jan 26 senate impeachment court record

8/3/2019 Jan 26 Senate impeachment court record

1/66

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012 1

At 2:02 p.m., the Presiding Officer, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, called the Impeachment

Trial to order.

The Presiding Officer. The Impeachment Trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C.

Corona is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ilagay natin ang ating mga sarili sa dakilang presensiya ng ating

Panginoon.

Ama naming makapangyarihan, Ikaw ay aming binibigyan ng parangal at papuri.

Basbasan Ninyo Po kami ng sapat na katalinuhan, tiyaga at pasensya upang

mamayani sa bawat isa sa amin ang katotohanan.

Patnubayan Ninyo Po ang bawat isa sa amin upang maisakatuparan at

magampanan namin ang aming tungkulin bilang mga Hukom sa paglilitis ngayonghapong ito.

Dulutan Po kami ng lakas ng loob upang maisantabi ang mga personal na

paniniwala upang ang aming mga desisyon ay maging patas at walang kinikilingan.

Sa Inyo, Panginoon namin, iniaalay ang lahat ng magaganap sa hapong ito at sa

Inyo rin Po ang tagumpay.

Ito ay aming dalangin sa matamis na Ngalan ng Inyong Anak na si Hesus.

Amen.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Pasay City


2/66

2 THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

___________________* Arrived after the roll call

ROLL CALL

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

The Secretary, reading:

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

Senator Joker P. Arroyo ...................................................................... PresentSenator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ....................................... Present

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

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

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

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

Senator Francis G. Escudero ................................................................ Present

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

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

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

Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid .......................................................... PresentSenator Loren B. Legarda .................................................................... Absent

Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. ......................................................... Present

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

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

Senator Aquilino Koko Pimentel III .................................................. Present

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

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

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

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

Senator Manny Villar ............................................................................ Present*

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

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

presence of a quorum.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while

the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. The Majority Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the January 25, 2012

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

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the January 25, 2012

Journal of the Impeachment Court is approved.

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


3/66


4/66


The Presiding Officer. The named witnesses for the Prosecution are hereby excused with the

injunction that they will appear in this Court when they are called again to testify.

Representative Tupas. So on Monday, Mr. President. On Monday at two oclock in the

afternoon.

The Presiding Officer. On Monday at two oclock, as suggested by the Prosecution.Representative Tupas. Thank you. Now, we call the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal

Revenue, Kim Henares, and we also call private Prosecutor, Atty. Arthur Lim, to continue and conduct

the direct examination, and to answer the questions of the Honorable Senator from Iloilo.

The Presiding Officer. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Honorable Kim

Henares, may now take the witness stand and with the chosen counsel for the Prosecution to propound

the questions.

Proceed.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Counsel, I refer to your Complaint, Article II, and I will read it.Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public

trust when he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net

Worth as required under the 1987 Constitution.

I do not need to underline that what you alleged against the Respondent is that he failed to

disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, which I shall call

SALN. Under the Rules, you are not allowed to introduce evidence that is not relevant to the

failure to disclose to the public the SALN. But in the spirit of liberality, this Court has allowed

you to do so.

Now, I will proceed to the discussion of Article II, under your paragraph 2.3, and I quote: It isalso reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets,

liabilities, and net worth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

First question to you: Are you charging respondent under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?

Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, to answer the question, with the permission of the Honorable

Presiding Officer

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Lim. and with the indulgence of the honorable Senators, may I be permitted to point out

the....First of all,....

Senator Defensor Santiago. Why do you have to point out? Answer yes or no.

Mr. Lim. The allegations....

Senator Defensor Santiago. I am tired of hearing your voice.

Mr. Lim. Yes, but the allegations of the Complaint determine the jurisdiction of the Court

Senator Defensor Santiago. We have already seen that, Counsel, in the....

Mr. Lim. over the case, Your Honor.


5/66


Senator Defensor Santiago. Do not override me. We have already heard that in your pleadings.

You have said that in your Motion for Subpoena. You have said that in your Memorandum. Do not

be sententious because every hour counts.

Kaya, madali lang naman sagutin itong pagtatanong na ito. Ito bang pinapasagot natin

o Respondent natin ay binibintangan mo sa ilalim ng Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? Yes

or no.

Mr. Lim. Opo, Madam Senator, dahil

Senator Defensor Santiago. Opo. Dahil?

Mr. Lim. nakalagay dito in violation of the Anti-Graft

Senator Defensor Santiago. Absolutely, I can read....

Mr. Lim. and Corrupt Practices Act.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Give me the presumption of literacy.

Mr. Lim. Yes.

Senator Defensor Santiago. And do not ever overstep yourself. Ngayon, ang pagtatanong

ko sa iyo ay ganito. Do not engage in a colloquy with me. As I pointed out during the Estrada

Impeachment Trial, you are not supposed to discuss or argue during an impeachment trial, especially

when you are speaking to the impeachment judge.

Mr. Lim. Can we answer the questions whatever the way we feel

Senator Defensor Santiago. No.

Mr. Lim. it should be answered.

Senator Defensor Santiago. No, you should answer according to the Rules of Court as

determined by the Senate acting as an Impeachment Court. That is the rule here.

Mr. Lim. Can the specific rule be cited for our guidance, Your Honor?

Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes.

Mr. Lim. Okay.

Senator Defensor Santiago. The Constitution allows the Senate to promulgate its own Rules of

Procedure. That has been repeated in this instance. And this is the end of this colloquy. How dare

you raise questions to my authority. Be careful because I might request my colleagues to inhibit you anddisqualify you for appearing here.

The Presiding Officer. May I intervene, Madam Senator. I would like to explain that the non-

elected members of the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, can argue among themselves

but not to argue against any elected member of Congress. Because there is a parliamentary tradition

involved in this. Only elected members of the people can use this forum to argue with one another.

Senator Defensor Santiago. I am a Senator-Judge. I am not here in my capacity as a politician.

Politicians, when I appear in a rally, anyone can heckle me, but you cannot heckle me. You cannot

engage in what the law calls a colloquy with me. You cannot engage in a discussion or argumentation

with me. I am the judge. I preside here.


6/66


How many years have you been in trial practice, Counsel?

Mr. Lim. Forty-two years, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. And what do you specialize in? Is it not true that you specialize

in maritime law?

Mr. Lim. In everything, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. What an impertinent answer. Let me go to the point, because I

might lose my temper with you.

Ngayon, sinasabi mo na you are accusing the Respondent under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act. I have here before me a copy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It

enumerates what are the acts which establish graft and corruption. Show me or read to me which of

these particular listing under the law you are accusing, under which of this listing are you accusing the

Respondent of graft and corruption? Dahil dito mayroon (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) hanggang (k). I am

talking about Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers. O, ngayon, ituro mo kung saan diyan, from

letters (a) to (k).

Mr. Lim. Letter (c). Can I read?

Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, please.

Mr. Lim. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift which includes discounts,

presents....

Senator Defensor Santiago. Will you please stop emphasizing your words like this, it startles

everybody.Mr. Lim. I will just read softly, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Good, thank you.

Mr. Lim. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, or other pecuniary or

material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner

or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any government permit or license, in

consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section 13 of this Act.

Letter (d) also, Your Honor. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment

in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within

one year after its termination.

And most especially, letter (e). Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government,

or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his

official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross

inexcusable negligence. These provisions shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government

corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

And, letter (f) also, most especially. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without

sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose

of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material


7/66


benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor

of, or discriminating against any other interested party.

And Section 7, Your Honor, in relation to Section 9(b) if the good Senator will allow the reading,

Section 7. Every public officer within thirty (30) days after assuming office and thereafter, on or

before....

Senator Defensor Santiago. Ah, hindi iyon. Excuse me. Anti-graft and corrupt practices ang

pagtatanong natin dito.

Mr. Lim. I am reading Section 7 of the Anti-Graft Law, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. No, that is Statement of Assets and Liabilities, hindi iyan nakalista

dito sa Section 3. Sinabi ko na Section 3 tayo, ini-enumerate corrupt practices of public officers.

Ayan, sinabi ko na, mayroon letter (a) to letter (k) kaya mamili ka diyan sa kursunada mo kung

ano ang pagbibintang mo.

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Pero huwag kang lumampas sa Section 3.

Mr. Lim. I have read them already, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. You have read it out already.


Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. Those are your allegations against the Respondent in

violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Counsel, I am holding before you your own verified Complaint for Impeachment. I go to page 11,

it is entitled Grounds for Impeachment. It begins with Article I and ends with Article VIII. Ipakitamo sa akin, saan dito sa Article I hanggang Article VIII, itong mga probisyon na binasa mo

ngayon sa Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Mr. Lim. Only ultimate facts, with all due respect, need to be alleged because

Senator Defensor Santiago. Do not lecture me on what is the Rules of Court. You are again

engaging in a colloquy. Answer me. Nasaan dito sa grounds for impeachment?

Mr. Lim. I believe the best evidence would be the complaint and we leave it to the Senate to

interpret.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Good. Now, let us move on. Ngayon, we have allowed you tointroduce in evidence and I supported this controversial move to introduce in testimony the Bureau of

Internal Revenue commissioner plus her documents that you will attest to even if it is not strictly within

the words, the literal words of the Article II which speaks only of the failure to file the SALN. Pero

hindi bale. Sige, sige lang tayo.

Ngayon, tinatanong ko sa iyo, saan dito sa listahan ng Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

ang iyong grounds for impeachment, dahil kailangan pag may complaint ka ilista mo lahat ng

krimen na idinedemanda mo sa Respondent dahil kung wala yan diyan, hindi ka puwedeng

magbigay ng ebidensiya tungkol sa krimen kung hindi mo muna amendahan o palitan ang iyong

complaint. That is the gist of my line of questioning.


8/66


9/66


any truth or falsehood with respect to those entries or did you testify that these are the entries as they

are reflected in our records?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I testified as to these are the entries as submitted to us by the taxpayer.

Senator Defensor Santiago. That is correct. Because, to repeat, you were not qualified as an

expert witness and therefore you have no business expressing your opinion or drawing conclusions.You can simply read out the documents or recite them if they are memorized.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Maam.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Good. Very good. Now, we understand each other.

So, may I please end my comment now, Mr. President.

The problem at this instance of our trial is that the presumption of unexplained wealth when the

income and the assets do not tally, meaning to say, the assets are so much or far more in value than

the income. This is a presumption that is laid down in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Instead, maybe it was a congressional oversight, it should have been included in the separate law whichis called the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards which is devoted mostly to the filing of the SALN.

I am not directing this to you, Witness. I am simply explaining myself.

That is why we are a little confused here. Now, remember this is only aprima facieor as

Filipinos sayprima facie (fay-shee) evidence lang iyon. Pag hindi sila nag-tugma, prima facie,

ninakaw na niya siguro iyan, bakit ang dami-dami niyang pag-aari,kaunti lang pala ang kinikita

niya. But that is only a presumption. That is only prima facie presumption. It can be impeached.

Meaning to say, it can be overthrown, or can be defeated by evidence to the contrary.

Just for your elucidation. Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I move that Sen. Joker P. Arroyo be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol is recognized.

Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President.

This is really a point of inquiry. I would like to know whether these exhibitsyou know, we were

given two folders that must be around 50 or 60 exhibitsbut among those that I found is Exhibit

CCCCC-1. Can you please look at that?

The Presiding Officer. What is that exhibit?

Senator Arroyo. Exhibit CCCCC-1.

The Presiding Officer. And the nature of the document?

Senator Arroyo. This is precisely what I would like to ask, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed.

Senator Arroyo. My understanding is that, these documents were marked yesterday but not yet

admitted in evidence. Now, any document that has not yet been admitted in evidence is not yet a public

document.


10/66


Income tax returns are sacrosanct. They are very, very confidential. Now, it has been marked

and identified.

My question, Madam Commissioner, is: Can you look at Exhibit CCCCC-1. This is the income

tax return of Renato C. Corona. Why was this released? Has this been released to anyone?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the release was to the Senate.Senator Arroyo. Only to the Senate?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Senator Arroyo. In other words, this has not gone out yet.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Not that I know of, Sir. We submitted it to the Senate based on a

subpoena issued by...

Senator Arroyo. Yes, we understand that.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, only to the...

Senator Arroyo. There is nothing wrong with the subpoena. I am asking about whether these

documents which are not yet public documentsbecause they have not yet been admitted by the

Courthave been released to anyone?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir.

Senator Arroyo. The Commissioner said that it was released only to the Senate. May I know

whether this has been released to anyone else? No, it is only a yes or no. Pardon?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, we furnished a copy to the Defense, to the Prosecution, and to the

Senators, Your Honor.

Senator Arroyo. To the Defense and the....

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. To the Prosecutors and to the Senators, Your Honor.

Senator Arroyo. So, in other words, if these are released at all, the sources will be either the

Prosecution or the Defense.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Your Honor, or the Senators.

Senator Arroyo. Mr. President, I would request that the parties be enjoined from releasing any

data on this until we admit it, because we defeat the purpose of this confidentiality of the Income Tax

Return. That was the subject of our caucus and we discussed it yesterday.

Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, with the indulgence of Senator Arroyo, just a follow-up

question.

The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Taguig.

Senator Cayetano (P). Perhaps, we could ask both the Defense and the Prosecutor if they have

released this. Because I know for a fact that on media daily after the session adjourns, everyone is

on TV. So, just for the record, at least, we all know. Because I do not really follow it, but I constantly

see people flashing documents.


11/66


So, to pursue the question of Senator Arroyo, have these documents been shown on television or,

for that matter, anywhere else?

May we hear from the Prosecution and the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution panel may reply.

Representative Tupas. Yes. As far as we know, as far as we are concerned, Mr. President,we have not released anything to other parties. It is just with us.

The Presiding Officer. Did you not release this to your spokesmen?

Representative Tupas. As far as we are concerned, no, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Are the spokesmen members of the Prosecution panel?

Representative Tupas. The spokesmen are not, but they are members of the House.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite.

Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a public trial. If we want to keep confidentialcertain documents then we should call for an executive session.

I submit, Mr. President.

Senator Arroyo. I do not want to engage in public discussion. It is just a cautionary statement

on my part.

The Presiding Officer. My understanding of the request of the Senator from Makati and Bicol

is for the Chair to caution both the Prosecution and the Defense in exposing evidence not yet offered

in evidence, formally offered in evidence in this Court. The presentation of the evidence in this Court

of a document is simply to let it be recorded as an evidence for the Prosecution. The time for offer

will come, not the time of marking of the evidence, for purposes of identification and for purposes of

the statements or the declarations of the witness.

So, I would like to caution the lawyers appearing here to be very careful.

The Prosecution.

Representative Tupas. Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Let the Prosecution react first.

Representative Tupas. Mr. Senate President, I just want to put on record that the only

document we released to the public was the Bellagio on January 3. And after the Senate Presidentraised his concern about it and some Senators, we have not released any document to the public. So,

we complied at that moment. Around first week of January, we complied with the directive of the

Senate President. Until the present we are complying and we intend to comply until the completion

of the trial.

The Presiding Officer. May we request the spokesman of the Prosecution, as well as of the

Defense, not to discuss the evidence including the merits of this case outside of this Court. They can

discuss what happened, the procedure, but not the contents of the evidence as well as the evaluation

of the merits contained in those documents.

Representative Tupas. We will tell them, Mr. Senate President.


12/66


The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental is recognized.

Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would just like to manifest my support to the statement of my colleague, Sen.

Panfilo Lacson. I am uncomfortable with this because this is a public trial. This is a trial and this is a

peoples court. It is a process by which the people are actually judging for themselves through what

they see. And if we are to have a public trial, yet the evidence will not be available to the public, then

it would defeat the purpose.

However, I do not want to engage in any debate with my distinguished colleague from Makati,

Senator Arroyo.I just would like to manifest my support to the view of Senator Lacson.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you.

Mr. President, I believe there is no disagreement among the Senators. I think we can reconcilethe views. We simply have to distinguish between the presentation or the marking of the evidence and

the formal offer of evidence. When we are just in the marking stage, by all means, they should not

be paraded and I beg to disagree when the statement is made that this has not been released. Perhaps,

it has not been distributed to the public, but the news will bear me out that it is shown like this by

spokespersons. I do not know how close-up that goes, and I do not know if after that it is released

because I have reports that it is circulating in the internet. And there is a big difference between

documents that have been marked and have been offered.

And, I totally agree that this is a public hearing; that the public should be well informed; that we

should not hide anything. In fact, I am not aware that we have any provisions for executive session,

but there is a big difference between deceiving the public and making it appear that these have alreadybeen formally offered when, in fact, they have only been marked. And these are fine distinctions that

lawyers or members of the Senate Judges will be able to determine at the proper time. But to use it

at a time in media when it has only been marked is deceiving the public, Mr. President. I will be happy

when the ruling should come in.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Anyway, the Chair has cautioned the two sides of this

proceeding, adversarial proceeding, the Prosecution and the Defense to exercise caution. You know,

in other countries, when you are going to publicize a case, a criminal case especially, and it is

inordinately discussed in public, it could be a basis for a mistrial which, of course, is not a part of our

system of criminal procedure. But, nonetheless, there is a purpose for this caution because we must

not unnecessarily create an impression in the minds of the public that this is already an admittedevidence. Not yet. It is only being presented.

The Minority Floor Leader is recognized.

Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Mr. Presiding Officer, if we look at Rule XVII: At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the

trial of impeachment, the doors of the Senate shall be open to the public. Silence shall be observed

by the visitors at all time on pain of eviction from the trial venue.

The Presiding Officer and the members of the Senate shall refrain from making any

comments and disclosure in public pertaining to the merits of a pending trial.


13/66


The same shall likewise apply to the Prosecutors, to the persons impeached, and to their

respective counsel and witness. I read this Rule in support of all those who stood before me.

Sen. Joker Arroyo is correct that just because it is a trial and it is open, that does not mean that

we violate peoples rights. But Senator Lacson is correct in pointing out that we have to suspend our

Rules if we want to go into executive session. But we all agreed when we made the Rules that we

should, in fact, put everything before the people.Ilantad lahat po ito para walang magsuspetsa kunganong magiging desisyon, kung ano ang mga ebidensya.

But, Mr. President, I would like to point out two things.

First, our witness here has been very careful and has followed her oath and her work very well by,

noong pinipresenta po iyong Alpha List ng Supreme Court, sinabi naman po niya na may ibang

names doon kaya ang ginawa po niya hindi niya inilabas para makita iyong ibang mga pangalan.

And there were times in the past that this was also the discussion. And, in fact, we have been

discussing kung, halimbawa, maglalabas ng mga titulo na may mga ibang pangalan dito, kailan

puwedeng madamay iyong ibang tao because it is necessary in the trial at kailan hindi.

So, I agree with the Presiding Officer to exercise caution and let us just simply follow the law. In

the case of the ITR of this Chief Justice, the President has already authorized its release. And if it is

brought up in the trial, the cameras here are very powerful. They can zoom in anytime and see it for

themselves.

But let me make the second point very briefly, Your Honor.

I keep reading in the newspapers a gag rule and I think they are referring to that second and third

paragraph I read. But let me just point out that there is a difference between a sub judice rule and

a gag rule. Because a gag rule is absolute. Angibig sabihin nga ng gag ay tatakpan mo iyong

bibig in laymans term at hindi puwede magsalita anything and everything about that case.Iyong sub judice ay merong certain parameters. For example, if you are simply narrating or

detailing what was in the Complaint or what happened today or what it was in the Answer, or if you

are part of the media or the spokesmen and you are simply recapping or showing both sides. That

is why if you look at the words, nakalagay refrain.Hindi nakalagay dito na absolutely huwag

magsalita ang Prosecution or Judges. But sa Judges, mas maingat kami sapagkat mai-interpret na

kinakampihan namin ang isang side pag nagsalita kami.

So, Mr. President, let me just agree with my colleagues here and let me agree with you. Let us just

be very careful. Let us not be too excited that in coming out with the evidence, whether for the

Prosecution or the Defense, we violate and trample upon peoples rights. But so far, our witnesses

have been very careful from the Clerk of the Supreme Court to the BIR Commissioner.


The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the final word from Sen. Joker Arroyo. May he be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

Senator Arroyo. Mr. President, I do not want to belabor the point. I started this. We have rules

and rules are designed so that everyone would follow the rule.


14/66


The rule is simple: That any evidence that is identified or marked is not yet evidence. It is nothing

but a piece of paper. When will it be a public document? When it is admitted. When it is admitted,

then it becomes a public document.

The Internal Revenue Code is very strict in this, about the internal revenue. The ITR is to be

sacrosanct. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Henares would not have been here or brought those

documents had not the President of the Philippines, no less, authorized the opening of those documents.The National Internal Revenue Code says that insofar as the ITR is concerned, the Commissioner must

seek the permission of the President which she said she did in writing. So, in other words, no matter

how public our hearing is, the rules on secrecy must be followed. There is no exception to that. It is

a public trial but order must be maintained, otherwise, there is no trial at all. That is the reason for

this trial. A trial assumes order, system. Without it, then it is useless. That is all. I do not want to

argue with anyone on that. I just want to call the attention so that henceforth, we will follow the Rules.


The Presiding Officer. And I would like to state for the record that that was precisely the reason

why the Chair cautioned the private prosecutor not to go into the substance of the document, meaning,the content. Because the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was brought here to testify on the

documents that she brought on, whether they were authentic documents, meaning, that they have

conformed with the formal requirements of the statute, and to present those documents because those

documents are the best evidence of the contents, whether there is income reported and whether taxes

were paid. There is no better evidence than the income tax and, of course, the supporting receipts.

So, I hope we will adhere to these rules so that we can move into the trial smoothly.

I could not object to the questions relating to the substance because I am the Presiding Officer.

But I cautioned, the record will show that the Chair cautioned the private prosecutor in delving into the

contents of the documents that were presented by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. In fact,

even the AlphalistI said the best evidencethe contents of the Alphalist is the Alphalist itself.

So with thatnow, I would like to hear the pleasure of the Defense counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. We have always been emphasizing and with positive

articulation, Your Honor, that when it comes to documentary evidence, there is a process that is

ordained under our Rules of Court and Procedure that there must first be identification, there must be

marking, and there must be an offer, and the party against whom it is offered must have the opportunity

to comment and/or object. And it is only after all these proceedings had taken place that an order of

admission or rejection can be properly made by the Court, Your Honor.

In fact, we wanted very much to bring to the attention of this honorable Court the violation of all

these things relative to confidentiality and so on. But for fear that we may again be accused of delayingthe proceedings in this case, we have chosen not to. Now, they have brought this matter very openly.

In fact, when we were still on trial here, our people told us that they were already discussing this issue

in these conferences being held, Your Honor.

Now, we have no way of stopping them. It is their pleasure and all our spokesman said was, these

are not evidences as yet, because they have not yet been offered, neither had the Court ruled on their

admissibility. That is the only manifestation we have made, Your Honor. We have never discussed.

We do not want to engage them in a discussion relative to the contents of the document.

Now, we are very sure that all these things should not have happened if all the parties concerned,

more especially the spokesman of the Prosecution, that we should avoid discussing the case on the


15/66


merits. We are not presenting this evidence so that the public will know what is our purpose, what

are the proceedings taking place in this Court. So much so that until and unless a formal offer is made

of these documentary exhibits, and a ruling is made, then they shall not be considered as evidence in

the case, Your Honor.

Now, with respect to the comment that they are not public documents, I am sorry that I may not

agree with the honorable gentleman from Makati because the nature of the documents is determinedby the contents thereof. Has it been notarized? Was it executed before a public official duly authorized

to administer oath? If that is the case, then it is a public document. The element of being offered and

admitted in a judicial proceeding does not go into the character of the evidence presented, Your Honor.

There had been likewise statements here made by the Private Prosecution, Your Honor, relative

to the basis of their complaint and mention had been made of several articles, Your Honor.

May we be allowed to state, for the record, that there is nothing in their impeachment complaint

which alleges the particular acts or omissions constitutive of the violation, and that is elementary in

criminal procedure. The acts or omissions constituting the offense must be specifically alleged. There

is no allegation of that sort, Your Honor. Hence, we were not able and we did not choose to discussthis matter in our Answer, Your Honor. It is not correct and accurate to state that the bases of their

action for this impeachment complaint are the various sections of the Anti-Graft Law.

And secondly, the Court will probably agree with me and so with the rest of the honorable

Members of this Court that there is no statement here relative to the violation of the Anti-Graft Law.

What they said is failure to disclose and so on down the line; there is a violation of public trust; there

is culpable violation of the Constitution, but never violation of the Anti-Graft Law. If we found that,

our first impulse was to file a motion to dismiss, Your Honor. But we are prohibited and we are afraid

and apprehensive that this may be raised as an argument for us delaying the case.

There was also a suggestion that we should have filed a motion for a bill of particulars. We do

not agree with that kind of a suggestion, Your Honor, because a motion for a bill of particulars alleges,

or for purposes of merely making the unspecified or definite allegation to be more concrete and definite.

Here, there are no allegations whatsoever.

The Presiding Officer. And besides, Counsel, if you will file a bill of particulars and the Articles

of Impeachment are wanting, an amendment would be the proper remedy. And if you amend the

Articles of Impeachment, it has to go back to the House where it came from for amendment. It cannot

be amended by the Prosecutors. It has to be amended by the House and that amendment must be

voted upon.

Mr. Cuevas. That goes into initiation, Your Honor. We are of the humble submission that this

will require that the complaint for impeachment must undergo another proceedings before the Houseof Representatives. Again, maybe there will be crying Help. O alam na ninyo, ayan ginawa na

naman ng Defense Counsel. Gusto lamang nilang ma-delay, babalik.

But when we argue our points, Your Honor, when we object to a particular question, it is not

because we just wanted to object. Because this is part and parcel of the right of an accused to due

process. If there is no more opportunity to object, there is no more opportunity to argue, then what

are we here for?

Senator Sotto. Senator Santiago, Mr. President, Mr. President.



16/66


Senator Sotto. Senator Santiago wishes to be recognized, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle Lady Senator from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you.

Under the Rules of Court, no party is allowed to present evidence unless that evidence is relevant

to the charges contained in the complaint or, as in our case, in the Articles of Impeachment. That isthe general rule. You can admit evidence that is not related to any of the charges in the complaint only

after you have amended the complaint.

My query now is presented to both Counsels and to my brothers and sisters in the Impeachment

Court and I will not necessarily request for an answer at this time, maybe memoranda.

The question is this: What is the time frame for amending the complaint or the Articles of

Impeachment? Can you amend at any time, or is there a deadline?

If the Counsels are interested in this question, may I offer the suggestion that they should file

memoranda so that a caucus, the Senate Court, might discuss this among ourselves.

Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed to present the view of the Defense, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. I think the Counsel for the Prosecution has stood to make a remark. We

will allow him first.

Mr. Lim. May I be allowed to present some manifestations or comments?


Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor.

I believe that distinction must be drawn between thefactum probandum and the factum probans.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Yes, what is theprobandum here?

Mr. Lim. Theprobandum here, Your Honor, is as stated in Article II and in the body of Article

II explaining it. Since the title cannot be taken in isolation, it is failure to report SALN or disclose SALN

to the public and the commission of the acts described in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. As a matter of fact,

even with respect to Article 2.4, if I may be permitted to respectfully invite attention to the Journal

of January 25, 2012, starting on page 3, where we see the name Senator Drilon. Just to amplify, Mr.

Senate President. When the court ruled indeed that the court will allow introduction of evidence on

2.2 and 2.3, which would allow evidence to prove that evidence can be introduced, that a property

whether real or personal is not included in the SALN. However, under Article 2.4 which asserts that

such properties could be ill-gotten, the Court did not rule on that and we will rely on the presumptionsof evidence-on the presumptions of law, particularly the Anti-Graft Law, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct.

It is our humble submission and manifestation then that this honorable Court

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Counsel.


The Presiding Officer. We are guided by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the

Articles of Impeachment against the former Ombudsman Merceditas GutierrezI am trying to get a


17/66


copy of the decisionand in that decision, the Supreme Court opinion penned by the present

Ombudsman, then Justice Conchita Carpio Morales said that the Articles of Impeachment must

embrace only one charge for each Article of Impeachment. That is a very emphatic rule established

by the Court. We did not establish it here.

So, I am sad to say that there was fault in the crafting of your pleading and that is why we had

to correct it in a caucus. We became liberal. In fact we allowed paragraph 2.3 but we disallowedparagraph 2.4 because it is obviously not germane to the question of SALN to Article II and you

included it in Article II of the Article of Impeachment. In fact, even in paragraph 2.3 if you read the

specification under the grounds of impeachment stated in your Articles of Impeachment for Article II,

you merely alleged the ultimate fact of non-disclosure of the SALN. But we became liberal to allow

evidence to be introduced on paragraph 2.3 of your discussion. This is the discussion of your Article

II, not Article II itself but a discussion of Article II.

Senator Arroyo. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

Senator Arroyo. I hate to say this, but the rule, as directed by the Chair and the Body is thatprivate prosecutors can conduct the examination of witnesses but cannot argue points of law and

whatever. If we liberalize this, then we will have again another problem. I am now trying to stand up

every time I see a relaxation of the-not a relaxation but a violation of our rules, otherwise, there will

be no order.

That is all. Because nobody is suppressing the Prosecution from presenting their position but it has

to be a member. I was a member of the Prosecution before. But it has to be the House, commissioned

by the House of Representatives, that will have to articulate and represent the House of Representatives.

But outside counsel cannot because they were not given the authority by the House of Representatives

as Prosecutors.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct. That is under the Rules of the House itself that created

the panel. So, I think the lead Counsel of the House should exercise his power to control the private

lawyers hired by the House to assist.

Representative Tupas. We will do that, Your Honors.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please.

In connection with the topic we are now discussing, Your Honor, may I be permitted and allowed

to read the portion of the disposition as embodied in this Journal or Minutes of the proceedings

yesterday? It states and I quote verbatimly, Your Honor, The Prosecution may introduce, if it has,

evidence that would support the allegations contained in paragraph 2.2 and paragraph 2.3, under ArticleII of the Articles of Impeachment, but not to introduce evidence under paragraph 2.4, Article II of the

Articles of Impeachment.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct.

Mr. Cuevas. This is the disposition, Your Honor. And we have not seen any modification, much

less reversal of this particular disposition of this Honorable Court.

May I now proceed to the amendment which was posed by the Honorable Defensor Santiago,

Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo, Senator Drilon.


18/66


Senator Drilon. Just to complete the reading of the records on page 4 of the Record of the

SenateSitting as an Impeachment Court, Wednesday, January 25, 2012, after the Senate President

issued an order that, The Prosecution may introduce, if it has, evidence that would support the

allegations contained in paragraph 2.2 and paragraph 2.3, under Article II of the Articles of

Impeachment, but not to introduce evidence under paragraph 2.4 of Article II of the Articles of

Impeachment. So ordered.

We stood up and clarified the Court ruling during the caucus, as we have stated on page 4 of the

Record, and we said, When the Court ruled, indeed, that the Court will allow introduction of evidence

on 2.2 and 2.3 which would allow evidence to prove that evidence can be introduced, that a property,

whether real or personal, is not included in the SALN. However, under Article 2.4 which asserts that

such properties could be ill-gotten, the Court did not rule on that and we rely on the presumption of

evidence-on the presumptions of law, particularly the Anti-Graft Law, Mr. President.

And the Presiding Officer said, That is correct. And that is clear on the records, Mr. President.

And this is a reflection of the ruling of the Court during the caucus which was manifested by the

Prosecution and this Representation in open hearing, during the actual hearing. So I think the records

are clear, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Mr. President, we have no quarrel with the observation made, Your Honor. But

what we wanted to place on record is what was dictated orally as the resolution on our motion, Your

Honor. And this is not part of the resolution. This is merely a narration of what happened in that

caucus. It does not form part of the decision, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I beg to disagree. That is a decision of the Court.

Mr. Cuevas. It is not reflected. That is why, Your Honor...

Senator Drilon. In any case, that is precisely why we go to these caucuses and we decide on

how to dispose of the motions. And this is what was agreed to be the ruling of the Court on this issueand that is confirmed by no less than the Senate President.

The Presiding Officer. At any rate, gentlemen, with your indulgence, we are going to write a

formal resolution. And this will be discussed again by the Members of the Court. So, the records will

indicate the ruling of the Chair which is actually a ruling of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.

Now, the gentleman from Iloilo.

Senator Cayetano (A). From Taguig and Pateros, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. From Taguig City, sorry.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, we just want to place on record napag-usapan namin ni

Senator Lacson na napanood na namin ito kahapon, parang nag-replay tayo. So obviously, ang

ibig pong sabihin, there is some misunderstanding with the ruling because I also was surprised when

the Prosecution stood up to make also a Motion for Reconsideration but, at the same time, the Defense

are also making some comments. Ibig sabihin po, parehong ayaw sa desisyon. Bihira pong

mangyari iyon. So, let me try to do my part in making some clarification.

My understanding of the agreement in the caucus without expounding, simply saying the understanding,

ang ill-gotten wealth cannot be accepted as a separate charge. Because tingnanniyo lahat ng

Articles, walang nakalagay doon na graft and corruption, na ill-gotten wealth. Okay. So, this Court

will not be accepting evidence to prove ill-gotten wealth as far as a separate charge. But as far as


19/66


Article II is concerned, non-disclosure means hindi ka nag-file or nag-file ka ng hindi kumpleto, or

nag-file ka na meron pong mga iniba or hindi sinama.

Now, in the course of proving 2.2. and 2.3, kung maipakita na mayroong properties na hindi

naisama sa SALN at pag naipakita na yong mga properties na ito ay hindi kayang bayaran ng

legitimate income ng Chief Justice, then there is a presumption in law because there are Supreme Court

cases that said, magsi-shift na ngayon ang burden.Magiging ngayon burden ng kabila to show thatthis is not ill-gotten. So, in that sense, you are not proving thepagiging ill-gotten, you are still proving

whether or not may full disclosure or mayroong complete disclosure under Article II. That is my

understanding, Mr. President.

But I will stick to what the President said yesterday and the gentleman from Iloilo because anything

else we say today will be in the nature of a motion for reconsideration eh. Klaro naman po ang sinabi

ng ating Senate President at klaro naman po ang clarification ni Senator Drilon. So, anything anyone

else says here right now, unless any of the judges are asking for a motion for reconsideration. But

yesterday we were unanimous.

So, ang pakiusap po siguro namin ay ituloy na po natin iyong hearing and let us not argue onthis point because it has already been decided and we spent so much time reading your memorandum

and discussing this on the floor already.


The Presiding Officer. I think...Let me cut short this discussion.

I just want to read to you the opinion of theponente in the case of...This is the case involving the

impeachment case against Ombudsman Gutierrez. And a portion of the opinion of the Supreme Court

says: Suffice it to state that the Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses

with each charge. And I hope you will take heed of this.

This is a rule of pleading that the Court established with each charge representing an Article of

Impeachment assembled in one set known as Articles of Impeachment. It, therefore, follows that an

impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense as a whole but each charge must

be represented by an Article of Impeachment. And that is the quandary where this Court was in when

we held the caucus, because Article II now was expanded from what was its specification and allegation

when the grounds for impeachment were actually narrated in the Articles of Impeachment.

So, with that, let us proceed with the trial.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Francis Escudero.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, before we leave the point so that we are sure that we are clear

on the matter, Mr. President, I raise the point, as the Chair conceded, that each Article must allege

only one specific act. Kaya nga po sa Estados Unidos, minsan iyong articles of impeachment

umaabot hanggang 30 o 40 dahil kada individual impeachable act, hiwa-hiwalay na article iyon.

But I raise a second question, Mr. President, which I address, perhaps to the Body and to the

Presiding Officer. We are impeaching Chief Justice Corona as chief justice, I presume, not as an

associate justice, not as an adviser to the Office of the Vice President before, not as a presidential legal

counsel. My point, Mr. President, is this: Kahapon po ang dami kong narinig na ebidensya

kaugnay sa ITR noong 1992, noong 2003. Hindi po ba ang pinag-uusapan natin ditoand I seek


20/66


the guidance of the Chair and my colleagueshindi po ba ang pinag-uusapan natin dito acts of the

Chief Justice as chief justice, not prior acts? Hindi po ba hindi natin puwedeng i-impeach ang isang

opisyal sa mga ginawa niya bago siya naging chief justice?

Halimbawa po, si Vice President Binay kung magiging presidente. We cannot impeach him for

acts committed as vice president once he is already president. I admit, an associate justice is subject

to impeachment proceedings, and he is an impeachable officer. But now, we are impeaching the ChiefJustice, I presume, as chief justice.

My question, Mr. President, is: Limitado lang ho ba tayo sa mga ginawa at di niya ginawa

na impeachable habang chief justice lamang siya o kasama rin ba dahil tila saklaw iyon sa

pinipresentang ebidensya ngayon, o kasama rin ba iyong mga nagawa niya bilang associate

justice lamang o bago pa noon dahil tila ang ebidensyang pinipresenta po sa atin dito ay may

kinalaman sa mga ginawa niya noong unang panahon pa, except perhaps to establish a pattern or

practice, but that was not part of the offer of the Prosecution when they presented this, and the previous

witnesses?

I submit, Mr. President, and seek the guidance of the Presiding Officer or the Body and as wellas the parties, as to how we dispose of this matter.

The Presiding Officer. I will put that request under advisement because I will have to consult

the Members of the Court. I must confess that the Chair is not in a position to make a definitive ruling

as to acts done by the respondent as an associate justice all the way to his acts when he was appointed

as the Chief Justice. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court only on May 17,

2010. So, whether the acts that he did prior to that, we will have to study it whether it can be covered.

Offhand, I would say that probably it is relevant because he is both an associate justice and chief justice

of the Supreme Court. But I am not saying that that is a definitive position because that is my offhand

reaction, but I will have to study it.

Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.


Senator Sotto. May we have a brief statement from Sen. Francis Pangilinan.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes, just very quickly but, again, subject to the final discussion and decision

of the Court.

Section 2 of Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers. It states: The President, the Vice-

President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and

so forth and so on, may be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of, and so forth

and so on.

So, it does not say the Chief Justice, it just says the members of the Supreme Court. And since

Chief Justice Corona has been a member of the Supreme Court, a member since 2002, then I would

like to think that he falls foursquare in terms of the jurisdiction of this Court from the time that he

became.

Senator Sotto. Nevertheless

The Presiding Officer. We will note the opinion of the gentleman.

So, Floor Leader.


21/66


Senator Sotto. Yes, nevertheless, I do not think the answer is being asked of by Senator

Escudero today.

So, we are ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence of the Prosecution, Mr.

President.

Representative Tupas. May we proceed now, Mr. President?Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor, please. Just a minute, Your Honor.

If we may be allowed, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. You have one (1) minute.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

There was a query posed by the honorable Member of this Court, the Honorable Sen. Miriam

Defensor Santiago as to whether the complaint may be amended, when, where and what will be the

result of that amendment. Lest we are charged with violating what she wanted us to do, I am now

prepared to discuss this particular point, even two or three minutes only, Your Honor. But if the Courtso desires na it must be done later, we will be heavily thankful for that.

The Presiding Officer. In the spirit of fairness, please proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Three (3) minutes.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, amendment, in accordance with our rules of procedure, may be of two kinds:

amendment which is a matter of right; and amendment which is discretionary.

Now, when is an amendment a matter of right?

Before Answer. So, the moment there is an Answer, there could be no amendment anymore as

a matter of right. It must be with leave of Court, Your Honor. And that must refer even to substance

or form.

Now, supposing there is already an Answer, what is the right of the parties to make an amendment?

It will be discretionary, Your Honor. There must be a motion and only after a motion is granted,

that the amendment may be made.

Now, the next point is, what will be the effect of the amendment?

Necessarily, the amendment that was allowed to be submitted by the party seeking an amendment,

Your Honor, will form part of the proceedings, will form part of the records of the case. It will be

incorporated in the main Petition or main Answer, Your Honor, so much so that it now contains the

issues and matters that should be the subject of trial and reception of evidence.

Now, in this particular case, may the Petition be amended, Your Honor, so as the proceedings

before this Court may continue receiving evidence on the controversial issue?

Our answer is no, Your Honor, because that will entirely be a different complaint. It will be

violative of the right of the accused to due process. It must, therefore, undergo proceedings before the

House of Representatives because that will refer to initiation. And initiation must be in accordance with


22/66


the Constitution and their laws. There must be finding of probable cause; there must be voting; and it

must be deliberated upon by the Congress in session.

The Presiding Officer. And there is a constitutional injunction against multiplicity of impeachment

complaints within a certain time.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.I rest my case insofar as that particular issue is concerned.

The Presiding Officer. We have discussed this extensively. We will proceed with the trial.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay.

Representative Tupas. We will proceed now, Mr. President


Representative Tupas. with the presentation of our witness, Atty. Art Lim.

Mr. Lim. Atty. Arthur Lim, Your Honor, respectfully entering the same appearance as private

prosecutor for purposes of presentation of the witness on the witness stand.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. There is no need to enter your appearance. It has been entered

earlier.


The witness will be testifying under the same oath, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. If there are other witnesses, Your Honor, that the Prosecution

will present in these proceedings, may we request that they be temporarily excluded from this....

The Presiding Officer. So ordered.

The other witnesses will have to go to the confinement area so that you will not be hearing the

declaration of the witness on the stand.

Mr. Lim. I understand, Your Honor, that the other witnesses are in the Holding Room. I am not

sure if they could hear from there.

Mr. Cuevas. May we know their names please so that we can verify whether they are in or out.

You do not know their names?

Mr. Lim. Giovanni Ng, Nerissa N. Josef, Aniceto Bisnar Jr.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Counsel for the Defense, if they are no longer inside the Hall,

they are somewhere else in the building, then the trial may begin.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. May I, please, the Honorable Court, and with your kind permission, Your Honor.


Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President.


23/66


The Presiding Officer. The Senate President Pro Tempore.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Narinig ko po kanina, ilan po ang inyong testigo na pinalalabas

ni Justice Cuevas?

Mr. Lim. Tatlo po pero nandoon na raw sa Holding Room.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Doon sa holding room, hindi ba ho may telebisyon ho roon atnamo-monitor din iyong ating proceedings?

Mr. Lim. Wala daw po.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Sigurado ho kayong walang telebisyon doon?

Mr. Lim. Wala po.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Puwede ho i-instruct iyong ating mga page kung talagang walang

TV doon sa Holding Room nila dahil alam ko live ho iyong proceedings sa telebisyon?

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is required to check.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kung mayroon ding computer iyon, eh live streaming ho tayo sa

computer. Iyon lamang po, G. Pangulo.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, pending the return of the Sergeant-at-Arms, I suggest that we

proceed with the hearing to discuss the preliminaries.

Counsel, proceed.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. With your kind permission, Your Honor, Madam Witness,

in yesterdays hearing, when you were identifying the various CAR or Certificates Authorizing

Registration for the La Vista, Bellagio, Bonifacio Ridge and Fort McKinley properties, which were

marked respectively as Exhibits GGGGG, HHHHH, IIIII, JJJJJ and KKKKK, as well as

LLLLL and MMMMM, as well as Exhibit NNNNN as in Nancy, you told the honorable

Court that these various CAR went through a system or a process in the bureau. Will you please state

to the court what exactly is this system that the BIR follows in the issuance of a CAR for a property

transaction?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We call the system the ONETT system. The first thing that the taxpayer

will do is they will file a Capital Gains Tax Return which is Form 1707, file it with the bank, pay the

amount with the bank, then submit it to the Bureau of Internal Revenue together with the Deed of Sale,

for the transfer. Thereafter, the Bureau of Internal Revenue will check whether the value stated is

correct in the sense that it should follow the rule that it should not be either the selling price or the zonal

value whichever is higher.

The Presiding Officer. I would like to interrupt the testimony. The Sergeant-at-Arms has

arrived. Will you please report about what you found in the holding area?

The Sergeant-at-Arms. Upon the instruction of the Senate President, I went to verify the room.

There are four people there, there is no audio, there is no video, and there is even no computer that

will monitor what is happening in here because we are online.

Thank you, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Proceed.


24/66


Ms. Jacinto-Henares. After getting all these documents, the Bureau of Internal Revenue will

evaluate whether the proper taxes had been paid. If the proper taxes are not paid, they will make an

assessment, and the taxpayer will have to pay additional amount. Upon full and proper payment, the

Bureau of Internal Revenue will issue a certificate authorizing registration stating therein the name of the

buyer, the name of the seller, and the particulars, and what is being transferred, a description, the zonal

value, the selling price to the parties, then that is where the job of the Bureau of Internal Revenue ends.

Mr. Lim. Is it correct to state, Madam Witness, that when everything shall have been found to

be in order, the Bureau then issues the CAR which now enables the Register of Deeds to transfer the

property?


Mr. Lim. After you received the subpoena for your appearance today and yesterday before this

honorable Court, and for you to produce the documents required therein, among them, the said C-A-

R or CAR, did you take further action apart from instructing your RDOs or Revenue District Officers

to submit to you the documents, particularly, the ITRs of the persons mentioned in the subpoena?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. As part of my official function, we reviewed the document first to

determine whether it is complete. Then, as an incident to that, we looked atwe were surprised at

what we found, because one of the parties who bought the property does not seem to have income.

So, basically, that is the other thing that we did.

Mr. Lim. What specific property transaction was this, Madam Witness, where you said you were

surprised upon reviewing it?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The sale between Cristina Corona and Maria, the daughter, Maria Carla

Corona Constantino for P18 million.

Mr. Lim. For the CAR involving said property, it shows the sellers as Maria Cristina Coronamarried to Renato C. Corona, sellers, in favor of Maria Carla Corona....

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, wait a minute. Under what paragraphs are you asking these

questions?

Mr. Lim. It is 2.2, Your Honor, and 2.3, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, 2.2 deals with the SALN of the Respondent, 2.3 deals with the

non-disclosure of an asset. So, are you proving a non-disclosure of an asset?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, definitely, Your Honor. And the non-disclosure of the asset is

embraced not only in 2.2 and 2.3 but within the title itself.The Presiding Officer. Title of what?

Mr. Lim. I am sorry, Your Honor, within the title of Article II, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, the title of Article II is Non-disclosure of....

Mr. Lim. The SALN.

The Presiding Officer. the SALN, not the non-disclosure of accumulated assets, that is under

Paragraph 2.3?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. This is under paragraph 2.3, Your Honor.


25/66




For the CAR pertaining to the La Vista property, where the seller is the Respondent and his wife,

and the buyer is their daughter Carla, for the sum of eighteen million pesos (P18,000,000.00), what

did you find out in that review?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. That the daughter does not have enoughhas barely minimal income and

therefore is not capable of buying the property.


Mr. Lim. What documents, if any, did you review?

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, I am entitled

The Presiding Officer. Let the Counsel react.

Mr. Cuevas. We move to strike out the answer of the witness, Your Honor, because that is

specifically irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial. The conclusion that the parties therein stated,

especially the buyer, has no means to buy property, is not borne out by the evidence. No basis.

Mr. Lim. May I reply, please?

Mr. Cuevas. That is her opinion.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Madam Commissioner, what is the purpose....In income

taxation, the tax is due from the seller of the property. The buyer has no tax obligation, why are you

investigating the buyer?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Your Honor, if the buyer does not have capacity toif the land being

purchased, let us say, is P18 million and her income is only P11,000, then there is a reason to

investigate because it means that either the sale is it is not a sale, it is a donationso that is 20%

tax rate.

The Presiding Officer. In this particular case, did you find that the Chief Justice was donating

the property to the daughter? Did you make a finding?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, that finding is confidential.

The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. You are before this Court, you testified and you revealed

this fact. The Court has a right to know. Did you, did you assess the donors and donees tax? What

is the present law that taxes gratuitous transfers?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Your Honor, we have two choices: One, is to assess donors tax against

the donor or, two, to go and assess undeclared income against the buyer who does not have enough

income, and/or to file tax evasion case against the buyer.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely, did you do that?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We are in the process of doing that.

The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. When was this, when was this transaction?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The transaction was in 2010 but we came to know about this only last

Friday when we were asked to get the CAR and the Income Tax Returns of the parties.


26/66


The Presiding Officer. When did you get the CAR?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We retrieved the CAR only upon receipt of the subpoena from the

Senate, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. What isbut is it not a process that is included in your description of

the process in connection with the sale, purchase and sale or the sale of capital assets that the Bureau

of Internal Revenue will go through that process precisely for purposes of registration? Why? It has

already been registered, why are you late in knowing these facts?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Your Honor, when we determine the issuance of the CAR, it is only to

determine whether the capital gains tax and the documentary stamp tax are properly paid. We do not

look into the capacity of the buyer at that point. That will come later if we have evidence or information

to show that there is something wrong in the sense that the buyer does not have the capacity to purchase

those properties.

The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed, Counsel.


Madam Witness, you stated that you reviewed the relevant documents and arrived at that finding.

If you are shown the income tax return of Carla Corona Castillo for the year 2009 which has already

been marked as Exhibit EEEEE, would you be able to identify the same before this honorable Court?


Mr. Lim. I show you Exhibit EEEEE....May I please request the Secretariat to produce Exhibit

EEEEE because the Secretariat is holding all the documents marked. The originals are with the

Secretariat.

May I make of record that the Secretariat, as requested, produced the folder marked Exhibit

EEEEE, Ma. Carla Beatriz C. Castillo. Do you confirm that to be the income tax return which you

said you reviewed?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Your Honor, income tax returns 2009 and 2008.

Mr. Lim. Referring you to Exhibit EEEEE which is the income tax return for 2009....

The Presiding Officer. Income tax return for what year is that?

Mr. Lim. For 2009, 2009, Your Honor. The taxable income as per Exhibit EEEEE-1 is

P8,476.00. Did you also review that entry?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.The Presiding Officer. And the transaction happened when?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. This is her taxable income for year 2009, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely, when was the sale of the property to the buyer?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. 2010, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What month?

Mr. Cuevas. May we make of record, Your Honor, that the witness is going over the documents

in her possession apparently perusing the same as though this is the first time she has seen it.


27/66


Mr. Lim. Naturally, Your Honor, the witness has to peruse but we take exception that the witness

saw it only today.

The Presiding Officer. Do not argue. Do not argue just present the evidence.

Mr. Lim. My apologies, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You know, I request both sides, the two Counsels not to waste the timeof this court in argumentation.

Mr. Lim. We submit, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please....

The Presiding Officer. Let us finish first the presentation.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The CAR was issued on October 22, 2010, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. So, that is ten months after the end of the taxable year 2009.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, but she did not file....

The Presiding Officer. I am asking you how long a time between the end of the taxable year

and the time of the transaction?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. When we gave the clearance it was ten months after.

The Presiding Officer. When was the deed of sale?

Mr. Lim. Can I give it, Your Honor?


Ms. Jacinto-Henares. November 9, 2010.

The Presiding Officer. November 9, 2010. So, that is 11 months.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I am sorry, Sir. The deed of sale is October 18, 2010.

The Presiding Officer. So, 10 months after the taxable year ended.


The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.


Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please.

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

Mr. Cuevas. We were about to object, Your Honor, but the witness was allowed to answer.

So, our remedy now is to move to strike out the answer of the witness because what is touched in her

testimony is income tax returns. And this goes to the violation of the ruling of this Court that any and

all evidence relative to alleged acquisition of illegal wealth are precluded or proscribed from being

presented.

The Presiding Officer. The evidence is being offered for an unreported asset. That is the offer

of the Prosecution. So, the Chair will allow it as a part of the testimony of the witness.


28/66


Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.


Madam Witness, did you also review the tax paid or the amount of tax paid in the amount of

P423.80 as per Exhibit EEEEE-3-C?

Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. The witness is a very intelligent witness.

The Presiding Officer. Reform the question.

Mr. Lim. Will you tell the honorable Court what specific items did you review in Exhibit EEEEE,

the Income Tax Return of Carla Corona for the year 2009? Please make that of record.

The Presiding Officer. Madam Commissioner, will you please state what is the content of that

document?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The document is an annual Income Tax Return, BIR Form No. 1701. It

is to declare her income for the year 2009. In it, among the figures presented is that she had a sale

of her businessshe is registered as a businessa gross sale of P97,460, a taxable income of P8,476,a tax due of P423.80.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. Those are only facts relating to the income tax returns?

What is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel?

Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, Your Honor. We were about to object a little while ago, but there was

already an answer. This refers to the Income Tax Return of one allegedly Carla and not the public

official being impeached. So, it is immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That is why the Chair asked the purpose of this evidence being offered,

and the Counsel for the Prosecution said that it is offered under paragraph 2.3 which is not included

assets. So, the Chair allowed that. Because the tendency of the question is, he is proving that the asset

sold to the alleged daughter is still the asset of the Respondent.


Mr. Cuevas. But, Your Honor, this is the Income Tax Return not of the Respondent but of Carla.

Why will the act, omission and declaration of a party affect the Respondent here?

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, the ruling of the Chair is, let it remain in the record.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. May I proceed, Your Honor.

Madam Witness, will you now please kindly produce before the honorable Court, as subpoenaed,

the Income Tax Return of Carla Corona Castillo for the year 2009 which you have just identified?

Mr. Cuevas. Again, we will just place on record, Your Honor, our objection to this kind of

evidence because it does not conform to the resolution of this Court, disallowing or prohibiting the

presentation or submission of evidence tending to prove the alleged illegally acquired wealth. Because

it was not properly alleged, Your Honor.


29/66


The Presiding Officer. Let the objection be recorded and that will be taken at the proper time

when there is an offer of evidence.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. May I proceed.


Mr. Lim. The witness has produced and handed to Counsel, the original copy of the subjectIncome Tax Return, a photocopy of which was marked before the Senate Secretariat as Exhibit

EEEEE in view of the non-stipulation during the marking by the Defense lawyers of the photocopy

marked as a faithful reproduction of the original. We are now requesting that stipulation in open Court.

Mr. Cuevas. No objection to the substitution if that is the desired purpose, Your Honor. We go

on record that what is being identified now is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Justice.

May I proceed, Your Honor.


Mr. Lim. Do you have any other ITR of Carla which you reviewed as per your testimony earlier?

Mr. Cuevas. We will enter our continuing and general objection as we have earlier stated,

Your Honor, because we do not want to impregnate the records with our objection, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Let that continuing objection be recorded.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. She has not filed any Income Tax Return other than for years 2008

and 2009.

Mr. Lim. For the year 2008, what data did you find in your review?

The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of the Income Tax Return on 2008?

Mr. Lim. To show, Your Honor, to reinforce and bolster the total lack of financial capacity of

the buyer vis-a-vis the P18 million La Vista property transaction. We believe, Your Honor, that it is

admissible because it is relevant to 2.2.

The Presiding Officer. Why do you expedite the proceedings? Why do not you just.... If you

have it, present it to the witness, and introduce it in the trial instead of going into the contents of those

documents. This is delaying us. You see?

Mr. Lim. Only this, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. These are all covered by the best evidence rule. The contents of thatdocument cannot be added by the lawyer nor anybody if the document is the only acceptable evidence

of the contents and you cannot add anything to it.

Proceed.

Mr. Lim. Can we be allowed to enter it into theJournal aside from being in the document itself,

Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. WhatJournal?

Mr. Lim. The transcript of stenographic notes, I understand that is calledJournal in this honorable

Chamber.


30/66


The Presiding Officer. Yes. But you have already examined, marked this exhibit. And the Court

will appreciate the contents of that document.

Mr. Lim. Gladly, Your Honor, I will just mark it in that case.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.


I show you this Income Tax Return for the calendar year 2008, which was marked as Exhibit

EEEEE as calendar 2008, Your Honor. Do you have the original with you, Madam Witness?


Mr. Lim. Can we please request stipulation that the photocopy already marked as Exhibit

quintuple EEEEE, but marked without stipulation, be now shown to the Defense Counsel.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed, proceed.

Mr. Lim. And I request for stipulation that it is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Let us not be too formal in these proceedings. This is a court

of law but as the Prosecution said, Let us relax. All right, we will relax the rules. So do not do all

these formalities. Just present the evidence and let the Defense say so if they agree or not agree.


The Presiding Officer. Counsel, proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. We withdraw, Your Honor, our intended manifestation, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So what is the pleasure? You accept the genuineness of thatdocument?

Mr. Cuevas. No, they are only asking whether we can stipulate or we stipulate that the document

being identified is a faithful reproduction of the original.

The Presiding Officer. All right. And you agree that it is a faithful reproduction of the original?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, let it be recorded.

Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, were there other documents...

The Presiding Officer. The Chair declares a one-minute suspension of the trial.

It was 3:52 p.m.

At 3:53 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes.


31/66


The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended for 15 minutes.

It was 3:53 p.m.

At 4:19 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may now proceed with the business of the day.

Mr. Lim. Just a few minutes more, Your Honor. May I proceed, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Go ahead.


With regard to the property transaction involving McKinley Hills lot, did you also review the

CAR for that transaction?


Mr. Lim. And can you tell the honorable Court

The Presiding Officer. Just to clarify, is that one of the alleged undisclosed or rather unincluded

assets of the Respondent?

Mr. Lim. In the SALN? Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.

Mr. Lim. Thank your, Your Honor.

Please answer, Madam Witness.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, we reviewed the Certificate Authorizing Registration and theincome tax history of the buyer.

Mr. Lim. Who is the buyer, Maam?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Ma. Charina R. Corona.

Mr. Lim. Who is the seller, Maam?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Megaworld Corporation.

Mr. Lim. And what was your finding with respect to the buyer?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The buyer is registered with us as an ONETT taxpayer which is just topurchase this property and have not filed any income tax return to date.

Mr. Lim. I would like that point clarified before the Honorable Court. Not a single income tax

return, Madam Witness?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. None, Sir.

Mr. Lim. What about what we mentioned yesterday, Alphalist, is there an Alphalist including

the buyer?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. None, Sir, because she just registered as a one-time taxpayer, sir.


32/66


The Presiding Officer. When was the transaction?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The transaction was dated October 22, 2008.

The Presiding Officer. October 22, 2008. And this time the buyer is the wife of the Respondent?

Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor, please, daughter of the Respondent Chief Justice.

The Presiding Officer. The daughter?

Mr. Lim. The daughter by the name of Charina.

The Presiding Officer. This is apart from the one sold through another daughter?

Mr. Lim. Apart from La Vista property sold to Ma. Carla Beatriz.


Mr. Lim. Do you have the original of the CAR for the McK

jan 26 senate impeachment court record

Documents