Record of the Senate - Integrated Bar of the Philippines

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 1Republic of the PhilippinesSenatePasay CityRecord of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment CourtTuesday, May 8, 2012AT 2:10 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 RenatoC. 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 blessingsthat You have granted our nation, a nation that must remain united despite the growing voicesof 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 ourresponsibility 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 confusionand 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 maythe Holy Spirit always give us hope in these trying times, as we pray all these in the mightyName of Jesus.Amen.

2 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now please call the roll of senators.The Secretary, reading:Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... PresentSenator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present*Senator Alan Peter “Compañero” S. Cayetano ................................. Absent**Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present*Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... PresentSenator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ PresentSenator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... PresentSenator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. PresentSenator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... AbsentSenator Gregorio B. Honasan ............................................................ PresentSenator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ PresentSenator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid ....................................................... PresentSenator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... PresentSenator Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr. .................................. PresentSenator Sergio R. Osmeña III ........................................................... Present*Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ PresentSenator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ PresentSenator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... PresentSenator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. ..................................................... PresentSenator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. PresentSenator Antonio “Sonny” F. Trillanes IV ........................................... PresentSenator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Absent**The President ..................................................................................... PresentThe 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 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. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the May 7, 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 May 7, 2012Journal 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.______________* Arrived after the roll call** On official mission

4 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012their own respective processes. So, I have no hand at all in telling anyone: “Please choose SonnyAngara to be one of the spokespersons.” But the worst thing about this motion, Mr. President, is theinsinuation 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 ofAurora, 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 theBaler-Casiguran Concreting Project. Mr. President, that project is not going to be funded by Philippinemoney, 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 isrequired for all foreign-funded projects.The other two, Mr. President, is a project, I think a circumferential road in Samar. I am verythankful and I am full of admiration for those who were able to secure that because Samar is such anundeveloped province and putting a circumferential road like that in Bohol would really make Samara destination of investments and tourism.The third project, Mr. President, is the bridge over Umiray River. Umiray River, for thosewho do not know it, is a river in Aurora, located in Dingalan, which supplies all the water for MetroManila 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 theJapanese government, not by our own government.And yet, Mr. President, the petitioners have the gall and the audacity to suggest that these arepolitical favors for me. So, I reject that, Mr. President, and I reject it as an unthinking and illogicalconclusion that serves no purpose at all except to malign and make—I do not want to say it—it maybe 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 theCode 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 Rulesof 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 froma decision made. My son will not benefit from any decision either way. The only one who will benefitor 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 SenatorsPangilinan 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 oneparty or another. And all of us, except, possibly, one or two parties, are all supportive of governmentreforms, of government programs. Does that mean that the entire Impeachment Court is biased andpartial?There is no other interpretation I can read in these actuations of the Defense except to destroy thecredibility of this Impeachment Court. I think that is the least that they ought to do because this couldbe the saving grace in our democracy. If you destroy the one pillar of justice, the Senate, which can

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 5stand up even to the Supreme Court or the President, then you are really knocking down the very pillarthat one day you may have to seek help and succor from, because it can stand up to any person orinstitution.And to see how malicious this insinuation is, in their concluding paragraph they said, “The only waySenator Angara can redeem himself is to vote for acquittal.” Mr. President, you know I have beenpresident 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 seenlogic or legal logic like this.Therefore, Mr. President, I take umbrage at this malicious paper. My good friend Joker, when Ishowed him the petition yesterday, said, “Ed, don’t answer it. It is not worth it, because you are doinga constitutional duty. They don’t seem to appreciate that.” And yet, Joker is very sympathetic andI can share his feelings towards the cause of the Defense. As of now, but after this, maybe notanymore. [Laughter]So, Mr. President, I do not know. I have one outstanding alumnus of the UP College of Law, veryable, 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 nowretain him because what is the use? You may have a good cause but if you antagonize the judge, yourcause is lost. No, I am not comparing our set of Defense panel to that one friend of mine who isbrilliant, 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 eachone of us or all of us collectively. But I assure you that none of you can sway us one way or theother. 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 usproceed with the case.Defense, present you evidence.Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the Court, Your Honor, may I beallowed 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 theproceedings in this case, as evidenced by the fact that we have introduced quite a number of witnesseswith no purpose and accomplishment whatsoever, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Who was making the insinuation? Was it from this Court or from the...letus be specific.Mr. Cuevas. Well, that seem to be our impression, Your Honor, that apparently the Defense wastrying to delay proceedings, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Are you suggesting that it was the Court that created that impression?

6 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. 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 saidto 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 inconnection with our defense. Some of them they consist of three (3) register of deeds, three (3) cityassessors and provincial assessor, Your Honor. Insofar as the register of deeds is concerned, weintroduced them for the purpose of showing that there are no properties aside from those mentionedin 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 werelocated in different places. So, if we presented the register of deeds of Makati, of Manila and ofQuezon 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 connectionwith the records of the office pertaining to Quezon City and Manila, and vice versa. That was ourpurpose. And, we also introduced in evidence the testimony of the Administrator of the LandRegistration Office. From the statements obtained from them on record we were able to showconvincingly, Your Honor, that the 45 real estate properties allegedly referred to be registered andowned by Chief Justice Corona do not all belong to him but only five (5) of them. Hence, it cannotbe said that our purpose was merely to delay because, apparently, we could read from the records thateven the Court was convinced that actually there were only five (5) or six (6) properties that reallybelong 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 Manilaand the city assessor of Quezon City on the same ground because we cannot make one of them testifyfor 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 ofour 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. ArceliBayugan, the Finance Officer of the Supreme Court, in order to belie and contradict the statement onrecord that there was no income tax return made by the Honorable Chief Justice Corona. Becausefrom 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 ourwitness, 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 accusingyou of delaying.Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Because that was our impression that we introduced thesewitnesses simply to gain time. That is why we are placing on record....The Presiding Officer. I must admit that yesterday I said you are wasting the time of the Courtby introducing someone to testify on whether market fees had been collected from that market.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 7Mr. Cuevas. We are not in conformity with that, Your Honor. But the plan of the other lawyerscame 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—The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Cuevas. —to contradict that and so on. Now, insofar as the Land Registration Commissioneris concerned, we called him to the stand in order to testify on the various alleged properties which heascribes to be belonging to the Chief Justice and we were able to elicit admissions to the effect thatthey 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 Prosecutionmade a manifestation, the tendency of which was to reconsider the ruling of this Chair, on the claimthat it will only prolong the proceedings, I denied it. So, you can see that we are giving you all thetime to defend the Chief Justice. We know that you are entitled to defend the Chief Justice. So, theimpression or statement of the Prosecution is their position but that is not the position of this Court thatyou are delaying. That is why we are asking you to wind up your manifestation so that we can proceedwith the hearing.Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much, Your Honor, for the opportunity for being allowed to bringall 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. Thatwas never our intention.The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Cuevas. Now, in connection with the Motion for Inhibition, Your Honor, the motion was filedbecause of the feeling of the Chief Justice that, at least, he may not be able to obtain the cold neutralityof a judge insofar as the subject of the motion is concerned. Now, what we did was to file. It is upfor the Court.... We never stated that everything stated thereon are indubitably true, Your Honor. Whatwe wanted to express, to give importance to the feeling of the Chief Justice in order that, if a decisionis 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 AttorneyRoy 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 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012During my presentation, I will present two (2) witnesses who will testify on the decision pertainingto the ownership of the Basa-Guidote Corporation. I wish to state the relevance before we proceedbecause consistent with the mood of the Court, I wish to request for admissions. So if you will allowme some leeway, I wish to point out that—The Presiding Officer. Proceed.Mr. Roy. Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.The relevance of the ownership, of the actual ownership of the Basa-Guidote pertains directly tomatters stated in the SALN of the Chief Justice. It involves the P11 million that was borrowed andrepaid, 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 216of 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 impeachmentproceeding?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Ma’am.The Clerk of Court. So help you God.Representative Tupas. Your Honor, on the part of the Prosecution, may we ask permission thatAtty. Cynthia Corazon Roxas be recognized to receive the testimony and later on to conduct the crossexamination.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 thecontents—for an admission of the substance of the testimony of the Witness which, incidentally, alsoconstitutes the purpose for which the testimony is offered.The Presiding Officer. Well, you better propound the questions first. If I were the lawyer fromthe 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 Witness—we will proceed with her testimony,first, she will testify that Criminal Cases Q96-68147 and Q96-68148 were heard before the RTC ofQuezon City and these two are cases for libelous publication, entitled People of the Philippinesagainst 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 thatmatter.Mr. Roy. Thank you.Second, her testimony is offered to establish that a decision of conviction was arrived at in thesetwo cases, dated September 5, 2001. May I have an admission.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 9Ms. Roxas. We will stipulate on that.The Presiding Officer. Those are matters of record. We can even take judicial notice of thosethings. Just present them.Mr. Roy. If you will allow me, Your Honor, it is to expedite because it appears that the opposingCounsel 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 samebecame 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 Witnesshave 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 theaccused 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 pendencyof the motion for reconsideration which was stated by the good counsel of the Defense, there was apending motion for reconsideration on the conviction as well as on the civil award in favor of the privatecomplainant 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 period—and we are going to prove that—that on August29, 2002, the accused Jose Maria Basa died.Mr. Roy. I am not aware of this...

10 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Ms. Roxas. If the accused is not willing to stipulate on this matter, Mr. President, I am afraidthat we should allow the Defense to present this Witness.Mr. Roy. Let me just verify. I am unaware of Mr. Basa’s 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 ofdeath 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 theproposition made by the Prosecution.The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Roy. Madam Witness, can you please tell us whether or not there is anything in the recordsthat 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 godirectly to cross?Mr. Roy. On what, Your Honor?Ms. Roxas. Because the Witness is supposed to be here to testify on pertinent records pertainingto this case. And while we did admit the existence of several documents which transpired during theproceedings 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 forstipulation 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.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 11Mr. Roy. Would you like to stipulate?The Presiding Officer. You are directed to proceed with your direct examination.Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.With the permission of the Honorable Court. Madam Witness, can you please state for the recordyour personal circumstances, name and personal circumstances, I am sorry.Ms. Cristi. I am Lucita Masangkay Cristi, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident ofValenzuela 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 Clerkof Court?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.Mr. Roy. As Clerk of Court, Madam Witness, can you tell us whether or not you are familiarwith 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 Philippines vs. Jose Maria Basa, Raymunda Basa, Felix CarlosDecentillo, Virgilio Macabenta, Cecilia Basa, Betsie Basa, and—can I look at my record?Mr. Roy. Your Honor, may we request that the Witness be allowed to refer to the records?The Presiding Officer. Granted.Ms. Cristi. And Flor Maria Guidote-Basa.Mr. Roy. Now, Madam Witness, can you please tell the Honorable Court what was the chargeor 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.The Presiding Officer. All right.Ms. Roxas. So, there is no need for the question.Mr. Roy. The Court has directed—Your 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 wasrendered in these cases?

12 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Ms. 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?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.Mr. Roy. All right. Now, what was the decision of the—do you have a copy of that decisionwith you?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.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 causedthe 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 dispositive—what does the dispositiveportion 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 admissionsprecisely why I have been directed to proceed.Ms. Roxas. We have made several stipulations already on the matters. Perhaps, Counsel herewould 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, whois here to certify the decision and to attest to its authenticity, anyway, read the dispositive portion forthe 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 MariaBasa III, Raymunda Gorospe Basa and Virgilio Macabenta GUILTY beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime charged in the Information for libel. And the Court sentences them to sufferthe 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 solidarilyCristina Basa Roco-Corona the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) moraldamages; and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for attorney’s fees.“Accused Cecilia Henson-Basa, Betsie Basa-Chavez and Flor Maria Guidote Basa arehereby ACQUITTED.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 13“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 thecrime charged in the Information for Libel. The Court sentences them to suffer the penaltyof four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days as minimum to one (1) year, eight (8) monthsand twenty-one (21) days as maximum, ordering them to pay jointly and solidarily CristinaRoco-Corona the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) for moral damagesand Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for attorney’s fees.“Accused Cecilia Henson Basa, Betsie Basa-Chavez and Flor Maria Guidote Basa arehereby ACQUITTED. Let warrant of arrest be issued for the apprehension of accused FelixCarlos 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 partof 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. WhyP500,000?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 attorney’s fees.The Presiding Officer. I thought you said P20,000. So....Ms. Cristi. P200,000, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Now, the attorney’s fees, P50,000?Ms. Cristi. P50,000, Sir.The Presiding Officer. In the first case.Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.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 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, you mentioned that the decision includes an order forthe issuance of a warrant of arrest. Is that correct?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.Mr. Roy. All right. Now, can you please tell us, if anything appears on the record, what didthe 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 datedSeptember 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 saidmotion on October 18, 2001.Mr. Roy. Thank you. Now, can you tell us what did the court do with these motions forrecon....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?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.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 theimpeachment?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 15Mr. Roy. Your Honor, as I was pointing out earlier, this will result in the acquisition of the sharesof the Basa-Guidote Corporation because of the civil indemnity. There is a levy of execution. Butbefore that, I have to establish the finality of the judgment, Your Honor. Afterwards, we will show youthat 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. Thank you, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Proceed.Mr. Roy. So, you told me that it was resolved by order of the court, on what date, MadamWitness?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 datedSeptember 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 asExhibit Eleven “O” (“OOOOOOOOOOO”).The Presiding Officer. Granted.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 Motionfor 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 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Roy. Did the accused file anything?Ms. Cristi. No, Sir.Mr. Roy. Did the accused oppose?Ms. Cristi. No, Sir.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 forReconsideration?Ms. Cristi. It is already final.Mr. Roy. It is final. As of when?Ms. Cristi. As of—15 days from receipt.Mr. Roy. And, according to your records, what date is that, Madam Witness? What is the dateof 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 appearedto be registry receipt return cards which indicate that they were received on September 26, 2002, andI 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 DefenseExhibit “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 asExhibit 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.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. This decision against Jose Basa, et al. became final and executory.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right. Was it executed?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 17Mr. 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?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Sir.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 theWrit 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.The Presiding Officer. All right.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 1—the 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 BranchClerk 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 hukumangBranch 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 bagomaibigay o bago mabigay ng korte ang Writ of Execution, nagkaroon po dito ng Notice of

18 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Withdrawal ang counsel ng akusado na si Jose Ma. Basa at mayroong pleading na sinabmit sacourt. 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 poang dokumentong ito?Your Honor please, just to help the witness, we have a copy of the Motion to Withdraw filed bythe 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 officeof Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar. This is dated December 20, 2002. Do you confirm this, MadamWitness?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Ma’am.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, Ma’am.Ms. Roxas. So, pinatotohanan po ninyo itong Motion to Withdraw.Ms. Cristi. Yes, Ma’am.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.The Presiding Officer. All right.Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, maaari po ba ninyong tingnan ang lahat ng mgadokumentong kalakip dito sa Motion to Withdraw na ito? Tama po ba na sa kahuli-hulihangpahina ng motion na ito ay mayroong isang sulat na may petsang November 26, 2002 at angpumirma 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 hindina ang magiging abogado ng akusado.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, with all due respect....The Presiding Officer. Let the lawyer finish first.Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.Ms. Roxas. Can you read, Madam Witness? Maaari po bang basahin ninyo ang unang talatang sulat na ini-attach para kay Atty. Raymond Fortun?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 19Ms. Cristi. “One of the things that we had to go through, after Dad’s passing, aside from theemotional 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“Dad’s 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 niyana “Dad’s 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 JoseMa. Basa.Ms. Cristi. Opo.Ms. Roxas. Ayon kay Ana Basa na anak ng akusadong si Jose Ma. Basa.Ms. Cristi. Yes, Ma’am.Ms. Roxas. Your Honor please, may we ask that this particular paragraph be marked as ExhibitEleven “R-1” (“RRRRRRRRRRR-1”).Sinabi po ninyo, Madam Witness, na alam ninyo na ito ay isang libel case. Alam po ba ninyokung sinu-sino ang mga partido sa kasong ito?Ms. Cristi. Alam ko po.Ms. Roxas. Alam po ninyo kung ano ang kanilang relasyon sa isa’t isa?Ms. Cristi. Nabasa ko po sa records.Ms. Roxas. Ang private complainant po sa kasong ito ay si Cristina Corona.Ms. Cristi. Opo.Ms. Roxas. Alam po ba ninyo kung ano ang kaniyang relasyon sa namatay na JoseMa. 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 kungsaan sinabi niya na namatay. Ang private complainant po ba dito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona, sinabipo ba niya na ang kaniyang uncle o tiyo ay namatay?Ms. Cristi. Wala po akong nabasang ganoon.Ms. Roxas. Sapagkat sa ibang kaso—marami po kasing kaso ang mga Basa—at sa isangkaso mayroon pong sinabmit (submit) si Mrs. Cristina Corona na kung saan sinabi niya na si JoseMa. Basa ay namatay noong August 2002....

20 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. 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 theCounsel 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 angpetitioners ay si Asuncion Basa Roco at si Cristina Roco Corona, at ito ay may date....Ito ay ibinigaysa 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 passedaway 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 certificateni 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 provisionallymarked for the prosecution as Exhibit Eleven “S” (“SSSSSSSSSSS”).The Presiding Officer. Granted.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 Defenseas Exhibit “250”, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Granted.Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, klaro dito na hindi lamang sinabi ng abogado ngakusado na siya ay nag-withdraw, sinabi niya rito na base sa impormasyon ng kanyang anaknamatay ang kaniyang ama.Pagkatapos noon, just a few days after that, si Mrs. Corona mismo nag-notify sa ibang kasona 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 competencyof the Witness, who is the Branch Clerk of Quezon City.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 21Ms. Roxas. Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer.Ms. Roxas. Already answered, Your Honor, please. That there was actual notice given not onlyby 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.The Presiding Officer. Okay.Ms. Roxas. Now, Madam Witness, sinabi ninyo na nagkaroon ng Writ of Execution?Ms. Cristi. Yes, Ma’am.Ms. Roxas. Now, nagtataka lamang po ako. Kasi kung may notice na po ang korte atmismong ang private complainant dito na si Mrs. Cristina Corona ay alam na ang akusado mismoay 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....The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer.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 basedon the Motion for Issuance of Writ is April 24, 2003. In the middle of all these things, sa gitnang mga pangyayaring ito, bago nagkaroon ng issuance of Writ of Execution, nagkaroon ng noticeof 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. Cristi. Tama po.Ms. Roxas. Then, kung ang notice of death ay ibinigay na sa korte, papaano pong nangyarina nagkaroon pa ng Writ of Execution. Hindi po ba dapat under the Rules of Court, ang dapatpong mangyari ang private prosecution, for example, dapat na mag-submit ng separate action parasa civil indemnity na limang daang libong piso (P500,000.00)? Nangyari po ba iyon sa kasongito? Nagkaroon ba ng filing ng separate case dahil sa pagkamatay ni Jose Ma. Basa?Ms. Cristi. Wala po.Ms. Roxas. Wala. At actually ang nangyari, na-issue ang Writ of Execution under the Orderdated April 24, 2003. Actually, namatay si Jose Ma. Basa during the pendency of the Motion for

22 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Reconsideration 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-file pa rinpo sila ng Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution against the accused Jose Ma. Basa and his wifeRandy 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.Ms. Cristi. Tama po.The Presiding Officer. Yes.Mr. Cuevas. The question, Your Honor, should have been addressed to the judge of record. Sheis 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 thatthe 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 basicrules 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 hasno power nor any authority to prevent the judge from acting one way or another, either denying orgranting 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 isnot 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 deathof 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.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 23Mr. 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 thatthe 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 mgadokumento na nagsabi na si Ana Basa sinabing ang tatay niya ay namatay at sinabi rin mismoito ni Cristina Corona na ang uncle niya ay namatay. This date is on August 29, 2002. I think thelast 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 Reconsiderationwas issued?Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, that is a matter of judicial notice.Ms. Roxas. This is a very simple question, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer.Ms. Cristi. Yes, Ma’am.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 ofthe RTC of Quezon City.Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request for one minute to fetch the witness.The Presiding Officer. Granted.Mr. Roy. Thank you.The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please rise. Please raise your right hand.

24 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this Impeachmentproceeding?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.The Presiding Officer. Granted.Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, again, I would like to present Mr. Bisnar in order to establish the executionof the decision testified to by the previous witness. And, again, I would like to, in the course of statingthe purpose for which we are offering his testimony, invite the Prosecution to admit the same if theyare 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 ofQuezon 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 ofthe Writ of Execution.The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Roy. Secondly, his testimony is offered to establish that he was the one who executed theWrit 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. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right.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 twentyfivethousand pesos (P25,000.00).The Presiding Officer. Sold for the price of P25,000.Mr. Roy. At public auction, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 25The Presiding Officer. Yes.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) wereissued.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 the Record?Mr. Roy. I do not have the list with me right now, Your Honor, but may I be allowed to submitthem through a manifestation?The Presiding Officer. Yes.Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.Your Honor, the second…The Presiding Officer. Who were the registered owners of this four thousand seven hundredtwenty-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 werealso 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 auctionedoff 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 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. 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 theremainder.The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed.Mr. Roy. And that this four thousand seven hundred twenty-nine (4,729) shares and the onehundred 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 wassold at public auction for twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00) to one Carla Corona Castillo, thedaughter of the Chief Justice.Mr. Ginez. We admit, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right.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?Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.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 tothe Court that whatever it is was done with the so-called Basa-Guidote funds will, in effect, be capableof ratification by the purchaser of the shares as the virtually the sole stockholder.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 27The 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, YourHonor.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 Honor—on the fact of the issuanceof the Certificate of Sale in favor of Carla Castillo, subject to cross, Your Honor.Mr. Roy. All right.Now, we also…Your Honor, then that is…The Presiding Officer. By the way—Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.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 fourthousand 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.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Three percent was the minority?Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.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 acquiredby either the Chief Justice or his daughter. They remain in the hands of the—if I am not mistaken, someof the siblings of Mrs…The Presiding Officer. Is the corporation liquidated?Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. It has not been liquidated.

28 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012The 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 previously—ah, 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 respect—the certificate of sale isconstrued as the transfer of the shares of stock. The registration of the sale, Your Honor, has not beencompleted because up to this time, the stock and transfer book has neither been located norreconstituted.The Presiding Officer. Then who voted—who are the stockholders who voted to authorize thesale 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 corporationceased 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 wasissued by the board of directors, not by the stockholders. It is the board of directors, a 14-year oldauthorization by the board of directors, not the stockholders, Mr. President. Just for the record.Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. So, it is not the stockholders’ consent.The Presiding Officer. Anyway, you are all great corporation lawyers. You better study thisangle, ha?Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, that is correct. The board of directors who issued that authorizationwere 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 theshares of the Basa-Guidote Corporation are now owned by Carla Corona-Castillo, the daughter of theChief Justice. And if—

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 29The Presiding Officer. And so, the money went to—the proceeds of the sale of the propertyof 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 sheentrusted the management of the funds.The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, we will come to that, but I will tell you, my understandingof 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.Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor.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 afternoon po.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 please—puwede niyo bang sabihin sa amin, ano pong ginagawa niyo pagpinapatupad ninyo po iyong—noong pinatupad niyo po itong Writ of Execution na pinag-uusapanpo rito?Mr. Bisnar. Noong una po, nagpa-receive po ako ng kopya ng Writ of Execution. Sa casepo nito, sinabay ko na po ang pag-serve ng Writ of Execution at saka Notice of Garnishment po.Mr. Roy. Mayroon pa po ba kayong ibang ginagawa sa pagpapatupad po nitong mga Writof Execution?Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Pag natanggap na po iyong Writ of Execution at saka iyong Notice ofGarnishment at mayroon pong makukuha—mayroon po silang ibinigay na, in this case po, iyongmay stock sila na binibigay na puwedeng i-garnish, sinet (set) ko po for auction sale iyong sharesof 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 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Bisnar. On the day of the auction sale po?Mr. Roy. Kung maari lang, pakisalaysay lahat ng paraan kung papaano ninyo po inaanunsiyoiyong auction sale. Although alam naman natin iyan, papaano ninyo ba ginagawa iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Pagka na-receive na po iyong notice of sheriff’s sale, i-se-set po ang sale forauction, 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 ba—sandali lang. Hindi ba mayroong publication iyan saperyodiko?Mr. Bisnar. In this case po, wala po dahil—The Presiding Officer. Bakit?Mr. Bisnar. —posting lang po ito.The Presiding Officer. Ha?Mr. Bisnar. Ang publication po 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 board po 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 petsangnakatakda 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 Writof Execution matapos ninyo pong i-post iyong notice doon sa bulletin board?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 31Mr. Bisnar. Noong September 30 nga po, noong bandang o bago mag ika-sampu po ngumaga, bumaba ho ako sa lobby ng Hall of Justice at doon po ay tinanong ko kung mayroon mgainteresadong 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 Castillo po.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 ipatupadninyo 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 nila—lawyer 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 nagsabina sila ay interesado—sino ho ang nagsabing interesado siya doon sa binebenta ninyong mgashares of stock?Mr. Bisnar. Si Carla Castillo po.Mr. Roy. Si Carla Castillo. Ano po ang ginawa ninyo noong nagsabi siya na siya ayinteresado?Mr. Bisnar. Noong isinigaw ko nga po na may interested na bidder, eh noong wala pongibang sumasagot, sinimulan ko na po iyong auction sale. At pagkatapos po noon, nag-bid ngapo si Carla Castillo.Mr. Roy. Ano po ang bid niya kung inyong natatandaan?Mr. Bisnar. Ang bid po niya for the total shares eh P28,000 po.Mr. Roy. Magkano po iyong pinatutupad ninyo pong …The Presiding Officer.Magkano, magkano?

32 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Bisnar. Twenty-eight thousand pesos po.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 have—actually I havethe 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 P483,900worth of shares at par value.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. And given the value of the property at that time of the sale which was soldat 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.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.Well, Your Honor, I am sorry but the—Well, that is the par value. The shares were merelysubscribed, 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-bid po ng P28,000 at wala naman pong ibang bidders na, in-awardna 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 stock na in-auction?Mr. Bisnar. Opo, bale ho siya ang nanalo.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 33The 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.Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.Pagkatapos pong na-award sa kanya, ano po ang ginawa niyo?Mr. Bisnar. Nag-issue po ako ng receipt on behalf of Mrs. Corona. Iyon nga po, ginawa koang receipt po tapos pinirmahan po ni Mrs. Corona.Mr. Roy. Maaari niyo bang ipaliwanag sa amin, ano ho ba ang ibig sabihin noong receiptna in-issue?The Presiding Officer. Look, ha, may I just—Ang bumili noong shares of stock, anak ni Mrs.Corona?Mr. Bisnar. Opo, si Carla Castillo po.The Presiding Officer. Ang tumanggap noong pera doon sa anak na bumili noong sharesof stock ang nanay, si Mrs. Corona, di ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.The Presiding Officer. At sang-ayon sa mga dokumento na nandito na sa ImpeachmentCourt, si Mrs. Corona ay ahente noong korporasyon upang ipagbili iyong lupa. Samakatuwid,alam niya ang presyo noong lupa na ipinagbibili niya.All right. Proceed.Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.So, nag-issue po kayo ng receipt mula kay Mrs. Corona katibayan ng pagbayad po noongshares, tama po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Roy. Tapos meron pa po ba kayong ginawa? Ano pang dokumento ang inisyu niyo sakanila?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 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. 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 wasmentioned 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 that x amountfor 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 beno objection from the Prosecution.The Presiding Officer. Mark it.Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor.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 sheriff ng 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 sheriff sa 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 nasa loob ng 16 years na pagiging sheriff po ninyo, kayo ay bihasa at alam na alam na ninyo angmga alituntunin at patakaran ng pagpapa-implement ng Writ of Execution, hindi po ba?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 35Mr. 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 Executionmarked as Exhibit “178” of the Defendants…Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. …of the Respondent. Ito pong Writ of Execution na pinirmahan noong judge ngkorteng ito, ay kayo ay inaatasan na ito ay i-implement particularly ang award of civil damages sadalawang 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 ofExecution ay kailangan ninyong i-familiarize at alamin ang mga nangyari bago ma-isyu iyung Writof 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 langpo ang tanging importante.Mr. Ginez. Kanina po sa isang testigo ay inilabas ng Prosecution ang isang Motion toWithdraw na ipinayl (file) ng dating abogado ni Jose Maria Basa III, at iyung kalakip doon saMotion to Withdraw ay ang sulat ni Anna Basa sa abogado na Fortun-Narvasa-Salazar. Ipapakitako 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.The Presiding Officer. Okay.Go ahead.Mr. Ginez. Tama po bang sabihin, Sheriff, na nalaman ninyo na ang pagkaka-file nitongMotion to Withdraw at ang kalakip na sulat ni Ana Basa sa korte na nagsasabi na ang kanyangtatay, isa sa mga akusado na pinagbabayad dito sa korteng ito ng limang daan libong piso, aypatay 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 pagi-implementng Writ of Execution, alam po ba ninyo ang Section 7, Rule 39 ng Rules of Courtregarding execution in case of death of party?

36 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Ito po, babasahin ko sa inyo, particularly po iyung paragraph (d), “In case of death of thejudgment obligor against his executor or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be forthe 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 napagalamanninyo na ang akusado sa kasong ito ay namatay na depende ang gagawin ninyo kungang inuutos ng korte ay recovery of real property or personal property or for— pinagbabayad siyang 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 Executionay pinagbabayad siya ng pera kagaya sa korteng ito ng P500,000, hindi po ba pag patay na angakusado, hindi na po puwedeng i-implement ang writ of execution?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko—in this case po, hindi ko naman alam na patay na.Mr. Ginez. Pero alam po ba ninyo na ang ipinag-uutos ng batas—ng Rule 39 at ng Section5, Rule 86 ng Rules of Court na pag ang utos eh sabi ko nga sa inyo, pinagbabayad ng sum ofmoney, ang Writ of Execution sa isang patay na ay hindi na dapat ginagawa, hindi po ba? Alampo ninyo iyan.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko—hindi ho ako masyadong familiar doon.Mr. Ginez. Akala ko po kanina, Sheriff, sabi ninyo hindi kayo bihasa pero sabi ninyomarunong 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 didnot know.The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko nga ho alam yung tungkol sa rule na iyon na ano.Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ninyo alam.Mr. Bisnar. Oho.Mr. Ginez. Wala pa pong pagkakataon na kayo ay naisyuhan ng Writ of Execution na angisang party ay patay na?Mr. Bisnar. Ang pagkakatanda ko po wala po. Wala po.Mr. Ginez. So, ito ang unang pagkakataon ngayong nalaman ninyo na na si Jose Maria BasaIII ay patay na bago ma-issue yung Writ of Execution?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Ito ang unang pagkakataon?Mr. Bisnar. Opo. Ngayon ko pa lang po nalaman.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 37Mr. Ginez. Ngayon, itong Rules of Court po natin ay mayroon ding specific na section kungpapaano natin i-implement ang isang tinatawag na “judgment for money” at ito ay nakalagay saSection 9, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Bago po tayo pumunta diyan, hindi po ba, Sheriff, kayo po ay nag-issue ngsheriff’s report sa mga ginawa po ninyo?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. At ito po ay dated March 16, 2012.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Kailan nga po ba ninyo ginawa yung auction sale dito?Mr. Bisnar. 2003 po.Mr. Ginez. 2003 at kayo ay nagbigay ng sheriff’s report, 2012. Ilang taon po ang nakaraanbago kayo nakagawa ng sheriff’s report?Mr. Bisnar. Siyam po.Mr. Ginez. Ipapakita ko po sa inyo ang sheriff’s report, certified true xerox copy ni Atty. LucitaD. Masangcay ...Mr. Roy. Your Honor, we admit the sheriff’s report. We admit the date as well.Mr. Ginez. We request that it be marked as our Exhibit Eleven “T” (“TTTTTTTTTTT”), YourHonor.The Presiding Officer. Granted.Mr. Roy. May we likewise adopt the exhibit as Defense Exhibit “252”, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Granted.Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba nakalagay dito sa ating Rules of Court, ito po kasi ang atinpong kumbaga tawagin nating biblia nating mga abogado at mga sheriff, hindi po ba nakalagaypo dito sa sheriff’s report—sa Rules of Court natin at babasahin ko po para sa inyong benefit:Section 14. Return of Writ of Execution. — The writ of execution shall be returnable to the courtissuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full.Hindi po ba ang itinatakda at ang iniuutos sa inyo ng Rules of Court natin sa binasa ko ayimmediately, whether partial or full ang satisfaction?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Ang siyam na taon po ba ay immediate, Sheriff?Mr. Bisnar. Kung puwede po akong magpaliwanag, may...Mr. Ginez. Katungkulan po iyan ng abogado ng Depensa para kayo ay magpaliwanag.Salamat po, Sheriff.

38 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Sir.Mr. Ginez. Now, Sheriff, hindi po ba dito sa ating Rules of Court pag mayroon kayongmga hindi ginawa na hindi ayon sa ating Rules of Court kayo ay puwedeng makasuhano mapagbayad? Ito po ay babasahin ko, tatanungin ko lang po sa inyo kung alam ninyo ito.Ito po ay ang Section 17.“Penalty for Selling Without Notice or Removing or Defacing Notice. An officer selling without thenotice prescribed by Section 15 of this Rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in the amount ofP5,000 to any person injured thereby, in addition to his actual damages, both to be recovered bymotion in the same action.”Ngayon, Sheriff, in connection dito sa binasa ko, sabi ninyo sa pamamagitan at sa pagsagotsa tanong ng abugado ng Depensa, kayo ay nag-posting?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba tama na sabihin natin na ang lahat ng ating mga ginawasa execution, ‘di po ba dapat iyan ay nakalagay sa ating sheriff’s report?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Dapat lahat, anumang detalye, dahil ito ay tinatakda ng ating Revised Rules ofCourt at ito ay napaka-importante dahil ang sinasabi ng mga desisyon ay dapat mandatorilycomplied all requirements of execution in order that the said execution and subsequent sale shall bevalid, hindi po ba dapat nandiyan lahat sa inyong sheriff’s report, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Dapat po, siguro po.Mr. Ginez. Pakibasa nga po ninyo, dalawang pahina ninyo na sheriff’s report. Pakibasa poninyo at tingnan po ninyo ang sheriff’s report. Nandiyan po, ibinigay ko ho sa inyo iyong certifiedtrue copy.Mr. Bisnar. Sheriff’s report po.Mr. Ginez. Opo.Mr. Bisnar. Mayroon po akong kopya.Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ba, Sheriff—basahin po ninyong maigi line by line—wala kayongsinasabi diyan sa sheriff’s report na kayo ay nag-posting ng notice of sheriff’s sale ng mga nasabingshares of stock?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko nga ho nailagay.Mr. Ginez. Salamat po.So pinapaalalahanan ko po kayo, na kayo ay puwedeng maging liable ng punitive damages ngP5,000 and actual damages sa ginawa po ninyong pagbebenta na walang notice.Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, with the kind permission of the Honorable Court, maywe be referred most specifically with the section involved? We are trying to locate that any and allthings that took place must be recorded in the sheriff’s report.We accidentally now—have been teaching the subject.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 39The Presiding Officer. Counsel may do so.Mr. Cuevas. Ano ho bang section iyon?Mr. Ginez. Section 17. We cited Section 17 insofar as the punitive and actual damages,Your Honor.Mr. Cuevas. Rule 39?Mr. Ginez. Rule 39, Your Honor. Insofar as all matters taken up in the execution should bestated in the sheriff’s report and that is….Mr. Cuevas. With the permission of the Court, where is that particular statement that thesheriff must….The Presiding Officer. The Counsel said Rule 39, Section 17.Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We were trying to inform ourselves again of Section 17, wesee nothing to that effect. That is the basis of our observation. That the sheriff must include any andall acts performed by him, for instance, the posting of the notice and everything which must be madeimmediately. We do not see that in the….May we be allowed to read Section 17, Your Honor?The Presiding Officer. Proceed.Mr. Cuevas. “Penalty for Selling Without Notice, or Removing or Defacing Notice.” They areentirely a different subject matter, Your Honor.“Selling Without Notice, or Removing, or Defacing Notice—An officer selling without thenotice prescribed by Section 15 of the rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in theamount of P5,000 to any person injured thereby, in addition to his actual damages, both tobe recovered by a motion in the same action and a person willfully removing or defacing thenotice posted, if done before the sale, or before the satisfaction of the judgment if it be satisfiedbefore the sale, shall be liable to pay P5,000 to any person injured by reason thereof inaddition to his actual damages to be recovered.”So there is nothing mentioned in here that the sheriff is under legal obligation to place in the sheriff’sreport all the proceeding and the action taken by him. That is our point of observation, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. He is under cross.Mr. Ginez. Yes, thank you, Your Honor.I will go to another point actually, Your Honor.Sheriff, di ba tinanong ko kayo kanina na ang utos sa inyo ng korte, ng Branch 216, aypagbayarin si Jose Maria Basa at iyong mga kasama niyang mga akusadong na-convict nglimang daang libong piso. And you will agree with me na ito po ay isang judgment for money, hindipo ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. At ito po ay covered ng Section 9, Rule 39 ng Rules of Court. Hindi po ba, sheriff?Natatandaan ninyo po ba iyan?

40 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Bisnar. Section 9 po, hindi ko na natatandaan.Mr. Ginez. Ang paragraph (a) po niyan ang nakalagay dito, Immediate Payment on Demand.Babasahin ko po para sa inyong kapakinabangan.“The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from thejudgment obligor the immediate payment of the lawful amounts stated in the Writ of Executionand all lawful fees.”Sheriff, hindi po ba sinabi ninyo kanina sa pagtatanong ng abogado ng Defensa na angginawa ninyo ay isinerb (serve) ninyo iyong Writ of Execution noong.... Tama po bang sabihin nanoong araw ding iyon ay isinerb (serve) ninyo ang Notice of Garnishment.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. So, magsasang-ayon po ba kayo sa akin na hindi ninyo tinupad ang sinasabinoong paragraph (a) ng Section 9 na kailangan muna na kayo ay mag-demand na bayaran ngkung sinumang akusado ang nakalagay sa Writ of Execution? Wala po kayong ginawa naganoon. Hindi po ba, Sheriff?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Kasi wala roon iyong akusado.Mr. Ginez. Wala nga po dahil patay na siya, hindi ba?Mr. Bisnar. At that time, hindi ko alam. Ang kuwan doon ay iyong caretaker nila.Mr. Ginez. Okay. Now, in fact, Sheriff, sa korte, nakalagay naman doon kung ano ang mgaaddress ng akusado—sila Raymunda at sila Mario Basa. Hindi ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. At ang kanilang address po ay Libis, Quezon City, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Eh, iyong Writ of Execution po ninyo at ang Notice of Garnishment eh sinerb(serve) ninyo sa 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila. Tama po ba iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Tama po. Kasi po sa mga returns po ng mga order ng court at saka mga notices,ang returns doon ay unknown na iyong mga akusado sa lugar na iyon.Mr. Ginez. Maitanong ko po, Sheriff. Sino po ba ang nagsabi sa inyo na ang Basa-GuidoteEnterprises na ito ay nasa 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila? Ang private complainant po ba rito,si Cristina Corona?Mr. Bisnar. Ang nagsabi po yata noon ay ang lawyers nila.Mr. Ginez. Ang lawyers ni Cristina Corona.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Natatandaan ninyo po ito, tandang-tanda ninyo?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. At ito po, Sheriff, ay tinanggap ninyo na hook, line, and sinker kumbaga. Iyon ngaba ang ibig ninyong sabihin?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 41Mr. Bisnar. Ang alin po?Mr. Ginez. Na ang Basa-Guidote Enterprises ay nasa 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila.Mr. Bisnar. Dahil iyon po ang ibinigay nung information nila.Mr. Ginez. Hindi na po kayo nagsiyasat sa ating Securities and Exchange Commission kungsaan nga ba talaga itong sinasabi nilang Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi na po.Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ninyo nalaman na ang Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. ay nasa 903Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila. Hindi na ninyo nalaman iyan?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi na po.Mr. Ginez. Dahil hindi na kayo nagsiyasat sa SEC. Hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po.Mr. Ginez. Kayo ay naniwala na sa mga abogado ni Cristina Corona.Mr. Bisnar. Opo. At saka po ang sumagot po roon sa Notice of Garnishment ay assistantcorporate secretary ng Basa-Guidote.Mr. Ginez. Ito po ay si Cristina Corona.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Sinabi niya sa inyo na siya ay assistant corporate secretary.Mr. Bisnar. Ang sabi ng records po.Mr. Ginez. Oo. Hindi ninyo na rin ito inalam sa SEC na totoo nga ba kaya na siya ayassistant corporate secretary.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na po inalam.Mr. Ginez. Again, you accepted it hook, line, and sinker kung ano ang sinabi sa inyo niGinang Corona. Ano ang sagot po ninyo, Sheriff?Mr. Bisnar. Opo, dahil iyon ang isinabmit (submit) niyang records sa court.Mr. Ginez. Ngayon, noong nagpunta po kayo rito sa sinasabing Basa-Guidote Enterprises,Inc., 901 Lepanto St., Sampaloc, Manila, sasang-ayon po kayo sa akin na ito ay hindi opisina,hindi ba?Mr. Bisnar. Matagal na po iyon pero iyon nga po, lumang bahay siya.Mr. Ginez. Lumang bahay. Hindi ninyo po ba napag-alam o sinabi man lamang sa inyoni Ginang Corona na iyong 901 Lepanto Street, Sampaloc, Manila, ay iyon ang bahay, lumangbahay o ancestral house noong kanyang mga magulang? Hindi po ba niya sinabi sa inyo iyan?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po niya sinabi.Mr. Ginez. So, pagdating po ninyo doon, sa lumang bahay, sa 901 Lepanto Street, walakayong nakita doon na karatula na Basa-Guidote Enterprises.

42 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na po matandaan kung mayroon man o wala.Mr. Ginez. Okay. So, wala rin kayong mga nakitang empleyado doon o mga office workersdoon, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Ang lumabas lamang po nga iyong caretaker po.Mr. Ginez. Caretaker. Ito po ba ay si Celebrada C. Pardines?Mr. Bisnar. Iyon po ang pakilala niya sa akin.Mr. Ginez. Pakilala niya, at hindi niya kilala kung sinuman, kung sino si Jose Maria BasaIII, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Pagkatanda ko po, ang sabi po niya, bihira lamang po pumunta doon, parangganoon.Mr. Ginez. At hindi taga-doon si Jose Maria Basa, sinabi niya sa inyo?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po niya sinabi iyon.Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba kapag ang sinasabi ng ating Revised Rules of Court na kapagshares of stocks ang ating ii-implement or ang ating iga-garnish eh dapat susundin natin ang Rule57, Section 7, paragraph C. Basahin ko po sa inyo dahil baka hindi po ninyo naaalala. “Stocksor shares or an interest....” Basahin ko po muna ito: “Section 7. Attachment of Real and PersonalProperty Recording Thereof. Real and personal property shall be attached by the sheriff, executing thewrit in the following manner: C) Stocks or shares or an interest in stocks or shares of any corporationor company by leaving with the president or managing agent thereof, a copy of the writ and a noticestating that the stock or interest of the party against whom the attachment is issued is attached inpursuance of such writ.” Ang tanong ko muna, preliminary, Sheriff, hindi po ito ang unangpagkakataon na kayo po ay nagga-garnish ng isang shares of stocks o nagle-levy ng isang sharesof stocks, hindi po ba?Mr. Roy. Objection, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. What is the basis?Mr. Roy. Misleading, Your Honor. The rule pertains to attachment.The Presiding Officer. What is misleading?Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the rule cited by counsel is the Rule on Attachment. The sheriff is testifyingon execution. These are two entirely different rules.Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, the Revised Rules of Court provides that if the property to be leviedis a personal property or shares of stocks. Your Honor, it specifically says that it will be attached inaccordance with the same rules that provide for the preliminary attachment. That is basic, I can citethe rule.The Presiding Officer. Objection overruled.Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor.So, may tanong po ako, Sheriff. Hindi po ito ang unang pagkakataon na kayo po ay naglevyng shares of stocks ng isang kumpanya sa loob ng inyong 16 years bilang isang sheriff?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 43Mr. Cuevas. The question is vague, levy under what? Levy under execution or levy underattachment because levy is....Mr. Ginez. I will clarify again, Your Honor.Mr. Cuevas. Kindly clarify.The Presiding Officer. May I request the Counsel to let the question to be finished?Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. I will clarify.Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ito ang unang pagkakataon, Sheriff, na kayo ay nag-levy by executionng shares of stocks ng isang kumpanya, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Sa pagkakatanda ko po, ito po ang first time, ang shares of stocks.Mr. Ginez. Sa loob po ng 16 na taon, ito po ang unang pagkakataon, Sheriff?Mr. Bisnar. Sa pagkakatanda ko po.Mr. Ginez. Maaaring may nangyari na in the past pero hindi ninyo na matatandaan, tamapo ba iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po akong matandaan.Mr. Ginez. Now, ang sinasabi po dito sa binasa ko kanina, paragraph C of Section 7, Rule57, na ang levying ng shares of stock ay dapat iniiwan po ninyo sa presidente or managingagent ng kumpanya. Dito ba sa inyong notice of garnishment, kanino po ba ninyo iniwan angnotice of garnishment?Mr. Cuevas. Again, with the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court, Your Honor, we haveobjected to this question because the provision of law cited is levy under attachment. This is not anattachment, this is levy under execution, and therefore, is governed by Rule 39, You Honor. There isentirely a lot of difference. In attachment, it is preventive. In levy under execution....The Presiding Officer. Let the Prosecution answer that objection.Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, I will cite the rule.Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we go a little further, with the kind permission ofthe Court?The Presiding Officer. Proceed.Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we invite the attention of the Honorable Court thatRule 57 is strictly applicable only in cases of preliminary attachment. The formalities therein referredto refers to attachment. And what we have in question now is not an attachment but a levy underexecution. So, the formalities required by Rule 57 do not apply in cases of execution. That is our point,Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. That is why I am asking the Counsel to answer you.Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

44 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Ginez. It is found, Your Honor, in Section 9, Execution of Judgments for Money, HowEnforced, and this is under paragraph (b), Satisfaction by Levy. And I direct the attention of theesteemed Counsel of the Defendant on subparagraph (4), and it states, I read it for the record: “Realproperty, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other personal property or any interest in either real orpersonal property may be levied upon in like manner and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.”The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Ginez. So, maybe, Justice Cuevas has forgotten his rules, Your Honor. [Laughter]Mr. Cuevas. I have been teaching the subject for no less than three decades, Your Honor. Andthe law, together with the jurisprudence and the point, is very specific. You do not apply the rule onattachment. What the law simply means by the levy could be effected similar to that of attachment ismerely an analogy of the process that will have to be undertaken. But, definitely, the rule on attachmentdoes not apply in execution.The Presiding Officer. At any rate, this will be evaluated by the Court. What is material hereis, he is testing the credibility of this Witness. Because even the Court is interested to find out whetherindeed there was machination in the....to be frank about it, whether there was machination in the saleof the shares.Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We are very appreciative for the Court going that far.The Presiding Officer. That is the understanding of this Chair with the tendency of the questions.Mr. Cuevas. But if the Court will notice, Your Honor, and with the kind indulgence of the Court,the question before was predicated on Rule 57, not on this particular rule that he is now citing.The Presiding Officer. Anyway, let us not wrangle on this. We are all intelligent people.We will take that into account. Let the Witness answer.Mr. Cuevas. What is the question now?Mr. Ginez. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, Sheriff, ay iyong Notice of Garnishment ninyo na nakaaddresspo doon sa Basa-Guidote Enterprises ay hindi po nai-serve sa presidente o sa managingagent nito, hindi po ba? At ang totoo ay sa isang, sabi ninyo, caretaker lamang ng bahay na iyon.Mr. Bisnar. Opo, pero may sumagot po na officer ng Basa-Guidote.Mr. Ginez. Iyon. Pupunta po tayo doon, Sheriff. So, pagkatapos po ninyong mai-serve angNotice of Garnishment, ang sabi po ninyo ay may sumagot na “officer” ng Basa-Guidote?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Ito po ay si Cristina Roco Corona, Assistant Corporate Secretary, sa pamamagitanng isang sulat na ibinigay sa inyo.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. And this was marked by the Defense, Your Honor, as Exhibit “179”.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. At hindi po ba, Sheriff, na si—at alam ninyo na si Cristina Roco Corona ay siyarin ang private complainant sa kasong ito?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 45Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Siya rin ang iniuutos ng Korte, ng Branch 216, na babayaran kung sakalingmare-recover ninyo iyong P500,000.00, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Ngayon, Sheriff, dito sa Reply ni Ginang Corona, ang sinasabi sa inyo, and Iwould like to quote it for the record, Your Honor, if I will be allowed. “In reply to the notice ofgarnishment dated May 14, 2003, please be informed that based on records submitted by the accusedin Court, the stockholdings claimed by Jose Maria Basa III and Raymunda G. Basa in Basa-GuidoteEnterprises Inc. are as follows:Stockholder Raymunda Basa, number of shares — 110, amount — P11,000; Jose Maria Basa III,number of shares — 4,729, amount — P472,900 or a total of P4,839 shares in the amount ofP483,900.”Ang tanong ko po sa inyo, Sheriff, noong ibinigay po ito ni Ginang Corona, ito po aytinanggap ninyo na as gospel truth?Mr. Bisnar. Dahil wala naman....Sila ho ang title niya doon sa corporation eh wala namanakong dahilan para hindi paniwalaan iyon.Mr. Ginez. Hindi po kayo nagpunta sa Securities and Exchange Commission?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po.Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Gng. Cristina Corona na siya ay nag-file ngisang petisyon sa Korte, sa probate court, na ang sinasabi niya sa korte na iyon, ang nagmamayaring shares of stocks or about 87% ng shares of stocks ng Basa-Guidote Enterprises ay angkanyang lola na si Asuncion Roco? Hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ito?Mr. Cuevas. Before the Witness answers, may he be served with a copy of the alleged pleading,Your Honor, the alleged statement of fact appearing in the pleading.The Presiding Officer. If the Prosecution has, please show the pleading.Mr. Ginez. We reserve, Your Honor, that the voluminous records that we have, unfortunately,we did not bring the petition for probate but it is a fact, Your Honor, that there was a probate....Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Court, therefore, we will move to strike out thequestion, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Let it stay in the record.Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Lacson?Senator Lacson. I am sorry to interject, Mr. President. Interesado lamang po ako. Ito pongmga kapanahunan na pinag-uusapan natin, kung alam ng Counsel ng Prosecution or ng Defense,may katungkulan po ba sa gobyerno si Chief Justice Corona? Siya po ba ay private citizen or kungmay katungkulan man, ano po ba ang katungkulan niya itong mga panahon na ating dini-discusssa ngayon?Mr. Ginez. Mayroon na pong katungkulan.Senator Lacson. Ano po iyon?

46 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Ginez. Noon pong 2001, ay naging Assistant Presidential Legal Counsel po, kung hindipo ako nagkakamali.Senator Lacson. Ito pong panahon na may mga writ of execution, ano po ang katungkulanniya, kung mayroon man?Mr. Ginez. Ang katungkulan na po niya, siya na po ay isang Associate Justice ng SupremeCourt.Senator Lacson. Maraming salamat po.The Presiding Officer. You know, Sheriff,—Mr. Bisnar. Opo.The Presiding Officer. —noon bang nalaman ninyo na iyong nangangatawan ng CorporationBasa-Guidote ay isang babaeng nagngangalang Cristina Corona, alam ba ninyo kung ano angkanyang relasyon sa Justice Renato Corona ng Korte Suprema?Mr. Bisnar. Noong panahon pong iyon hindi ko po alam, noong panahong iyon.The Presiding Officer. A, hindi mo alam noong panahon na iyon.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi pa po.The Presiding Officer. O, sige.Mr. Ginez. The Defense, Your Honor, is asking for a copy of the petition: In the Matter of theProbate of the Will of Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa. Petitioners: Asuncion Basa Roco and CristinaRoco Corona, Special Proceeding No. 95-76331 and raffled to and assigned to Regional Trial Court,Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Your Honor.Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, with the kind indulgence of the Court. I am not asking fora copy. Since the cross-examination question is predicated on alleged pleading, it is our stand, YourHonor, that in accordance with the Rules on Evidence, the document must first be shown to theWitness, allow him to read before he answers, Your Honor. We are not asking a copy.Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. We will now allow the Witness to.... Ginoong Sheriff,pinapakita ko po sa inyo itong petition....The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution is instructed to show the document to the Witness.Mr. Ginez. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo kanina, hindi po ba sinabi ni Ginang Corona na siyaay nag-file ng petition na ito sa Regional Trial Court of Manila and in that petition she claimed thatRosario Guidote Vda. De Basa is the owner, and I would like to quote, Your Honor, paragraph 3 ofthe petition: “The estate of the testatrix consists of personal properties in the form of 4,665 shares ofstocks in the corporation registered as Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc., of which only 70 shares weredisposed of as legacies in her will and the household furniture in her residence.” The date of the petitionis November 29, 1995.Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, we will most humbly request that the question besimplified. It is loaded with several subjects. “Hindi ho ba sinabi sa inyo ni Mrs. Corona?”, thenseveral other subjects. It cannot be answered by plain yes or no, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Reform your questions, Counsel, so that there will be no further objection.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 47Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Cristina Corona na siya ay nag-file ng petition saRegional Trial Court, Branch 12?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po siyang nabanggit sa akin.Mr. Ginez. Hindi po ba niya sinabi sa inyo, Ginoong Sheriff, na sa petition po na iyon aysinabi niya sa korte at pinanumpaan niya bilang petitioner na ang nagmamay-ari ng 4,665 sharesnoong Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. ay ang kaniyang lola na si Rosario Guidote Vda. De Basa,hindi ba niya sinabi sa inyo iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po siyang nabanggit.Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, mayroon akong ipapakita sa inyo sa page 3 at saka hanggang page 8 ngcertified true copy ng petition na ito at pakitingnan nga po ninyo, Sheriff? Pakibasa nga po ninyo,Sheriff, kung ano po ang nakalagay diyan?Mr. Cuevas. May we know what the document is all about?Mr. Ginez. The petition for the probate.Mr. Cuevas. And what is the question now? If Your Honor, please, may we know thequestion now?Mr. Ginez. If he knows, Your Honor. If he knows what is written on the petition, Your Honor,if he can read.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko mabasa. Hindi ho maliwanag.The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo mabasa?Mr. Bisnar. Medyo malabo po.Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor. We would like, Your Honor, to manifest that on pages 3, 4, 5,6, 7, and 8, on the top page, it appears to be that this is a facsimile copy, Your Honor, but it is certifiedtrue copy by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12. And it came from the office of Secretary R. C.Corona, Your Honor.We would like to mark, Your Honor....The Presiding Officer. What does it say?Mr. Ginez. It is a faxed document, Your Honor, a copy of the Petition and it came from the officeof Secretary R.C. Corona.The Presiding Officer. Show it to the Defense so that they will—Mr. Cuevas. But what is it, Your Honor, and what is the question now?The Presiding Officer. Let the document be shown to you first and then....Mr. Ginez. May we request for—Senator Sotto. Mr. President, while they are looking over the documents, I move that we suspendthe trial for 15 minutes.The Presiding Officer. All right, the trial is suspended for 15 minutes.

48 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012The trial was suspended at 4:21 p.m.At 4:53 p.m., the session was resumed.The Presiding Officer. The session is resumed.The Floor Leader, what is the status of the case?Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we have the continuation on the document that was beingshown by the Prosecution to the witness.The Presiding Officer. The Defense.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the Counsel for the Prosecution was asking us to admit that the documenthe was holding or presented contains certain words appearing to be the sender of a facsimile.We have no quarrel over the letter of those words. We are curious, however, what is the point?In the first place, this is a mere photocopy. It is not the facsimile, Sir. But we are also curious whyhe wants us to introduce this into the case at this point? The pleading has no relevance to the SALNor to the issues conveyed to us by the Court yesterday; secondly, it is not clear where this documentcame from and to whom it was sent.The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may reply.Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor.First, Your Honor, this is where it came from. This is a certified true copy, Your Honor, by theRegional Trial Court and this is signed by the Clerk of Court of the said branch, Your Honor, datedMarch 21, 2012.The Presiding Officer. It is a part of the court record.Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor, part of a court record, Your Honor. And as for the purpose, YourHonor, why we are presenting them and marking, we will make a formal offer when the time comes,Your Honor. So, may we request, Your Honor, that this petition be marked as our Exhibit Eleven “U”(“UUUUUUUUUUU”).Mr. Roy. Your Honor, before the Court grants the request, may we know from which RTCbranch Counsel is referring to. And may we know if this is exactly a reproduction of the documentthat appears in the file of the RTC or a mere certification that this is a copy of the contents of thepleading.Mr. Ginez. Same copy, Your Honor, this is a certified true copy.The Presiding Officer. Counsel, why do you not examine the document?Mr. Roy. I have, Your Honor. The document appears to be a photocopy of a facsimile.The Presiding Officer. Correct. But did you check, first of all, the title of the document—Mr. Roy. My point, Your Honor....The Presiding Officer. —in the case?Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 49The Presiding Officer. And then the court where it is pending.Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. So, you know all of that.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. But what I would like to know is, he is telling us that this certificationpertains to the alleged address of the facsimile sender. Because he is saying that this is a certifieddocument, but he is asking me to admit that it was faxed from a certain fax machine.The Presiding Officer. Since you know the court where the case is pending, this is simple foryou to examine the records there and then determine whether the original of that document exists.Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor, I just want to know what it is he claims is being certified bythe court of origin. This is the facsimile address that you asked us to attest to or to agree to.Mr. Ginez. This is a certified true copy, Your Honor, by the Clerk of Court, an ex-officio sheriffof the Regional Trial Court of Manila. This case is pending—The Presiding Officer. What branch?Mr. Ginez. —before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. See.Mr. Ginez. They have to verify if they....Mr. Roy. Your Honor....At this juncture, the Presiding Officer banged the gavel.Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor.Sheriff, nabanggit po ninyo kanina at noong tanong ng abogado ng Depensa na pagkatapospo ninyong maibenta ang shares of stocks ni Raymunda Basa at ni Jose Ma. Basa III ay nagbayadsi Carla Castillo ng P28,000.00 kay Cristina Roco Corona, hindi po ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, alam ninyo po ba ang relasyon ni Cristina Roco Corona at ni CarlaCastillo?Mr. Bisnar. Noong panahon po na iyon, hindi ko po alam.Mr. Ginez. Hindi ninyo po alam.Hindi rin po ba ninyo alam na noong panahong iyon na si Cristina Corona ay asawa ngMahistrado ng Korte Suprema noon at hanggang ngayon na ang ating Respondent?Mr. Bisnar. Noong panahon na iyon, hindi ako sigurado kung Justice na siya.The Presiding Officer. Sandali lamang, Mr. Counsel. Mayroon lamang nililinaw ang Kortesa testigo. Noon bang ipinagbili mo iyong shares of stock na....Ilan iyon?Mr. Roy. Four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine.Mr. Bisnar. Four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine.

50 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012The Presiding Officer. Ang presyo ay P28,000.00, hindi ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, noong ipinagbili mo iyon, nandoon si Cristina Corona?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.The Presiding Officer. Nag-object ba si Cristina Corona?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po nag-object si Mrs. Corona.The Presiding Officer. Hindi.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Samantala, tinatanong ng Husgado ito sapagkat sang-ayon sa tsekena tinanggap niya bilang konsiderasyon doon sa pagbebenta ng lupa ng Basa-Guidote, siya aytrustee ng korporasyon. Alam niya na ang nilalaman ng korporasyon na iyon ay P34.7 million.Bakit pinapayagan niya bilang trustee ng korporasyon na binibili ng isang tao iyong more than90% ng korporasyon for P28,000.00 samantalang ang judgment na dapat sagutin noong sharesof stocks ay half a million? Maiisplika ba ninyo iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko ho alam kung bakit ganoon po.The Presiding Officer. Hindi nag-object iyong trustee? Hindi nag-object si Cristina Corona?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Doon po sa P28,000.00 na amount, hindi po.The Presiding Officer. Counsel?Mr. Ginez. May I continue, Your Honor. And we fully adopt, Your Honor, the questions ofthe Presiding Officer.The Presiding Officer. No, I am just trying to clarify, for the information of this Court.Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Your Honor. And in the same line, Your Honor, ayon po rito sa sulatni Cristina Corona sa inyo tungkol po doon sa pagmamay-ari ng shares of stock, ang sabi niyarito ang halaga ng 4,839 shares ay P483,900.00. Noon po bang nag-bid si Carla Castillo, hindipo ba nag-object o tumutol man lamang si Cristina Corona dahil ito ay mababa doon sa amountna sinasabi niyang halaga ng shares of stocks?Mr. Roy. I believe that was just answered by the Sheriff, Your Honor.Mr. Ginez. This is different, Your Honor, because the good Presiding Justice, Your Honor, askedabout the P34.6 million that was paid for by the City of Manila to Cristina Corona ITF Basa-Guidote.I am asking the premise of the question is the reply itself, Your Honor, of Cristina Corona to the Noticeof Garnishment wherein she stated that the amount of the 4,839 shares is P483,900.00.Mr. Roy. I appeal to the record, Your Honor. He said clearly: Did she object? And the Sheriffsaid there was no objection whatever.The Presiding Officer. Is it the position of the Counsel for the Respondent that the trustee ofthe corporation did not object?Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. That is what the Witness testified.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 51Mr. Ginez. Okay, Your Honor. That is what we would like to elicit, Your Honor.Mr. Roy. We would be willing to admit if he would like to state what else he needs admitted.The Presiding Officer. Any other questions?Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, hindi po ba sinabi sa inyo ni Cristina Corona na siya ay nakatanggap ngisang tseke noong 2001 o dalawang taon bago ninyo ibinenta ang property na ito na nagkakahalagang P34.7 million from the city of Manila?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Wala pong ganoon.Mr. Ginez. Wala po siyang sinabi sa inyo.Mr. Bisnar. Wala pong nabanggit na ganoon.Mr. Ginez. Sheriff, pagkatapos po bang makatanggap si Cristina Corona ng P28,000.00mula kay Carla Castillo, siya po ba ay nagpahanap pa ng ibang property o ibang mga ari-arianpara ma-satisfy o mabayaran iyong P500,000.00?Mr. Bisnar. Iyon nga po. Iyong lawyer niya po ang nagsabi sa akin.Mr. Ginez. Ano po ang sinabi ng lawyer niya sa inyo?Mr. Bisnar. Na mayroon daw silang ipapa-levy na property sa Sampaloc, Manila.Mr. Ginez. Ano pong property ito at kanino po nakapangalan, kung natatandaan po ninyo?Mr. Bisnar. Ang property po ay nakapangalan kay Jose Ma. Basa III.Mr. Ginez. So, mayroon pa ho kayong ginawa at ito ay ang pag-levy ng isang property.Ito po ba ang Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194782 sa pangalan ni Jose Ma. Basa III marriedto Raymunda Basa?Mr. Roy. We admit, Your Honor, that that was the property additionally pointed to for thesatisfaction of the Writ of Execution.Mr. Ginez. Pagkatapos po ninyong ma-levy itong property na ito, Sheriff, ito po ba ayibinenta rin ninyo ng public auction?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po na-auction.Mr. Ginez.Bakit po, kung anuman ang kadahilanan?Mr. Bisnar. Dahil nga po noong makakuha ako ng kopya ng certified true copy noong title,may affidavit po ng ano...may affidavit po ng adverse. Pagkatapos po tinanong ko po doon salawyer nila na kung puwede malaman ko iyong halaga noong lupa para malaman ko baka homa-over-levy ako. Iyon din ho ang dahilan kung bakit hindi ho ako nakagawa ng return kaagaddahil nga po after a few times na nag-usap kami, hindi na ho kami nakapag-usap ulit. Kaya,honestly, nakalimutan ko na hong gumawa ng return dahil ang sabi ho nila ipapa-levy nila.Noong na-levy ko na ho, hindi na ho kami nagkita. That is why sa tingin ko ho dapat ipagsasabiko na lang po iyong levy ko sa titulo at saka iyong sa auction sale.Mr. Ginez. Sige po. Salamat po, Sir.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.

52 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Ginez. We have no further cross-examination questions, Your Honor. We would like tomark Exhibit “179,” Your Honor, of the Defense as our Exhibit “11-V,” Your Honor, as in Victory.The Presiding Officer. Noted. Ngayon, Ginoong Sheriff, iyong Judgment na ini-execute mo,ang total ay P500,000.00, di ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.The Presiding Officer. Iyon ba ay nabuo na nabayaran?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. As of now, bali lamang po Twenty eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00)iyong halaga noong na-bid na shares of stocks po.The Presiding Officer. Iyon lamang ang na-execute?Mr. Bisnar. Opo as of now po.The Presiding Officer. Iyong lupa, hindi?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi pa ho na-auction iyon kasi nga po hindi pa po ako sinagot ho ng lawyernila noon kung magkano ho talaga ang halaga ng lupa. Kasi po baka po ako ma-over-levy kayahindi ko pa ho inu-auction. At saka ano po, mayroon pong affidavit.The Presiding Officer. Eh, bakit mo hindi tinaasan ang presyo noong ipinagbili mo naauction noong shares of stocks? Hindi mo biniripika, tinanong o pinag-aralan?Mr. Bisnar. Iyong…The Presiding Officer. Iyong tunay na presyo noong pinagbili na shares of stock?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na ho napag-aralan ho iyon kasi po noong—The Presiding Officer. Bakit?Mr. Bisnar. —noong nag-bid po si Carla Castillo ng twenty-eight thousand pesos (P28,000.00),tapos, wala naman pong objection si Mrs. Corona, eh—The Presiding Officer. Oo nga, pero—Mr. Bisnar. —all the while akala ko po—The Presiding Officer. —pero ikaw ang Sheriff. Para i-satisfy mo ‘yong five hundred thousandpesos (P500,000.00) na Judgment, hindi ba dapat pinag-aralan mo kung, ito ba talaga ang tunayna presyo nitong shares of stock na ito? Bakit hindi mo ginawa iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Eh, kasi po ang pagkakaintindi ko ho noong panahong ‘yon, ang pagkakaintindiko po ay dahil Assistant Corporate Secretary po si Mrs. Corona ay siya ang nakakaalam kunganong presyo po talaga. Kaya po noong ibinenta ‘yong Ten Thousand (10,000)…The Presiding Officer. Assistant mo, hindi mo…Mr. Bisnar. Assistant Corporate Secretary po si Mrs. Corona.The Presiding Officer. Oo nga. Pero ikaw ang inatasan ng gobyerno na humanap ng lupao ari-arian upang ma-satisfy ‘yong Judgment. Bakit hindi mo pinag-aralan kung iyong presyo nain-offer noong nag-bid na kaisa-isa at—Castillo ba ang pangalan noong bumili, Castillo?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 53Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. —Carla Castillo ay tama doon sa presyo noong shares of stock.Mr. Bisnar. Iyon nga po.The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo ginawa ‘yon, ano?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po, hindi po.The Presiding Officer. Ang pinaniwalaan mo na lamang ay si Mrs. Corona, ha?Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Na kung ano iyong presyong sinabi ni Mrs. Corona, iyon angpinaniwalaan mo.Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor, dahil Assistant Corporate Secretary kaya naniwala po ako.The Presiding Officer. Ah, ganoon, ha. Sige, salamat.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.Senator Drilon. Liliwanagin ko lamang po dahil marami ng sagot at hindi ko na masyadongnasusundan. Iyong P28,000 po, iyon po ang binayad ng Carla Corona-Castillo na anak ni ChiefJustice Corona, tama po ba iyan?Mr. Bisnar. Opo, pero at that time po, Carla Castillo lang po ang ibinigay nilang pangalan.Senator Drilon. Ah, Carla Castillo. Okay, Carla Castillo. Ito po ba ay tseke o cash?Mr. Bisnar. Ang pagkakaalam ko po, cash po eh dahil habang ginagawa ko po iyong resibong—Senator Drilon. Ah, cash.Mr. Bisnar. —may inabot lang ho si Carla Castillo kay Mrs. Corona po.Senator Drilon. Ah, so iyong cash na P28,000 ibinigay sa inyo ni Carla Corona-Castillo, atitong P28,000 ay ibinigay mo kay Cristina Corona, iyong nanay ni Carla Corona-Castillo?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po. Hindi na ho idinaan sa akin. Silang dalawa na lang ho ang naguusap.Magkatabi ho.Senator Drilon. Ah, silang dalawa na lang ang nag-uusap.Mr. Bisnar. Magkatabi ho sila, eh.Senator Drilon. Bilang anak at saka nanay, sila-sila na ang nag-uusap, hindi na po kayosumali?Mr. Bisnar. At that time po hindi ko naman po talaga—honestly, hindi ko naman po talaga…Senator Drilon. Parang usapang pamilya na lang.Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam ang relationship nila that time.

54 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Senator Drilon. Okay. At iyan po ay—May I direct this question now to Attorney Roy?Those 4,839 shares constituted 90 percent, more or less, of the corporation?Mr. Roy. To my understanding, Your Honor, yes, that is correct.Senator Drilon. And the sale took place when? 2003, auction sale?Mr. Roy. The auction sale, Your Honor, for the record, will show September 30, 2003.Senator Drilon. September 30, 2003, 4,839 shares which is almost 90 percent of thecorporation.The Presiding Officer. 97 percent of the corporation.Senator Drilon. 97 percent. Sorry, Sir, 97. Ah, 90.7. Which is 90.7 percent of the corporationwas sold for P28,000 to Carla Corona-Castillo.Mr. Roy. That is my understanding, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. And as of June 5, 2001, the corporation had in its coffers at least P34,703,800which is the proceeds of the sale of the Basa-Guidote property to the City of Manila, is that correct?Mr. Roy. That appears to be the evidence on record, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. Yes. So that the corporation was purchased by the daughter of Cristina Coronafor P28,000 when Cristina Corona, as assistant corporate secretary, knew at that time that there wasat least P34,703,000 in the checking account or in the bank account of Basa-Guidote.Mr. Roy. Not to quibble, Your Honor, but yes, it appears that way.Senator Drilon. You do not have to quibble because those are the facts.Now, where are the shares now?Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, if you are asking—are you asking about the certificate?Senator Drilon. No, no, the certificates of stock. The certificates of stock, in whose nameis it now?Mr. Roy. I have not seen them, Your Honor. I do know, I think I can tell you candidly thatthe Stock and Transfer Book cannot be located at this time.Senator Drilon. All right. Mr. Sheriff, noong binenta na po ito, ikaw ay gumawa ng—ano ang tawag doon—certificate of sale.Mr. Bisnar. Certificate of Sale po, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. Certificate of Sale.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Senator Drilon. At ano po ang nakalagay sa Certificate of Sale? Na ang 4,839 na sharesay nasa pangalan na ng Carla Corona-Castillo?Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po.Senator Drilon. Ha?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 55Mr. Bisnar. Carla Castillo po.Senator Drilon. Carla—The Presiding Officer. With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo.Paano mo nalaman na iyong binebenta mo na shares of stock sang-ayon sa writ of executionay talagang nasa pangalan noong Jose Basa na pinagbabayad ng half a million pesos kung wala,sinasabi ng abogado, the Stock and Transfer Book was not available? Paano mo nalaman kungsino ang mga stockholder at kung magkano ang shares of stock ng bawat isa sa kanila?Mr. Bisnar. Dahil ho doon sa sulat ni Mrs. Corona sa akin.The Presiding Officer. Ah, sinabi lang sa iyo ni Mrs. Corona?Mr. Bisnar. Opo, through a letter.The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga, ang source of information mo na ang may-ari noong sharesof stock na ibinebenta mo ay si Jose Basa Corona ay si Mrs. Cristina Corona, hindi ba?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.The Presiding Officer. Anong basehan niya? Alam mo ba?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam eh.The Presiding Officer. Walang sinabi ang abogado, ni admission against interest, walangstock and transfer book.Mr. Bisnar. Wala pong—wala naman pong sinabi. Walang nabanggit.The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga, oh.Yes.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may?I think the sheriff testified, perhaps he was unable to connect the facts that she was also the assistantcorporate secretary …The Presiding Officer. Yes.Mr. Roy. … Mrs. Corona and would know, would know the stockholdings, presumably shouldknow.The Presiding Officer. How do you know that?Mr. Roy. That was what the sheriff himself said that she informed the sheriff that she was theassistant corporate secretary. And in fact, during the time that the execution was taking place, it wouldappear that she was the highest ranking officer.The Presiding Officer. But what about the estate proceeding that was pending? The res orproperty of that estate proceeding are shares of stock in the name of Rosario …Mr. Roy. Asuncion, Asuncion.The Presiding Officer.No, no, no, the mother.

56 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Roy. Rosario.The Presiding Officer. Rosario Basa-Guidote.Mr. Roy. Yes, that is right.Your Honor, you …The Presiding Officer.Ah, Rosario Guidote-Basa.Mr. Roy. If we must go into the probate proceedings, it can be established there that prior tothe death of Rosario, those shares were transferred and eventually ended up with Jose Basa. That isactually what happened. Although the petition itself is—The Presiding Officer. Before the …Mr. Roy. —in the probate court, Your Honor. There is an audit report to that effect.The Presiding Officer.Was that finished—that estate settled prior to the sale?Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor. And, in fact, Mrs. Corona was named as the administratrix in thatprobate proceeding. So, there is an overlap of litigation.The Presiding Officer. Anyway, anyway.Mr. Ginez. Your Honor, can we comment on that because that is very important and that is nottrue, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Yes.Mr. Ginez. As of now, until now, Your Honor, the settlement proceedings, the intestate—thetestate proceeding is still pending and it is still the claim of Cristina Corona as the special administratrix,that the shares of stock of Rosario Guidote-Basa is still intact, Your Honor. In fact, we did notpurposely go to the SEC cases because it will clutter the record. But in the two SEC cases involvingthe Basas, Your Honor, Cristina Corona is impugning the transfer of shares of stock from RosarioGuidote-Basa to other shares and eventually it ended to Mr. Jose Maria Basa. And yet, Your Honor,in this execution sale, she reported allegedly as the assistant corporate secretary, that it belongs to JoseMaria Basa. What we would like to point out on record, Your Honor, is that Cristina Corona isassuming inconsistent statements whenever it suits her favor, Your Honor.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, please, it was Mr. Basa who claimed to be the owner of the shares, thatis why they were levied on. If he did not claim them, they would not be levied on. Correct, shechallenged them.The Presiding Officer. Yes, but, Compañero,—Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. —you are a lawyer. I do not have to teach you that assets of an estatebelong to the estate until they are vested by order of the court to the heirs.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. And the claim of the heir will not matter.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, Mr. Basa did not claim them as inheritance. But he claimed ownershipby acquisition, not inheritance, Your Honor.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 57The Presiding Officer. Well …Mr. Roy. That was the dispute.The Presiding Officer.All right. Then it was a disputed claim, okay.Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer.So that would have been settled in the estate.Anyway, proceed. The Court will take all of these things into consideration.Senator Drilon. Ginoong testigo, uulitin ko. Magkano exactly ang binayad po dito sa4,839 shares? Sarado bang beinte otso mil?Mr. Bisnar. Twenty-eight thousand po, pesos.Senator Drilon. Okay. Ordinarily, hindi po ba sa auction sale, iyong proceeds ng auctionay ibinabayad sa sheriff?Mr. Bisnar. Ordinary po, oho.Senator Drilon. Ordinarily ganoon po ang nangyayari, hindi ba? Hindi ganoon, ganoon iyon.Mr. Bisnar. Ganoon po pero sa case po nito kasi—Senator Drilon. Teka, teka muna. Okay. Pagkatapos na magbayad, na makukuha mo iyongproceeds ng sale, ito po ay dini-deliver mo doon sa whoever is entitled to it. Hindi po ba tama iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Senator Drilon. Ngayon, hindi ba may sheriff’s fee iyan?Mr. Bisnar. Supposedly meron po. Opo.Senator Drilon. Okay, supposedly mayroon. Magkano ang sheriff’s fee ordinarily in terms ofpercentage?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko kabisado iyong sheriff’s fee.Senator Drilon. Ikaw naman, sheriff ka hindi mo kabisado kung magkano ang sheriff’s fee?Ikaw naman.Mr. Bisnar. Honestly po, totoo po iyon, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. Labingpitong taon ka nang sheriff hindi mo alam kung magkano angsheriff’s fee?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi naman po. Sa praktis po namin doon, hindi naman—Senator Drilon. Hindi ko sinasabi iyong hindi legal, iyong legal.Mr. Bisnar. Oo nga po.Senator Drilon. Huh? Hindi mo alam?Mr. Bisnar. Ang kuwan po noon four percent po sa—

58 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Senator Drilon. Ah, four percent. So, four percent ng proceeds ay sheriff’s fee.Mr. Bisnar. Supposedly, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. Huh? Is that correct?Mr. Bisnar. Usually po ganoon talaga.Senator Drilon. All right. Dito sa transaksyon na ito, iyong dalawampu’t walong libo ay incash ibinayad ng Carla Corona-Castillo sa nanay niya, Cristina Corona. Tama po ba iyon?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Senator Drilon. At sabi mo kanina, silang dalawa na lang ang nag-usap at ibinigay ng CarlaCorona Castillo ang cash kay Cristina Corona.Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. Now, hindi ka ba kumuha ng fee mo roon?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. Bakit?Mr. Bisnar. Usually naman po, sir, pagka—Senator Drilon. Binigyan ka o hindi?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po.Senator Drilon. Ah, hindi ka rin binigyan. Hindi ka rin kumuha ng fee?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po.Senator Drilon. Bakit?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po. Hindi ko na naisip iyong mga ganon ho, eh.Senator Drilon. Huh?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko na naisip iyong ganon po.Senator Drilon. Ah. Doon sa ibang transaksyon, naiisip mo ba iyan?Mr. Bisnar. Kung voluntary na lang ho kung sakali, eh.Senator Drilon. Ah, voluntary na lang kung sakali.Mr. Bisnar. Mga expenses lang po sa ano—Senator Drilon. Huh?Mr. Bisnar. Mga actual expenses lang po.Senator Drilon. Mga ano?Mr. Bisnar. Actual expenses.Senator Drilon. Actual expenses. Iyong commission na four percent, hindi mo na kinukuha?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi na ho inaplay doon.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 59Senator Drilon. Sa ibang transaksyon na hawak mo?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi rin po.Senator Drilon. Ah, hindi ka talaga kumukuha ng komisyon?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi po.Senator Drilon. Alam mo, irekomenda kita sa Civil Service bigyan ka ng dangal as a verygood employee.Ngayon, hindi ba under the judiciary ka?Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Senator Drilon. At hindi mo alam—kilala mo ba noong panahon na iyon si Associate JusticeRenato Corona?Mr. Bisnar. At that time po hindi ko ho sigurado kung justice na po siya noon, eh.Senator Drilon. Hindi ka sigurado. Pero naririnig mo?Mr. Bisnar. Naririnig ko ho.Senator Drilon. Ano ang narinig mo, na siya po ay justice na?Mr. Bisnar. Na alam ko ho na justice na after the auction sale, doon ko lang narinig.Senator Drilon. After the auction sale.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Senator Drilon. Bago mag-auction sale, hindi mo narinig?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko sigurado, eh.Senator Drilon. Ah, ganoon. Alam mo po ba na si Renato Corona ay associate justice mulapa noong Abril 2002? Hindi mo alam?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po alam. Hindi ko sigurado.Senator Drilon. Ibig mong sabihin, noong nangyari ang auction sale noong September 30,2003, mahigit nang isang taon at kalahati na associate justice si Renato Corona, hindi mo pa rinalam na siya po ay associate justice?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko po sigurado.Senator Drilon. Ano ang ibig sabihing “hindi ka sigurado”?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko ho talaga alam na justice na nga po siya noon.Senator Drilon. Pero ikaw ay nasa ilalim ng judiciary.Mr. Bisnar. Opo.Senator Drilon. Hindi mo alam kung sino iyong mga justices?Mr. Bisnar. Hindi ko ma-memorize, sir.

60 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Senator Drilon. Sige, ganoon na lang at mahirap kung marami kayong hindi alam.So, salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo.The Presiding Officer. Any further questions?The gentleman from Pampanga.Senator Pangilinan. Thank you very much, Mr. President.Just a clarification of the facts and both counsel of both parties may care to comment.The sale of the property, the Basa-Guidote property was done in June of 2001.Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor.Senator Pangilinan. Okay. Jose Basa died in August of 2002?Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor.Senator Pangilinan. The Writ of Execution was in April of 2003 to include the auction sale,April of 2003?Mr. Ginez. The auction sale is September 30, 2003.Senator Pangilinan. Sorry. The writ was issued in April of 2003, in September of 2003, thesale of 90.7 percent of the Basa-Guidote shares happened. So that is September 2003 in a publicauction, Carla Castillo pays P28,000.00 and this is received by Cristina Corona.Mr. Ginez. Yes, Your Honor.Senator Pangilinan. And then sometime between September and December of 2003, JusticeCorona receives P11 million cash advance from Basa-Guidote?Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.No, no. I am sorry, Your Honor. The cash advance occurred between September 5 andSeptember 30, 2003.Senator Pangilinan. That is correct.Mr. Roy. Because, at that time the cash advance was drawn, the shares had not been sold toCarla Corona.Senator Pangilinan. So that is the….Mr. Roy. That is the connection for the entry—that is the reason why the P11 million is reportedin the SALN. After September 30, the facts of the case have changed because the shares are nowowned by a different person. The corporation is now controlled by a different person, by Carla Castillo.Senator Pangilinan. Thank you. Thank you.The Presiding Officer. By the way, Mr. Sheriff, how did you transfer the shares of stock ofBasa-Guidote to the buyer?Mr. Bisnar. Through the Certificate of Sale lang po, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Certificate of Sale?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 61Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Signed by you?Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. The shares of stock were not around when you sold the shares?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po.The Presiding Officer. Hindi nakalagay doon ang number of certificate representing thoseshares?Mr. Bisnar. Paki-ulit lang po, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Hindi nakalagay doon ang certificate number doon sa Deed of Sale?Mr. Bisnar. Wala po, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Basta nakalagay lang number of shares?Mr. Bisnar. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Hindi mo alam kung totoo iyun o hindi, basta sinabi sa iyo ganoonang share ni Jose Basa?Mr. Bisnar. Iyun po. Oo.The Presiding Officer. Iyun. Sige.Mr. Roy. May I proceed, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Proceed.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, in light of the many questions asked of the sheriff and the fact that itappears he has clarified the key issues that the Defense has sought to adduce—answers to the keyissues that the Defense has sought to address, I have no redirect, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. So, you are now discharging him?Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, if you have no further need for him, we request that he be….The Presiding Officer. All right, witness is discharged.Mr. Roy. Maraming salamat po, Sheriff.Mr. Ginez. Thank you, Sheriff.The Presiding Officer. Another Witness?Mr. Roy. Your Honor, before we proceed, may I be given a minute. There is an important matterthat I would like to address to the Honorable Court and its Members.Yesterday, Your Honor—The Presiding Officer. What is that?Mr. Roy. Well, the matter appears on page 57 of the Journal—57, if I am not mistaken—52. I am sorry.

62 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Anyway, Your Honor, on page 52—Sorry.I was referring to, Your Honor, the mention of the $10 million from Senator Estrada, I believe itis on page 52 or paragraph 1, is it there? I am sorry my copy has mysteriously disappeared.At any rate, Your Honor, I draw your attention to the $10 million that was mentioned by SenatorEstrada and as he put it, “gentle recommendation,” for the Chief Justice to testify in this connection.Now, I wish to draw attention to the fact that this is not a matter within the complaint. Be that asit may, Your Honor, the Defense is not going to skirt from this issue. If the Honorable Court isinclined that we should address this issue, if the Honorable Court is inclined to consider this matterin its deliberations, if the Honorable Court is inclined to make this form part of the basis of anyverdict rendered here, we will willingly confront the issue. For this reason, Mr. President—whereis the motion?For this reason, Mr. President—I am sorry. We have prepared a request for subpoena ducestecum/ad testificandum against—I mean, to be—and we request that this be issued—The Presiding Officer. Against whom?Mr. Roy. —to a certain Mr. Harvey Que, a certain Ruperto Alerosa, a certain Gibby Gorres,a certain Risa Hontiveros—former Representative Risa Hontiveros, a certain Albert Concepcion,Congressman Walden Bello, a certain Ernest Calayag, a certain Moses Albiento, a certain TristanZinampan, and a certain Emmanuel Tiu Santos.In addition, Mr. President, we also request that a subpoena for similar purposes be issued to theHonorable Conchita Carpio-Morales.The Presiding Officer. Put that down in writing.Mr. Roy. We are filing the motion as we speak, Your Honor.Now, the purpose, Your Honor—The Presiding Officer. What did you say?Mr. Roy. We are filing the request now. As long as the Court will assure me that it is interestedin this matter, we will make the request for the subpoena.The Presiding Officer. Yes, we will.Mr. Roy. But if the Court should declare now that this is not part of this Impeachment, then wewill not bother, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Well, we are not categorizing any asset as illegally acquired asset.But it is still an asset that must be included in the SALN if it exists.Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. So, the issue of whether it is legal or illegal is of no moment. It is aquestion of, does this asset exist? And if it does exist, was it included in the SALN?Mr. Roy. Precisely, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. And if it was not included in the SALN, then, ergo, it will be a violationof Article XVII, first sentence.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 63Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may.The Presiding Officer. Hindi ba? Hindi ba?Mr. Roy. Your Honor, if I may. Yes.The Presiding Officer. No, I am asking you as a lawyer.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Okay.Mr. Roy. If the omission is malicious and fraudulent.The Presiding Officer. No, there is no qualification in that sentence.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Very well.The Presiding Officer. You are interpreting it. I am using it as literally as I could.Mr. Roy. Very well, Your Honor. We do not argue over what the law says. I just wish to pointout that the matter of the $10 million has never been raised in the proceedings and this is an extraneousmatter, that is why—The Presiding Officer. Correct.Mr. Roy. —I would like to be guided whether or not....The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Please respect this Court.Mr. Roy. Of course, Your Honor, always.The Presiding Officer. Well, you are not doing it because while this Chair is speaking, your voiceis very high.Mr. Roy. My apologies, Your Honor. I was just trying to make sure that I could be heardaudibly.The Presiding Officer. I can hear you very well. Saannak a tuleng. [Laughter]Mr. Roy. I apologize, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. You understand. I know your grandfather was Ilocano.Mr. Roy. I apologize, Mr. President. I did not mean to raise my voice.The Presiding Officer. I would like to tell you frankly that any asset not included regardless ofits characterization, whether it is legally obtained or illegally obtained, is a function of the SALN.Mr. Roy. Yes, yes.The Presiding Officer. And it must be included.Mr. Roy. Yes, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. So, if there is $10 million and it is proven to be there or one dollarand not included, then it is a function of this Court to interpret whether it constitutes a violation ofSection 17, first sentence of Article XI.

64 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Roy. I concur, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Roy. Thank you very much.With that, I take it that the Court will entertain our request and act on it in due course.The Presiding Officer. Yes.Mr. Roy. Very well, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right, submit the request and we will issue the subpoena.Mr. Roy. Your Honor, further, I would like to put on record now that once these witnesses haveput on record what they have to state under oath, we will present evidence to contradict, deny, andrebut them through the testimony of the Chief Justice.Now, we request that the subpoena be issued forthwith and that all the witnesses be heard first inorder to avoid the staggered appearance on the part of the Chief Magistrate.I am not certain, Your Honor, how quickly the Honorable Court can respond, but in light of thisdevelopment—by the way, Your Honor, I am also in receipt of a motion and request on the partof the Prosecution asking that you be allowed to receive or certain documents be delivered to you.I believe they are with respect to this matter.I raise this up only to show the Honorable Court that we are ready to meet this issue head on. SoI would ask, Your Honor, if we be given a continuance.The Presiding Officer. How about the matters presented here earlier about PSBank?Mr. Roy. Your Honor, when the Chief Justice testifies, I believe these questions can bepropounded at that time.The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Roy. I do not think there is any purpose of evasion.The Presiding Officer. No, I am not asking that.Mr. Roy. On his part, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. I am just asking a question.Mr. Roy. Yes, yes. I wish to assure you of the forthright intention of the Chief, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. I know that, I know that.Mr. Roy. Thank you.The Presiding Officer. We are happy that you are now cooperating with us.Mr. Roy. It has always been our intention, Mr. President. Thank you.Representative Tupas. Your Honor, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Let him finish.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 65Are you through?Mr. Roy. Well, Your Honor, in view of that—The Presiding Officer. Make the proper motion and I assure you I will issue the subpoenatomorrow.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. But we move for a continuance in order to prepare also becauseit is a fairly sudden development.The Presiding Officer. You have no more witness today?Mr. Roy. None for today, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right.What is the pleasure of the gentleman from San Juan?Mr. Roy. A 48-hour continuance, Mr. President, please. There is not enough time. This is aconsiderable list of witnesses. As soon as the subpoenas have been issued, we will proceed quickly,Mr. President.Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President—If I may have the floor, Mr. President?The Presiding Officer. Yes, please.Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President.Mr. Counsel.Mr. Roy. Yes, sir.Senator Ejercito Estrada. Is my impression correct? Is the Chief Justice willing to appearbefore this Court if and when this Court grants your request to subpoena these certain persons thatyou have mentioned?Mr. Roy. Your Honor, while his statement is not to testify, it is not conditional. I wish to makethat clear. But he himself has also assessed the evidence against him. And unless this particularmatter is not raised formally under oath, he feels there would be really no need to testify to addressthe other issues. But if this particular matter is raised, then he will feel compelled to confront itdirectly, also under oath.Senator Ejercito Estrada. Well, my name was mentioned a while ago when I was inside thelounge that I mentioned regarding the alleged $10-million deposit.Yes, it is true that I mentioned this alleged $10-million deposit when I appealed to the Prosecutionpanel to let the respondent appear before this Impeachment Court. Iyong $10 million na nailathalasa diyaryo, nasabi sa mga radyo, na-TV, kaya ko sinabi iyon, if the Chief Justice can voluntarilyanswer the allegations against this $10-million deposit.Ngayon, if he is willing to answer this allegation regarding this deposit, then he can clear the issue,he can clear the air regarding this particular $10-million deposit. But I am not telling him to clarify itright away. Kung boluntaryo niyang sasabihin, di mas madadali ang magiging desisyon nitongkorteng ito.

66 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Roy. Iyon nga po ang instruction sa akin na ipaabot sa inyo na iyong ginagawa sakaniyang pambabatikos sa labas eh gusto na niyang harapin under oath.Senator Ejercito Estrada. Eh, di paharapin ninyo na.Mr. Roy. Haharap po sa inyo. Tutal iyon pong pagkabanggit ko sa inyo was in the best lightpossible at nanonood naman po siya noong tayo ay....Senator Ejercito Estrada. You can assure the Chief Justice, if and when, he appears before thisImpeachment Court, we can assure you that he will be treated properly befitting his position as theChief Justice of this country.Mr. Roy. We do not doubt that, but thank you very much, Mr. Senator.Senator Ejercito Estrada. And I know the Senate President will not allow him to be disrespectedin this Court.Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. Senator, Mr. President.May I also manifest, Your Honor, that the Chief Justice has issues regarding the jurisdiction of theOmbudsman over him, but not jurisdiction of this Court. That is why he is willing to testify here ratherthan engage in a word war or submit to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.The Presiding Officer. All right. Let me clarify. You are going to ask these named persons byyou to be subpoenaed to be your witnesses.Mr. Roy. As hostile witnesses.The Presiding Officer. As hostile—Mr. Roy. Witnesses.The Presiding Officer. —witnesses. Okay, including the Ombudsman.Mr. Roy. Including the Honorable Ombudsman, who appears to have knowledge of the US$10million.The Presiding Officer. All right. Well, US$10 million and other accounts.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Roy. Whatever allegation it is.The Presiding Officer. And other accounts—peso or dollar accounts—pertaining to the respondent.Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Okay. Now, why do you include a Member of the House, likeMr. Walden Bello?Mr. Roy. We understand, Your Honor, that he is a complainant before the Office of theOmbudsman. And so, we suppose or we presume that he has knowledge about these dollar accountsor whatever allegations he is making. So, we would like to know.The Presiding Officer. He is the only Member of the House—

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 67Mr. Roy. To my knowledge, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. —the complainant.Mr. Roy. That is right, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. While we have been respecting the interparliamentary relation betweenthe House of Representatives and the Senate, I am willing to sign a subpoena to include him toappear here, if he wants to appear as your witness.Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. In connection with this dollar account.Now, after the testimony of these persons as your witnesses, then you will present the Chief Justice.Mr. Roy. He will be one of the other witnesses in this. We may present other witnesses.The Presiding Officer. Yes.Mr. Roy. But we will present the Chief Justice.The Presiding Officer. You will present the Chief Justice.Mr. Roy. Yes, yes, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. All right.Mr. Roy. Definitely.The Presiding Officer. Continuance granted.Mr. Roy. Thank you very much.The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution?Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. Yes.Representative Tupas. We just want to state three things for the Prosecution.First is the request that will be filed by the Defense as manifested this afternoon that some ofthe complainants or all of the complainants in that case filed with the Ombudsman be subpoenaedand including the honorable Ombudsman herself, we just reserve our right to file our comment on that.But we are happy with that manifestation made by the Defense today.Second, the Defense has mentioned about the motion request filed by the Prosecution today andaccording to the Defense it is a motion for us to allow the Presiding Officer to receive some documents.We just want to correct that, Your Honor, that as of this afternoon we filed this motion and request.This is actually a motion that we are praying that we be furnished a copy of the letter of Mr. HarveyQue and attached document as submitted to the Presiding Officer. So, we just want to clarify that thatis the motion filed by the Prosecution. It is not a motion asking the Senate President or the PresidingOfficer to receive the documents.And, lastly,...

68 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012The Presiding Officer. I will respond.Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir.The Presiding Officer. Since the documents that were submitted to me were handed in a sealedenvelope in my office and I am not sure of the source of these documents, if you know the peoplewho submitted them to me, then you require them to furnish you with copies of the documents becauseI do not want to be a party to an illegal act. All right?Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir. Actually, Mr. President, it is in our motion that it is based onthe report, the media report that came from Mr. Harvey Que.The Presiding Officer. If there is an illegality, a violation of the Foreign Currency Deposit Law,then this Chair is not willing to be a participant to that.Representative Tupas. We submit to the Honorable Presiding Officer. And lastly....The Presiding Officer. Now, since you know who are the people who brought that envelopeto my office, then they are being subpoenaed, I am going to issue the subpoena and we will compelthem to submit a copy of the documents that they submitted to my office.Representative Tupas. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Lastly, if I heard it correctly, theCounsel for the Defense has pointed out or has moved for a continuance for 48 hours, is that correct?Mr. Roy. This has been granted, Mr. President.Representative Tupas. No, no. We have not heard that it was granted.Mr. Roy. It was granted.The Presiding Officer. I granted it.Senator Sotto. Granted.The Presiding Officer. Are you asking for a reconsideration?Representative Tupas. We are asking for a reconsideration.The Presiding Officer. All right. What is your reason?Representative Tupas. If it is within 48 hours, meaning there will be no hearing tomorrow?Mr. Roy. Yes.Representative Tupas. Your Honor, there are pending witnesses, who were already issuedsubpoena by this Honorable Court and this matter that was brought up by the Defense is a differentmatter, consisting of different witnesses, set of witnesses, with the witnesses who were already issuedsubpoena and we can count, Your Honor, that there are at least three or four—The Presiding Officer. Who are they?Representative Tupas. —witnesses who were already issued subpoena by this Honorable Courtand we would like to continue tomorrow.The Presiding Officer. Who are those?Representative Tupas. Well, Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima....

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 69Mr. Roy. Your Honor....The Presiding Officer. Why do we not hear....Representative Tupas. COA, from the Commission on Audit, Lavila, a certain Lavila. FromAteneo, seller of Cubao property, a certain Encina and Attorney Pineda, the Clerk of Court, RTCMakati. They are all subpoenaed already, Your Honor. For the Prosecution, we would like tocontinue tomorrow.The Presiding Officer. All right. Wait a minute....Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the relative importance of these witnesses pale in comparison to theurgency....The Presiding Officer. Yes, but you will still have to present them....Mr. Roy. We may not even bother to do....The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Let me finish.Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor.Representative Tupas. If....The Presiding Officer. Let me finish first. You have a panel of defense. There are severallawyers in your panel. My God, cannot one-half of you attend to the preparation of the subpoena thatyou are asking and interview of the witnesses that you want to present, so that we can use up the....I agree with the proposal of the Prosecution.Mr. Roy. May I respond, Mr. President?The Presiding Officer. Yes.Mr. Roy. Mr. President, we may not even need to present the other witnesses. We feel that wecan dispense with them if we be given a chance to assess our position again. In view of the sentimentsexpressed yesterday....The Presiding Officer. When are you going to present the.... Are you going to present theSecretary of Justice?Mr. Roy. Actually, we may not even have to do that.The Presiding Officer. Then, why not make a decision, so that we can forego that?Mr. Roy. We need to have a little time, Mr. President. Yesterday’s event rushed us into a needto bring this matter forward regarding the US$10 million, the issue of the US$10 million. So, we arejust requesting for the kind indulgence of the Court. After all, we are very willing to confront all theissues now. If it is just a matter of the remaining witnesses, Your Honor, I believe that this is moreimportant....The Presiding Officer. All right, 48 hours continuance is granted. And we will lengthen theperiod of the trial next week.Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. President.Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before I move to adjourn, I ask that we recognizeSen. Franklin M. Drilon.

70 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo is recognized.Senator Drilon. Well, the Counsel for the Prosecution is trying to raise his hand. We are willingto yield the floor.Representative Tupas. Thank you very much, Senator Drilon. We just want to clarify that ruling,Mr. Presiding Officer, 48 hours meaning, do we resume Thursday or Monday?The Presiding Officer. We will resume on Monday.Representative Tupas. So, that is next week, Monday next week.The Presiding Officer. Yes.Representative Tupas. Thank youThe Presiding Officer. Because we are supposed to have session tomorrow and Thursday. So,we are foregoing two session days. We will have our session on Monday.Representative Tupas. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer; thank you Senator Drilon.The Presiding Officer. That is understood by the Defense.Mr. Roy. Very clearly, Mr. President. Thank you.The Presiding Officer. All right.Senator Drilon. Just a few clarificatory questions, Mr. President, on Attorney Roy.Mr. Roy. Yes, Sir.Senator Drilon. This is in relation to the PSBank dollar account. In the Journal of February 13,2012, you confirmed that this bank account will be opened by the Chief Justice.Mr. Roy. I believe, if I recall correctly, Senator, what I confirmed was that the Chief Justiceinstructed us to make the statement that he would “speak up or open up” the....roughly.Senator Drilon. That is correct. So, you confirm that the Chief Justice instructed you to openthis bank account?Mr. Roy. That is right.Senator Drilon. Now, there are five dollar accounts in the PSBank. That is admitted andestablished on the record.Mr. Roy. I am unaware that it is admitted, Mr. Senator.Senator Drilon. No, no. In fact, that was presented here in this Court by the president ofPSBank except that the amounts were covered.Mr. Roy. I believe, Mr. Senator, to be precise, that was his testimony. I do not believe that theDefense admitted the fact. The Court admitted the evidence if that is what you mean or received histestimony before the TRO was issued.Senator Drilon. Okay. It is on record then.Mr. Roy. Yes.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 71Senator Drilon. It is on record that these accounts exist.Mr. Roy. Yes, by admission.Senator Drilon. This is on record that these accounts exist.Mr. Roy. It is on record that that was the testimony of the President, Senator. I am sorry,Senator, I really do not know if they exist or not. But I do agree with you that that was what thewitness said.Senator Drilon. Now, these dollar accounts were not opened. And therefore, because of theTRO of the Supreme Court, we do not know the amounts there. At least, it is not on record. Is thatcorrect?Mr. Roy. I suppose, Mr. Senator, yes.Senator Drilon. Now, is it your position that since the amounts appearing in these accountscannot, as of this time, be pried open, there is no obligation on the part of the Chief Justice to reportthis asset?Mr. Roy. It is my position, Mr. Senator....Senator Drilon. No, can you answer me? Is it your position that the Chief Justice does not haveto report this asset in his SALN?Mr. Roy. It is my position that Republic Act No. 6426 provides for the confidentiality. It is alsomy position, Mr. Senator, not to be evasive, that if you ask this question to the Chief Justice andhe favors you with an answer, then that will be that.Senator Drilon. Can you state categorically whether or not there is a dollar account in PSBank?Mr. Roy. I cannot, Senator. To tell you honestly, I do not know the truth of the matter, to tellyou honestly.Senator Drilon. All right. Assuming that there is that account, without your admitting it, assumingthat there is that dollar account, and since it is covered by the confidentiality of the Bank SecrecyDeposit Law, is it your position that the Chief Justice is exempted from reporting this asset?Mr. Roy. Based on my understanding of the law, Mr. President, anybody would be exemptedfrom disclosing the dollar accounts. That is my reading of the law. Now, if that...it appears plain inthe letter of the law that there is no qualification. That is my position.Senator Drilon. That is correct, yes.It is your position and you equate confidentiality with non-disclosure?Mr. Roy. Yes, yes, in order for the protection of the law to be complete by the owner.Senator Drilon. By the owner. And can you cite to me which particular provision of theConstitution or the law requiring the filing of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth whichwould justify this position that because of this confidentiality, you need not report an asset in theStatement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth?Mr. Roy. Yes, Senator. I would cite you Republic Act No. 6426....

72 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Senator Drilon. Which is?Mr. Roy. The law regarding the secrecy of foreign currency deposits.Senator Drilon. The law on the secrecy of foreign deposits would exempt a government employeefrom revealing the dollar accounts?Mr. Roy. Yes.Senator Drilon. In the SALN?Mr. Roy. In the SALN as well.Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga.Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, this is just an administrative matter. If I am not mistaken,yesterday or the other day, the Senate President had publicly stated his desire to extend the hours ofour proceedings so that we can hopefully terminate the proceedings before we go on sine dieadjournment. In fact, there was a proposal to have a....The Presiding Officer. Not later than the 31 st of this month.Senator Pangilinan. Yes. In fact, there was a proposal to have marathon hearings up to teno’clock in the evening.Yesterday, Mr. President, we went through hearings until around before five o’clock and today,we will be ending in a few minutes before 6:00, 6:30 and tomorrow we would not be conveningand Thursday we would not be convening.So, my concern, Mr. President, is perhaps, this should be discussed in caucus in view of thedevelopment and that we are now losing rather than gaining in terms of trial hours that we adjust fornext week and come up with a time table that will make up for lost time, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. We will have a caucus on Monday.Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President.Yes, the gentleman from Misamis Oriental.Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President. On February 13, 2012, if I am not mistaken, thisCourt issued a resolution to respect the TRO of the Supreme Court dated February 9, 2012, inconnection with the petition filed by PSBank against the Senate Sitting as an Impeachment Court andthe majority vote to respect was 13. Thirteen versus ten. And, in light of this development that, youknow, the dollar accounts of the Chief Justice are being discussed in the media, Defense Counsel hasraised the possibility of the Chief Justice himself confronting the issue head on.So, I believe, Mr. President, my colleagues, that it is time for us also now to really confront thisissue of the dollar accounts and since I premised my vote in that resolution on the reasoning that I wantto give the Supreme Court time to correct itself. I said that I exercise senatorial statesmanship hopingthat the Supreme Court will exercise judicial statesmanship by withdrawing the TRO, but I think a longperiod of time has passed and the Supreme Court has not acted on the TRO or lifted the TRO on thepetition of the PSBank, is that correct?

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012 73Mr. Roy. Yes, Mr. Senator, may I respond?Senator Pimentel. Yes.Mr. Roy. If I comprehend the tenor of what you are saying, you are going to ask the HonorableCourt to reconsider its position of the TRO?Senator Pimentel. Right.Mr. Roy. May I request that if there are any complications regarding the TRO and any informationis going to fall within the ambit of the TRO, let it be by waiver rather than by rejection. Perhaps, thatmight be a more palatable turn of events, Mr. Senator.Senator Pimentel. Yes. But, you know, it is my personal opinion. So, I also premised my voteon that ground that it is a temporary vote, as far as I am concerned, to respect the TRO issued bythe Supreme Court, hence, I am informing the Senate President and my colleagues that I amreconsidering my vote and it is from 13-10. It should now be counted as 12-11. I am now voting infavor of enforcing our order for PSBank and the other banks to now divulge to the Impeachment Courtall data and information regarding the foreign currency accounts of the respondent.Mr. Roy. Mr. Senator....Senator Pimentel. But it is still a minority decision. And then, Your Honor, if possible, if wecould revisit the resolution dated February 13 in a caucus on Monday, Your Honor.I so move.Mr. Roy. Mr. President, may I just....The Presiding Officer. Just a minute.Mr. Roy. It is a short statement, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. Anyway, there is a promise here that the Chief Justice is coming to thisCourt to testify. And, at that point, I assume, given his stature and the importance of his credence asa magistrate “to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God” and hears this statement everso often when he presides over the proceedings of the Supreme Court, then we may ask him, at thatpoint, to motu proprio tell, instruct the bank to release his foreign currency bank accounts. So, wewill wait until that time.Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Lacson, Mr. President, before....The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite.Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. Since the Defense panel team is here, I would liketo ask you if the Chief Justice would be willing to, in effect, sign a waiver.Mr. Roy. We did not go that far, Mr. Senator. Let us not....Senator Lacson. If he takes the witness stand and you will just invoke R.A. No. 6426, then wewill go back to zero.Mr. Roy. If I may, Mr. Senator. Let us give him an opportunity to hear first....Senator Lacson. No, I am just asking you as the Counsel. Is there a possibility for you toconvince the Chief Justice that when he takes the witness stand, he will, in effect, sign a waiver of hisrights under R.A. No. 6426?

74 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012Mr. Roy. There is a very strong possibility that he will disclose everything.Senator Lacson. That is good enough for me, Mr. Counsel. Thank you.Mr. Roy. Thank you very much.Senator Sotto. Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.Senator Sotto. Yes, we take note of the motion filed by Senator Pimentel and the manifestation,although we do not have a vote being called. But, nevertheless, we can take it up on Monday duringthe caucus.The Presiding Officer. Before we adjourn, I just want to find out if your purpose is reallyto make a full disclosure and this is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, of the bankaccounts of the Chief Justice. Why do you not select just a few of those you mentioned to besubpoenaed to be presented as witnesses who can substantiate the contents of the documents thatthey submitted to my office so that we will shorten the hours of examining witnesses.Mr. Roy. Precisely, Mr. President, we intend to put to very good use the time you havegranted us.The Presiding Officer. Yes, evaluate the witnesses. You may not need the 11 people.Mr. Roy. We request, anyway, that the subpoena be issued and we will make the properevaluation accordingly. If they are merely corroborative, then obviously, there would be no need.The Presiding Officer. All right. With that understanding.Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. President.Senator Sotto. So with that, Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make anannouncement.The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise.All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senatorshave left the session hall.Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn today’s trial until two o’clock in theafternoon of Monday, May 14, 2012.The Presiding Officer. The motion to adjourn at the time and hour and date stated by theMajority Leader is hereby approved.The trial was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.