May 7 Senate impeachment court record

8/2/2019 May 7 Senate impeachment court record

1/51

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012 1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Monday, May 7, 2012

Pasay City

AT 2:05 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 Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.

And we shall be led in prayer by Sen. Loren Legarda.

Senator Legarda. Panginoong may kapangyarihan, kami ay sumasamo sa Inyo na may

kababaang-loob upang mabiyayaan ng karunungan, pang-unawa at lakas ngayon at sa mga

darating na araw. Lubos kaming nagpapasalamat sa Inyong paggabay sa aming pagdinig sa

kaso ng Punong Mahistrado.

Panginoon, inaalay namin sa Inyo ang panahon na aming ginugugol sa pagganap ng aming

tungkulin. Basbasan Niyo Po kami ngkaliwanagan ng isipan upang sa huli ay maibigay namin

ang patas at nararapat na kapasyahan. Amen.

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

The Secretary, reading:

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

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

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

Senator Pia S. Cayetano ......................................................................... Present

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

Senator Franklin M. Drilon ...................................................................... Present______________

* Arrived after the roll call


2/51

2 MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

______________* Arrived after the roll call

** On official mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Loren Legarda ............................................................................ PresentSenator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. ....................................... Present

Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ................................................................. Present

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

Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III .............................................................. Absent**

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

Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ........................................................... Absent

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

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

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

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

Ilan?

The President Officer. With sixteen (16) Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares

the presence of a quorum.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. Senate 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 whilethe 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. Senate President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the March 22,

2012Journal 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 March 22, 2012

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

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

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

Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. Appearances. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. May we ask the respective Counsels to enter their appearances?

For the Prosecution.


3/51


Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President and Honorable Members of the Senate.

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

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

The Defense.

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


Mr. Cuevas. We are ready, Your Honor.


The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the business for today, there were three (3) Motions that

were decided on by the caucus. So, may I be allowed, with the permission of the Court, to start off?

The Presiding Officer. Yes. What are the Motions?Senator Sotto. Yes. The first one is a letter of DOJ Secretary De Lima and Reply of the Senate.

In her letter to the Senate President dated March 22, 2012, DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima conveyed

her apology for her failure to comply with the subpoena issued by the Court which directed her to testify

and bring certain documents before the Court last March 22. Secretary De Lima added that while she

is willing to appear before the Court, she also requested that her further appearance be dispensed with

since the matters on which she is being asked to testify on by the Defense have already been covered

by her direct testimony when she appeared as witness for the Prosecution or that such matter should

have been brought up by the Defense during their cross-examination of her.

Acting on her request for discharge, the Presiding Officer, in a letter dated March 27, 2012,

informed Secretary De Lima that in the interest of justice and fair play, Counsel for Chief Justice Coronashould be similarly afforded the opportunity to raise direct examination questions in defense of their

client just as the House panel of prosecutors was afforded the same opportunity to propound direct

examination questions to her.

On May 4, 2012, the Prosecution filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena contending that the

Defense has been previously afforded the chance to cross-examine Secretary De Lima and to ask their

questions for two days. The Prosecution also claims that to recall Secretary De Lima will be violative

of her rights and would be unfair to the Prosecution and the Court as it will unduly lengthen the

proceedings.

With that, Mr. President, and as agreed in the caucus, I move that the Presiding Officer rule onthe matter.

The Presiding Officer. The subpoena requested by the Defense is based on their notion that they

want to present the Secretary of Justice as their own witness. Although she was presented by the

Prosecution and she was subjected to a cross-examination, the appearance of the Secretary of Justice

then was not at the behest of the Defense.

So, therefore, given the fact that the Respondent is entitled to compulsory process to set up his

defense, the motion is denied. The Motion to Quash is denied. And the Defense is directed to confer

with the Secretary of Justice so that you can determine the date and time when she will have to be

asked to appear in this Court to be presented as a witness for the Defense.


4/51


So ordered.

Next motion.

Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. The Court also is in receipt of a Manifestation and Request

filed on April 24, 2012, by Spouses Rhodel and Amelia Rivera.

A SubpoenaAd Testificandum Et Duces Tecum was earlier issued by the Court upon the requestof the Defense commanding Mr. and Mrs. Rivera to appear and testify on March 20, 2012, and

everyday thereafter until discharged.

The Spouses Rivera requested that they be excused from attending the hearings from May 5 to May

27 in view of their trip to the United States which had been scheduled long before they received the

subpoena. The Riveras further manifested that they are ready to attend the hearings and comply with

the subpoena after they have returned from their trip.

Mr. President, we have been previously informed that the Defense is willing to forego with their

testimony.

The Presiding Officer. Will the Defense please confirm this for the record?

Mr. Cuevas. If they will notIf Your Honor please, if they will not be available by the time

granted by this Honorable Court, we may dispense with their testimony and present somebody else who

will testify on the same subject matter. For instance, Your Honor, we have in mind introducing the

broker who effected the sale between the Coronas and these witnesses.

The Presiding Officer. All right. The manifestation of the Chief Defense Counsel is noted.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer.Next motion.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.

Mr. President. Yes, finally, Mr. President, on March 16, 2012, Counsel for Chief Justice Corona

asked that this Court issue a SubpoenaAd Testificandum Et Duces Tecum to Malou Mangahas,

Karol Anne Ilagan and the cameramen crew, all of the PCIJ, for them to testify and bring copies of

the SALNs and all other documents, letters and requests related or pertinent to the various news

reports posted in the PCIJ website. The Defense submits that the testimony and documents asked are

for the purpose of disproving any alleged willful omission of the entries in the Chief Justices SALNs

and to show good faith in filling up the same. The Prosecution, on March 19, 2012, filed its opposition

to the request on the ground that the testimonies and documents sought are patently irrelevant.

On March 21, 2012, Malou Mangahas, Karol Anne Ilagan, and Ed Lingao, by counsel, filed their

opposition praying that the request for subpoena be denied on the ground that the requested

testimonies, documents and videos are irrelevant and inadmissible; and that the request itself is

unreasonable and oppressive.

I move to submit this matter for the consideration of the Presiding Officer, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Chair would like to request the Defense Panel to explain to the

Court...

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please


5/51


The Presiding Officer. ... first, what are the documents sought to be produced by the persons

representing PCIJ in this Court; and second, what is the relevance of these documents.

The Presiding Officer. ...for the defense of the Respondent.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of this Honorable Court, Your Honor, the Defense would

like to announce, for the record, that we have foregone any attempt towards having these witnessescompelled to appear pursuant to a subpoena to be issued by this Honorable Court together with our

requested Subpoena Duces Tecum, Your Honor.

After an examination of our position and relevant matters in our possession, we have finally arrived

at the conclusion that we may dispense with the testimony of

The Presiding Officer. So you are waivingyou are withdrawing your request.

Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

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

The Presiding Officer. So this Court notes the withdrawal of the SubpoenaDuces Tecum Ad

Testificandum addressed to the members of the PCIJ.

Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Yes.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, before the continuation of the presentation of evidence

by the Defense, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago?

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo has the floor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, I ask no question of the parties or counsel or any

witness proposed for presentation this afternoon. Instead, I would like to make a manifestation,

particularly read for the record my memorandum of authorities on two questions that I believe to be

crucial to this stage of our impeachment proceedings.

The first crucial question is, Does this Court have authority to order or otherwise compel the

parties to finish the trial such that this Court might be able to promulgate judgment on or before June

7 when the Congress adjourns? And the second question is, Is it relevant for this Court to receiveevidence on the alleged irregularities that attended the sale by Cristina Corona, acting for a family

corporation, to the City of Manila?

Let me go to the first point. Has this Court the power and authority to order the parties to end the

trial on or before June 7, the scheduled end of the Congress session? My humble answer is yes, this

Court possesses that power.

Here are the authorities. Under the Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 6, the Court has the power

to stop further evidence on a particular point when the evidence is already so full that some witnesses

to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should

be exercised with caution.


6/51


Further, under Rule 119, Section 11 Paragraph (c), The Prosecution and the Defense may, in that

order, present rebuttal and non-rebuttal and surrebuttal evidence unless the Court, in the furtherance

of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.

In People vs. Tan, decided by the Supreme Court in 1999, the High Court ruled: It is within the

sound discretion of a trial judge to allow a party that has rested its case to introduce rebuttal evidence.

Further, under the Rules of Court, Rule 135, Section 1, Justice shall be impartially administered withoutunnecessary delay. Under Section 5, entitled Inherent Powers of Courts, Every court shall have

power xxx (d) to control in furtherance of justice the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other

persons in any manner connected with the case before it in every manner appertaining thereto.

Parenthetically, in the President Clinton impeachment case, the U.S. House of Representatives

impeached him for perjury and obstruction of justice on 19 December 1998. The Senate trial began

on 7 January 1999. He was acquitted on 12 February 1999 or a little over only a month.

Therefore, I humbly submit that this Impeachment Court after nearly five months-contrasts this with

the one-month trial of President Clinton-after nearly five months, this Court possesses authority to

order the conclusion of trial on or before June 7 so as to have judgment to be promulgated beforeCongress ends this session.

Let me now move on to point No. 2. Is it relevant to the impeachment proceedings that the sale

to the City of Manila of land owned by Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. represented by Cristina Corona

was disallowed in audit by the Commission on Audit following this timeline?

In 2001, the negotiated sale was consummated. The city government took possession of the

property and constructed a public market on it. Mrs. Corona received the check worth some P35

million allegedly in trust for BGEI; she deposited the check in her own account. 2002; one year

later, COA issued a notice of suspension of payment. It appears that the City of Manila took no

action because of alleged failure to serve the notice properly. Hence, under the State Audit Code,the transaction remained an unsettled account. The notice of suspension was based on alleged failure

to submit certain documents, that is, the original copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale; the TCT in favor

of the City of Manila; the recommendation of the Appraisal Committee; and copy of the latest Tax

Declaration transferred from the owner to the City of Manila. And then, after these developments

in 2001 and then in 2002, in March 2012 or after 11 years, COA issued a notice of disallowance.

In Carabeo v. Court of Appeals decided by the Supreme Court in 2009, the Court ruled that

the term unexplained matter normally results from nondisclosure or concealment of vital facts.

It appears that the Corona SALN did not conceal the vital fact of the sale. In his 2003 SALN,

Corona mentioned the item Cash Advance from BGEI (wifes family corporation) of P11 million.

The Corona SALNs do not include the purchase price of P35 million because Cristina Coronaapparently received it from the City of Manila in trust for the corporation. The 1994 SALN form

did not require the declaration of trust arrangements.

Subsequently, the 2006 to 2007 SALN manual required the declaration of assets held in trust.

But the Civil Service Commission has deferred the application of this manual.

Remember, our basic issue here is: Is it relevant to deal with alleged irregularities in the sale of land?

In law, the term relevant means logically connected intending to prove or disprove the matter in

issue. It means having appreciable probative value that is rationally tending to persuade people

of the probability or improbability of some alleged fact. The word relevant means that the COA

Notice of Disallowance and the failure to include the purchase price of corporation property in the


7/51


Corona SALN should be so related to each other that one fact tends to prove the other fact. Under

this definition, the COA Notice of Disallowance is irrelevant to this impeachment proceedings.

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 128, Section 4, entitled Relevancy of Evidence, Evidence must

have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Evidence

on collateral matter shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish

the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

In the case ofDe Paul vs. NLRCdecided in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled, A party alleging

a critical fact must support its allegation with substantial evidence. And any decision based on

unsubstantial allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. Therefore, applying the test of

relevancy and under the principle of criminal due process, I humbly submit that any evidence tending

to prove any irregularity in the sale of BGEI Property to the City of Manila would be irrelevant to

impeachment proceedings over the alleged omissions in the SALN of the Defendant. Evidence on

alleged irregularities should be presented to the Solicitor General for litigation in court.

I humbly make these submissions to our colleagues in the Impeachment Court. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Noted.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President.

In our last hearing, the Prosecution has asked for the continuance in their cross-examination of

former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza.

May we inquire from the Defense if they are ready to present Mayor Atienza for the continuation

of the cross-examination?

Mr. Cuevas. We are, Your Honor. We will call him to the stand for continuation of the cross-

examination by the Prosecution, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Then proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. May we request for a minute, Your Honor? We will call him.

The Presiding Officer. By the way, what is the fact sought to be proven by the presence of

the former mayor of the City of Manila here?

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. The cross-examination had already gone to the extent of narrating in detail the

alleged circumstances surrounding the acquisition by the City of Manila of these properties and the

payment therefor in the amount of P34.7 million, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Only to the extent that there was a payment of P34.7 million?

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, we introduced evidence to that effect in order to show how Chief

Justice Corona was able to acquire allegedly some properties which do not seem to be justified by his

reported income.

The Presiding Officer. So, in effect, given the statement of the lady from Iloilo, nonetheless, the

position of the Defense is that the transaction is relevantthe transaction between Manila and the


8/51


Basa- Guidote Enterprise is relevant to this case to the extent of the proceeds of the sale which will

now be treated as a part of the funds used by the Chief Justice to acquire properties. Is that it?

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. May we request the indulgence of the Court for only one minute?

The Presiding Officer. All right. One minute suspension.

The trial was suspended at 2:28 p.m.

At 2:29 p.m., the trial was resumed.

Mr. Cuevas. Former Mayor Atienza, Your Honor, is now available, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Session resumed.

Mr. Cuevas. We will request him to take the stand for the continuation of the cross-examination,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The distinguished former Mayor of Manila will now please take the

witness stand and testify and has the same oath.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, may we request that one of our private prosecutors be

recognized to continue the cross examination, Atty. Renato Samonte Jr.?

The Presiding Officer. Let it be noted that the request of the Prosecution is noted. Proceed.

Mr. Samonte. Good afternoon ho ulit, Mr. President and Your Honors and Mr. Mayor.

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

Mr. Samonte. Ginoong Mayor Atienza, last time when you testified on direct examination, you

made mention and presented at least four (4) documents in the forms of endorsement from your city

government in connection with this negotiated sale transaction involving Basa-Guidote Enterprise. You

remember having done that last time?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. In fact, Exhibits 234, 235, 236 and 237 were marked in evidence by the

Defense. You remember also having identified these documents?

Mr. Atienza. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Samonte. And these endorsements were signed by your responsible officers: City Legal

Officer Melchor Monsod for 234; Emmanuel R. Sison, your secretary; another document by

Attorney Sison; and the last one by City Treasurer Liberty Toledo, City Accountant Quilangtang

and Budget Officer

The Presiding Officer. Is there any question about those

Mr. Samonte. Yes. We are aboutI am just


9/51


The Presiding Officer. Why do you not just go direct to the point that you want to bring out?

Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor.

Now, Mr. Mayor, in all these four (4) documents, you will agree with me that the entity mentioned

here is only Basa-Guidote Enterprise Inc., that is correct?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. There is no mention here of in trust for or Cristina Corona in trust for Basa-

Guidote, none?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. Last time also, you mentioned of the check that you ordered to be issued in favor

of the seller, Basa-Guidote, as represented by Cristina R. Corona, is that correct?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. It was you, as the City Mayor, who ordered the issuance of this kind of checkwith that in trust for phrase, is that correct?

Mr. Atienza. Hindi po ako personal. Palagay ko ay yon ang naging desisyon ng City

Treasurer sapagkat kailangan may managotdoon sa tseke dahil ang kausap po ng City Hall ay

si Mrs. Basa Corona.

Mr. Samonte. So between you, as the City Mayor, and the City Treasurer, are you saying that

it was the City Treasurer who made the decision to put the check in trust for?

Mr. Atienza. Hindi po. Ang sinasabi ko ay

Mr. Samonte. Or was it not really yourit was really your instruction?

Mr. Atienza. Ito po ay isang proseso na nagmula doon sakatotohanan na si Mrs. Cristina

Basa ang kausap ng gobyerno local na hindi po kinakailangan manggaling pa yong order sa akin.

Mr. Samonte. Okay. And that during the stint of your mayorship for nine years, as you said,

unprecedented at that, you have seen millions of checks issued by the city government, is that correct?

Mr. Atienza. Hindi naman po siguro millions,pero marami po.

Mr. Samonte. Marami. Opo. At katunayan po alam ninyo po nasa bawat tseke, official

check, Landbank checkna ini-issue ng city government lagi po itong dumadaan sa checkwriter,

hindi po ba?

Mr. Atienza.May proseso pong tinatakbuhan yan under regular rules that are being followed.

Mr. Samonte. So that for every check issued, there is always this duplicate that is left behind

bearing the entries stated on the face of a given check, is that correct? You are familiar with that?

Mr. Atienza. I would not be very familiar because this is all now part of the Treasury

responsibilities and functions. Wala po yon sa function ko na tsekin (check) na yong recording ay

tama o naaayon. Ang akin pong concern lalot lalo na rito sa kasong ito ay yong mabiliyong

lupa at makuha sa lalong madaling panahon para maitayo naminyong palengke na kinakailangan

po ng Sampaloc sapagkat yong lumang palengke ay gigibain na.


10/51


Mr. Samonte. But for this particular transaction, you would recognize that Landbank check

that you issued in favor of Cristina Corona or BGEI for that matter? Yan po yong kopya ng tseke

na ibinayad ninyo sa BGEI. Yan po yon.

Mr. Atienza. Tama po.

Mr. Samonte. At sasang-ayon din po kayo na

The Presiding Officer. Anong sagot ng Witness?

Mr. Atienza. Opo, ito po yong tseke.

The Presiding Officer. O sige.

Mr. Samonte. At sasang-ayon po kayo sa akin na ito po yong duplicate copy or check writer

copy na nagsasaad kung ano ang entrada doon sa mismong tseke, di po ba? Certifiedpo yan

ng COA.

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. Eksaminin niyo nga po kung parehong-pareho yan.

Mr. Atienza. Tama po yong presyo.

Mr. Samonte. Tama po ang

Mr. Atienza. Presyo, P34 million.

Mr. Samonte. presyo. Ang check number

Mr. Atienza. Check number is the same.

Mr. Samonte. ang payee, di po ba?

Mr. Atienza. Payee is Cristina Corona, ITF-Basa-Guidote Enterprises.

Mr. Samonte. Opo. Ngayon, mayroon poyan po ay certified copy na nanggaling sa COA.

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. Ngayon po, mayroon din po kaming hawak na certified copy na galing din

sa COA involving the same check, copy writer check. Pakitingnan niyo nga po kung halos

kapareho nung naunang in-identify niyo.

Mr. Atienza. Pareho po ito.

Mr. Samonte. Pareho din po.

Mr. De los Angeles. Objection, Your Honor.

Mr. Samonte. Already answered, Your Honor.

Mr. De los Angeles. May we request, Your Honor, that the Witness not answer immediately

to give us the opportunity to object.


Mr. Samonte. We, therefore


11/51


The Presiding Officer. Just give them an opportunity to address the nature of your question.

Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. Because it was readily answered anyway, Your Honor.


Mr. Samonte. So we would like to request, Your Honor, for the marking of this first copy writer

check earlier identified by our good Mayor and stating that this is a

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, is there any difference between the two checks?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Then, go to the point.

Mr. Samonte. Yes. We will mark this first, Your Honor, as Exhibit Eleven L (LLLLLLLLLLL),

Your Honor, the first one; and the second one as Eleven M (MMMMMMMMMMM). These are

both certified copies from COA, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. The manifestation, Your Honor, that these two checks are certified true copies isnot borne out by the very document being shown to the Witness, Your Honor.

Mr. Samonte. These were submitted anyway, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. No, it is not a question of admitting but it is a question of misrepresenting that the

document is a certified true copy which is not borne out

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, do not argue anymore. Just present those evidence. It will

be the function of this Court to appreciate the evidence.


The Presiding Officer. They are the same in all respects, no?

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, this is actually proper for our memorandum or summation but we

would just like to point out, Your Honor, that in the second certified copy admitted by our Witness,

there is something lacking. In the first photocopy, Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. What do you mean? In the secondthe same check was certified

by the COA, one for the Defense and one for purposes of your cross-examination. Is that correct?


The Presiding Officer. And there is a difference between the two checks.

Mr. Samonte. Yes. And the difference, Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. What is the difference?

Mr. Samonte. And the difference is that in the first copy writer copy certified by the COA,

there is the words, Cristina Corona, ITF, as appearing also in the check. But in the second one,

Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. Which is your material for

Mr. Samonte. Yeswhich is the copy that we


12/51


The Presiding Officer. Wait a minutewhich is your material for cross-examination that does

not appear.

Mr. Samonte. There is none, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So

Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that they be marked so that we can refer to themto either one of them?


Mr. Cuevas. Because they are not marked, Your Honorvery vague.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Mark them accordingly.

Mr. Samonte. Eleven L (LLLLLLLLLLL), Your Honor, and Eleven M (MMMMMMMMMMM).

With request for submarking of the phrase Cristina Corona ITF as Eleven L-1 (LLLLLLLLLLL-1).

The Presiding Officer. That is being marked on what copy of the same document now?

Mr. Samonte. Copy of the one

The Presiding Officer. Presented by the Defense?



Mr. Samonte. And for the other copy that we have presented today, we request that portion

without this Cristina Corona ITF to be encircled and be marked as Exhibit M-1.

The Presiding Officer. That is the copy which you are using for your cross-examination?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Please be precise in your description of the facts so that we

will not be confused.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, Your Honor.

A while ago, we made the manifestation that the statement made by Counsel in connection with the

identity of the check is not yet borne out by the evidence. He claimed that these were checks duly

certified by the Accounting Office. There is no such thing, Your Honor. That is our point of objection,

Your Honor. That is a manifestation

The Presiding Officer. All right. You have an objection about the use of the word certified

copy.

Counsel for the Prosecution, what is the basis of your claim that that

Mr. Samonte. We say that this is a certified copy because it is an official document that came

from COA.

Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, that must be established byI am sorry, Your Honor.

Mr. Samonte. We are marking this, Your Honor, for purposes of comparison in todays

proceedings.


13/51


The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly please talk one after the other? Let Counsel finish the

statement of the other Counsel. So

Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. I was just

The Presiding Officer. Prosecution first.

Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. We got this particular document from COA itself. This was

certified. This is a certified copy and therefore an official document. And we confronted our witness

here and he admitted.

The Presiding Officer. Why do you say it is certified copy?

Mr. Samonte. It came from COA itself, You Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Is there a statement there thatcertifying that that is the same document,

an authentic copy of a document, in the possession of COA?

Mr. Samonte. What is stated here, Your Honor, certified true xerox copy for the xerox signed

and issued by Eva L. Sta. Maria, State Auditor IV, Chief, Administrative Division of COA.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Then proceed.

Mr. Samonte. That will be all for this matter, Your Honor.

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

Mr. Cuevas. I was about to make a short manifestation, Your Honor, in connection with said

statement of the Honorable Counsel, because all what he is stating now came from him and he is notunder oath. We cannot cross-examine him unless he will take the stand, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. He is describing the document, Counsel

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. which he was using for cross-examination.

Mr. Cuevas. But the two documents, Your Honor, carry with it the words certified true copy.

And this is not explained, Your Honor. It may cause ambiguity and confusion on the part of the Court,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely because the tendency of the cross-examination is to impugn theauthenticity of the document that you presented as evidence. That is the purpose of this cross-

examination.

Mr. Cuevas. Evidence ba namin iyon?

Mr. Samonte. The first one came from them, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas.Kanila pareho iyan. Hindi amin iyan. Yes, they are bothI am sorry, Your

Honor. They are both exhibits for the Prosecution, Your Honor. What we marked as evidence in

connection with the existence of the check is a certified true copy of the check itself, not a certification

by the COA. That is why we are vehement in our observation, Your Honor.


14/51


The Presiding Officer. Wait, wait, wait a minute. Did you present the first document in your

examination-in-chief of the Witness, Mr. Counsel for the Prosecution?

Mr. Samonte. It was the Defense who marked the copy of the check, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. But did that document

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Mr. Samonte. And if I remember it right, as a preliminary question, I asked our good Mayor if

the first document that I presented appears to be a duplicate copy of the original of the check and

he said yes. Then, I propounded my next question.

The Presiding Officer. No, but the question of the Chair is, who presented to the Witness

the copy of the check which says ITF? Was it the Prosecution or was it the Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. We never have presented it, if Your Honor please.


Mr. Cuevas. What we presented in evidence, Your Honor, is the very xerox copy of the check

in the amount of P34.7 million, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Then, so that to avoid this discussion, let the Prosecution clear this

because both documents are your exhibits.

Mr. Samonte. Well, Your Honor, be that as it may, we confronted the Witness. We gave him the

opportunity to make the comparison and he said yes. So I propounded my next question thereafter.

The Presiding Officer. But you did notCounsel, forgive me for interrupting. You did not

lay the basis of your question. You should have qualified the Witness first whether he had anything

to do with the preparation of that document to know the details that are written on the document. Youassumed already a fact not proven yet.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, if I remember it right

The Presiding Officer. AnywaySo ordered. You reform the question.

Mr. Samonte. Yes. I am finished with that anyway. Ill go to another point.

Mr. Cuevas. In which case

Mr. Samonte. I am through with that, with the marking, Your Honor. I will leave it to theappreciation of the Honorable Court.

Mr. Cuevas. In which case, Your Honor, we will object to the marking. We will move that it

be stricken off from the record, Your Honor, because it is irregular, it is violative of the rules on

evidence and procedure.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, if you are not going to mark this second copy of the check,

then the Chair will sustain the objection of the Defense.

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, we have already marked it and we will try to confront again our

Witness.


15/51


The Presiding Officer. Because, in effect, what you are doing now is impeaching the very

evidence that you presented in the first place.

Mr. Samonte. No. I will then rephrase, Your Honor.

May I borrow again?

Mr. Cuevas. Just to clarify the record, may we make it of record that both these exhibits are notexhibits for the Defense, Your Honor. They are exhibits for the Prosecution brought about only during

the cross-examination, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely. That is why the Chair was mistaken in its assumption that the

first copy of the check was presented by the Defense. That is why I had to clarify.


Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, we do this in regular courts.

May we ask our Secretariat to read back the answer given.

The Presiding Officer. Compaero, do not teach me the techniques of trial.

Mr. Samonte. I know, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That is not done in the regular courts. I am sorry to tell you that.

I do not know what court you practice but you are contradicting your own evidence.

Mr. Samonte. I just heard our WitnessAnyway, Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. Reform your question.


Mr. Mayor, I am showing you a document, a certified copy that came from COA and I asked you

earlier if you will agree that the entries stated in this other copy is a reproduction of the one appearing

in the original check.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor. I am sorry.

Mr. Samonte. So my question is, do you agree or do you not agree?

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, no basis for the question. In a previous earlier question by

the learned Counsel, Your Honor, it was clearly stated by the Witness that he has nothing to do with

the routine matters involved.

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer.

Mr. Atienza.Uulitin ko po iyong sinabi ko kanina na hindi po ako ang nagpe-prepare ng

tseke at iyan po ay prosesong sinusunod ng City Treasury when they are supposed to be issuing the

necessary payments. Hindi ko po alam kung ano ang pamamaraan nila.

Mr. Samonte. No. I want you to use your own perception today and look at these documents

just for you to say whether the entries, from your own perception, whether the entries stated in

this other document, a certified copy that I am showing to you, bears the entries stated in the

original check.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court.


16/51


Mr. Samonte. If he knows, Your Honor.

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

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, the Witness now is being confronted with an alleged

certified true copy issued by the auditors office. There is no such evidence on record. That is their

assumption. That is why we are objecting right from the very beginning, Your Honor. That is a factnot yet established by the record and it is being made as a premise. So the question is misleading,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Counsel, what you are, in effect, trying

to tell the Court is that there is a difference between the first copy of the same check for paying the

property of the Basa-Guidote sold to the City of Manila with that copy that you now have toand

being used by you in your cross-examination, is that it?


The Presiding Officer. All right. So you are in effect impugning the firstthe material that you

yourself presented to the Witness.

Mr. Samonte. I am giving him the opportunity to make the comparison, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You cannot do that. Are you saying that the first document that you

presented to the Witness is spurious?

Mr. Samonte. No, Your Honor. We are just trying to show that there appears to be two kinds

of underwriter photocopy of this same check. That is the purpose, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Then what is the materiality of that point?

Mr. Samonte. The point, Your Honor, is that it will even more show the infirmities attendantto this kind of transaction, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. In other words, what you are saying is that the money that was issued

to Mrs. Corona was not really in trust for, di ba?


The Presiding Officer. That is your point.


Senator Sotto. Mr. President?

Mr. Samonte. And

The Presiding Officer. But you were the ones who presented that evidence and you are bound

by that document. So ordered.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago?

Sen. Defensor Santiago. Counsel for the Prosecution, let the Court educate you. You are asking

the wrong witness. You are presenting two copies and according to you these are certified true copies

from the Commission on Audit. So call someone from COA and ask them if this is certified true copy.

And then explain why two certified copies from the same office appear to be different from each other.


17/51


You cannot get the answer from this Witness. You are forcing him to make a conclusion of fact when

he has already testified for the record that he has nothing to do with the preparation of these documents.

You are harassing the Witness. That is what you are doing.

Mr. Samonte. I am sorry, Your Honor.

Sen. Defensor Santiago. You should be sorry.

Mr. Samonte. That is not my intention.

Sen. Defensor Santiago. Whether it was the intention or not, that was the result.

Mr. Samonte. With due respect, I submit, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, go ahead. All right. Go ahead, go ahead. Finish your cross.

Proceed.

Mr. Samonte. May I proceed then, Your Honor.

Early on during direct examination, you identified the properties which according to you kailangan

for your LRT New Sampaloc Market, that is correct?

Mr. Atienza. Kailangan po ng Lungsod ng Maynila.

Mr. Samonte. Opo, ng Lungsod ng Maynila.

Mr. Atienza. Let me just correct it. It is not the LRT, it is the city government.

Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. I stand corrected.

And you started doing what was necessary in May of 1999, that is correct?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. You sent out letters to the registered owners of the properties in that vicinity of

Bustillos-Legarda, that is correct also?

Mr. Atienza. Ang naaalala ko po ay may sulat na pinirmahan iyong aming City Administrator,

upon my orders, to look for the owners of that property which we thought was ideal for a relocation

of the Sampaloc market.

Mr. Samonte. Okay. And a number of letters were sent to the prospective landowners almost

simultaneously.

Mr. Atienza.Ang naaalala ko po iyong sulat ni Colonel Fernando sa Basa-Guidote Enterprises.

Mr. Samonte. And in the adjoining property owners also, di po ba?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. Samonte. Katunayan po ay doon sa ginawa ninyong expropriation ordinance, meron po

kayong mga listahan ng titulong nilagay doon di po ba, you remember that?

Mr. Atienza. Opo, dahil meron pong ilang mga properties that could serve the purpose.

Mr. Samonte. Serve the purpose. And one of which nga po ito pong Basa-Guidote.

Mr. Atienza. Iyong pinakamalaki po sa aming


18/51


Mr. Samonte. Pinakamalaki. And you had in mind kung magkano po ang magiging halaga

nitong mga properties na ito to serve the purposethe public purpose?

Mr. Atienza. At that point, alam ko po ang presyong nananaig doon sa lugar dahil binenta

po namin iyong old Sampaloc market sa LRT.

Mr. Samonte. Okay.Mr. Atienza. Sa gobyerno din po. At binenta namin for P50,000 per square meter. So

somehow alam po namin ang ongoing reasonable rates. Tinanggap po naman ng LRTA iyong

presyo namin, eh.

Mr. Samonte. Katunayan po, mayroon po kayong pinaylan (file) na expropriation case. Is

that correct?

Mr. Delos Angeles. Misleading, Your Honor.

Mr. Samonte. I am asking

The Presiding Officer. Why?

Mr. Delos Angeles. There was no expropriation case that was filed.

Mr. Samonte. We will confront now, Your Honor. There is a petition for eminent domain.


Mr. Atienza. Hindi po iyon expropriation case against the Basa

Mr. Samonte. Hindi. Sa iba po, sa iba.

Mr. Atienza. Iyon po iyong expropriation ordinance that allows the city government to take

possession of certain properties.

Mr. Samonte. Mr. Mayor, do you not remember this Case No. 0098311 filed by the City of

Manila against or versus Guidote Mercantile Corporation, Everlasting Development Corporation,

Eufemio C. Uy and George G. Eufemio?

Mr. Cuevas. Before the Witness answers, Your Honor, may we be informed as to the materiality

and pertinence of this document?

Mr. Samonte. We will show a little later on, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. No. But the Witness is very

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. That is

Mr. Cuevas. Kung alam daw ba ninyo, iyan ang tanong. Tingnan ninyo.

Mr. Atienza. Ito iyan.

Mr. Samonte. In fact, you were the one who verified this complaint as shown at the last page.

Verification and Certification, Jose L. Atienza Jr., Affiant. Do you now remember?

Mr. Atienza. Pwede po bang basahin ko muna?

Mr. Samonte. By all means.


19/51


Additional information, that was filed and raffled before Branch 28 of the Regional Trial

Court of Manila.

Mr. Atienza. Nandito po iyong aming City Legal. Pwede po bang makausap ko siya para

maliwanagan ko itongano itong dokumentong inihaharap sa akin?

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness confer with the counsel of Manila.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court.


Mr. Cuevas. Examining the questions being propounded and trying to decipher the answer that

will be elicited from the Witness, it would appear that the Prosecution is making ex-Mayor Atienza

their witness now. Not throughbut not in the conceptbut not a simple cross-examination question,

Your Honor. This is allegedly

The Presiding Officer. Let us hear first. There are four (4) techniques of cross-examination:

You probe, you insinuate, you undermine, you confront.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Let them probe the Witness. Go ahead.

Mr. Atienza. Mr. President.


Mr. Atienza. Gaya po ng sinabi rin ng aking Legal Officer, ako po mismo hindi ko po

maalala itong expropriation case na ito sapagkat napakarami po kaming ipinapayl (file) na mga

kaso

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Mr. Atienza. noong aming administrasyon sapagkat gumagawa kami ng programang

pabahay at sa lahat ng gamit ng pamahalaan.

The Presiding Officer. Next question.

Mr. Samonte. Would you not remember that there was really a case for expropriation filed?

Mr. Atienza. Frankly

Mr. Samonte. Would you not even remember that?

Mr. Atienza. Frankly, I do not remember.

The Presiding Officer. Already answered. He does not

Mr. Samonte. Will you not also remember that in an expropriation case there was a compromise

agreement eventually entered into by the City Mayor and you arrived at the amount of P25,000 per

square meter for this property belonging to Everlasting Development Corporation, to Eufemio C. Uy

as evidenced by this judgment in Civil Case No. 0098311, you would also not remember that?

Mr. Atienza. Eh, gaya ng sinabi ko po, sa dami ng dokumentong pinipirmahan ko as Mayor

everyday and sa dami rin ng aming mga land cases, hindi ko po maalala specifically itong kasong

na ito ng expropriation case.


20/51


Mr. Samonte. But just the same, Your Honor, may we request for the marking of these two

documents as Exhibit Eleven N (NNNNNNNNNNN) and Eleven O (OOOOOOOOOOO),

respectively.

The first document, the Complaint, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Mark them accordingly.

Mr. Samonte. And the second document, the judgment itself on the same case.

The Presiding Officer. By the way, what is the relevance of these two documents?

Mr. Samonte. Relevance, Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. To the impeachment trial.

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, it is related in a way, Your Honor, because

The Presiding Officer. In what way?

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, the amountIt actually has something to do with the testimony ofour Mayor as in this eminent domain case, the amount arrived at was only for P25,000 wherein in this

Basa-Guidote case, they arrived at P35,000

The Presiding Officer. So what? If they paid P34.700 million, that is the only thing relevant

into the impeachment case. If they overpriced, that is another issue.

Mr. Samonte. But thatin effect, Your Honor, the city government of Manila was shortchanged.

The Presiding Officer. Well, that has nothing to do with the

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, it has something to do with the statement, with the testimony of our

good Mayor.

The Presiding Officer. Ah, you are impugning his credibility?

Mr. Samonte. Yes.


Mr. Cuevas. A while ago, Your Honor, we were questioning the materiality and the pertinence

but it is not yet shown.

What is the materiality? Does it mean to say that the Mayor made money?

The Presiding Officer. He is trying to impugn the

Mr. Samonte. The testimony itself, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. the credence of the Witness. So, okay.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. We will allow him to proceed.

Mr. Samonte. Yes, Your Honor. One last point.

Ah, the month that


21/51


Mr. Atienza. Mr. President, may I also react to that statement of Counsel impugning wrongdoing

on my part or overpricing, as he said?


Mr. Atienza. I find it most unfair, Mr. President, that he can accuse me of that in this Court

wherein I have never, never done such act. Never.Mr. Samonte. We are just trying to show the disparity in the amount. I will leave it to the proper

court, Your Honor.

Mr. Atienza. In the same manner, Mr. President, he should also show expropriation proceedings

where I got properties way, way below zonal value. I got properties from the Catholic Church for

P75 per square meter for the poor. Why do you not mention that also, Counsel?

The Presiding Officer. You know, this Court is trying to give everybody a sufficient leeway to

ask questions to elicit facts but let us avoid this discussion.

Proceed with your question, Mr. Counsel.Mr. Samonte. One last point, Your Honor.

Ito pong nangyari sa Basa-Guidote Enterprise na kung saan ang tseke ay ginawa niyong

payable to Cristina Corona in trust for Basa- Guidote Enterprise Inc., ito po ba ay kostumbre,

practice, policy ng city hall na kung mayroon kayong ka-transaksyong korporasyon lagi niyo pong

hinahanapan ng responsible officer by way of additional safeguard like putting the check in the name

of Cristina Corona in trust for BGEI, ito po ba ay palagi niyo bang ginagawa o dito lang?

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind indulgence of the Court, we object to the question, Your Honor.

No basis.

The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer so that we

Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong po ay, Ginawa ninyo? And there is no

The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel, this should not hurt your case, anyway. Let the Witness

explain.

So ordered.

Mr. Atienza. Unang-una po eh hindi po naman ako ang gumawa ng tseke, no. Ang City

Treasurerpo yanCity Accountantpo yan, City Budget Officerpo yan, at dumating po yan sa

akin para pirmahan na at para magkaroon ng katuparan yung aming paggamit nung lupa .

Mr. Samonte. Ang tanong ko po eh

The Presiding Officer. Is it possiblewait a minute. You have two checks or two certified

copies of the same check coming from the COA.

Mr. Atienza. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The ITF marking in the first copy of that check, was that written by

COA?

Mr. Samonte. No, Your Honor, it came from the very original of the check.


22/51


The Presiding Officer. All right, so you admit that?

Mr. Samonte. We do, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, so

Mr. Samonte. But in the other one, it does not appear.

The Presiding Officer. Why do you not ask the Treasurer why he put the ITF in the one

check and did not do it in the other?

Mr. Samonte. We just tried to ask our good Mayor and we will yield to

The Presiding Officer. He is incompetent.

Mr. Samonte. Yes, we will yield to the

The Presiding Officer. He is incompetent.

Mr. Samonte. comment of our good Sen. Miriam Santiago, Your Honor. In due time,we will do that.


Mr. Samonte. We just tried our luck if we can ask him, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Samonte. I think that will be all, Your Honor. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. That is all?


The Presiding Officer. You are through?


The Presiding Officer. You do not need the Witness anymore?

Mr. Samonte. None anymore, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any redirect?

Mr. De los Angeles. Just a fewJust a few questions, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed.

Mr. De los Angeles. Mayor Atienza, during the cross-examination you were shown allegedly

two copies of a check coming from the COA

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. De los Angeles. ..in paying for the property that you purchased from Basa-Guidote

Enterprises Inc.

Mr. Atienza. Opo.


23/51


Mr. De los Angeles. As far as you know, how many checks were issued by the City

of Manila?

Mr. Atienza. Sa aking pagkakaalam po eh isang tseke lang po yun eh.

Mr. De los Angeles. And before issuing the check, was there a disbursement voucher?

Mr. Atienza. Meron po.

Mr. De los Angeles. And did you sign the disbursement voucher?

Mr. Atienza. The disbursement voucher, yes, Your Honor.

Mr. De los Angeles. I am showing to you our Exhibit 239, the disbursement voucher, and there

appears here a signature above the typewritten name Jose L. Atienza, Jr., City Mayor, will you please

identify this signature? (Showing the document to the Witness)

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. De los Angeles. Whose signature is that?

Mr. Atienza. Sa akin po.

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor

Mr. De los Angeles. Does the

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, please.

Mr. De los Angeles. Does the disbursement

Mr. Samonte. Your Honor, please.

Mr. De los Angeles. voucherYes.

Mr. Samonte. May I interpose my objection as in the first place I did not touch on this particular

document on my cross

Mr. De los Angeles. Preliminary.

Mr. Samonte. so it will be improper for


Mr. Atienza. Opo, eh pirma ko po ito eh. Naaalala ko po itong voucher.

Mr. De los Angeles. Okay. Does the disbursement voucher identify the number of the check

that was issued by the City of Manila in payment of the property that was purchased from

Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc.?

Mr. Atienza. Mr. President, can I just inquire from my


Mr. Atienza. legal officer?



24/51


Mr. Atienza. Thank you, Your Honor.

Opo, nandito po. Nahanap namin yung check number.

Mr. De los Angeles. Will you please read the check number?

Mr. Atienza. Check No. 188804.

Mr. De los Angeles. Okay.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, with your permission, I just want to clarify one thing from the

distinguished Witness.

Does that disbursing voucher describe the payment as in trust for the Basa-Guidote?

Mr. Atienza. Andito po.

The Presiding Officer. Nakalagay in trust for?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

Mr. De los Angeles. Okay. I am now showing to you a certified true copy of a Landbank

Check No. 000188804, already marked by the Defense as Exhibit 238 and also by the Prosecution

as Ten J (JJJJJJJJJJ). Please tell us if this is the check referred to in that disbursement voucher.

Mr. Atienza. Mr. President.


Mr. Atienza. Opo. I see the checkthe copy of the check and it bears the same number.

The Presiding Officer. I just want to make another clarificatory question, Mr. Witness.

Mr. De los Angeles. Okay.

The Presiding Officer. If the check and the voucher state that the payment is in trust for, who

was the actual payee of the check?

Mr. Atienza. Nakalagay po dito, ehayun po ehCristina Corona ITF Basa-Guidote

Enterprises.

The Presiding Officer. So, the payee was...

Mr. Atienza. Is Basa-Guidote Enterprises.

The Presiding Officer. ...Cristina Corona in trust for

Mr. Atienza. Basa-Guidote Enterprises.

The Presiding Officer. In other words, the trustee of the fund is Cristina Corona.

Mr. Atienza. Opo.


Mr. De los Angeles. May we request, Your Honor, that the words Cristina Corona ITF Basa-

Guidote Enterprises Inc. as appearing in the disbursement voucher, Exhibit 239, be bracketed and


25/51


marked as Exhibit 239-A and the Check No. 188804 referred to in this disbursement voucher be

marked as Exhibit 239-B. We also request, Your Honor, that the check number as appearing Exhibit

238 be bracketed and marked as Exhibit 238-B. And the payee, Cristina Corona ITF Basa-

Guidote Enterprises Inc., be encircled and marked as Exhibit 238-C.

One last question, Your Honor.


Mr. De los Angeles. Noong Marso 22, 2012, in the course of the cross-examination, meron

hong tinanong si Senator Drilon tungkol sa isang Notice of Suspension. Kailan ho ba ninyo unang

narinig iyang Notice of Suspension?

Mr. Atienza. Sa totoo po, eh, doon ko lang po narinig iyong order of suspension. I have

never heard, never seen and never sent an order of suspension.

Mr. De los Angeles. Have you received this Notice of Suspension to date?

Mr. Atienza. Up to now, I have not receivedThe Presiding Officer. Ano iyong Notice of Suspension?

Mr. De los Angeles. COA ho. Notice of Suspension by the resident COA.

The Presiding Officer. To suspend payment?

Mr. De los Angeles. It was just a notice of suspension raising some points regarding the

transaction, Your Honor.


Mr. De los Angeles. That will be all, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Mr. Mayor, doon ba sa tseke na naglalaman nung bayadnung lupa

sa Basa-Guidote at ganun din yung voucher ay kasama ang pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona?

Mr. Atienza. Andito po sa voucher, opo.

The Presiding Officer. Kasama ang pangalan ni Chief Justice Corona?

Mr. Atienza. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Anong kuwan

Mr. Atienza. Di si Chief Justice, hindi po si Chief Justice. Cristina Coronapo.

The Presiding Officer. Wala si Chief Justice?

Mr. Atienza. Wala po, wala.

The Presiding Officer. Wala. Ang trustee diyan ay si Cristina Corona.

Mr. Atienza. Cristina Coronapo.

The Presiding Officer.Hindi si Chief Justice?

Mr. Atienza. Hindi po.


26/51



Mr. Samonte. May we have a number of recross, Your Honor?


Proceed.

Mr. Samonte. Mr. Mayor, you will agree with me that in the particulars of payment in this

disbursement voucher, the only entity as payee mentioned herein is Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc.

That is correct? In the particulars of payment.

Mr. Atienza. Ang nakikita ko po rito ngayon ay

Mr. Samonte. Just answer yes or no.

Mr. Atienza. ito ay kabayaran sa Basa-Guidote Enterprises, opo.

Mr. Samonte. Nothing is mentioned in the particulars of payment of this in trust for Cristina

Corona. That is correct?

Mr. De los Angeles. That is misleading, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. No, he is asking a question if it is in the document.

Mr. Samonte. And with respect to this check that you identified, when Cristina Corona signed

this disbursement voucher, she also received simultaneously the check. That is correct?

Mr. Atienza. Opo, sapagkat sa kanya

Mr. De los Angeles. That is misleading, Your Honor.

Mr. Samonte. I am asking, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is misleading about it?

Mr. Samonte. That is why I am asking.

The Presiding Officer. What is misleading about the question?

Mr. De los Angeles. The disbursement voucher, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. No, the basis of the objection isthat the question of the cross-examiner

is misleading. Why?

Mr. De los Angeles. What I heard, Your Honor, is that the check was simultaneously delivered

upon the signing of the

The Presiding Officer. That is why he is asking why

Mr. Samonte. That is why.

The Presiding Officer. He is eliciting an information.

Mr. Atienza. Hindi ko po maaalala yan sa totoo lang po sapagkat dumaan sa akin yung

voucher tapos nabayaran na yung property.


27/51


Mr. Samonte. And when Cristina Corona received personally this Landbank check which,

according to you, you even had a simple ceremony in the City Hall, do you remember having

said that?

Mr. De los Angeles. Wala.

Mr. Samonte. Am I correct?

Mr. Atienza. Meron po kamingpagto-turn over nung tseke, opo.

Mr. Samonte. And the Chief Justice, the Respondent was present during that time?

Mr. Atienza. I do not remember that.

Mr. Samonte. How many times did you see the Respondent accompanying Cristina Corona

aside from the fact when they went to your office?

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, what is the relevance of that whether the Chief Justice was

present or not?

Mr. Samonte. We are showing the involvement of the Chief Justice because, Your Honor, the

Chief Justice has been saying in the media that he is not getting involved. So we would like to know

if at all he was accompanying the wife.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely, he is present there probably to accompany the wife.

Mr. Samonte. For whatever reason, Your Honor. For whatever reason, Your Honor.


Anyway, answer, Mr. Witness.

Mr. Atienza. On the several occasions that we talked about the transaction, the negotiation, siMrs. Coronapo ang kausap ko and a certain Attorney Corona then, who was the husband, was

present on those two occasions.

Mr. Samonte. So the Chief Justice was present during that time? Attorney Corona for that

matter.

Mr. Atienza. Attorney Corona, becauseyun po ang pagkakakilala ko. That was the first time

I saw the gentleman.

Mr. Samonte. That will be all, Your Honor.


Anything else? [Silence]

If there is none, the Witness is discharged.

Next witness.

Mr. Atienza. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Next witness.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we suspend the proceedings for a few minutes?


28/51


The Presiding Officer. How many minutes?

Senator Sotto. Five minutes, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Session suspended for five minutes.




Does the Defense Counsel intend to present new witness?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Please call your witness.

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, the Defense calls to the witness stand Atty. VC Cadangen, the officer-

in-charge of the Chief, Law Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue.The Presiding Officer. Call him to the plenary session and place him on the witness stand. Then

the oath will be administered to him.

Where is the Secretary?

Mr. Manalo. She is here, Your Honor.

May we request, Your Honor, the Secretary to

The Presiding Officer. Session is suspended for one minute.



Senator Sotto. We are ready to resume.


The Secretary will now please administer the oath to the Witness.

The Clerk of Court. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in

this Impeachment proceeding?

Mr. Cadangen. I do.

The Clerk of Court. So help you God.


What is the purpose of this Witness?

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we ask permission that Atty. Dennis Manalo of the

Defense Panel be allowed or permitted to conduct the direct examination.

The Presiding Officer. Granted.


29/51



Representative Tupas. On the part of the Prosecution, may we request that Atty. Winston Gines

be recognized also, Your Honor, Attorney Gines.

The Presiding Officer. Granted.

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, this Witness is offered to prove that the Bureau of Internal Revenueissued a ruling dated May 22, 2001, stating that no capital gains tax may be levied on the excess of

the just compensation paid by the City of Manila to the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. for the

expropriation of its Sampaloc property which is now being utilized as the Sampaloc Public Market.

The Presiding Officer. And the purpose of your presentation of this Witness is to establish that

the P34,700,000 consideration was totallywas intact and placed under the custody of Mrs. Cristina

Corona in trust for Basa-Guidote.

Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Can you not stipulate this? This does not have to be proven.Mr. Gines. In fact, Your Honor, we would likeif I may be allowed?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please.

Mr. Gines. In fact, we would like to object, Your Honor, to the offer of the testimony because

the ruling, Your Honor, is inapplicable to the facts of the case as already testified by the good Mayor

of Manila. Because the premise, Your Honor, of the ruling is that it will be an involuntary sale of the

property or as a result of an expropriation. As the good Counsel of the Defense, the just compensation

would not be deducted of any capital gains taxes.

The Presiding Officer.But anyway, whether a capital gains was due or not due, the fact isand this is so far the fact that is understood by this Court to be establishedthat the property was sold

for P34,700,000. And that amount was paid for by check and received by Mrs. Cristina Corona in

trust for Basa-Guidote and placed under her control. So, whether there is a tax component of that

amount, it does not matter because we are talking here of the quantum of assets and liabilities and net

worth of a particular respondent.

Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor, and

The Presiding Officer. So what is the materiality of all of these?

Mr. Gines. We agree, Your Honor. That is why we are objecting it is notit is immaterial, Your

Honor, to the fact in issue in this case

The Presiding Officer. Precisely.

Mr. Gines. as well as it is not applicable at all, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. We are wasting our time

Mr. Gines. We agree, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. in all of these things.

Mr. Manalo. Well, if the objection, Your Honor, is just as to the


30/51


The Presiding Officer. Anyway

Mr. Manalo. effect of the document, we offer for admission, Your Honor, by the Prosecution

the authenticity and due execution of the Bureau of Internal Revenue Ruling No. DA-095-2001 dated

22 May 2001, regarding the capital gains tax in relation to the property of the Basa-Guidote Enterprises

Incorporated

The Presiding Officer. All right. Let us

Mr. Manalo. I have here, Your Honor, it has been pre-marked as our Exhibit 242 for the

Defense and a copy of which is in the possession of the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. All right. The Senator from Iloilo, Senator Drilon.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, may I support the Senate Presidents suggestion that this

document be admitted in evidence? Whether or not it is applicable to the case is a matter that will be

argued in the memorandum or in the oral arguments. But the fact is that this document exists so that

we can dispense with this Witness, Your Honor. We just admit it and let the conclusions be drawn

by both parties or by each party when the memorandum comes.

Mr. Gines. We submit, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What about the Defense?

Mr. Manalo. Yes, Your Honor. We are willing, Your Honor, to agree if the Prosecution will

admit the authenticity

The Presiding Officer. What about the Prosecution?

Mr. Gines. We admit, Your Honor.


Mr. Manalo. Does the Prosecution likewise admit that this BIR ruling has not been superseded,

amended, modified or otherwise revoked by the Bureau of Internal Revenue?

Mr. Gines. We do not know, Your Honor.

Mr. Manalo. If you do not know, then the Witness is here to testify. If you are going to admit,

then we can dispense with the Witness.

The Presiding Officer. All right. This Chair will ask the question. You are sworn. Do you

know about this ruling of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which is being the subject of discussion in this

proceeding?

Mr. Cadangen. Your Honor, based on the record

The Presiding Officer. Do you know?

Mr. Manalo. Louder.

Mr. Cadangen. Your Honor, this ruling was

The Presiding Officer. Do you know of this ruling?

Mr. Cadangen. Based on the records, Your Honor, yes.


31/51


The Presiding Officer. All right. Then what is this ruling about?

Mr. Cadangen. This ruling exempts from capital gains tax the transfer of a real property which

was acquired by the City of Manila through expropriation from the Basa-Guidote.

The Presiding Officer. Why was it exempted?

Mr. Cadangen. The reason, Your Honor, is discussed in the ruling. It invoked the principle ofinvoluntary conversion.

The Presiding Officer. Why was it involuntarily disposed?

Mr. Cadangen. Because it was acquired through expropriation, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So that is the position of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and as a

consequence you issued the ruling.

Mr. Cadangen. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So what is the pleasure of the parties?

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, may we also ask the Witness if this ruling has been superseded,

modified or revoked in any manner by the BIR?

Mr. Cadangen. Based on the records of our office, this ruling has not been revoked.

The Presiding Officer. So what is the pleasure now of both parties?

Mr. Gines. Your Honor, we are willing to stipulate that the ruling was issued by the BIR; that

its applicability only as stated in the ruling itself is in case of expropriation of the subject properties.

The Presiding Officer. In other words, we all admit here that Basa-Guidote did not pay any

capital gains tax on the sale of the property. Okay?


The Presiding Officer. How about the Prosecution?

Mr. Gines. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. How about the Defense?


The Presiding Officer. All right. So ordered.

Mr. Manalo. With the admissions entered into by the parties and the clarifications made by the

Witness, Your Honor, may we move that the Witness be discharged.

The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged.

Mr. Manalo. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

Your Honor, at this juncture we will call to the witness stand Mr. Noel Kintanar, a representative

of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation

The Presiding Officer. Fort Bonifacio?


32/51



The seller of the property purchased by one Cristina R. Corona which is Unit 1902 of the Bonifacio

Ridge Condominium in Taguig.

The Presiding Officer. Is this the Bellagio property?

Mr. Manalo. No. This is the Bonifacio Ridge property, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. What is the purpose of the Witness?

Mr. Manalo. The purpose, Your Honor, is to prove that there was a delay in the delivery of

the Bonifacio Ridge property which is the Real Property No. 4 reported in the Statement, Assets,

Liabilities and Net Worth of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2010.

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

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we request that Attorney Hernandez be recognized

for the Prosecution

The Presiding Officer. Yes, granted.

Mr. Hernandez. Good afternoon.

Your Honor, similar to the evidence regarding the alleged delay, the acceptance of The Columns

unit, we feelour position is that the evidence on any delay in the delivery of the condo unit is

irrelevant. And I think the Presiding Officer already took this position whether or not there was any

delay as long as payments were already made, this already constitutes an asset

The Presiding Officer. So, in other words, what you are saying to the Court is even if this

Witness will testify that there was a delay, it will not hurt your case.

Mr. Hernandez. Yes, Your Honor, it will be irrelevant.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Then let the Witness testify so that we can finish the case.

The Clerk of Court. Please rise. Mr. Witness, please rise.

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

Proceeding?

Mr. Kintanar. I do.

The Clerk of Court. So, help you God.

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

circumstances.

Mr. Kintanar. I am Noel Ilay D. Kintanar, married, and I reside in Taytay, Rizal.

Mr. Manalo. Your Honor, the Witness is offered for the same purpose that we have already

manifested before the Honorable Court earlier.

Mr. Hernandez. The same comments on the part of the Prosecution.



33/51


Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, do you know the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation?

Mr. Kintanar. Yes. From July 2008 to December 2010, I was the head of commercial

operations of FBDC.

Mr. Manalo. And as head of commercial operations, what are your functions, briefly,

Mr. Witness?

Mr. Kintanar. As head of commercial operations, I oversee the sale of real estate assets in

Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. One of which was the Boni Ridge Condominium.

Mr. Manalo. Okay. You mentioned the Boni Ridge, is this the Bonifacio Ridge Condominium

of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation in Taguig?

Mr. Kintanar. Yes, that is.

Mr. Manalo. What is the status of this commercial project of the corporation as of this date?

Mr. Kintanar. When I left Fort Bonifacio in 2010, the development had been fully sold, to my

knowledge.

Mr. Manalo. Okay. Now, based on your functions as the head of the commercial operations

of this company, would you know who the purchaser of Unit 1902 of Bonifacio Ridge is? Who is the

registered owner?

Mr. Kintanar. Based on the records of Fort Bonifacio, the owner of that unit is Mrs. Cristina

Corona.

Mr. Manalo. What record are you referring to specifically?

Mr. Kintanar. In our record, there is a Deed of Absolute Sale.

Mr. Manalo. If I show to you a copy of this Deed of Absolute Sale, will you be able to identifythe same?

Mr. Kintanar. I will be able.

The Presiding Officer. It was already established by the Witness and there is no objection that

they admitted that the owner of the unit is Mrs. Corona.


The Presiding Officer. What is the purpose of presenting another document to prove that she

is the owner?

Mr. Manalo. I am just going to confront him with Section 7 of the Deed of Absolute Sale.



I am showing to you the Deed of Absolute Sale, is this the document which you referred to?

Mr. Kintanar. This is the document, sir.

Mr. Manalo. The document, Your Honor, has also been marked by the Prosecution as Exhibit

Triple U (UUU). And we move that it be marked as our Exhibit 243.


34/51


Your HonorMr. Witness, rather, Section 7 of this contract provides for the terms and conditions

of acceptance of the unit by the purchaser. It states in part, the seller shall notify the purchaser in

writing of the readiness of the unit for acceptance by the purchaser and delivery by the seller to the

purchaser of the same. My question is, when did Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation notify

Mrs. Cristina Corona about the readiness of the unit for acceptance and delivery?

Mr. Kintanar. Based on our records of that unit, the purchaser was notified sometime in the year2005.

The Presiding Officer. May I pose this question? On or before that date, did the purchaser pay

any consideration for the unit?

Mr. Kintanar. Usually before we would

The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking you a pointed question. Did your record show that the

buyeron or before the date you mentioned the unit was paid for?

Mr. Kintanar. Your Honor, based on our records, the unit had been paid for by the client.

The Presiding Officer. So, it was paid for. The only thing material here is when it was delivered

and accepted by the owner.

Mr. Kintanar. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Values have passed from her to the seller.

Mr. Kintanar. Based on our record, yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.

Mr. Manalo. So, what happened during this inspection for the turnover and delivery of the unit

to Mrs. Corona?

Mr. Kintanar. Well, as in most turnover processes, there was a punch list executed between the

purchaser and the seller which basically identified the various deficiencies or complaints or things that

had to be repaired from the perspective of the purchaser and this was usually agreed on by the seller,

in this case Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation.

Mr. Manalo. So, in other words, there were punch lists containing defects pointed out by the unit

purchaser to the developer?

Mr. Kintanar. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Manalo. And what was the action taken by Fort Bonifacio Development Corporationregarding these issues on the construction of the unit as pointed out by Mrs. Cristina Corona in the

punch list?

Mr. Kintanar. Well, these punch list items were addressed by FBDC based on whether these

were in fact part of the sort of deficiencies created or that appeared because of construction or during

construction and we would repair these items as part of our after-sales service.

Mr. Manalo. And were the repairs actually performed by the developer in this case?

Mr. Kintanar. These repairs wereYes, the repairs were prepared over a period of time.

Of course, each time we would repair, it would require that the purchaser accept these rectifications.


35/51


Mr. Manalo. And, Mr. Witness, what was the response of Mrs. Corona to the actions taken by

Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation?

Mr. Kintanar. The turnover process was somewhat extended and one of the responses of

Mrs. Corona was, while the repairs were being completed, she contested whether she was liable

for the payment of association dues to the condominium association.

Mr. Manalo. So, did the turnover actually transpire?

Mr. Kintanar. There was a conditional turnover sometime in 2006 but nonetheless, when she was

assessed condominium dues on that unit, she wrote FBDC that these duesthe assessment from the

condominium corporation should be carried or should be to the account of the developer.

The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, before the acceptance by Mrs. Corona of that condominium

unit, how much was the total payment for the considerationthe total price of the unit, if you know?

Mr. Kintanar. If I may refer to the Deed of Absolute Sale, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.Mr. Manalo. The Witness, Your Honor, is going over the Deed of Absolute Sale. May it be

reflected in the record.

Mr. Kintanar. Your Honor, the purchase price in the Deed of Absolute Sale sale was

P9,159,940, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That was the cash-out from the pocket of the Coronas to acquire

that unit.

Mr. Kintanar. Yes, Your Honor, based on our records.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So they paid that already...


The Presiding Officer. ...to get a unit.


The Presiding Officer. Okay. Go ahead, proceed.

Mr. Manalo. Mr. Witness, this response of Mrs. Cristina Corona to Fort Bonifacio

Development Corporation for a conditional turnover of the property and a waiver of the association

dues, is this response in writing?

Mr. Kintanar. Yes, there was a letter that we received to that effect.

Mr. Manalo. Coming from?

Mr. Kintanar. From Mrs. Corona.

Mr. Manalo. If I show to you a copy of this letter, will you be able to identify the same?

Mr. Kintanar. I would be able to.

Mr. Manalo. I am showing to you a letter dated January 2, 2006 to Bonifacio Ridge

Condominium by one Cristina R. Corona. Is this the letter that you refer to?


36/51


Mr. Kintanar. Yes. Based on our record, this is the letter.

Mr. Manalo. The Prosecutor, Your Honor, is going over the letter. May we request

Mr. Witness, on the second page of

Documents

May 7 Senate impeachment court record