni Attorney Fortun na siya po ay hindi

na ang magiging abogado ng akusado.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, with all due respect....

The Presiding Officer. Let the lawyer finish first.


Ms. Roxas. Can you read, Madam Witness?Maaari po bang basahin ninyo ang unang talata

ng sulat na ini-attachpara kay Atty. Raymond Fortun?


19/74


Ms. Cristi. One of the things that we had to go through, after Dads passing, aside from the

emotional vacuum that he left, was to make decisions on matters and concerns that he left unfinished.

Ms. Roxas. Sa inyo pong pagkakaintindi, Madam Witness, ano po ang ibig sabihin ng

Dads passing?

Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor, that is speculative.Ms. Roxas. Your Honor, this is the record of the case.

The Presiding Officer. Denied.

Ms. Roxas.Ano po ang pagkakaintindi ninyo dito sa talatang ito na lalo na ng sinabi niya

na Dads passing. Ano po ang inyong pagkakaintindi doon?

Ms. Cristi. Na ang kaniyang ama po ay namatay na.

Ms. Roxas. So, therefore, noong November 26, 2002, as of that date, namatay na po si Jose

Ma. Basa.

Ms. Cristi. Opo.

Ms. Roxas. Ayon kay Ana Basa na anak ng akusadong si Jose Ma. Basa.


Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, may we ask that this particular paragraph be marked as Exhibit

Eleven R-1 (RRRRRRRRRRR-1).

Sinabi po ninyo, Madam Witness, na alam ninyo na ito ay isang libel case.Alam po ba ninyo

kung sinu-sino ang mga partido sa kasong ito?

Ms. Cristi. Alam ko po.

Ms. Roxas. Alam po ninyo kung ano ang kanilang relasyon sa isat isa?

Ms. Cristi. Nabasa ko po sa records.

Ms. Roxas.Ang private complainantpo sa kasong ito ay si Cristina Corona.

Ms. Cristi. Opo.

Ms. Roxas. Alam po ba ninyo kung ano ang kaniyang relasyon sa namatay na Jose

Ma. Basa?

Ms. Cristi. Nabasa ko po na uncle niya.

Ms. Roxas. Dito po nakita natin na si Attorney Fortun dinikit ang letter ni Ana Basa kung

saan sinabi niya na namatay. Ang private complainantpo ba dito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona, sinabi

po ba niya na ang kaniyang uncle o tiyo ay namatay?

Ms. Cristi. Wala po akong nabasang ganoon.

Ms. Roxas. Sapagkat sa ibang kasomarami po kasing kaso ang mga Basaat sa isang

kaso mayroon pong sinabmit(submit) si Mrs. Cristina Corona na kung saan sinabi niya na si Jose

Ma. Basa ay namatay noong August2002....


20/74


Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor. This is not part of the records that the Witness....

The Presiding Officer. I will allow the Witness to answer.

Mr. Roy. Alright.

Ms. Roxas. August 2002. I would like....

The Presiding Officer. Wait, Counsel. Counsel, I warn you once more. Do not interrupt the

Counsel while asking the question. It is improper.

Mr. Roy. I apologize, Your Honor.

The President. Unethical.

Mr. Roy. I apologize.

Ms. Roxas. Now, I am showing to you, Madam Witness, a manifestation na kung saan ang

petitioners ay si Asuncion BasaRoco at si Cristina Roco Corona, at ito ay may date....Ito ay ibinigay

sa ibang korte. At dito sa paragraph (1), maaari po bang basahin ninyo?

Ms. Cristi. It has come to the knowledge of petitioners that oppositor Jose Ma. Basa III passed

away in Carson City, Nevada, United States of America, in August 2002.

Ms. Roxas. Now, kasama po diyan kasi sa mga dokumentong iyan ay isang death certificate

ni Jose Ma. Basa sa Carson City.

By the way, ang dokumento pong iyan ay may petsang 11 October 2002. Okay.

Now, Your Honor, please, may we request that this manifestation and motion be provisionally

marked for the prosecution as Exhibit Eleven S (SSSSSSSSSSS).


Ms. Roxas. And the first paragraph as SSSSSSSSSSS-A-1. It consists of five (5) pages.

Ms. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the document be similarly marked for the Defense

as Exhibit 250, Your Honor.


Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, klaro dito na hindi lamang sinabi ng abogado ng

akusado na siya ay nag-withdraw, sinabi niya rito na base sa impormasyon ng kanyang anak

namatay ang kaniyang ama.

Pagkatapos noon, just a few days after that, si Mrs. Corona mismo nag-notify sa ibang kaso

na ang kaniyang tiyo ay namatay sometime in August 2002. Tama po?

Ms. Cristi. Tama po.

Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor.

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

Mr. Roy. The objection, Your Honor, is it is immaterial. It has nothing to do with the competency

of the Witness, who is the Branch Clerk of Quezon City.


21/74


Ms. Roxas. Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer.

Ms. Roxas. Already answered, Your Honor, please. That there was actual notice given not only

by the accused and counsel, but also by the private complainant herself, Mrs. Cristina Roco Corona.

The Presiding Officer. The actual death

Ms. Roxas. The actual death of the accused Jose Ma. Basa.

The Presiding Officer. Happened when?

Ms. Roxas. On August 29, 2002, Your Honor, in Carson City, Nevada.


Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, sinabi ninyo na nagkaroon ng Writ of Execution?


Ms. Roxas. Now, nagtataka lamang po ako. Kasi kung may notice na po ang korte at

mismong ang private complainant dito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona ay alam na ang akusado mismo

ay patay na, papaano ho magkakaroon ng iba pang proseso laban sa akusadong si Jose Ma.

Basa?

Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor. The question is misleading, because....


Ms. Cristi. Puwede pong pakiulit ang tanong?

Ms. Roxas. Ibalik lamang natin, Madam Witness, para mas klaro. Iyong Motion forReconsideration natin ang petsa ay....Ang Motion for Reconsideration natin

The Presiding Officer. Ang Motion for Reconsideration....

Ms. Roxas. October 9, 2001. Okay. Ang Order granting the Writ of Execution based

on the Motion for Issuance of Writ is April 24, 2003. In the middle of all these things, sa gitna

ng mga pangyayaring ito, bago nagkaroon ng issuance of Writ of Execution, nagkaroon ng notice

of death, despuwes, ang akusado dito mismo ay patay na. And under the Revised Penal Code,

once the death of the accused happens, then both the criminal as well as civil liability is extinguished.

Tama po ba?


Ms. Roxas. Then, kung ang notice of death ay ibinigay na sa korte, papaano pong nangyari

na nagkaroon pa ng Writ of Execution. Hindi po ba dapatunder the Rules of Court, ang dapat

pong mangyari ang private prosecution, for example, dapat na mag-submit ng separate actionpara

sa civil indemnity na limang daanglibong piso (P500,000.00)? Nangyari po ba iyon sa kasong

ito? Nagkaroon ba ng filing ng separate case dahil sa pagkamatay ni Jose Ma. Basa?

Ms. Cristi. Wala po.

Ms. Roxas. Wala. Atactually ang nangyari, na-issue ang Writ of Execution under the Order

dated April 24, 2003. Actually, namatay si Jose Ma. Basa during the pendency of the Motion for


22/74


Reconsideration because he died actually on August 29, 2002. Iyon lamang po ang material dito

August 29, 2002, namatay si Jose Ma. Basa at alam iyon ni Cristina Corona,pero nag-filepa rin

po sila ng Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution against the accused Jose Ma. Basa and his wife

Randy Basa kaya nagkaroon ng Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2003. Tama po ba?

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the Court.



Mr. Cuevas. The question, Your Honor, should have been addressed to the judge of record. She

is merely a Clerk of Court, Your Honor. She is merely implementing....Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. She is under cross-examination, if she knows the answer.

Ms. Roxas. She already answered, Justice Cuevas, and also I would just like to point out that

the Witness in this case is not an ordinary witness.

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct.

Ms. Roxas. She is a lawyer, she is the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 216 of Quezon City,

therefore, not only does she have custody of all the records in this case, she would also know the basic

rules not only of the Penal Code but also of the Rules of Court.

Mr. Cuevas. May we reply, Your Honor, with the kind permission of the court.

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

Mr. Cuevas. That may be correct, Your Honor. But being merely a Clerk of Court, she has

no power nor any authority to prevent the judge from acting one way or another, either denying or

granting it. There is a decision in this case, there was a Motion for Reconsideration, it was denied,and therefore the decision became final.

The Presiding Officer. You are questioning the competence of the Witness?

Mr. Cuevas. Insofar as the issue of why the execution continued, Your Honor, because that is

not within her control.

Ms. Roxas. But this is your own witness, Mr. Justice.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. The question is only asking for facts. Whether there was a Writ ofExecution issued after death. That is a factual issue.

Mr. Cuevas. No, that is not the question, Your Honor. With due respect, Your Honor....

The Presiding Officer. What was the question?

Mr. Cuevas. The question was: Why was there a Writ of Execution issued even after the death

of the accused? Because, apparently, they are of the theory that the moment the accused died....

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer, if she knows.

Ms. Roxas. Already answered.


23/74


Mr. Cuevas. Ano ang answer?

The Presiding Officer. What was the answer?

Ms. Roxas. She answered, yes.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, what?

Ms. Roxas. Tama po na in-issue ang Writ of Execution after the death.

Now, one final point, just to make things very clear. Madam Witness, you said a while ago that

the Motion for Reconsideration was denied and this is in the Order of the court dated September 2,

2002, tama po?

Mr. Cuevas. Admitted, Your Honor.

Ms. Roxas. Admitted. Now, kanina sinabi ninyo rin nang nagbigay ako sa iyo ng mga

dokumento na nagsabi na si Ana Basa sinabing ang tatay niya ay namatay at sinabi rin mismo

ito ni Cristina Corona na ang uncle niya ay namatay. This date is on August 29, 2002. I think the

last question I will pose on you is very, very simple. Does the date of August 29, 2002 come beforethe date of September 2, 2002, which was the date when the Order on the Motion for Reconsideration

was issued?

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, that is a matter of judicial notice.

Ms. Roxas. This is a very simple question, Your Honor.



Ms. Roxas. Then we have no further questions for this Witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Re-cross?

Mr. Cuevas. No redirect, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. No redirect, okay. No more questions?

Mr. Cuevas. No redirect, Your Honor.

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

Ms. Cristi. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Next witness.

Mr. Roy. We call our next witness to the stand, Mr. Joseph Bisnar, Sheriff of Branch 216 of

the RTC of Quezon City.

Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request for one minute to fetch the witness.


Mr. Roy. Thank you.

The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please rise. Please raise your right hand.


24/74


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

proceeding?

Mr. Bisnar. I do.

The Clerk of Court. So help you, God.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, on the part of the Prosecution, may we be allowed to callon Attorney Ginez to receive the testimony.


Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, again, I would like to present Mr. Bisnar in order to establish the execution

of the decision testified to by the previous witness. And, again, I would like to, in the course of stating

the purpose for which we are offering his testimony, invite the Prosecution to admit the same if they

are so inclined.

The testimony of this Witness is being offered for the purpose of establishing that a Writ ofExecution was issued in Criminal Cases Q96-68147 and Q96-68148 by the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Branch 216.

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

Mr. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor, but subject to cross-examination on the implementation of

the Writ of Execution.


Mr. Roy. Secondly, his testimony is offered to establish that he was the one who executed the

Writ of Execution in the said cases.

Mr. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor.

Mr. Roy. Third, that the execution did, in fact, take place on September 30, 2003.



Mr. Roy. And that, in fact, in the course of the execution, a total of 4,729 shares of the Basa-

Guidote Enterprises....

The Presiding Officer. How much?

Mr. Roy. Four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729), Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. Four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729).

Mr. Roy. shares of the Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. were sold for the amount of twenty-

five thousand pesos (P25,000.00).

The Presiding Officer. Sold for the price of P25,000.

Mr. Roy. At public auction, Your Honor.


25/74



Mr. Roy. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. What is the total capitalization of the corporation?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I am not mistaken, the authorized capital stock is 10,000 shares.

The Presiding Officer. All issued and outstanding?

Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. Only about five thousand three hundred twenty-five (5,325) were

issued.

The Presiding Officer. Who were the stockholders of the the corporation?

Mr. Roy. They are all members of the Basa-Guidote

The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly, if you know, state them into theRecord?

Mr. Roy. I do not have the list with me right now, Your Honor, but may I be allowed to submitthem through a manifestation?



Your Honor, the second

The Presiding Officer. Who were the registered owners of this four thousand seven hundred

twenty-nine (4,729) shares against which the Writ of Execution was levied?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729) shares belong tothe Defendant, Jose Basa.

The Presiding Officer. All of it?

Mr. Roy. Yes. Yes, Your Honor. And in addition, another one hundred ten (110) shares were

also executed against the co-accused or co-defendant, Raymunda Basa.

The Presiding Officer. So, out of Five Hundred

Mr. Roy. Five thousand three two five (5,325).

The Presiding Officer. Five thousand (5,000), the balance is six (6)

Mr. Roy. Four eight three nine (4,839), Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Nine (9)four seven three six (4,736)?

Mr. Roy. Four thousand eight hundred three nine (4,839), Your Honor. One hundred ten (110)

shares to Raymunda Basa. So, four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine (4,839) shares were auctioned

off for a total amount of twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00).

The Presiding Officer. If you subtract four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine shares (4,729)

from five thousand three hundred twenty-five (5,325), what is the balance?


26/74


Mr. Roy. Four hundred eighty-six (486), Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Four eighty-six (486). And who are the owners of this four eighty-six

(486)?

Mr. Roy. I think Sister Flory Basa would be one of them, although I am not certain as to the

remainder.The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed.

Mr. Roy. And that this four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729) shares and the one

hundred ten (110) shares that were auctioned off by Sheriff Bisnar

The Presiding Officer. Four thousand (4,000)

Mr. Roy. Seven two nine (729).

The Presiding Officer. Seven two nine (729).

Mr. Roy. And one hundred ten (110)

The Presiding Officer. One hundred ten (110).

Mr. Roy. belonging to Raymunda Basa, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Was she a respondent in the case?

Mr. Roy. Yes, she was convicted as well, Mr. President. And that total, that sum of shares was

sold at public auction for twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00) to one Carla Corona Castillo, the

daughter of the Chief Justice.



Mr. Roy. In that case, Your Honor, I can dispense with the direct.

The Presiding Officer. And this is the owner of the property that was sold to

Mr. Roy. To the city of Manila, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. to the city of Manila?


The Presiding Officer. For thirty four (34)

Mr. Roy. Point seven (7) million.

The Presiding Officer. Point seven million (P34.7).

Mr. Roy. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. That was the asset of the corporation.

Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. And the purpose for establishing these facts is to demonstrate to

the Court that whatever it is was done with the so-called Basa-Guidote funds will, in effect, be capable

of ratification by the purchaser of the shares as the virtually the sole stockholder.


27/74


The Presiding Officer. And when was the sale to the city of Manila?

Mr. Roy. That was in 2001, if I am not mistaken, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. 2001. And the acquisition of the shares by Carla Corona?

Mr. Roy. 2003, Your Honor, September 30.

The Presiding Officer. And the shares were only sold for twenty-five thousand pesos

(P25,000.00)?

Mr. Roy. Twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00) in all, Your Honor, in public auction, Your

Honor.

The Presiding Officer. For a corporation that has an asset of thirty-four point seven million

(P34.7 million)?

Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, go ahead.

Mr. Roy. So, I want to know if the opposing Counsel is willing to stipulate.

Mr. Ginez. We stipulated already on the fact of the sale, Your Honoron the fact of the issuance

of the Certificate of Sale in favor of Carla Castillo, subject to cross, Your Honor.

Mr. Roy. All right.

Now, we alsoYour Honor, then that is

The Presiding Officer. By the way


The Presiding Officer. for the information of this Court, this is a peripheral issue but,

nonetheless, since you connect it with the Impeachment Case, what was the percentage of this four

thousand eight hundred thirty-nine (4,839) to the totality of the shares of stock of the corporation?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, mathematically, that amounts to 90.87 percent.

The Presiding Officer. 90.87 percent.


The Presiding Officer. Three percent was the minority?


The Presiding Officer. Did the minority get paid for their shares?

Mr. Roy. Not yet, Your Honor. The remaining shares of 485 or 486 have not been acquired

by either the Chief Justice or his daughter. They remain in the hands of theif I am not mistaken, some

of the siblings of Mrs

The Presiding Officer. Is the corporation liquidated?

Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. It has not been liquidated.


28/74


The Presiding Officer. Not yet. Is the board of directors constituted?

Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. It is not an operational corporation.

The Presiding Officer. When the property of the corporation was sold to the City of Manila,

was there a stockholders meeting to authorize the sale of all or substantially all of their shares?

Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. There was a valid and legitimate board authorization issued by theboard of directors previouslyah, by the stockholders previously.

The Presiding Officer. Was there an actual transfer of the shares of stock to the buyer?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, there appears to be a problem with respectthe certificate of sale is

construed as the transfer of the shares of stock. The registration of the sale, Your Honor, has not been

completed because up to this time, the stock and transfer book has neither been located nor

reconstituted.

The Presiding Officer. Then who votedwho are the stockholders who voted to authorize the

sale of all or substantially all of the shares of the corporation?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the sale of the shares was by virtue of public auction.

The Presiding Officer. No, no. I am talking about the sale of the land.

Mr. Roy. Ah, the property?

The Presiding Officer. The land.

Mr. Roy. The property, Your Honor, had been previously authorized even before the corporation

ceased operations. A Power of Attorney was issued in favor of Cristina Corona.

The Presiding Officer. By whom?

Mr. Roy. By the stockholders and the persons in control of the corporation, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Just for the record, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.

Senator Drilon. Yes. I think we can refer to the records. The authority of Cristina Corona was

issued by the board of directors, not by the stockholders. It is the board of directors, a 14-year old

authorization by the board of directors, not the stockholders, Mr. President. Just for the record.


Senator Drilon. So, it is not the stockholders consent.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, you are all great corporation lawyers. You better study this

angle, ha?

Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, that is correct. The board of directors who issued that authorization

were also the stockholders of the corporation. At any rate, it was not a stockholders meeting.

The Presiding Officer. Even then, even then.

Mr. Roy. Anyway, that is the point of the Witness, Your Honor, to establish that the bulk of the

shares of the Basa-Guidote Corporation are now owned by Carla Corona-Castillo, the daughter of the

Chief Justice. And if


29/74


The Presiding Officer. And so, the money went tothe proceeds of the sale of the property

of Basa-Guidote, P34.7 million, went to Carla Corona?

Mr. Roy. That is not quite how it happened, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Why not if she is the owner of the corporation?

Mr. Roy. As in fact, we will establish later on, this was entrusted to its current custodians.

The Presiding Officer. For what?

Mr. Roy. It is a matter between family members, Your Honor, and we will show that she

entrusted the management of the funds.

The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, we will come to that, but I will tell you, my understanding

of corporation law is, all the proceeds of the corporation property, if sold, will go to the stockholders.

Mr. Roy. That is right.

The Presiding Officer. Not to anyone else.


The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.

Mr. Ginez. We will proceed with our cross, Your Honor?

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, just a few questions with the sheriff, if you do not mind.

Mr. Witness, Good afternoon.

Mr. Bisnar. Good afternoonpo.

Mr. Roy. Yes. Please speak into the microphone.

Now, you were the one who executed the writ of execution, am I correct?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Roy. Can you pleasepuwede niyo bang sabihin sa amin, ano pong ginagawa niyo pag

pinapatupad ninyo po iyongnoong pinatupad niyo po itong Writ of Execution na pinag-uusapan

po rito?

Mr. Bisnar. Noong una po, nagpa-receivepo ako ng kopya ng Writ of Execution. Sa case

po nito, sinabay ko na po ang pag-serve ng Writ of Execution at saka Notice of Garnishmentpo.

Mr. Roy. Mayroon pa po ba kayong ibang ginagawa sa pagpapatupad po nitong mga Writ

of Execution?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Pag natanggap na po iyong Writ of Execution at saka iyong Notice of

Garnishment at mayroon pong makukuhamayroon po silang ibinigay na, in this casepo, iyong

may stocksila na binibigay na puwedeng i-garnish, sinet(set) ko po for auction sale iyong shares

of stock.

Mr. Roy. Papaano ninyo po pinapaalam itong pag-set for auction sale na sinasabi ninyo?

Papaano ninyo po ina-anunsiyo itong auction sale?


30/74


Mr. Bisnar. On the day of the auction salepo?

Mr. Roy. Kung maari lang, pakisalaysay lahat ng paraan kung papaano ninyo po ina-

anunsiyo iyong auction sale. Although alam naman natin iyan, papaano ninyo ba ginagawa iyon?

Mr. Bisnar. Pagka na-receive na po iyong notice of sheriffs sale, i-se-set po ang sale for

auction, in this case, sinet(set) ko ng September 30 Mr. Roy. Oo nga ho, papaano ninyo po inanunsiyo sa publiko?

Mr. Bisnar. Sa publiko po, sa takdang oras po eh tinatanong ko kung mayroong

The Presiding Officer. Hindi basandali lang. Hindi ba mayroong publication iyan sa

peryodiko?

Mr. Bisnar. In this casepo, wala po dahil

The Presiding Officer. Bakit?

Mr. Bisnar. posting lang po ito.

The Presiding Officer. Ha?

Mr. Bisnar. Ang publicationpo yata eh sa real property.

The Presiding Officer. O, sige. Kung shares of stock, walang publication?

Mr. Bisnar. Sa pagkaka-alam ko po, wala na po. Posting lang po.

The Presiding Officer. O sige.

Mr. Roy. Ito po ba ay ginawa ninyo?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Roy. Saan ninyo po pinost (post) itong sinasabi ninyong paalala?

Mr. Bisnar. Sa bulletin boardpo ng courtroom ng Branch 216.

Mr. Roy. Ito po ba ay pangkaraniwang gawain?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Roy. Sa madaling salita, pinost (post) ninyo doon sa Bulletin Board at ang petsang

nakatakda para sa auction ay ano po?

Mr. Bisnar. Puwede sa record ko?

Mr. Roy. Sige po.

Mr. Bisnar. September 30, 2003.

Mr. Roy. September 30, 2003.

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Roy. Noon pong araw na iyon, ano po ang ginawa ninyo para ipatupad ito pong Writ

of Execution matapos ninyo pong i-post iyong notice doon sa bulletin board?


31/74


Mr. Bisnar. Noong September 30 nga po, noong bandang o bago mag ika-sampu po ng

umaga, bumaba ho ako sa lobby ng Hall of Justice at doon po ay tinanong ko kung mayroon mga

interesadong mag-bid doon sa shares of stock.

Mr. Roy. Mayroon po bang sumagot?

Mr. Bisnar. Ang sumagot po ay isang tao lamang.Mr. Roy. Sino po kung natatandaan ninyo?

Mr. Bisnar. Si Carla Castillopo.

Mr. Roy. Mayroon pa po bang ibang tao na dumalo doon sa auction?

Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Wala po maliban po kay Mrs. Corona.

Mr. Roy. Mayroon pa po bang iba?

Mr. Bisnar. Wala na po. Iyong abogado po nila.

Mr. Roy. Iyong mga abogado. So samakatuwid po, iyong mga naroroon noong ipatupad

ninyo po iyong auction ay si Carla Castillo

Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo.

Mr. Roy. Mrs. Corona

Mr. Bisnar. Mrs. Corona po.

Mr. Roy. at?

Mr. Bisnar. Iyong lawyer ho yata nilalawyer ho nila.

Mr. Roy. At siyempre kayo.

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Roy. O, iyon. O, ano ho ang nangyari noong nandoon na ho silang lahat at nagsabi

na sila ay interesadosino ho ang nagsabing interesado siya doon sa binebenta ninyong mga

shares of stock?

Mr. Bisnar. Si Carla Castillopo.

Mr. Roy. Si Carla Castillo. Ano po ang ginawa ninyo noong nagsabi siya na siya ay

interesado?

Mr. Bisnar. Noong isinigaw ko nga po na may interested na bidder, eh noong wala pong

ibang sumasagot, sinimulan ko na po iyong auction sale. At pagkatapos po noon, nag-bid nga

po si Carla Castillo.

Mr. Roy. Ano po ang bid niya kung inyong natatandaan?

Mr. Bisnar. Ang bidpo niya for the total shares eh P28,000 po.

Mr. Roy. Magkano po iyong pinatutupad ninyo pong

The Presiding Officer. Magkano, magkano?


32/74


Mr. Bisnar. Twenty-eight thousand pesospo.

The Presiding Officer. Ano ang par value ng shares?

Mr. Bisnar. Ako po, hindi ko alam po.

The Presiding Officer. Does the Counsel know the par value of the shares?

Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor, I haveactually I have

the Articles of Incorporation here but I am not sure whether it is stated, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Ten pesos, P100?

Mr. Roy. One hundred pesos each, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. So, you are talking here of 4,839 shares. That means, you have P483,900

worth of shares at par value.


The Presiding Officer. And given the value of the property at that time of the sale which was sold

at P34,700,000, the fair market value of the share is a lot, lot, lot, lot more than the par value.

Mr. Roy. That appears to be the case, Your Honor. Although may I point out that ...

The Presiding Officer. We just establish that as a fact.


Well, Your Honor, I am sorry but theWell, that is the par value. The shares were merely

subscribed, I think, at that time. So...

The Presiding Officer. Nevertheless

Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. With respect to the property...

The Presiding Officer. the value behind those shares is, at least, P34.7 million, huh?

Mr. Roy. Insofar as the property is concerned, Your Honor, yes.

If I may proceed, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

Mr. Roy. So, Mr. Witness, sabi niyo po na nag-bid nga po ng P28,000.Ano po ang ginawaniyo?

Mr. Bisnar.Noong nag-bidpo ng P28,000 at wala naman pong ibang bidders na, in-award

na ho sa kanya iyong shares of stocks na ano...

Mr. Roy. Kanino po? Sino po siya?

Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po.

Mr. Roy.In-award niyo po iyong shares of stockna in-auction?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo, bale ho siya ang nanalo.


33/74


The Presiding Officer. Si Mrs. Corona ba ay hindi nag-bid?

Mr. Bisnar.Hindi po.

The Presiding Officer. Pero siya ang inatasan na magbenta noong lupa, hindi ba?

Mr. Roy. He would not know, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking kung alam niya.

Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo alam?

Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam.

The Presiding Officer. Okay, go ahead.


Pagkatapos pong na-award sa kanya, ano po ang ginawa niyo?

Mr. Bisnar.Nag-issuepo ako ng receipt on behalf of Mrs. Corona. Iyon nga po, ginawa ko

ang receipt po tapos pinirmahan po ni Mrs. Corona.

Mr. Roy. Maaari niyo bang ipaliwanag sa amin, ano ho ba ang ibigsabihin noong receipt

na in-issue?

The Presiding Officer. Look, ha, may I justAng bumili noong shares of stock, anak ni Mrs.

Corona?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo, si Carla Castillopo.

The Presiding Officer. Ang tumanggap noong pera doon sa anakna bumili noong shares

of stockang nanay, si Mrs. Corona, di ba?

Mr. Bisnar.Opo.

The Presiding Officer.At sang-ayon sa mga dokumento na nandito na sa Impeachment

Court, si Mrs. Corona ay ahente noong korporasyon upang ipagbili iyong lupa. Samakatuwid,

alam niya ang presyo noong lupa na ipinagbibili niya.

All right. Proceed.


So, nag-issue po kayo ng receipt mula kay Mrs. Corona katibayan ng pagbayad po noong

shares, tama po ba?

Mr. Bisnar.Opo.

Mr. Roy. Tapos meron pa po ba kayong ginawa? Ano pang dokumento ang inisyu niyo sa

kanila?

Mr. Bisnar. Pagkatapos po noon, gumawa po ako ng Certificate of Sale.

Mr. Roy.Ano po ang nilalaman noong iyong Certificate of Sale, kung naalala niyo?


34/74


Mr. Bisnar. Nandito po.

The Presiding Officer. Submit the Certificate of Sale. That will be the best evidence.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, actually, it has been marked. But may I request that the receipt that was

mentioned earlier by the sheriff be adopted as Defense Exhibit No. 251.

The Presiding Officer. I do not think there is any question about the payment of that considerationfor the bid.

Mr. Roy. Just for the record, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any? Are you questioning that Carla Corona paid thatx amount

for the 4,839 shares with a par value of P100 each?

Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. No. No question.

Mr. Roy. Very well, Your Honor. In which case, I am done with my direct examination, YourHonor, may I request anyway that the receipt nonetheless be marked. Anyway, there appears to be

no objection from the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it.


With that, Your Honor, I have no further questions.

The Presiding Officer. Cross?

Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor.

Magandang hapon po, Sheriff Bisnar.

Mr. Bisnar. Magandang hapon po.

Mr. Ginez. Sabi po niyo, kayo ay sheriffng Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Ginez. Ilang taon na po kayong sheriff ng nasabing korte?

Mr. Bisnar. Mula pa noong 1994.

Mr. Ginez. Nineteen?

Mr. Bisnar. Ninety-four.

Mr. Ginez. So masasabi po natin na kayo ay nasa mga 16 years ng sheriffsa korteng ito,

hindi po ba?

Mr. Bisnar. Puwede na po. Oo.

Mr. Ginez. Salamat po. Maaari rin natin pong sabihin at kayo ay sasang-ayon sa akin na

sa loob ng 16 years na pagiging sheriffponinyo, kayo ay bihasa at alam na alam na ninyo ang

mga alituntunin at patakaran ng pagpapa-implement ng Writ of Execution, hindi po ba?


35/74


Mr. Bisnar. Hindi naman ho bihasang-bihasa pero marunong na po siguro.

Mr. Ginez. Ito pong pinag-uusapan natin ay ang Rule 39 ng Rules of Court, hindi po ba?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Ginez. Ito pong Writ of Execution, mayroon po ba kayong kopya ng Writ of Execution

marked as Exhibit 178 of the Defendants

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Ginez. of the Respondent. Ito pong Writ of Execution na pinirmahan noongjudge ng

korteng ito, ay kayo ay inaatasan na ito ay i-implement particularly ang award of civil damages sa

dalawang kasong ito na ang total ay P500,000, hindi po ba?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Ginez. Now, Sheriff, tama po bang sabihin na bago niyo i-implement ang Writ of

Execution ay kailangan ninyong i-familiarize at alamin ang mga nangyari bago ma-isyu iyung Writ

of Execution sa records ng korte, hindi po ba?

Mr. Bisnar. Ang sa akin po kung ano pong inaatas sa akin na Writ of Execution ay iyun lang

po ang tanging importante.

Mr. Ginez. Kanina po sa isang testigo ay inilabas ng Prosecution ang isang Motion to

Withdraw na ipinayl (file) ng dating abogado ni Jose Maria Basa III, at iyung kalakip doon sa

Motion to Withdraw ay ang sulat ni Anna Basa sa abogado na Fortun-Narvasa-Salazar. Ipapakita

ko po sa inyo, Sheriff.

Mr. Roy. We admit the existence of the document, Your Honor.

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Ginez. Tama po bang sabihin, Sheriff, na nalaman ninyo at

The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang, ano ang answer nung Witness?

Mr. Bisnar. Wala pa akong

Mr. Ginez. Ipinapakita ko pa lang. I will ask the question now, Your Honor.


Go ahead.

Mr. Ginez. Tama po bang sabihin, Sheriff, na nalaman ninyo na ang pagkaka-file nitong

Motion to Withdraw at ang kalakip na sulat ni Ana Basa sa korte na nagsasabi na ang kanyang

tatay, isa sa mga akusado na pinagbabayad dito sa korteng ito ng limang daan libong piso, ay

patay na, hindi po ba?

Mr. Bisnar. Ngayon ko pa lang po nalaman ito.

Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, kayo sabi ninyo kanina, kayo ay pamilyar sa alituntunin natin sa pag-

i-implement ng Writ of Execution, alam po ba ninyo ang Section 7, Rule 39 ng Rules of Court

regarding execution in case of death of party?


36/74


Ito po, babasahin ko sa inyo, particularly po iyung paragraph (d), In case of death of the

judgment obligor against his executor or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be for

the recovery of real or personal property or for the enforcement of a lien thereon.

Alam po ba ninyo ito?

Mr. Bisnar. Nabasa ko na ho minsan.

Mr. Ginez. Ibig sabihin, Sheriff, na pag mayroon na kayong Writ of Execution, at napag-

alaman ninyo na ang akusado sa kasong ito ay namatay na depende ang gagawin ninyo kung

ang inuutos ng korte ay recovery of real property or personal property or forpinagbabayad siya

ng sum of money, hindi po ba?

Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

Mr. Ginez.Hindi po ba, Sheriff, alam din ninyo na pag ang utos ng korte sa Writ of Execution

ay pinagbabayad siya ng pera kagaya sa korteng ito ng P500,000, hindi po ba pag patay na ang

akusado, hindi na po puwedeng i-implement ang writ of execution?

Mr. Bisnar. Hindi koin this case po, hindi ko naman alam na patay na.

Mr. Ginez. Pero alam po ba ninyo na ang ipinag-uutos ng batasng Rule 39 at ng Section

5, Rule 86 ng Rules of Court na pag ang utos eh sabi ko nga sa inyo, pinagbabayad ng sum of

money, ang Writ of Execution sa isang patay na ay hindi na dapat ginagawa, hindi po ba? Alam

po ninyo iyan.

Mr. Bisnar. Hindi kohindi ho ako masyadong familiar doon.

Mr. Ginez. Akala ko po kanina, Sheriff, sabi ninyo hindi kayo bihasa pero sabi ninyo

marunong at nabasa ninyo naman na ang Rules of Court.

Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I think Counsel is arguing with the Witness. The sheriff answered he did

not know.


Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko nga ho alam yung tungkol sa r

Documents

May 8 Senate impeachment court record